Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise with great affection for my friends from New York, both Mr. Bishop and Ms. Slaughter; but I have to set the table on what this is about.

The Coast Guard has been promulgating a Federal standard in line with the international maritime standard for the discharge of ballast water. And despite what people say--they say a new invasive species comes into the lakes every 28 days. That's true; but they don't come in in the ballast water of ships because industry, governments--both American and Canadian--and the States have worked hard to make sure that that does not occur.

But in the face of that, an organization called the New York Department of Environmental Conservation proposed regulations, as Mr. Bucshon said, that when fully implemented would be a thousand times more stringent than the IMO standards. And what that effectively means is--and when you talk to these folks they say, Well, that's the great mother of invention. If we put these standards out there, the great mother of invention, they're going to invent something. But sadly for New York, their vendor--the one that they were counting on for this technology--said they are not even willing to have it be tested by a third party for verification that it works. So this amendment and those proposals would basically shut down waterborne commerce in the United States of America.

I will yield to you in just a second.

But here's the skinny: New York's regulations are more obnoxious because they cover just passage. You don't have to take a drop of ballast water in if you're in New York waters, and you don't have to discharge a drop. Just the mere fact of sailing through New York waters--which you have to do in the Great Lakes--would cause these regulations to come into effect.

Now, I had to go to the extraordinary length of offering an amendment in the Interior appropriations bill that said if New York continues on this crazy course, that they get no money out of the Interior appropriations bill. Now, that wasn't designed to cheat our friends in New York out of funds. That was designed to get their attention. We have their attention. We have to work together to solve this in a bipartisan way. This amendment and the next amendment are not going to do that.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I really had something pithy to say, but we will continue this later.

I thank the Chair.

Again, I rise with great affection for both Mr. Dingell and Ms. Slaughter, who are wonderful colleagues and friends in this House.

But this amendment is the Bishop amendment on steroids. So this amendment, unlike the Bishop amendment, would go back and remove the requirement that's in the bill, and New York would be free to go about its business and shut down waterborne commerce in the Great Lakes.

Now, the sad thing for the State of New York--and I know the people in New York think that they are pretty important and they run the whole place, but they don't. And, sadly, we have five Great Lakes that flow through and touch a number of States, Ohio being included in that. And just a couple of observations.

You know, this isn't a bunch of people that don't like the Great Lakes versus a bunch of environmentalists that want to protect it. The very first piece of legislation I had signed into law by President Clinton--and it's tough to get a bill signed into law by a President of the other party--was the reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act, coauthored by John Glenn in the United States Senate.

I know invasive species. But I am going to tell you, because of the work of John Glenn and because of the work of a lot of good people, since 1995, I challenge anybody offering this amendment to come up with one invasive species that has gotten into the Great Lakes--and this notion that it's 28 days--yes, they come in on boats; they come in in people's boots; they come in swimming from other places. The biggest threat that we've got is the Asian carp. It's not coming in ballast water. It's swimming up the Mississippi, and we have got to fight with the President about whether or not we have an electronic barrier that keeps these awful fish out of the Great Lakes.

Now, the longshoremen don't like what New York is doing. Labor is not onboard with what Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Dingell are attempting to do. A July 2011 evaluation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency--so fresh off the charts--determined that the technology does not exist, does not exist. Even if a ship owner had a gazillion dollars and wanted to buy something off the shelf, it doesn't exist to meet the water quality level stipulated by New York.

For this reason, the maritime industry, together with labor, believes that these regulations are unworkable and if left unchanged will cause economic harm when they come into effect, resulting in complete cessation of commercial maritime commerce in New York waters.

Now, at a time when everybody around the country is screaming about jobs, what are we going to do? All the longshoremen, you don't have to work anymore. The guys that drive the boats, you don't need to work anymore. The folks that unload the boats, no, you don't need to work anymore. Why? Because one State out of the eight States that border the Great Lakes has decided to come up with something not passed by their legislature, passed by this New York environmental council. It's crazy.

We, again, in a good bipartisan way need to work together to fix this problem. Let's find the right way to keep the zebra mussel and the round goby and the sea lamprey and the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. But to allow New York to go down this path with the passage of this amendment is destructive to jobs in the Great Lakes, and I hope that the amendment is defeated.

Again, I have nothing but affection for Mr. Dingell and Ms. Slaughter.

I thank the gentleman. It's mutual. And Louise likes me too.

But listen, here's the deal: There's not going to be anybody recreating on Great Lakes, fishing, and all the wonderful things we get to do on Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron, because nobody's going to be working. And so without jobs, people are not going to have the opportunity to enjoy the splendor of 28 percent of the world's freshwater.

Again, sadly, people in New York have decided they want to come up with a standard that nobody can meet. Now, in 2013 when fully implemented, what does that mean? That means a boat comes down the St. Lawrence Seaway and travels into New York, and if you can't meet their standard, 1,000 times more stringent than the international standard, guess what? You can't sail. The people can't sail on the ship. The people can't put goods on the ship.

Now again, despite my affection for the authors of this amendment, I've talked to the longshoremen. I've talked to the Canadians. I've talked to the people on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and they say that the problem with invasive species today in the Great Lakes isn't ballast water, it's the Asian carp swimming up the Mississippi River, and it's things brought in from other sources. It's not ballast water. It's not ballast water because Republicans and Democrats, since the beginning of my time here, 18 years, have worked together to get this right. This is wrong, and I urge it to be defeated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Eric Stransky, who recently retired after 35 years with the Social Security Administration, with 28 of those years in management.

Stransky has been a tenacious advocate for my constituents in need of help from the Painesville, OH, Social Security office, and has been a trusted and reliable source who has worked closely with my caseworkers to get problems resolved. He is a model employee and his departure will leave Social Security with very big shoes to fill.

A graduate of John Carroll University, Stransky has been lauded for his work at the SSA, and received a Regional Commissioner Citation for leading a workgroup that resolved over 5,000 overpayments in six weeks. He's been a Supervisor at many SSA locations in Ohio--Marietta, Athens, Painesville, Cleveland East and University Circle Area. In 1998, Stransky served as the Area System Coordinator ensuring a smooth transition for all employees in Northern Ohio to individual desktop system access.

Stransky managed the local Euclid office for two years, Warrensville Heights for three years, and spent eight years working just a few blocks from my district office in Painesville while juggling a two-year stint in the U.S. Army as a Senior Joint Doctrine Developer at the Joint and Allied Doctrine Division, Army Capabilities Integration Center in Ft. Monroe, VA.

Retired Lt. Col. Eric Stransky served in the US Army Reserve for more than 29 years. He attended the following Military Schools: Armor Officer Basic; Junior Officer Preventive Maintenance Course; Armor Officer Professional Development Course; OPSEC Course; Special Warfare Center and School, PSYOP Officer Course; Armor Officer Advance Course; United States Army Command & General Staff College; United Kingdom PSYOP Officer Course; Physical Security Course; Individual Terrorism Awareness; Logistics Managers Course; Joint PSYOP Course; Joint Planning Orientation Course; Joint PSYOP Staff Planning Course; Faculty Development Phase 1 Course and Commanders Safety Course. In June 1995, then a Major, he was Chief of Psychological Operations at a United Nations Mission in Haiti.

Stransky commissioned in the Army Reserve as a Second Lt. in July 1978 and continued to move up through the ranks, ultimately promoted to Lt. Col. in April 2000. He retired in August 2006, but remains actively involved with the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Catholic War Veterans.

Stransky has received the following Military honors: Legion of Merit; Army Meritorious Service Medal (3); Army Commendation Medal (2); Joint Service Achievement Medal; Army Achievement Medal; Army Reserve Achievement Medal (7); National Defense Service Medal w/star; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Armed Forces Service Medal; Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal; Armed Forces Reserve Medal (with silver hour glass and M(2) device); Reserve Component ODT Ribbon (6) and United Nations Mission in Haiti Medal.

Stransky has a great wit and a tremendous work ethic, and clearly can juggle many tasks at once with little effort. His military service has provided him with tremendous discipline and his attention to detail and process has catapulted the various Social Security offices he's managed into well-oiled, highly efficient, responsive and successful offices where both the employees and constituents are well served. He's a motivator who gets results.

With his remarkable career and his decades of service to our country, you might suspect that Eric Stransky is an Eagle Scout as well. And alas, he is.

It's been an honor and a privilege for me and my staff to work with a man whose goal in life is to help others, and it's a tough task to show him an appropriate level of gratitude. I'm sorry to see him go because he was one of a kind. He's served our nation and those in need with heart and purpose, and I wish him and his loving family all the best. Please enjoy your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, this moment in time on the floor reminds

me exactly of a period during the 1990s. You know, there is a lot of publicity given to the new freshmen class, and we from the revolutionary class of 1994 are feeling a little neglected these days, but welfare reform was the discussion. We endured overheated rhetoric on this floor about how our proposals were mean to pregnant women and children and old people and young people and poor people until one day the President of the United States, President Clinton, decided that he wasn't going to be the protector of overheated rhetoric, he was going to be the President of the United States, and he signed the welfare reform bill.

I happened to walk on the floor, and you would have thought that my friends who were here on the other side of the aisle at that time that their dogs had all died because they looked so depressed. But the fact of the matter is that President Clinton decided to lead.

Now, I don't know what's going on in all of the other offices, but we've taken a lot of phone calls over the last 4 or 5 weeks. Some people call in and tell me to hold the line; some people call in and tell me I'm an idiot. But the overwhelming sentiment of the calls is: You guys have got to work this out.

So to the President of the United States' credit, President Obama, he had the Speaker, Mr. Boehner; the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi; the Vice President; Senator Reid; Senator McConnell down to the White House, and they worked this out.

I don't think I'm going to stand here and listen to this continued harangue about how we are being mean to people because I don't think anybody on that side of the aisle believes that President Barack Obama would do the horrible things that the people are indicating he would do. I just don't believe it.

I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, you know, if a little green man from outer space came and landed and watched this debate, he'd be puzzled. If the gentlemen on the other side were so concerned about the Culberson amendment, I'm puzzled why they didn't request a recorded vote in the committee. This was adopted in the committee, full committee markup, by a voice vote.

But beyond that, nobody wants another Deepwater Horizon. But this language that the gentlemen are objecting to says that this new agency will report quarterly to Congress on the status of permitting and why permits were rejected. Now why would the gentleman not want to have transparency and oversight over an agency to which we appropriate dollars?

Now this wouldn't puzzle me if we just hadn't come off of 4 years of a majority that was preaching to us about transparency and oversight and openness. Why wouldn't you want some report issued by the agency that tells us what they are doing with the money that we appropriate to them and what's the status and why a permit was rejected. That's a reasonable question.

Just to move to a different agency--you may not know this, Mr. Moran. I've lived in Mr. Moran's district for a period of time when I'm here in Washington, D.C., and I never saw anybody grazing and I never saw anybody moving livestock. But in my area, I will tell you that we're the nursery capital of the world. We are very much concerned with the guest worker program.

Under this administration, applications for guest worker applications have been denied at an alarming rate. When we ask the Department of Labor how many have been denied and how many have been appealed and how many appeals have been successful, they keep those records. You know why? Because that's a reasonable inquiry by a Member of the Congress, a member of the public, a guy who's growing arbor vitae in Perry, Ohio. So to describe this as somehow burdensome and crippling and somehow going to lead to a another Deepwater Horizon disaster is just ridiculous.

The guys on the other side, Mr. Chairman, are great Members and great advocates for a lot of things, but this argument doesn't even pass the straight face test. And I would respectfully urge that it be defeated.

I yield to my former Congressman, the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I can appreciate the pressure that the gentleman found himself under. There are over 200 amendments. We're approaching 200 amendments on this particular piece of legislation.

I recall sitting in another full committee markup where the gentleman asked for a recorded vote on whether or not we could use Styrofoam containers in the House cafeteria. So clearly, the gentleman has to be as concerned about knowing what it is this new agency is doing relative to permits as he is about Styrofoam containers in the cafeteria.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate it. I know the gentleman said ``comity,'' not ``comedy.'' I think it's comedy with a ``d'' that reigns here. I trust that the gentleman has had his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek as he made that observation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

The reason that this is the greatest deliberative body in the world is that sometimes during the course of a very intelligent discussion the truth and facts come out. Now, both the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Virginia have been able to cite chapter and verse of how many applications have been applied for, where they are, and what has happened to them. So, to suggest that somehow this is going to create some additional burden, you've got to add a line: ``We denied it because . . . ''

So I trust that, based upon the sunshine that has now been brought forth to the good facts by the distinguished ranking member, perhaps we can get past this amendment, in the interest of comity, without a recorded vote as we did in the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk occurring on page 65, line 5. I actually have three amendments all on the same subject, but one amendment touches line 21 and one amendment touches line 73. In the interest of comity, I would ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer all of those amendments en bloc.

I thank the Chair.

There's a lot going on in Washington, Mr. Chairman, and I would tell you that people back home think we can't get along, but this is a great example of how we're going to get along, and I'm going to become the second member of this subcommittee to say something nice about a member of the Democratic Party, and that's the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

President Obama became the first President of the United States in history to recognize that we needed to put real money into Great Lakes restoration. Those of us who live in the region selfishly know it, and those around the world know it as about 20 percent of the world's freshwater.

We've nickeled-and-dimed and sort of moved along with some nice legislation in this House, some of it written by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but it wasn't until President Obama, and I suspect that his then-Chief of Staff, the new mayor of Chicago, Mr. Emanuel, was whispering in his ear because he was certainly conversant with these issues, that we need to address the Great Lakes as an ecosystem and make sure that we deal with it appropriately.

So President Obama proposed $475 million a couple of years ago for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. However, as so many things occur around here, that went from 475 to 300, and now in this bill we find it to be $250 million. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate toxic substances in the Great Lakes, to reduce the impact of invasive species, to improve nearshore health and reduce nonpoint source pollution, improve habitat and reduce species loss, and improve information engagement and accountability in the program overall.

I just want to focus on one of those, and that is the invasive species, and not the invasive species that come in ballast water. This is an invasive species that is swimming up the Mississippi River, the Asian carp. The Asian carp and I have something in common: The Asian carp can eat 20 percent of its body weight a day, and this Asian carp, if it is successful in breaking through the electronic barrier and getting into the Great Lakes, will devastate that entire ecosystem. This is important.

I know that there are some Members who are going to say, well, I love the Great Lakes; I love the fact that the President made this designation; you're right, we need more money, but what doesn't need more money in this bill, and the account from which I'm taking it, climate change, but if we don't take care of the Great Lakes, 20 percent of the world's freshwater, we're not going to have to worry about climate change because we're all going to be dead. We need to make sure that we protect this valuable resource. And on this instance, Ms. Jackson, the administrator at the EPA, has been really a great partner in implementing these programs. She has over 300 projects under way at this current time.

I know this is a heavy lift, I know that it's selfish, but I would tell you that it's not selfish because the Great Lakes continue to be the treasure of the world, and there's going to come a time when water is the new oil when it comes to an important resource. I urge Members of the House to please support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the distinguished chairman yield?

If I seek to amend my amendment to say ``Great Lakes Restoration Fund/Climate Change,'' will the gentleman give me my 50 bucks?

Will the gentlelady yield?

No, no, no, you're going to like this. Actually, the deer tick is misnamed because it really doesn't come on deer. It comes more on the little gray mouse because the gray mouse is closer to the ground. And if you treat a cotton ball with an appropriate substance, you can relieve the deer ticks not only in Minnesota but here in Virginia and also in Ohio.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman very much. I wanted you to yield because you mischaracterized the other part.

What the other piece of language in the bill does, it says to the State of New York----

I thank you. You know there are eight States that border the Great Lakes. One State in particular, New York, has imposed ballast water exchange in innocent passage that can't be met by any technology that exists today. That set of standards will cripple, will literally cripple and bring to a halt all waterborne commerce in the Great Lakes. My amendment says, listen, if you want to impose that kind of standard, you're not going to get any money until this thing gets sorted out when the EPA and the Coast Guard come up with a uniform ballast water exchange.

But let me just tell you, since you're talking about the regional programs, the Great Lakes are unique. The Great Lakes were unique in the world. And I can remember a couple of years ago, Senator Dodd, he wanted to have Lake Champlain become a Great Lake. And I said to the distinguished Senator at the time: Lake Champlain is a good lake; but it's not a Great Lake. The Great Lakes are the five Great Lakes that every grade schooler learns on how to identify them. It is 20 percent of the world's fresh water. And if we don't take care of them, as the President of the United States recognized we needed to do in a big way, we're going to be in trouble in this country. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the reasoned and balanced approach he has taken to this. Rather than filing a knee-jerk reaction either in committee or now on the floor, he has recommitted to working together to solve this problem.

It's a problem that needs to be solved. And I just want the record to be clear: In 2008, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation--not the State legislature, not the State--enacted ballast water exchange

regulations that would have gone into effect, had they pushed the issue, that are 100 times more stringent than the international standard and would have gone to 1,000 times more stringent a year after that. Only two States, New York and Minnesota, had something in their regulations called ``innocent passage,'' and that is it applies to all ships that pass through New York's water, whether they take on ballast water or discharge ballast water or whatever.

I take a backseat to no one in this Congress on the issue of invasive species in the Great Lakes. My first piece of legislation I wrote was with Senator John Glenn, the Invasive Species legislation, in 1996. But this particular provision by the New York Port Authority would cripple and perhaps eliminate commerce on the Great Lakes.

So this deserves thoughtful consideration. It deserves our study. And I would again commit to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to work with you and the chairman to find a way that solves this horrible problem of invasive species in ballast water or anything else but doesn't stop interstate commerce on the Great Lakes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as we sit and endure this mini- filibuster about how horrible Republicans are when it comes to this bill and the environment, I want to give a perspective about how some of these riders actually got in the bill.

I and a number of my colleagues have spent a lot of time talking with this EPA, this EPA administrator, and it's like talking to this lectern. Nothing gets through. And I want to bring to your attention one particular matter that I put in this bill that's a rider, and it has to do with the U.S. EPA draft notice 2010-X, and that was a notice that went out to the manufacturers of lawn fertilizers.

Now, everybody in the Chamber would agree that the people who manufacture lawn fertilizer, what they put in the bag should be safe; it should not harm the environment; and it should actually what do it's supposed to do, and that's grow grass or do something else. However, the EPA, because they had precious little to do, decided that they weren't content with regulating what was in the bag. They want to regulate what's on the bag, and not the list of ingredients but what the product is called.

So draft regulation 2010-X says that these companies need to reevaluate the trademark names--some of them that have been in effect since the 1960s--and remove those that the EPA determines are misleading to the public. Now I sat down with Ms. Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, and went over this. She sort of smiled and said, You know what, this really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I brought it up in subcommittee last year and withdrew it at the request of the then-majority who said they'd work on it. Well, it's still here.

And here is a list of the words that they determined you can't use if you are in a lawn fertilizer business: ``Germ shield,'' ``100 percent protection,'' ``professional grade,'' ``pro,'' ``safe,'' ``safer,'' ``safest,'' ``natural,'' ``environmentally safe,'' and ``green.''

Now, hold on a minute. There's a company in Ohio. It's not in my district--full disclaimer--but it's called Scotts, and they make a product called Turf Builder. They also make a product called Turf Builder Pro. This draft notification tells them they can't call it ``Pro'' anymore because it's misleading to the public, even though the word ``Pro'' was installed to create a brand that small hardware stores could sell so you didn't have to go to the big-boxes, the Wal-Marts, the Kmarts, and those other companies. So it's a niche brand for smaller retailers. But you can't call it that anymore.

You can't claim that a bag of lawn fertilizer does anything green, unless that ``green'' applies to livability and sustainability. Now, Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up, green was a color. This folder was green. Not anymore. If I can't demonstrate this folder has something to do with livability and sustainability, I am misleading the people that are watching this program.

There's another company in Ohio that's over in Toledo--Ms. Kaptur's district--they have a product called Anderson's Golf Pro. And the EPA has indicated that they are not allowed to call it ``Golf Pro'' anymore because you don't have to use the seed or the weed and seed on a golf course. You could use it, Mr. Chairman, on your front lawn. So they have to call it ``Anderson's Pro.'' Well, wait a minute--they can't call it ``Pro'' anymore either because that's misleading. So they can call it ``Anderson's'' and hope you can figure out what you are supposed to do with it.

I told my friends at Scotts, You have really barely scratched the surface on this thing because the product that Scotts manufactures that I like so much is Miracle-Gro. Now can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, how is the EPA going to be able to certify when I put that Miracle-Gro on my tomato plant that a miracle has occurred? You are going to put a tremendous burden on the Vatican. All these little old ladies are going to be at the airport, flying over to Rome to talk to the College of Cardinals and say, Did a miracle occur? That's why some of these riders are in here. You have to be able to talk to people. And if they won't talk to you, you have to take action, as is contemplated by the Constitution as a coequal branch in the government. We have done that. And I'm sorry that it offends some of our colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The amendment would take $6 million from BLM's Lands and Resources and transfer it to BOEMRE. The BLM's management account has already been cut $43.5 million below fiscal year 11, $15.5 million below the President's request. This fund allows the BLM to take care of more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres; further cuts to this account would not be warranted.

I want to commend the gentleman for the location where he wants to send the money. I have no big opposition to the increase in the BOEMRE spending. But we did the best we could to balance this particular piece of legislation. BOEMRE has already been increased by $37 million above fiscal year 2011. It's also been increased significantly in several continuing resolutions. Therefore, because of the location of the offset, I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his amendment, but he again targets the account that we talked about in the last amendment, and that is the Bureau of Land Management's land and resources account which, as I indicated during the last amendment, is already cut by $43\1/2\ million below the fiscal year '11 level and $15\1/2\ million below the President's request.

In addition, this time the gentleman attempts to reach the Secretary's account and wants to reduce it by $6.8 million. Nobody likes to stand up for bureaucrats or the Secretaries around here, but that account has already

been cut by $33\1/2\ million. Any further reductions could impede the new Office of Natural Resource Revenue, which collects royalties for on- and offshore oil and gas production, which I know is so important to our friends in the minority.

For those reasons, again not because of the place where the gentleman wants to put the additional funds but because of where they come from, I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am congratulating Hungary on the series of events which pay tribute to the lasting idea of freedom and the principles of liberty. Hungry will erect a statue in commemoration of the centennial anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's birth. Hungary will honor President Reagan for his contribution toward ending the Cold War and promoting democracy and liberty in Central Europe. In addition, Hungary is hosting the Hungarian Freedom Dinner and establishing the Hungarian Freedom Award.

I also note that Hungary formally and symbolically overcame the legacy of Communism by having recently passed a new Constitution, replacing its previous, temporary Constitution rooted in the Soviet era, to solidify the rule of law.

In addition, I recognize Hungary as an important strategic partner of the U.S. in Europe, and commend the country for reaffirming its commitment to transatlantic values, the principles of constitutionalism, and republican government; and contributing to the stability of the region.

Hungary is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is an ally of the U.S. Hungary has been an important ally of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recently gave invaluable assistance in freeing the two American journalists captured in Libya.

Historically, Hungarians have fought for the ideals of freedom, popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and the cause of liberty at home and abroad, most notably in 1848, 1956 and 1989. Michael Kovats de Fabriczy fought for, and died defending America's independence during the American Revolution in Charleston, South Carolina. In the Revolution and Freedom fight of 1956, Hungarians rose up against communist rule first within the eastern bloc countries. In 1989, Hungary was the first country to open its border and allowed refugees from East Germany to cross. Hungary became the first among the former Soviet bloc countries to transition to a Western-style parliamentary democracy.

In transatlantic relations, between 1995 and 2004, Hungary played a critical role in implementing the Dayton Peace Accords in the Balkans by allowing its airbase at Taszar to be used by coalition forces transiting the region. Between April 2003 and December 2004, Hungary helped stabilize Iraq by deploying a 300-strong battalion to Iraq as part of the Multi-National Force, and in 2003 allowed the Taszar airbase to be used for training the Free Iraqi Forces.

Since 2006, Hungary has led a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan and has also deployed an Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team, which operates in partnership with the Ohio National Guard and other United States military personnel in Afghanistan.

More recently, Hungary's military has taken over command of a joint battalion on the Balkans in support of NATO missions, and Hungary's Papa Airbase is the home base of the Strategic Airlift Consortium's C- 17 operations for NATO missions.

The United States and Hungary share common values of democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, cultural diversity, religious tolerance, and social mobility; and the United States is home to approximately 1.5 million Hungarian-Americans.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Hungary on the commemorative events to honor the legacy of Ronald Reagan in the region; recognizing Hungary as an important strategic partner of the United States in Europe; and commending Hungary for reaffirming its commitment to transatlantic values, the principles of constitutionalism, and democracy; and contributing to the stability of the region. We wish Hungary a prosperous future.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

This is a simple, straightforward amendment.

During the committee markup of the Military Construction bill, under the able leadership of the subcommittee chairman, an amendment was offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona to deny funding to the President's Executive order dealing with project labor agreements. The matter was accepted by voice vote. It was accepted by voice vote because, quite frankly, I couldn't rustle up enough votes in the committee to overturn it.

However, this continues a pattern that we've seen in this Congress. I believe we've had on the floor four votes on whether or not Davis-Bacon should be the law of the land. In each one of the cases, the proponents of Davis-Bacon have been successful, the last one garnering 52 Republican votes. This would be the third vote by those who would wish to do away with project labor agreements that will occur on the House floor. In the previous two, again, the proponents of project labor agreements have prevailed. In the last instance, 28 Republicans were, in fact, supportive of project labor agreements.

Mr. Chairman, basically, project labor agreements are those agreements wherein someone who is doing a construction project determines that they want to have an all-encompassing universal agreement that covers the construction from start to finish. If union labor is involved, it denies unions the ability to strike. It denies the contractor the ability to lock out. Wages are set. Terms are set. Conditions are set. And, quite frankly, the project labor agreements have been resounding successes.

As a matter of fact, project labor agreements, 90 percent of them are used by private industry. Some of the biggest users of project labor agreements are the Disney Corporation and, in fact, Walmart. So neither of those companies have ever been sort of identified as big labor- loving organizations.

Now, this is a backdoor piece of language in line 16 to 21 because it doesn't attack project labor agreements. What it does is, if you go back and look in February when President Obama enacted this Executive order, he said: I don't know which is going to be better and which is going to be cheaper, based upon the size of the project, where the project is located, what it is we want to get done.

So funds are appropriated to the agencies. Say it's the Department of Veterans Affairs and they're going build a new hospital. You say, Department of Veterans Affairs, you study which is going to bring that project in at the best quality, the best price, on time, and giving the taxpayer the best bang for his or her buck.

Well, this amendment strikes that funding. And so it doesn't say you can't use project labor agreements. What it does say is that the agency can't make that comparison. And if you're not making that comparison to find out which is better for the taxpayer, which is in fact going to cause the project to come in at the lowest cost and with the best quality and under time, then it has nothing to do with saving the taxpayer money.

We hear a lot about these are tough times and we have to tighten our belts. I agree with that. I voted for that consistently. But that is just union bashing. This is just saying we don't want to know whether a project labor agreement can develop a project that is cheaper, of better quality, and under time.

Quite frankly, although there are studies on both sides, there is an organization called ABC. They have a study that shows that it adds so much cost. You have a study by organized labor that says it reduces so much cost. I choose not to look at either of those because each of those folks and organizations, quite frankly, have some skin in the fight and have some incentive, if you will, to look at the data one way or another.

I would go with our nonpartisan, bipartisan Congressional Research Service, which last October was asked to study this issue, and they indicated, quite frankly, that the jury is out and, if anything, the data indicates that they really can't say and they can't find any convincing data as to whether or not project labor agreements save money or don't save money, which really is the genius of the President's Executive order because it says you should study it.

Quite frankly, the CRS goes on to indicate that in those areas of the country where there's a lot of organized labor, the project labor agreements tend to bring these projects in on time, under cost, with better quality. In those areas of the country which aren't heavily unionized, the opposite is, in fact, true.

So with the jury being out and all of us wanting to achieve the greatest savings for the taxpayer and build good, quality projects in the military construction account which benefits our men and women in uniform, why would we deny the departments the opportunity to study which way is cheaper, better, more effective, and with a better quality? So there's only one reason. It's to continue this constant drumbeat of: We hate unions. And that's not a good reason to have this language in the bill.

I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the distinguished ranking member very much; and, you know, Mr. Harris from Maryland is a wonderful new Member, and I enjoyed his remarks very much and his passion, and it would be a compelling argument if his facts were correct.

The difficulty is no one on this floor would support project labor agreements if the evidence was that project labor agreements increased the cost of a construction project by 10 to 20 percent. The study cited by Mr. Culberson, the chairman of the Subcommittee, by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, concluded that the effect of PLAs on construction costs was strongly influenced by the degree of unionization in an area. In highly unionized cities, the costs of a PLA are less and the project comes in under cost, under time, better quality. And those that don't have, as apparently the First District of Maryland doesn't have as many unions, the evidence does, in fact, come in; in some of those cases costs can increase by 5 to 9 percent, not 10 to 20.

But the problem with this language is, it doesn't condemn project labor agreements. This is an appropriations bill. What this amendment does is deprive the agency of the funds to study in your area--my area happens to be heavily unionized, so Cleveland, Ohio--prevents the VA from studying whether or not use of the PLA would save the government money or cost the government money.

And I've got to tell you, if the conclusion is that it's going to cost the government money, it's like ``I Love Lucy'' and Ricky Ricardo. I mean, I'm sure that somebody is going to ask the head of that agency, you know, you've got a lot of explaining to do why you went with a program that's going to cost the government more money.

That isn't what this is about. This is union bashing. This isn't costing or saving money. It's just we don't like unions, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman very much. I want the body to know that Ms. Richardson was going to offer this amendment and, over the weekend, permitted me to offer it as a member of the committee. I appreciate that very much. She is certainly a champion of PLAs.

I want to address the gentleman from Georgia's observations because he is

exactly right, and it doesn't change anything that I said.

The VA said that you should study both PLAs and non-PLAs based upon the area of the country. Now, he is correct. The VA study said that in three of the five that they studied, PLAs would have increased labor costs. It doesn't say anything about the benefit from having increased quality, on time, and all that other business.

But what happened to the other two? In 40 percent of them, the answer is either there was no difference or they reduced costs, which is exactly the point. The amendment strikes out the language inserted in the bill by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that would prevent an agency from studying which way gets you the bigger bang for the buck. Why would we want to do that?

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

First of all, I want to indicate that I am offering this amendment with my friend and neighbor. Actually, he is in the office next door, Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey. And this deals with the Fire and the SAFER grant programs. I also want to indicate that I have nothing but respect for the full committee chairman and the subcommittee chairman, who have been dealt a difficult hand with the 302(b) allocations made in front of them, and as they face the awesome responsibility of funding the programs that defend our country.

However, the Chair I think may remember during the discussion of the continuing resolution in H.R. 1 that there was some discussion about what funding levels were appropriate for fiscal year 2011 for these two grant programs which aid our first responders. In the one iteration of H.R. 1, there was something along the lines of a 75 percent reduction from these funds. Those funds, however, were restored by overwhelming votes of the whole body. Over 300 Members supported Mr. Pascrell's amendment to put the level back up at $820 million for fiscal year 2011, and just shy of 260 Members supported Mr. Price of North Carolina's amendment that dealt with how those funds could be utilized and spent.

Now, again, faced with the difficult decisions that the chairs find themselves in, the average reduction, and this isn't a bill that came to the floor with across-the-board cuts, but the average reduction in spending is about 14 percent for the bills that the Appropriations Committee is considering. Yet these funds have gone from $820 million to $350 million, which is on the order of about a, well, 60 percent reduction.

The amendment that I offer with Mr. Pascrell would transfer funds out of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer to restore those funds not to the $820 million that 300 Members of the House indicated should be spent in the last fiscal year, but restores them to $670 million equally divided between the two programs that I have indicated.

Now, at that level, these funds will still receive a 19 percent reduction from fiscal year 2011 and, again, citing my great respect for the chairs of the committee, on more than one occasion I have heard it remarked that this is a national Homeland Security bill and there needs to be some nexus between this funding and a national purpose, that we should not be in the business of funding every local and/or volunteer fire department in the Nation, and I agree with that sentiment.

However, I can just tell you that faced with amazing budget pressures back in our local communities, when the Grand River in Painesville, Ohio, flooded a couple of years ago, it wasn't FEMA, it wasn't the Coast Guard, it wasn't the National Guard that plucked these folks out of their homes and plucked them out of the river and saved their lives and saved their properties. It was our firefighters and our police officers.

So if we make a determination as a Congress that we are in the FEMA business--that is, emergency management business--and we will provide funds to help rebuild and reshape and fortify and all the other things, then we need to be in all parts of the emergency management business, and that includes the first responder portion of that.

Therefore, I know that we have attempted to come to some agreement on this amendment to try and get all parties on board. Sadly, we haven't been able to do that, not for lack of trying on the part of the chairman. But we find ourselves now with this simple amendment that transfers funds from the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and restores it to our local communities and our first responders.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Pascrell for his cosponsorship. I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. LaTourette

Amendment No. 43: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount,

insert ``reduced by $63,350,000''.

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $117,470,000''.

Page 4, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $139,180,000''.

Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $55,672,000''.

Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $83,508,000''.

Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $320,000,000''.

Page 50, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $135,000,000''.

Page 50, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $185,000,000''.

Offered By: Mr. LaTourette

Amendment No. 43: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount,

insert ``reduced by $63,350,000''.

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $117,470,000''.

Page 4, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $139,180,000''.

Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $55,672,000''.

Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $83,508,000''.

Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $320,000,000''.

Page 50, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $135,000,000''.

Page 50, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $185,000,000''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster). I understand this is the first rule he is managing, and you're doing a brilliant job so far. Hopefully that will be the case for the next 50 minutes as well.

I want to also congratulate Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for coming up with this rule. I have been here in the minority, I have been here in the majority, and the 33 amendments made in order under this rule beat by 28 the number made in order when we last considered this piece of legislation. So congratulations to you.

Sadly, I think for my friends in my party, one of the amendments made in order is mine. And it's what's caused me--although I fully support the rule; I'm going to vote for the rule--it's what causes me some angst relative to the bill.

I have to give a little bit of context and history. I was on the Transportation Committee when the first reauthorization of this bill was supposed to take place. This bill hadn't been reauthorized since 2003. This bill is about America's future because, among other things, it takes our air traffic control system from ground-based radar to satellite-based so that we can do a lot of wonderful things and continue to be the world leader. So we need to get this bill done.

But a funny thing keeps happening to this bill on the way to the bank, I guess. We first had a fight between Federal Express and UPS. It really doesn't have a lot to do with NextGen, but that screwed up the bill for a while. Then we had a fight with the air traffic controllers in the Bush administration, and that screwed up the bill for a while. Then we had a problem with something called PFCs; how much a passenger pays as a landing charge. Those fees, of course, are then turned into runways and infrastructure and employ a lot of people. So we didn't have a bill.

And then we almost got a bill. In the last Congress, Jim Oberstar and John Mica and Jerry Costello and Tom Petri did a really nice job, sent the bill over to the Senate, and a couple of Senators decided that they wanted to favor one airline over others and have additional flights-- long-distance flights--from Reagan National Airport to their homes, I guess, on the west coast. And so one airline would have received 48 percent of the benefit and everybody else would have gotten the scraps. We didn't have a bill. Again, you say, Why do people get frustrated with Washington? What do any of those things have to do with whether or not we continue to be the world leader in aviation?

So now we come to this bill. And I have to tell you there is a poison pill in this bill. The Senate will not take up the bill as currently written. The President issued a statement of administration policy last night indicating he will veto the bill. And it's all over this one issue. This one issue doesn't belong in the bill.

Now, there are people around here that love unions and the unions can do no wrong. There are people around here that hate unions and unions can't do anything right. But what happened is the airlines and the railroads are organized and regulated under the Rail Labor Act, as opposed to the National Labor Relations Board Act. It's been that way since the 1930s. And for years the rule was that--75 years, actually-- that if they wanted to certify a union, you had to get a majority of people in the whole class.

And Mr. McGovern is exactly right. Can you imagine there's about 200,000 people that are registered to vote in my congressional district. And so I stand for election, and if I got 70 percent, so 100,000 people show up--only half, which is about what we're averaging in this country--100,000 people show up, 70,000 vote for me. I'm pretty happy, popping the champagne corks, thinking I got a nice election going. But under the structure that's been in existence for all these years, those 100,000 people that didn't show up, they're counted against me. They're counted as ``no'' votes. Americans don't understand that kind of election process. It just doesn't make any sense. And the argument and the pushback against this is, Well, it's been that way for 75 years.

Now, the Speaker, I know, is a learned historian of American history. When the Constitution was written, only white men who owned property could vote in this country. And I'll bet if you asked the white guys, they were probably pretty happy about that, and they would say it works okay. For another hundred years, the women in this country couldn't vote. And maybe if you asked some of the men, they were probably happy about that as well. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair. So the National Mediation Board, which has jurisdiction, changed the rule. They had a hearing. They asked for comments. They had a public meeting. They took a vote. And they changed the rule to the more fair procedure wherein those people that actually show up and vote, that's going to be the vote.

Now, have horrible things happened since this rule went into effect? No. One of the prime proponents of this rule change, Delta Airlines, they've had four elections since the rules were changed. The union has lost all four. And this dumb argument I heard the other day that only three people can come and form a union, that's nonsense. They had a 94 percent turnout at their election. So this encourages turnout.

The other thing I just want to mention is there's a lawsuit pending on this. The Air Transport Association sued the National Mediation Board. They lost.

It's now in the Court of Appeals. We do our darnedest to say we're going to drain the swamp and do all the other stuff around here. But in this lawsuit--they've got a lot of members, the Air Transport Association--but here are the airlines--and I

want everybody listening and following at home figure out what's going on here. The following members of the Air Transport Association opted out of this lawsuit: American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, UPS Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways.

This is a bad deal and we shouldn't be doing it.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes of my 5 minutes be yielded to and controlled by the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, to yield time as he should see fit.

I'm going to be brief in this opening.

Let me just make this observation. This is the 17th extension, I believe, of the FAA bill. We haven't had an FAA bill since 2003, and this is going to take it to two more years because the President said he won't sign this bill unless this amendment is adopted. The Senate has declared this a nonstarter; and so if we want to give fancy speeches, and for those just tuning in around the country, welcome to whack the union night because this will be a fourth, fifth anti-union vote that has nothing to do with the aviation system.

Even on the last amendment, I've got to tell you, you can't say it costs jobs and increases costs at the same time. If you hire the same amount of workers before Davis-Bacon and hire two times as many workers, well, the project is going to cost the same. So it's that kind of circular argument that's leading this circular firing squad.

It's a good amendment. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say this is a good example of what's going on here. The last amendment was going to repeal Davis-Bacon that's been around for 80 years, but 80 years is okay, 75 years isn't. That doesn't even make sense in this debate or anywhere else in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When people read this record, they really need to know what this amendment is about and what we are talking about. What we are talking about is that the rule that the Mica bill repeals is that if you have 100 people who work for a company and you have an election and 70 of them show up and 65 of them vote to certify a union, the union loses because you don't get 50 plus the universe.

Now in our example, Members of Congress, where voter turnout was about 45 percent in the last election, I have got 200,000 registered voters in my district, and 100,000 show up, I get 70,000. I'm having champagne. You know, This is great, Honey. We won another one. We fooled them again. Well, I would lose 130,000-70,000 because the rule that has been in place since 1935--and again, I am saddened that folks--maybe you have to have an even number to be bad law. But good law is, you know, something that is only 75 years. That's just nuts. I mean, that is crazy.

And I will steal from my friend from Illinois (Mr. Costello) who is the cosponsor of this amendment. You know, when the Constitution was framed, who could vote in this country? White guys who owned land. And if you asked them 75 years later, they may have said, Man, I can't believe they changed that. It's unbelievable. Or how about women? Another 100 years, women couldn't vote in this country. If you asked some guys today, they may say, The country really got screwed up when you gave women the right to vote. That is a non sequitur. It's a false argument, and the best proof is right here in this House of Representatives.

When the old majority was on their way out--and we all know they didn't do anything--we needed to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open until March 4. Well, you know what, 75 of our Members went home for Christmas. So that CR, to keep the government open, passed 193-165. If the Mica rule is kept in place, the government would have shut down, and we would have lost that vote 193-240.

Please pass the amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I listened with great interest to the distinguished minority leader and her remarks, and I always like listening to her. I never cast my ballot for her to become the Speaker of the House in the last two Congresses, but as an American we all celebrated the historic accomplishment when she became the first woman to preside over this Chamber since the founding of the Republic. And a lot of wonderful things will be said and written about her tenure as Speaker of the House.

One thing that will not be said or written is that she presided over two Congresses that will be known for fiscal responsibility--that Congress passed a bank bailout bill costing $700 billion which may bankrupt the Nation; passed an $800 billion stimulus bill that created no jobs that may bankrupt the Nation; passed a cap-and-tax piece of legislation that would gut jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and would have bankrupted the Nation; and, finally, a health care bill that took over one-sixth of the Nation's economy, did not bend the cost curve and, if not checked, will, in fact, bankrupt the Nation.

The distinguished minority leader's speech reminds me of that old adage that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. We hear continuously we have to cut, we have to cut, we have to cut, but not these cuts, not those cuts, not this program, not my program. The time is now. The time is serious. We have laid an offer upon the table, and we wait with great expectation.

Now, I know what all those people in St. Peters Square must feel like when they are waiting for the white smoke to come out of the top of the dome for the election of a Pope. We would like very much for the other side of this Capitol to give us a proposal to negotiate with. We would like very much for the Vice President of the United States to return to this Nation to talk to us. It's not happening. We need to pass the bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I tell this story every time we talk about Davis-Bacon.

Davis and Bacon were Republicans, and what was occurring was that you had out-of-town workers coming into New York City to build a hospital, undercutting the local labor market at a time when a lot of people were out of work. That's what Davis-Bacon is.

Quite frankly, the last test we had on Davis-Bacon was during the hurricanes down in the gulf coast when President Bush suspended it for a period of time. We made the case to him that you weren't saving any money. Not only weren't you saving any money, but you were having workers come in because there weren't the anti-kickback provisions, so the payrolls didn't have to be submitted; and you had a lot of illegal workers coming down who still live in Louisiana, undercutting the local labor market.

So I get that we don't like unions on this side of the aisle. But I've got to tell you, if you look at the labor rates for operating backhoes and everything else in the gentleman's, the author of the amendment, a carpenter makes $14.45 under Davis-Bacon, and a backhoe operator makes $14.53.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't want somebody who's operating a backhoe near my house making less than that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair very much.

We have agreed informally that we are going to reduce the time on this to 20 minutes, 10 minutes per side, and I will move expeditiously through it.

There was a little issue with the drafting that will be addressed later in the debate, and I may have a motion at the end of my discussion.

I am honored to be joined in this amendment by Mr. Gibson and Mr. Dent.

I hate across-the-board cuts. I really don't support across-the-board cuts; but I've got to tell you that this CR, as it currently stands, is the byproduct of the fact that we didn't get any appropriations bills done last year and that we have a deadline of March 4. I don't think the chairman of the full committee likes very much the CR that we are considering. If he did, he wouldn't have been required to write it three times in order to get the bill to the floor.

As for the salient points, the substitute that we are presenting tonight is a deeper cut than the base bill. The base bill is advertised as saving, I believe, $106 billion. This amendment cuts $120 billion. It adopts numbers on Defense, MILCON, Homeland, Israel, Gitmo; the earmarks are gone; the stimulus money is back.

To my Republican friends, I would say that, if this debate is really about the number, this is a bigger number, $120 billion, as opposed to $100 billion. If it's about social engineering, then you'll vote ``no'' on this particular amendment.

To my Democratic friends, I say we just can't give speeches about, well, we would like to cut stuff, but we just want to cut this stuff, and we don't want to cut that stuff.

The President's vision of a freeze was a bold strategy in 1995 when I got here. It's a failed strategy in 2011. This particular substitute restores NEA, CPB, Food for Peace, CDBG, but with shared, across-the- board sacrifice. I would ask our Members to consider it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the distinguished ranking member for the kind words. I think your speech has gotten me votes from progressives and conservatives in the same speech, so I appreciate that very much.

I now yield 2 minutes to one of my partners in crime here, a new Member of the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

I thank the distinguished chairman for his remarks, and I congratulate him on his hard work this week.

However, I would note that this amendment was in order during the reading of the table of contents, and as a courtesy to the committee, we didn't offer it then. We all could have been home on Tuesday at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a new Member of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to another fine Member, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

May I inquire as to how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Which is really 3 minutes remaining. So, if it's all right, I would like to yield 1 minute, and then I will notify the distinguished ranking member that I will take the last 2 minutes and close.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the oldest returning freshman--a freshman in 1995 and again in 2011.

I would notify the distinguished ranking member that I'm the last speaker, and I'm going to consume our last 2 minutes--so have at it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have 2 minutes remaining; is that right?

Well, I've got 2 minutes, so I'm going to yield myself the balance of my time.

I certainly don't wish to waste anybody's time, but I've sat through a lot of interesting debate over the last 3 or 4 days, and my time has been wasted plenty with silly things like not wanting to pay for the repairs at the White House, but we went through that exercise today.

This was a serious attempt to talk about shared sacrifice and the belief that, in some parts of the country, some programs are more popular than others. So our belief was, if we're going to have shared sacrifice, everybody should be in the game. We shouldn't pick programs the Republicans like and keep them and pick programs that Democrats like and be done with them.

Now, I do want to take one second to talk about this defense number-- because I drafted this thing. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I've got to tell you that it was never our intent to not carry over the emergency supplemental. The information that we had is that the language included in the substitute did, in fact, by indicating that we were not dealing with emergency spending and referencing section 423 of the supplemental, accomplish that purpose. I'm told by much brighter people than I that we didn't do that, so I apologize for that drafting error.

Having said that, let me tell you, I'm not going to apologize for taking 20 minutes out of 80 hours--or whatever we had here--to talk about the vision of some people on our side who don't think this bill represents shared sacrifice.

In Cleveland, Ohio, people listen to the radio, and some of them like to listen to NPR. We don't think that that should be zeroed out. In Cleveland, Ohio, some people value the arts, and we don't think that there should be a tremendous cut to the National Endowment for the Arts. In Cleveland, Ohio, we build our communities with the Community Development Block Grant, and we don't think it should get a 66 percent cut. As Americans, we happen to value the Food for Peace program, which not only feeds hungry people all across the world, but is really the last bastion, if we're going to talk about jobs around here, the merchant mariner, it's one of that merchant mariner's lifelines for employment.

So I don't make any apologies for taking 20 minutes out of your busy

lives to talk about this vision and why some of us wish that both sides would get together, not have the sacred cows that keep us from reaching a conclusion on this thing, and work this thing out.

I guess I'm apologizing for being the last person; but in light of the defense number, I don't want to put my young lambs at risk of some stupid political ad that says they sponsored something that cut $33 billion from the Defense Department of this great country.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kansas, one of our new Members, Mr. Pompeo, for not only a thoughtful amendment but an amendment when he is jumping right into the fray some 45 days after he has assumed office here. I think I was here for about 2 years before I even gave my first floor speech. So congratulations to him.

Sadly, however, we have to oppose your amendment. This was an account that the committee and the staff looked at hard as the CR was being prepared. It has been reduced by $5 million in the continuing resolution. It was at $16 million. It's down to $11 million in the CR. The feeling continues to be that cutting it further would be irresponsible because cutting the funding does nothing to change the mandate that's in the law of March 31 of this year that the industry has to report their emissions by that date.

Since this is the first time through this reporting requirement, there are obviously a lot of questions that businesses and industries all across the country have, and they are calling the EPA for technical assistance on how to be in compliance. If the program is reduced, as the gentleman's amendment would suggest, it will leave companies high and dry with a reporting requirement with no one on the other end to answer the telephone to help them out to meet their obligations. Considering that, we have felt that we could achieve the $5 million in savings now.

And I can tell the gentleman that it's at least a majority of the committee's feeling that we will review and address this issue in a more comprehensive manner as we proceed with the 2012 budget. As such, I recommend that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, again, as with Mr. Pompeo's amendment, the gentleman from Kansas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) is also a new Member of the body, and I commend him for coming to the floor and offering this thoughtful amendment.

For those of us who have been here a little while, the seat which Mr. Reed holds used to belong to our dear friend Amo Houghton, who was a friend and a champion for many issues for many years in this body.

And although we welcome Mr. Reed to our company, we oppose his amendment. In the CR we have reduced the U.S.-Mexico border program by $7 million from $17 million in 2010 to $10 million in the continuing resolution. It's a 41 percent decrease. This action taken on behalf of the committee reduces the CR level to a level below the increase that was added in 2010 by the previous majority party, over and above President Obama's request.

This is a program that we plan to have active discussions on with the EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we'll either build the case for further reductions, or we will have a better understanding of why we should look elsewhere for additional cuts based upon programmatic needs.

Therefore, while I congratulate my friend and new colleague from New York, I recommend that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment, given that we have achieved what we intended to achieve via the CR, and that is to take the necessary first step at past programmatic increases and allow for a deliberative process in 2012 to examine the true needs of this program.

I yield back the balance of my time.