Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and career of William Davis Snider, who eloquently chronicled the struggle for civil rights in North Carolina as a newsman while quietly helping to usher in a new era of race relations in his beloved home state.

A native of Salisbury and a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he served as a Lieutenant with the U.S. Army Signal Corps in the India-Burma Theater in World War Two. Returning home, he served as private secretary to Gov. R. Gregg Cherry and later as administrative assistant to Gov. W. Kerr Scott.

Bill Snider's experience in war and politics steeled him for the social upheaval of the mid-1960's, when he was associate editor and opinion writer for the Greensboro Daily News. His columns and editorials from that tumultuous era established him as a leading voice of white moderation. Simultaneously, he worked behind the scenes with civic, religious, and business leaders to prevent racial tensions from exploding into violence.

While his colleagues respected his clear and principled arguments for restraint, he was not without his critics and his work resulted in a burning cross on his lawn and broken windows on his family home. One of his eulogists remarked that Bill probably appreciated that someone was actually reading his columns, though he would have preferred they express their disapproval with a letter to the editor instead.

Later rising to Editor of the Greensboro News-Record, Bill's forthright, yet measured and helpful criticism influenced a new generation of journalists who later came to national prominence. His service as president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers and on the Pulitzer Prize Jury further attests to his stature in his profession.

He also wrote two books: Helms & Hunt, The North Carolina Senate Race published in 1984 and a history of his Alma Mater: Light on the Hill, a History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill published in 1992. Jim Exum, the former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, who is from Greensboro said: ``Bill was a very deep and careful thinker and a clear writer and a gentle giant in his field.''

He was also a devoted family man who celebrated 63 marriage anniversaries with his beloved wife, Florence. Bill and Flo were blessed with four accomplished and loving daughters, one of whom is a valued member of my staff and a dear friend. Their golden years together were enriched with the gift of 12 grandchildren and six great- grandchildren.

Those who had the good fortune to know Bill Snider personally say he epitomized the ideal of the Southern gentleman. Throughout his long life, he retained a twinkling sense of humor and a love of learning, especially about the history, politics, and natural beauty of North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, we are all fortunate that in a time of uncertainty and ugliness in America's history, Bill Snider and other progressive Southerners persuaded their neighbors to abandon the prejudices of the past and embrace the spirit of our founding declaration that All Men are Created Equal. His life and work stands as an enduring testament to the difference one person can make in the lives of others, and of our great nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps and remove unwarranted tax subsidies from the Big Five oil companies.

We're long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. Scoring political points on this issue serves no one and doesn't solve the problem.

Here are the facts: domestic production is at an 8-year high; imports of oil are at a 17-year low; there are more oil and gas rigs drilling in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. Let me say that again: there are more oil and gas rigs drilling in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. The number of oil rigs in operation right now has quadrupled since President Bush left office. Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 62 years. Clearly, rising gas prices do not result from a U.S. supply-driven problem, and this administration cannot be blamed for doing enough to encourage and to facilitate drilling. Nor is rising gas prices a U.S. demand-driven problem. Demand is down by 6\1/2\ percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008. There are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but U.S. supply and U.S. demand are not among them.

Gas prices in the eastern part of my district are up over 60 cents in a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation accounts for most of that, with over 60 percent of the market controlled by speculators. The speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking, which our legislation targets. Nothing is wrong with profits. They made our Nation strong, but profits should not be pursued at the expense of middle class families, nor at the expense of our fragile economic recovery. This legislation makes sure it doesn't by cutting out speculators. It strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas prices and leads to price gouging. The legislation also cuts out subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those dollars in a long- term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources.

Mr. Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free of market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must tackle this problem rather than use it to point fingers and to try to score political points.

Thus I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps.

We really are long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. Scoring political points on this issue may make us all feel good, but it serves no one, particularly our constituents; and it certainly doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem.

Here are the facts: domestic production of oil in the United States is at an 8-year high; imports of oil into the United States are at a 17-year low; more oil rigs drill in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. Let me say that again: there are more oil rigs at work in the United States today drilling for oil than in the rest of the world combined; the number of oil rigs in operation in the United States today has quadrupled since President Obama took office. Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 62 years.

I think what these facts demonstrate very clearly is that this is not a supply-driven problem, nor--as good as it might feel to some--is this a problem that can be blamed on the administration for not doing enough to facilitate or encourage exploration for drilling.

This is not a demand-driven problem either. Demand is down 6\1/2\ percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008.

There are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but U.S. supply and U.S. demand are not among them.

The gas prices in my district of eastern Long Island are up over 60 cents per gallon in just a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation accounts for most of that with over 60 percent of the market controlled by speculators. The speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking, which is what our legislation targets. There is nothing wrong with profits. Profits are what made our Nation strong. But when profits are pursued at the expense of middle class families or at the expense of our fragile economic recovery, we need to take action.

This legislation makes sure that we do cut out speculators. It strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas prices and leads to price gouging. After we cut out speculators, we should cut out the subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those dollars in a long-term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources.

Mr. Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free of market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must tackle this problem rather than using it to point fingers and try to score points. Thus I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the fifth International Rare Disease Day, a day reserved to promote awareness of the approximately 6,800 rare diseases afflicting 30 million Americans.

In the United States, a rare disease is one that affects fewer than 200,000 people. The National Organization of Rare Disorders estimates that one in ten Americans are suffering today from a rare disease. Thanks to patients and their families, the medical community, and organizations established to advocate for greater awareness and research, advances have been in the diagnosis and treatment of many of these diseases. With a renewed commitment to scientific research and discovery,

we can provide much more than treatments and disease management to millions of our suffering constituents, we can provide cures.

In my congressional district, I have met with countless constituents and their families whose lives have, in one way or another, been impacted by a rare disease such as Epidermolysis Bullosa, commonly known as EB, which is characterized by the presence of extremely fragile skin that results in the development of recurrent, painful blisters, open sores, and in some forms of the disease, in disfiguring scars, disabling musculoskeletal deformities, and internal blistering. EB affects approximately 12,000 individuals in the United States.

I have also met with families impacted by Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. This is a form of muscular dystrophy found in boys who experience a progressive loss of muscle function. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy estimates that 15,000 young men suffer from Ducherme.

Marfan Syndrome is another rare disease that has impacted my constituents. Marfan Syndrome is a disorder of the connective tissue that can affect the skeletal, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, the skin, eyes, and lungs. While there is no cure, an early diagnosis and proper treatment can provide a normal life-span. The National Marfan Foundation estimates that 200,000 are affected by Marfan Syndrome.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to also mention Dysautonomia, a group of disorders that cause a breakdown or failure of the autonomic nervous system which regulates involuntary functions of the body: heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and perspiration. Some forms of this order are characterized as rare diseases such as Multiple System Atrophy and Familial Dysautonomia. Although other forms such as Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, Neurocardiogenic Syncope, and Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy are not, this does not detract from their importance and should not result in a federal commitment less than resolute in discovering advances to help increase accurate diagnosis and better treatment. Together, the National Dysautonomia Research Foundation estimates that over one million Americans are impacted by an autonomic system disorder.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I join with patients, their families, and millions in the United States and around to the world to recognize this important day. I urge my colleagues to take a moment today to think about what more Congress can do to help Americans and their families suffering from rare diseases. Together, we can do more for all.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge the House to defeat the previous question so we can bring to the floor today my bill that would have an immediate impact on lowering gas prices.

Leap day arrives more often than a Republican energy plan. A year ago, when it became clear that the Republican leadership wouldn't help Americans fight rising gas prices, I introduced a bill that this motion is modeled after to crack down on speculation, which forces prices up artificially.

This legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers by manipulating prices. This is real help for consumers in a tough economy.

Domestic oil output is the highest it's been for 8 years. In fact, we've become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that we produce. And yet it's clear speculators are behind the spike in prices. They will never take delivery of oil, but they make up 64 percent of the market.

When speculators place their bets that prices will rise, it follows that actual prices will rise. They have for 21 straight days. In that time, the average price per gallon went up 60 cents in my district.

Still the Republican leadership has yet to address market manipulation or turn off the spigot of subsidies for Big Oil, which made a record-high $137 million in profits last year. That's up 75 percent from the profits they realized in 2010.

We could invest in an energy plan that further expands domestic production, develops renewable sources, and forges a long-term strategy that weans us off Middle Eastern oil and protects consumers from rising gas prices over the long run. Mr. Speaker, let's make a leap to support American families while striking at the heart of rising American gas prices.

To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

I thank Mr. Miller for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this legislation, and I'm going to focus my remarks on the credit-hour piece of the legislation.

The Department of Education has established a minimum standard for the credit hour. This is being derided as taking away institutional flexibility. It's being described as a Federal overreach. It's being described as onerous. It's being described as dangerous.

Let's read the regulation. The regulation says that a credit hour is an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that is--here's the part I want us to pay attention to--an institutionally established equivalency that reasonably approximates not less than 1 hour of classroom instruction for 15 weeks per credit hour.

An institutionally established equivalency; that places the responsibility for determining what a credit hour is where it belongs-- with the faculty and with the accreditor of that particular institution, so long as it complies with a minimum Federal baseline or minimum Federal standard.

Now, with respect to overreach, with respect to how dangerous this is, with respect to how onerous this is, let's be clear: this very definition of a credit hour has been the law in the State of New York since 1976. We have some pretty good institutions in New York that have managed to survive even in the face of this so-called ``onerous'' regulation. Columbia University is one of the best universities in the world; so, also, is NYU; so, also, is Fordham; so, also, is Syracuse. This has been the law.

I administered a school in the State of New York. Our cost of compliance for complying with the credit-hour regulation was exactly zero, and we were able to create all kinds of innovative programs--a semester at sea, cooperative education, internships, truncated courses that met in accelerated time formats for 4 and 5 weeks--all because we established an institutional equivalency that was agreed to by our faculty and agreed to by our accreditors. That's all this regulation does.

So for us to describe it as if it's going to end higher education as we know it and it's going to stifle innovation and be onerous to students and add to the length of time for their degree program simply is not true. We have a 35-year experience in New York that says that this regulation works just fine.

Lastly, let me say we define an academic year as consisting of 24 to 36 credit hours. That's what the Federal Government says. We say that you need to take at least 6 credit hours in order to be minimally eligible for financial aid, and yet we don't define the credit hour. So we base a great many of our judgments on what a credit hour is, yet we don't define it.

Let's vote against this piece of legislation.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment simply strips the language from the underlying bill that permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule that defines a credit hour, permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule.

And I would suggest that this would represent very, very poor public policy. We provide over $200 billion in Federal student aid, either in the form of grants or in the form of guarantees; and the basis, at least in part, on which we provide that is students' adherence to the minimum number of credit hours that they must take and institutions' adherence to that which they define as a credit hour.

We have no idea what's going to happen 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now with respect to whether institutions will be in compliance. We have no idea whether or not shortcuts will be taken. We have no idea with the ongoing proliferation of online instruction and other nontraditional means of instruction whether or not we will be dealing with a higher education universe that is maintaining the appropriate quality controls and maintaining the appropriate protections against the kind of abuse that would ensue if students are able to take courses where the credit hour is not as demanding as reasonable people would suggest it would be, where the semester might be shorter as a result of lack of adherence to what a reasonable definition of a credit hour is. To put the Secretary of Education in a position where he or she would be unable to act in that circumstance is simply unwise, and to impose on the Congress the responsibility to fix a situation that could be much more easily fixed by regulatory or administrative action is also unwise.

So this is very straightforward. It is very simple. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would simply point out that my friend from North Carolina continues to use words like ``intrusion'' and ``overreach''; and yet a few moments ago, in response to comments I had made during general debate, she said that as an academic dean, the gentlelady was able to exercise discretion and define a credit hour and define a course and define a semester. There is absolutely nothing in the regulation that the Department of Education has promulgated that would prevent the gentlelady or someone in her position from continuing to exercise that discretion because in the regulation it says that institutionally determined equivalents are perfectly permissible and perfectly acceptable. So the discretion that the gentlelady quite correctly utilized while she was a dean remains in the toolbox of every college administrator in this country.

And so I would urge defeat of the underlying bill, I would urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits oil and natural gas lease sales off the coast of Northeast States, including New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. Furthermore, my amendment is paid for by striking language in the bill related to Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing in Section 17501.

I appreciate the Rules Committee making my amendment in order because this amendment will protect the coastline of New York and other Northeast States. I also thank my cosponsors, including Mr. Crowley, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Capuano, and Ms. Pingree.

Mr. Chairman, I represent the last 70 miles of eastern Long Island, where the primary industries are travel and tourism, everything to do with the second

home market, agriculture, and the fishing industry. Thus, in my district, the environment is the economy in many respects. It can ill- afford a disaster like Gulf Coast States endured during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Oil-soaked beaches would devastate Long Island's economy, let alone the environment, and there is no reasonable person who can disagree with me on this point.

The Republican drilling proposals to offset the highway bill would raise less than $4.3 billion over 10 years, according to CBO, or less than one-tenth of the revenue actually needed.

Combine this with the other funding mechanisms for the highway bill, and Republicans are paying for their reckless legislation on the backs of middle class families. For example, the Republican spending package will require Federal employees to increase their pension contributions while reducing their benefits.

Worse, as of this moment, they are using Federal employees' pension contributions to offset costs in two completely separate proposals: the highway bill and the payroll tax cut package for unemployment benefits and the doc fix.

This isn't being honest with the American people. I would ask the Republican leadership to check their numbers again.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close as well, so I will yield myself the balance of my time.

I would say to my friend from Washington that I would find his argument and I would find the statistics that he cited somewhat more persuasive if this Congress had enacted any reforms, any safeguards to protect our coastline from the kind of disaster that affected the Louisiana and the Florida coast in the wake of the BP oil spill.

We have not put in place a single piece of legislation that would make offshore drilling safer. We have not put in place a single piece of legislation designed to prevent the kind of disaster that took place in the gulf. We are continuing to rely on the sort of slipshod environmental reviews that preceded the granting of leases in the gulf, and I think to expose certainly my region, Ms. Pingree's region, to the kind of disaster that the gulf was exposed to without putting in place those safeguards is simply unwise, not worth $4.3 billion to fund a bill that most of us feel is a very flawed bill to begin with.

So I would urge adoption of my amendment. As I say, I would urge defeat of the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct on

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is very simple and straightforward. It directs conferees negotiating extensions of the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and the SGR to file their conference report by February 17, 2012.

Day in and day out, Members of this body come to the floor to speak about the level of uncertainty that is hindering the U.S. economy and stifling job growth. We have heard Speaker Boehner argue that the Bush tax cuts must be extended in perpetuity to relieve corporations of uncertainty. We have heard our Tea Party friends rally against the deficit in order to reduce uncertainty for job creators.

Time and time again, we've heard our Republican colleagues speak of the uncertainty that EPA regulations have created for expanding jobs. Yet, when we contemplate the uncertainty created for consumers, small businesses, doctors, and the unemployed driven by Congress' inability to address the payroll tax extension, the SGR fix, and unemployment benefits, our Republican friends are suddenly silent.

We all remember the debate in December when, after years of touting the benefits of tax cuts, our Republican colleagues suddenly changed their minds when a payroll tax cut was considered, a tax cut that will provide immediate relief for millions of Americans and will immediately benefit the economy.

As we've debated these issues for several months, we've seen the data and heard from economists who say extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance is good for American families, businesses and economic growth. It isn't the silver bullet to solving all of our Nation's problems, but it's a step in the right direction, a step that can provide some relief to the unemployed and stimulate consumer spending, which is fundamental to improving the overall economy.

By extending the payroll tax cut through the end of the year, 160 million Americans would continue to take home more money in their paycheck. For a family earning $50,000 a year, that's about $80 a month, or about $1,000 for the year.

Without the extension, that $1,000 is unavailable to families for buying groceries or putting gas in their vehicles or buying their children new clothes for school which, when spent at local businesses, sparks economic activity. These facts are indisputable.

Moody's Analytics estimates that for every dollar spent on the payroll tax cut it produces $1.27 in economic activity. JP Morgan Chase economists also estimated that ending the payroll tax cut and halting an extension of unemployment would shave .75 percent off the GDP next year. Macroeconomic Advisers provided a similar analysis last year, stating that allowing the pay roll tax cut to lapse would reduce GDP growth by .5 percent and cost the economy 400,000 jobs. A job loss of that magnitude would destroy the improvements in employment we've seen since President Obama took office.

Last week, the Labor Department reported that 243,000 jobs were added to the economy in January, marking the 23rd consecutive month of private sector job growth. The unemployment rate also fell to 8.3 percent, the lowest point since February of '09. Now, we clearly still have a long, long way to go, but failure to extend these critical programs would stifle the progress we have seen thus far and thwart future growth.

But Americans don't know if they'll have that extra $80 a month to spend come March 1, and businesses are equally uncertainly about whether or not their customers will have that extra income to spend.

Yesterday, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told the Joint Economic Committee that it is vital, vital to extend both the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, which together could add .9 percent to GDP if done for the whole year. He also said the failure to do so would deal ``a significant blow to the economy, cutting growth by almost one full percentage point.''

We must extend both the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance provides temporary relief to Americans who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. In a sense, it's a bridge to reemployment. The average weekly benefit in 2011 was $300 a week. That's $1,200 a month. Take that away and millions of unemployed Americans lose a lifeline to put gas in their tank to get to that job interview, or to hire a babysitter while they go out to look for a job. Every little bit helps to get them back on their feet, and that's all Americans want to do, get back to work.

In every recession since 1957, the Federal Government has stepped in to provide additional support for unemployed workers. Without an extension, 5 million people will exhaust their benefits by the end of 2012.

Furthermore, under the GOP proposal in December to adjust the unemployment program, 3.3 million people would lose their unemployment benefits.

The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that if unemployment benefits are not extended, the economy can be expected to generate 478,000 fewer jobs. That's fewer jobs by the end of 2014, an estimate that is consistent with CBO projections. CBO also estimates that $36 billion spent on unemployment insurance would raise GDP between $14 billion and $54 billion, or about .22 percent.

The Economic Policy Institute has also estimated that extending unemployment through next year would create $70 billion in economic activity and a .4 percent increase in GDP. While these estimates differ somewhat, they all point to one thing, increased economic activity.

Yet, here we are, debating whether or not this vital lifeline should be extended for an additional 10 months. For struggling families, this is a frightening time to find our elected leaders squabbling about the Keystone pipeline and requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits.

As American families continue to struggle, so too do American businesses. A survey done in 2011 by the National Federation of Independent Businesses found that 53 percent of small businesses said lack of demand is an impediment to growth. Extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment will put additional money in the hands of Americans who will, in turn, spend that money on necessities like food, clothing, and travel.

When consumer spending represents roughly 70 percent of our economy, the policies that create the environment for growth will be the ones that get Americans spending again, and we can do that by putting more money back into the pockets of Americans struggling to make ends meet.

It's not just American workers and the unemployed facing uncertainty. Medicare doctors and patients are too. If we don't act, the SGR formula responsible for Medicare physician payments will cut reimbursement by 27.4 percent starting on March 1. A cut this large will force more doctors out of Medicare at a time when doctors find it difficult to treat Medicare patients, pay employees and keep their practices open.

A 2011 MEDPAC survey found that 2 percent of Medicare patients reported having big problems finding a physician. That may not sound like a lot, but previous surveys showed patients having relatively few, if any, problems.

In addition, a 2008 survey done by the Center for Studying Health System Change found that about 14 percent of physicians accepted no new Medicare patients, and a 2010 survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of physicians were restricting the number of Medicare patients in their practice. If we fail to find a permanent solution to the SGR, these numbers will only rise, and Medicare patients will not receive the care they need or deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress must act to end this uncertainty. I urge my colleagues to support this simple motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a couple of quick comments.

We all have the same set of facts. The Senate conferees were appointed on December 23, the very same day that the provision that we're talking about passed the House by unanimous consent. The conference committee did not meet until the 27th of January for the first time. That's one.

Two, we talk about the Reagan recession. The Reagan recession was nowhere near as severe as the, let's call it the Bush recession. The GDP fourth quarter of 2008 declined at an annual decline of over 8 percent. Most severe recession we have had since the Great Depression. Jobs lost.

Last 14 months of the Bush administration, we lost jobs every single month, culminating in his last month in office, a job loss of 735,000 jobs. President Obama has been President for 36 months. We've had job growth, private sector job growth, in 23 of those months.

Drug testing, one comment: Over 400,000 Americans have lost their jobs in the last 3 years as a result of corporations outsourcing to other countries.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

So these are people who lost their jobs, ready, willing, and able to do them, lost their jobs as a result of, really, corporations unrelentingly pursuing profits at the expense of middle class Americans. Do we really want to add insult to injury and tell them if they need unemployment, they're going to have to be drug tested?

I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman referenced my vote on TARP. I did, indeed, vote for TARP. I found myself in pretty good company. Mr. Cantor voted for TARP. Mr. Boehner voted for TARP.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 30 seconds so we all have the same set of facts.

It's my understanding that the chairman of the conference committee, Mr. Camp, was on a codel to South America during the period of time that the gentleman from Oregon cites, and it is up to the chairman of the conference committee to call the conference.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for two quick comments.

I don't know a single Democrat, not a single one, who believes that we should diminish the Social Security trust fund to handle this Social Security payroll tax reduction. We all believe that the Social Security trust fund should be held harmless.

Second, with respect to Medicare, the Affordable Care Act does indeed reduce the rate of growth of Medicare going forward by $500 billion. I will point out that every single Republican in this Chamber voted for that very same reduction in the rate of growth when they voted for the Ryan budget.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

In closing, let me just make it unmistakably clear: there is not a single Democrat that is advocating diminishing the Social Security trust fund. We all agree that the Social Security trust fund must be made whole. That is why we are fully accepting of the fact that this tax cut--unlike every other tax cut that's been passed in this Chamber in the last 10 years--should be fully paid

for so that the Social Security trust fund is not diminished.

Secondly, I want to thank Mr. Walden and Mr. Reed for their service on the conference committee; it cannot be an easy conference. I would just ask that as you go forward, you be guided by what Leader Cantor has said. What Leader Cantor has said is that we should pass what we can agree on, and we should leave the issues on which we can't agree to another day. It certainly appears as if we agree that we need to extend the payroll tax deduction, we need to fix the SGR, and we need to pass unemployment insurance.

So, let's pass it. Let's leave to another day contentious issues like mercury emissions, like the Keystone pipeline, like drug testing. Let's pass what we can agree on. Let's debate those other issues--they're important, they deserve a full debate--but let's not let them stand in the way of a tax cut for 160 million Americans, access to Medicare physicians for 50 million Americans, and keeping millions of Americans at least with some lifeline with respect to unemployment insurance.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I thank the gentleman from Oregon for a spirited debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 3630, the conference report to extend the payroll tax, unemployment insurance, and SGR payments for doctors.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Bishop of New York moves that the managers on the part

of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of

the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3630

be instructed to file a conference report not later than

February 17, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Josephine Zappone, on the occasion of her 100th birthday. Mrs. Zappone has been a devoted wife and loving mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother to her large family.

Born February 5, 1912 in Bronx, New York, to Pietro and Rosalie Nizzari, Mrs. Zappone nee Nizzari was the fifth of six children in her family. In 1938, she married Frank Zappone, with whom she raised three children: Allen, June, and Francis.

Mrs. Zappone has become known for her beautiful knitting, a skill she learned from her mother as a child. During both World War I and World War II, young Josephine knitted caps, scarves, and gloves for soldiers fighting overseas. Now, instead of outfitting GIs, Mrs. Zappone knits to keep her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren warm.

Josephine and her late husband, Frank, made their home in the Bronx, where she has been an active member of Our Lady of Mount Cannel Church for 93 years. Since 1956, Josephine has summered in my hometown of Southampton, on the shores of Shinnecock Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor and recognize Josephine Zappone, a woman who has seen enormous change and progress during her long life. I would like to send Mrs. Zappone and her family my warmest regards and best wishes for happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the life of Barrett Byrnes, a constituent and friend, who passed away on December 21, 2011. He was 59 years old.

Barrett Byrnes was raised in Huntington and attended Harborfields High School in Greenlawn before going on to Farmingdale State College. While a student at Farmingdale, Barrett pitched for the baseball team and in 1972 had an ERA of 0.36, fifth in the country and a school record that stands to this day.

Upon his graduation, Barrett followed in his father's footsteps and began training to become an air traffic controller. Ralph Byrnes was one of New York's first air traffic controllers at LaGuardia Airport.

Barrett's career began at Duchess County Airport in Wappingers Falls, a small local airport. It ended at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, where he was a certified professional controller in the main tower for the final fourteen years of his career, retiring in 2008.

Beyond his valuable work in the control tower, Barrett was also an active leader in the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, of which he was a charter member, and president/faculty representative of the JFK Tower chapter. As a safety advocate, Barrett served as an air safety investigator to the National Transportation Safety Board.

It was through his commitment to legislative activism on behalf of his union that I came to know him, as he served as the face of the NATCA to the New York congressional delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I mourn the passing and honor the memory of Barrett Byrnes. I wish to extend my heartfelt sorrow to his wife, Jacqueline Taylor, and the rest of Barrett's family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the newly invested chief of the Suffolk County Police Department, James C. Burke. A dedicated law enforcement officer, Chief Burke has devoted his career to the service and protection of his community.

Chief Burke began his service at the New York City Police Department in January of 1985, before moving to the Suffolk County PD in July of the following year. During his time with the department, Burke has served in a variety of leadership roles, including supervising the patrol and detective divisions.

In addition to commanding the Organized Crime Bureau of the SCPD, Chief Burke has, since 2006, served as the chief investigator for the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. Burke also has demonstrated a commitment to law enforcement education and is frequently called to give lectures to groups around the country.

On January 1, 2012, James Burke was promoted to Chief of the Suffolk County Police Department, the pinnacle, but by no means the end, of a long and distinguished career. Chief Burke will continue to serve his community as the highest ranking uniformed officer in the county, upholding the high standard for which the SCPD has become known.

Mr. Speaker, I honor James Burke for his invaluable and continuing contributions to our community. It is my great hope that his tenure with the department will be a credit to him and the officers he now oversees. I look forward to working with Chief Burke and supporting the department in its mission to keep Long Island safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Teachers Federal Credit Union, a financial institution dedicated to the continued success of its members and to promoting financial literacy throughout the community.

It is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to the TFCU on the occasion of their 60th anniversary and the opening of its new headquarters in Hauppauge.

Since its founding in 1952, Teachers Federal Credit Union has grown from a tiny credit union with seven members and $35 to an institution with over 200,000 members and $4 billion in assets. Along the way, TFCU and its members have found time to demonstrate a continued commitment to efforts aimed at preserving the environment and improving the quality of life enjoyed by Long Islanders.

I would also like to commend TFCU on its continuing dedication to the promotion of financial literacy. In recognition of that dedication, the Teachers Federal Credit Union has been awarded the Desjardins Youth Education Award, given in honor of significant commitment to youth financial education, six times.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to convey my sincere thanks to the Teachers Federal Credit Union, and my hopes for their continued success at their new Hauppauge location.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor Jonathan M. Schneider, my departing Deputy Chief of Staff who was recently appointed the Deputy County Executive for Intergovernmental Affairs for Suffolk County, New York.

Since he became one of my original staffers in 2003, Jon has distinguished himself as a public servant through hard work and dedication to the people of Eastern Long Island. His policy expertise in transportation and environment issues, skill in crafting effective public communications, and perceptive political insights have been invaluable to me over the past nine years.

As district director, Jon led a first-class constituent service program that has assisted thousands of veterans, senior citizens, and others in need of a helping hand. My constituents have also benefited from his skilled advocacy of infrastructure projects including the dredging of Lake Montauk and Shinnecock Inlets and environmental initiatives such as the federal Forge River Study and the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study.

Guiding these projects through from conception to completion required close collaboration with officials at all levels of government as well as civic groups and community advocacy organizations. Over the years, Jon has built a sterling reputation for professionalism and collegiality that has aided my efforts to deliver federal solutions for local problems.

Given my first-hand knowledge of Jon's skill as an intergovernmental liaison, I am confident that the people of Suffolk County will benefit tremendously from his service as Deputy County Executive. I am also pleased that his new role will allow us to continue working together, as my Congressional district is contained entirely within Suffolk County.

I am also pleased that Jon will continue to reside in Port Jefferson Station with his wife, Mary Ellen, precocious daughter Ellie, his son future New York Giants linebacker Benjamin, and Boris, the famous tortoise.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my staff and the people of the First Congressional District of New York, I sincerely thank Jonathan M. Schneider for his efforts to improve the quality of life on Eastern Long Island and his continuing commitment to public service. I wish him and his family continued success, good health and the best of luck for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to ensure that future expenditures for the maintenance of commercial harbors are equitably distributed, so that all communities-- large and small--may optimize the economic benefits of their inland and coastal ports.

Over the past few administrations, far more funds have been collected by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund than have been expended on an annual basis--and unfortunately, the adverse signs of underfunding are becoming apparent. Year after year of insufficient maintenance dredging resources for coastal and inland ports has resulted in reduced depths at countless port facilities, and has all but passed over the dredging needs of moderately sized or smaller ports, such as Lake Montauk, in the New York's First Congressional District.

In recent years, there has been a concerted effort in Congress to fully utilize harbor maintenance funds in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the purpose they were collected. I am a strong supporter of these efforts because I have seen, firsthand, the adverse impacts of shoaled harbors on local and regional economies. When local harbors become filled with sediment, the corresponding reduction of commercial shipping can have a significant adverse impact on the national, regional, and local economies, as well as on the jobs that are directly and indirectly related to ports and shipping.

It is essential that Congress find a way to ensure that funds collected in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund be fully allocated--not only to ensure the viability of commercial shipping, but also to realize the jobs that can be created for port workers and dredgers, as well as through businesses that rely on local harbors for their livelihoods.

However, even if annual collections to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund were fully utilized, there is reason to believe that, under the status quo decision process for where funds are expended, the needs of many of the moderate-to-small harbors would remain unmet.

According to information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), there is a significant backlog of maintenance dredging activities necessary to restore fully authorized project dimensions of existing commercial navigation projects. According to the Corps, the estimated annual maintenance cost to restore authorized projects to their full widths and depths is $2.3 billion during the first five years. Once this backlog is addressed, the Corps estimates that annual maintenance costs (for year 6 and beyond) would average around $1.8 billion per year.

Based on the Corps' projection on maintenance dredging needs, it appears that the annual operation and maintenance needs identified by the Corps exceed the amounts that have been collected, annually, by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This means that, even if annual collections to the Trust Fund are fully allocated, there will be an unmet annual maintenance dredging need far into the future. It is that unmet annual maintenance dredging need that makes the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 critical to mid-size and small commercial harbors, so that these harbors are not continually left behind.

Over the past few years, I have heard numerous examples of commercial harbors that were passed over for critical maintenance dredging funds from the Corps, in essence, because insufficient funds were made available for maintenance dredging needs. However, in my view, it has been the mid-size and small commercial harbors that have been disproportionally impacted by the lack of annual maintenance dredging funds.

For example, according to the Corps, the agency is currently responsible for maintenance dredging at 1,067 harbors, nationwide. Of this number, only 59 harbors (or 5 percent) are characterized as ``high-use'' harbors--on those that use at least 10 million tons of commerce annually. The remaining 1,008 harbors that fall under the Corps' maintenance dredging responsibility are characterized as ``moderate'' or ``low-use'' harbors.

However, when you look at the President's budget request for the past two fiscal years, it is easy to see the disparity in funding allocations among these categories of harbors.

For example, in the fiscal year 2012 budget request, ``high-use'' harbors received 66 percent of available funds, while ``low-use'' harbors received only 6 percent of the funds. This would mean that, under the status quo process for allocating maintenance dredging funding--which has been followed by both Democratic and Republican Presidential administrations--approximately 5 percent of eligible harbors received over 66 percent of the funds made available from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of a Congressional district with small commercial harbors, the status quo must change.

To my community, the benefit of small and mid-size commercial harbors to the local economy is not proportional to their size. As a witness from New York's First Congressional District, Ms. Bonnie Brady, testified before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the small commercial fishing ports on Long Island are responsible for 99 percent of New York's landed seafood catch--worth over $49 million dollars at the dock.

That is why I am introducing the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011. This legislation attempts to balance the operation and maintenance needs of all commercial harbors, regardless of size, and to ensure that funding is equitably distributed between high-, moderate-, and low-use facilities.

First, the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 would require the Corps to assess, on a biennial basis, the overall dredging needs of those commercial harbors that it is responsible for, including harbors used for commercial navigation, fishing, subsistence, domestic energy production, recreation, the transport of persons, and navigation safety.

This legislation would require the Corps to report its findings on operation and maintenance needs to the authorizing Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as part of the President's budget submission to Congress. This information would be critical for Congress to comprehensively understand the overall operation and maintenance needs of all commercial harbors, as well as that portion of the national dredging need that would

be deferred to future years due to lack of available funding.

In addition, the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 would require the Administration to identify future allocations of operation and maintenance funds, on a harbor-by-harbor basis. This information will allow commercial harbors to more accurately plan future operation and maintenance expenditures, both short-term and long-term, and more efficiently make critical decisions on the most efficient way to maintain safe commercial shipping at local harbors.

The central focus of the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 is the requirement that expenditures for maintenance dredging is equitably allocated among all eligible commercial harbors. To accomplish this, the legislation requires the Secretary of the Army: (1) to utilize the information obtained from the assessment of dredging needs; (2) to consider the national and regional significance of harbor operation and maintenance; and (3) to make allocation decisions on factors beyond simply the amount of cargo tonnage transiting through a commercial harbor.

While the Corps is completing its assessment of national maintenance dredging needs, this legislation establishes a short-term, minimum allocation for maintenance dredging at midsize and small commercial harbors. The 40 percent guaranteed allocation for mid-size and small commercial harbors for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 represents only a modest increase in the allocation for these harbors over the previous two fiscal years (33.7 percent in fiscal year 2012 and 33.4 percent for fiscal year 2011), in part to address the disproportionate backlog faced by mid-size and small commercial harbors.

In addition, this mandatory allocation of 40 percent is temporary, and will be replaced in fiscal year 2014 by an allocation based on the actual maintenance dredging needs of all harbors, as identified by the Corps.

Mr. Speaker, the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 recognizes the fundamental importance of all commercial harbors to the national, regional, and local economies. It calls for fairness in the allocation of critical maintenance dredging funds among large-, moderate-, and small-commercial harbors. But, most of all, it recognizes the importance of the nation's ports to America and to American workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation.