Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Tyler Hanson of Sergeant Bluff, Iowa for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

The Eagle Scout rank is the highest advancement rank in scouting. Only about five percent of Boy Scouts earn the Eagle Scout Award. The award is a performance-based achievement with high standards that have been well-maintained over the past century.

To earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Boy Scout is obligated to pass specific tests that are organized by requirements and merit badges, as well as completing an Eagle Project to benefit the community. For his project, Tyler planned, organized, and painted badly faded curbs, light poles and parking lines at his local church. His project also included adding handicap accessible parking spaces in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The work ethic Tyler has shown in his Eagle Project, and every other project leading up to his Eagle Scout rank, speaks volumes of his commitment to serving a cause greater than himself and assisting his community.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young man and his supportive family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication and perseverance. I am honored to represent Tyler and his family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating him in obtaining the Eagle Scout ranking, and will wish him continued success in his future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me the time here to speak, and I rise in support today of H.R. 6233, the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act. As we all know, farmers and ranchers are really suffering from one of the worst and most widespread droughts to have occurred in decades.

While over half of Iowa has been designated as a disaster area because of the drought, farmers at home are really hurting and really feeling the pain of the drought.

While the forecasts are not good for the future as far as rain and the conditions appear to be worsening every day out there--the temperatures near 100 degrees--we're at a critical point. Congress can't legislate rain like we'd like to, but we can certainly provide farmers the certainty that they need to address the disaster, which is the worst in decades.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the livestock producers have no safety net to fall back on because the disaster programs expired last year. Extending these programs to the end of fiscal year 2012 will give farmers the confidence and the certainty to prepare for what's going to be a very difficult year.

We're all pushing as hard as we can, doing everything possible to get a new farm bill done, and I would encourage everyone to work to that end. In the meantime, this is what we have to do. We need to do this immediately to give certainty to those livestock producers all over the country that are facing a very, very difficult situation with the drought.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6233. Let's move this today and then get on to a new farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Brittany Wiebbecke of Nashua, Iowa for being awarded the Girl Scout Gold Award.

The Gold Award is the highest award that a high school-aged Girl Scout can earn. This is an extremely prestigious honor, as less than 6 percent of all Girl Scouts will attain the Gold Award's rigorous requirements.

To earn a Gold Award, a Girl Scout must complete a minimum of 80 hours towards a community project that is both memorable and lasting. For her project, Brittany assisted a local animal rescue center by providing supplies and learning materials for new pet owners. The work ethic Brittany has shown to earn her Gold Award speaks volumes about her commitment to serving a cause greater than herself and assisting her community.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young woman and her supportive family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication

and perseverance. I am honored to represent Brittany and her family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating her on obtaining the Gold Award, and will wish her continued success in her future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Diana Zhang for being named a state winner of the Library of Congress's Letters about Literature program.

Letters about Literature is a national reading and writing program that is sponsored by the Library of Congress. The program asks students to write to the past or present author of a book that has affected their life. Approximately 59,000 young readers from across the country submitted letters last year to compete for the state-level awards for 2012.

A panel of judges that can include published authors, editors, publishers, librarians, teachers, and even state officials chose Diana's letter as a state winner. Diana wrote a letter to author Catherynne M. Valente to explain how Valente's two novel series, The Orphan's Tales, affected her life. Valente's acclaimed novels spoke to Diana, and now Diana's letter to Valente has earned her recognition in her community as well as here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young woman demonstrates the rewards of harnessing one's talents and sharing them with the world. Diana's efforts embody the Iowa sprit and I am honored to represent her and her family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me in congratulating her on her achievement and will wish her continued success in her future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise once again to recognize the Des Moines-based law firm, Nyemaster Goode, for being named a recipient of the 2012 Freedom Award from the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Nyemaster Goode was nominated in 2011 by Doug and Kristina Stanger.

The Freedom Award is the greatest honor bestowed on employers by the Department of Defense for ``exceptional support'' of Guard and Reserve employees. In 2011, the ESGR received an incredible 3,236 nominations from across the Nation, in the hopes their employer would be chosen among the Nation's best companies for Guard and Reserve employees. Earlier this month, it was confirmed that Nyemaster Goode would receive this prestigious award with 14 other companies from across the country that will be honored in Washington, D.C. this September at the 17th annual Freedom Award Ceremony. Nyemaster Goode can now count itself among the 175 elite employers that have won this award since its establishment in 1996.

Doug and Kristina Stanger, both members of the Army National Guard, nominated Nyemaster Goode because they knew firsthand that the efforts the company took to accommodate our citizen soldiers were truly something special. Doug and Kristina felt that Nyemaster Goode represented the ``perfect example'' of how employers should go above and beyond to support our local heroes in their companies and communities. After weighing the merits of more than 3,200 nominations, the Department of Defense has wholeheartedly agreed with the Stangers and proudly recognized Nyemaster's job-well-done on a national level.

Mr. Speaker, Nyemaster Goode's receipt of the 2012 Freedom Award highlights the rewarding Iowa traditions of hard work and commitment to our neighbors. I thank Doug and Kristina for their nomination of Nyemaster Goode, and I thank Nyemaster Goode for setting a pristine example for employers across our great Nation. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me again in congratulating Nyemaster Goode for their outstanding accomplishment and wish them continued success in the years ahead. May God continue to watch over all of our soldiers and their families, across the world and here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Edward Donovan, and his wife, Vergene Donovan, on the special occasion of their 70th wedding anniversary. This special day will take place on August 24, 2012, and they will be celebrating this landmark occasion on August 26th in Spirit Lake, Iowa.

Mr. and Mrs. Edward Donovan met by chance in southern California in July of 1942. A 19-year-old Edward approached a pretty 18-year-old girl named Vergene on the street and asked if he recognized her from Iowa. She confirmed she was from Spirit Lake, and the two spent the rest of the afternoon getting to know each other over soda at a nearby drug store. When Edward made it home that night, he told his best friend he had met the girl he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. Edward proposed to Vergene on their second date, and they have never looked back since saying ``I do'' in Long Beach, California on August 24, 1942.

After moving back to Iowa, Edward began work with a small fishing supply company known as Berkley and Company in 1950. Over his time with Berkley, Edward's creativity, passion and coordination helped lead the company to international expansion and dominance in the fishing industry. Edward would eventually leave Berkley as the Executive Officer of Operations in 1987. Meanwhile, Vergene discovered a strong passion for politics and continues to be involved with the Dickinson County Republican Party and Republican Women.

Edward and Vergene currently reside in rural Orleans, Iowa and have raised four children--Edward, Jim, DeEtte, and Scott. Their children have blessed them with nineteen grandchildren and sixteen great- grandchildren. The Donovan's continue to be an active and important part of their community and it is truly an honor to represent them in the United States Congress.

Edward and Vergene's lifelong commitment to each other and their family truly embodies Iowa's values. I salute this lovely couple on their 70th year of life together and I wish them many more. I know my colleagues in the United States House will join me in congratulating them on this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm pleased to stand today in support of H.R. 4157, Preserving America's Family Farm Act. This is a very bipartisan bill that I think really gets to what we're concerned about in agriculture today. Anymore these days, it seems like armies of Federal bureaucrats are drawing up new regulations, often with little or no consideration or understanding of the very industries that they're trying to regulate.

While some regulations do serve a legitimate purpose, others do little more than create uncertainty and additional costs for hardworking taxpayers, farmers, and small business owners. I believe if we want to put America back in business, back to work, one of the first things we must do is crack down on overregulation.

I've introduced a proposal called the Regulatory Accountability and Economic Freedom Act that would take a number of steps to reverse our government's direction and overregulation. Unfortunately, we're standing here today to fight one of those misguided regulation attempts. Last September, the Department of Labor proposed rules that would have dramatically limited the ability of America's youth to contribute to work on their family's farm or agricultural operations, and it would have restricted, if not completely eliminated, educational training opportunities for youth in rural America. As a result, I introduced H.R. 4157 as the solution to block the DOL's overly burdensome regulations.

We can't allow Federal bureaucrats, many of whom have never set foot on a farm, to tell Iowa farm families how they can run their operations. As a person who grew up on a family farm and later became a farmer myself, I can attest to the valuable skills that are developed through days of bailing hay and detassling cornfields and showing cattle at the county fair. I, like so many thousands of youth across this country today, utilized my own farm experience to learn the often difficult lessons of hard work, character development, problem solving skills, and leadership.

Life on the farm is never easy, but the valuable lessons learned while producing America's food, feed, and fiber make for a rewarding way of life. I think it goes without saying that the safety and well- being of all farmworkers, especially our youth, is of the utmost importance to our Nation's farmers and ranchers. However, the regulations proposed by the DOL went beyond all common sense and would have destroyed opportunities for youth across the agricultural economy. This bill will ensure the Department cannot reissue a proposed rule substantial in nature to its version released last year.

Our youth deserve an opportunity to learn and grow through on-farm experience, and my bill ensures that that opportunity will remain available. And I urge support for Preserving America's Family Farms Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding once again. I will be submitting a letter here from 16 national farm groups in support of this legislation. I would also like to respond--the gentlewoman talked about farm families, that parents can still let their children be involved in the farming operation. That statement to me just shows a total misunderstanding and miscomprehension of what agriculture is today. Yes, you have family, Mom and Dad, but the highest percentage of all farms today are in partnership with their brothers, with their sisters. If their grandparents are still involved, if their parents are involved in that farming operation, this rule would have prohibited any child from working on the farm and being part of a family operation. Or, if you're a subchapter S corporation, any of the things that are so common today--partnerships, small business corporations--that these family farm operations are, it would have totally prohibited our youth from getting the kind of education, getting the knowledge, getting the experience that they can derive working with their parents on a family farm operation.

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I had the opportunity to travel to three county fairs, one in Bedford, one in Red Oak, and one in Avoca, Iowa. It brought back so many memories from my own youth to go to those fairs and see young people showing livestock, either 4-H or FFA, and to see the experience, the love they have for those animals, the love of the farm and agriculture that they are developing in their youth. This is extraordinarily important.

While some people may dismiss the importance of this bill, it will prohibit, even in the proposal that was made, but also anything like it from happening.

That's what's very, very important, to give those families out there the certainty, to give the 4-H and the FFA, the educational programs in agriculture today, a chance to continue this great legacy of agriculture and of family farm operations. That's really what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I, again, ask for support of all the Members for this bill. It is extremely important for family farms.

July 24, 2012.

The Honorable,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: This afternoon the House of

Representatives will debate and vote on H.R. 4157, the

Preserving America's Family Farms Act. The undersigned

organizations support preserving the ability of youth to gain

training and education by working on the farm. Accordingly,

we urge all members of the House to vote in favor of H.R.

4157.

The safety of all workers is of utmost importance; however,

in September 2011, the Department of Labor introduced

regulations that took caution beyond recognition. The

proposed regulations were overly burdensome to agriculture

producers and would have limited, if not eliminated, training

opportunities for youth in rural America. Fortunately, the

administration listened to the concerns of farmers and

ranchers by withdrawing the regulation in April. However, the

threat to family farms still exists. H.R. 4157 protects an

agricultural way of life from future child labor regulations

that could limit the ability of youth to learn valuable

skills by working on the farm.

While we all respect the obligations and responsibilities

of the Department of Labor to ensure the safety of youth

working on farms as delineated in the Fair Labor Standards

Act, we believe that the approaches taken need to be well

reasoned and not detrimental to the family farm or the youth

participating in farm work. Thus, we urge all members of the

House to vote in favor of this bill when it reaches the

floor.

Sincerely,

American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry

Association, American Horse Council, American Seed Trade

Association, American Soybean Association, Florida Fruit &

Vegetable Association, International Association of Fairs and

Expositions, National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Council of

Agricultural Employers, National Cotton Council, National FFA

Organization, National Milk Producers Federation, National

Pork Producers Council, United Fresh Produce Association,

U.S. Apple Association.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Ryan Hanson of Ames, Iowa for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

The Eagle Scout rank is the highest advancement rank in scouting. Only about five percent of Boy Scouts earn the Eagle Scout Award. The award is a performance-based achievement with high standards that have been well-maintained over the past century.

To earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Boy Scout is obligated to pass specific tests that are organized by requirements and merit badges, as well as completing an Eagle Project to benefit the community. The work ethic Ryan has shown in his Eagle Project, and every other project leading up to his Eagle Scout rank, speaks volumes of his commitment to serving a cause greater than himself and assisting his community.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young man and his supportive family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication and perseverance. I am honored to represent Ryan and his family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating him in obtaining the Eagle Scout ranking, and will wish him continued success in his future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate native Iowan Lieutenant General Dennis Hejlik of the United States Marine Corps on his illustrious 44-year military career that will be coming to a close on Monday at an awards dinner at the Marine Barracks in Washington, DC.

Before he was a three-star general and commander of Marine Corps Forces Command, Lieutenant General Hejlik, then known around town as Dennis, grew up on a farm near Garner, Iowa, with his nine brothers and sisters. He would go on to graduate from Garner-Hayfield High School in 1965 and attend North Iowa Area Community College before beginning his military career when he enlisted in the Marines Corps in 1968. Four short years later, Lieutenant General Hejlik was commissioned through the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Course. Since joining the Marines, Lieutenant General Hejlik has gone on to become an honor graduate of the Basic School, the Amphibious Warfare School, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the Naval War College.

Lieutenant General Hejlik has earned numerous decorations for his service over the last four decades including the Defense Superior Service Medal with Gold Star, Meritorious Service Medal with two Gold Stars, the Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal, and the Leftwich Award, just to name a few. Since his humble beginnings in Iowa, his time with the Marine Corps has brought him to all corners of the globe, most recently culminating to his current position as the commander of Marine Corps Forces Command in Norlfolk, Virginia and Marine Corps Forces Europe in Boblingen, Germany.

Mr. Speaker, our country owes Lieutenant General Hejlik a great debt of gratitude for his decades of service and sacrifice. His unwavering commitment to serving his country and fellow Americans embodies the Iowa spirit. I know all of my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives will join me in thanking Lieutenant General Hejlik and congratulating him on his truly stellar career. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors as he begins a new chapter in his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Benjamin Hurd of Ames, Iowa for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

The Eagle Scout rank is the highest advancement rank in scouting. Only about five percent of Boy Scouts earn the Eagle Scout Award. The award is a performance-based achievement with high standards that have been well-maintained over the past century.

To earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Boy Scout is obligated to pass specific tests that are organized by requirements and merit badges, as well as completing an Eagle Project to benefit the community. The work ethic Benjamin has shown in his Eagle Project, and every other project leading up to his Eagle Scout rank, speaks volumes of his commitment to serving a cause greater than himself and assisting his community.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young man and his supportive family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication and perseverance. I am honored to represent Benjamin and his family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating him in obtaining the Eagle Scout ranking, and will wish him continued success in his future education and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Jason Wittmuss of Waukee, Iowa for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

The Eagle Scout rank is the highest advancement rank in scouting. Only about five percent of Boy Scouts earn the Eagle Scout Award. The award is a performance-based achievement with high standards that have been well-maintained over the past century.

To earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Boy Scout is obligated to pass specific tests that are organized by requirements and merit badges, as well as completing an Eagle Project to benefit the community. Jason's project involved remodeling a gardening shed for Wildwood Hills Ranch, a summer camp program for low-income youth. The work ethic Jason has shown in his Eagle Project, and every other project leading up to his Eagle Scout rank, speaks volumes of his commitment to serving a cause greater than himself and assisting his community.

Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young man and his supportive family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication and perseverance. I am honored to represent Jason and his family in the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating him in obtaining the Eagle Scout ranking, and will wish him continued success in his future education and career.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5972, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the request for a recorded vote on the Landry amendment to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The veterans homeless program is a very good program. We all understand that. In this bill--and everybody should listen--we provide $75 million for 10,000 new vouchers already. So there's no question that we are meeting the need. This is the same as last year, and what we have in the bill is the President's request. Let me say that again. What we have in the bill for veterans vouchers is what the President asked for.

I will also say, it's interesting at this time to bring this motion. We have been through subcommittee markup, we have gone through full committee markup, we have been on the floor of this House for 2 days, and no one's ever raised this issue because everyone understood that we had fully met the funding requirements for the veterans homeless vouchers. So now it's an interesting time to bring this amendment or this motion.

And I will tell the folks, if, in fact, we find out there is an additional need before we get to conference, there isn't anybody in this House that won't support it. But we have fully funded the needs. This has been a full vetting process, and now, at the last moment you come up with a motion that is not necessary because everyone supports these vouchers.

This is a good, balanced bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5972 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chair, I submit the following for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN7.016

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

It's a good talking point, reducing administration accounts that received increases. We've scrubbed these accounts. We've held hearings, asked questions, and made recommendations about what should be funded rather than looking at an arbitrary number. The bill cuts $4 billion from fiscal year 2012, which is a fiscally responsible level.

I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We went through the hearing process. We have worked on these numbers to, number one, stay within our allocation, which we have done--we are actually cutting $4 billion in this bill--but also to prioritize. There's no one more sensitive about hardworking taxpayer dollars than I am. But the fact of the matter is, this is an absolutely critical function. The increase that is here is extremely important so that these programs are carried out properly without waste, fraud, and abuse.

For that reason, I would again urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I again rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. There are some factors that we need to take into consideration. For one thing next year, next fiscal year, we have an additional compensable day which has to be paid for. We have GSA that has raised rents. We have already cut $14 million out of salaries and expenses, so we would not be able to meet our requirements. We are not giving Federal employees raises, but there are additional costs that come into play because of rents, because of the additional day that our Federal workers will be working next year. And for those reasons--and again, I want to reiterate, we have cut $14 million out of this account--I would just urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I understand the gentleman, and I appreciate the fact that he wants to cut spending. We have, in fact, in this bill cut the spending from the request $1.4 million on this particular line item in the budget.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, we have additional rent that we have to pay. We have an extra day of work for the Federal workers next year that we have to pay. So there's not going to be any increase. It's basically going to maintain where we are in this function.

But, again, we have already cut from the President's request, $1.4 million. And there are additional costs we're going to incur just to stay even from last year. So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I insist on the point of order.

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.

The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:

It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

We have been fiscally responsible in this bill by reducing the public housing capital fund by $85 million below the budget request, and we're hearing that this funding level will be a challenge because there's a backlog, Madam Chairman, of over $25 billion in capital projects. However, this does represent one of the toughest choices we've had to make to meet our allocation in this bill. A deeper cut to this account will merely defer projects to future years and I believe will cost more money in the future by running up the cost of those projects in the years ahead.

With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's

amendment. This is an amendment that on face value is somewhat confusing, shall we say.

While it appears that there is a large increase in this account when it says $562 million over last year, this account is approximately level funded from last year because last year we went in and took $500 million out of reserve funds of the public housing authorities that were sitting there that were unexpended balances.

Those reserves are no longer there. So what we're having to do in this bill basically to stay virtually even is to have the $562 million over last year.

This fund provides many of the necessary operating and maintenance activities for our housing authorities, including health, safety, and sanitation. Our funding levels for public housing build in savings from reform proposals that we urge the authorizers to complete before we go to a final conference on this bill. Again, in this entire bill, while you talk about the highway bill, financial services doing their work, but that would be extremely helpful if, in fact, we had authorizations that would actually limit spending and that we could follow.

But again, I just wanted to reiterate: We used $500 million a year ago out of the funds that were available, sitting there idle. So what, in fact, this does is basically even from last year. While it appears to be a large increase, it, in fact, is not because the use of those funds from last year, the reserve funds.

I believe we are providing a responsible level of funding for this program. And again, I want to reiterate, Madam Chairman, we are cutting about $4 billion in this appropriation bill--I think the gentleman earlier mentioned that's the largest percentage cut of any bill so far on the floor. But this particular issue, this particular amendment would be extremely devastating because of funding issues in the reserve account that we used last year. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that has not been authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I will insist on my point of order. The fact of the matter is this program is not currently authorized. There are no ongoing public works in progress.

So, once again, I would insist on my point of order.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Community Development Block Grant program is very important to cities and States across the country. There is a great deal of local control in this program. Communities use the block grants to meet local needs such as building water and sewer infrastructure, community centers, housing for low-income families, and other development important to their local communities. Although the bill increases the funding, this funding level is still well below what it was in fiscal year 2010. The bill actually is $1.046 billion below the level of 2010, to be exact.

Madam Chair, as we were going through this bill, we had many Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, request additional funding for these grants. For many Members, there is strong constituent support for these programs. We have seen individual cases of abuse, not unlike a lot of other government programs, but really the way to fix those reforms, and we're not going to do it through the appropriations process, is through the authorizers, to have them do their work and make sure that these programs are well run, that they're focused and they actually do what the intention is.

Again, I want everybody to understand that we are actually below fiscal year 2010 levels on a very, very important program, and I would recommend and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose the amendment--the same, basically, that I said before: we are below fiscal year 2010 levels. Certainly, I believe the authorizing committee must set very strict parameters as to how these dollars should be used, but we are below fiscal year 2010, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

I do.

I just want to make the point that I want to continue to work with these two great Members from Florida. It is a real problem for the community, and I will do everything possible to try to be of assistance with addressing this real problem for them.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Miami.

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

I thank the gentlemen from Maryland and Virginia. I appreciate their taking the time to raise this very important issue. I will be mindful of their concerns as the process moves forward.

I move to strike the last word.

I would just tell the gentleman that we accept your amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 134, line 11, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, but I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the gentleman from Ohio that I have really no problem with the intent of his amendment, that I think he is talking about something that is very real to a lot of folks.

My understanding is that waivers that have been asked for have all been accepted in the past, and the Secretary has said that if there's a waiver needed, that they would be glad to oblige. But having said that, I just want the gentleman to know that the reason why I must insist on the point of order is simply for consistency on the bill. We have struck on point of order every

other authorizing language that has come before the subcommittee or to the floor today. So with that, while I share his concerns that he has stated, I must insist on my point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment waives existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment waives existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Maritime Commission is responsible for resolving disputes between shippers--both foreign and domestic--and the public, protecting consumers from unfair business practices, and monitoring ocean transportation and trade.

The increase in this account has to do with the annualization of already onboard personnel and of the increases in the claims and the workload of the Federal Maritime Commission. To reduce this account, you will affect the backlog of cases and claims, thus costing businesses, exporters, and ports time and money while they wait for the FMC to adjudicate their claims.

Usually, we are in the business of trying to reduce backlogs and delays in doing business. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is from Georgia.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

NeighborWorks really is a program that has some metrics in place to make sure that the dollars are used correctly in a proper way. In Iowa and across the country, about every dollar that goes through NeighborWorks leverages $48 in non-Federal direct investment because of it.

I just want to reiterate that we've gone through every line in this appropriations bill, tried to make decisions that would increase growth, job creation, tried to do the very best job we could. We've looked at every area. There are some priorities of things

that actually work that we've tried to sustain funding for.

I just don't want folks to forget overall in this bill, we are nearly $4 billion below last year's funding level. That's a cut of $4 billion. It's $2 billion below the President's request. I think, as one gentleman here today stated, this is the largest percentage reduction of any appropriation bill yet to come to the floor. We're trying to be fiscally responsible, to actually prioritize spending in this bill to things that actually work.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we had a markup this morning in Appropriations, and I supported an amendment about American content. And I believe that this is probably a very, very good amendment.

To be consistent--and I have raised points of order against some things that I support today, one offered by my good friend from Ohio, and other amendments that I would otherwise be supportive of if they were not breaking precedent to the rules of the House.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his comments today. He has been a tremendous advocate for this position. We have talked on many occasions about this particular subject. He is working very hard to resolve the issue.

I would hope that we could have some public hearings and actually get input to make sure that we make the right decisions, and I certainly would want to work with the gentleman to make sure that we do get a full hearing on this issue, that everything can be brought to light, and we're all concerned about homeland security, safety issues, all those things. I think the gentleman makes a very, very good point, and would just offer to do everything we can to work with him.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her persistence and for all of her work as far as trying to get a handle on the spending.

I would just like to make a couple of points.

She mentioned that we're $2 billion below the President's request. We're actually almost $4 billion below last year's spending in this bill. We have the largest decrease, percentage-wise, of any of the appropriation bills. We have worked very hard to craft a bill that actually enacted those types of spending cuts but also funded the high- priority items that are in this bill. It's with reluctance I oppose her amendment.

I will just say that we're within the 302(b) allocations that were in the Ryan budget. That was really the debate then as to what funding levels to be at.

There are some very important infrastructure issues that would be harmed by this when we look at the highway trust fund funding that would be cut. Of course, that would also include transit programs, veterans homeless vouchers. We have done everything we could to try to have a balanced bill that actually created priorities after having many hearings and working through this bill on a line-by-line basis. I'm not sure that an across-the-board cut that cuts everything arbitrarily is the way to go.

Certainly, we're all very concerned about the budget, but with reluctance, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield some time to the gentlelady.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I would like to join with the gentleman here in support of this amendment. I would like to make a couple of points.

If you represent a rural district, this is an enormous issue. Oftentimes, on average, jobs will pay less in urban areas to begin with. On average, a lot of these folks have to drive long distances to work. We've got people in my district today that drive 50 and 60 miles one way to their job every day, and this would be an enormous hardship on these folks.

I would also add that the Secretary of Transportation and the administration, 2 years ago when we were trying to get a highway bill done, the administration took this off the table. They said, We're not going to do this. And so I don't see why the Secretary would need to do research or any kind of means of implementation if, in fact, they so strongly oppose this type of taxation.

So for several different reasons, I commend this gentleman on this amendment and rise in its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

And I appreciate what the gentleman, my good friend from Massachusetts, is talking about. I think you clearly remember the testimony from Secretary LaHood before the subcommittee.

I thank the gentleman very much. I just want to talk about the subject that the gentleman from Massachusetts brought up.

The Secretary of Transportation came before the subcommittee. We were talking about the difficulty we

were having as far as trying to write an appropriation bill with no new authorization. The Secretary on several different occasions said he would not entertain and they would strongly oppose both an increase in the gas tax and vehicle miles driven, and I'm sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts remembers that testimony very clearly.

I would just suggest that maybe someone should talk to the administration about finding sources for funding because the Secretary has taken every possibility off of the table to fund a new highway bill. And now we're apparently looking at a reauthorization that's finding other unique ways of funding rather than user fees or gas tax or miles driven or registration fees, whatever, they have taken off the table. So I would suggest the gentleman from Massachusetts would maybe visit with Mr. LaHood at the Transportation Department.

Will the gentleman yield?

You will remember also, during the hearings with the Secretary, I asked that very question of the Secretary. You're taking gas tax, vehicle miles traveled off the table, let's find a way to do this.

He said: Well, we need to sit down at the table and discuss this.

I said: Mr. Secretary, you're at a table. I'll be glad to come around and sit with you, and we'll discuss it. You come up with some ideas. And he came up with zero ideas, if you'll remember that.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman, the Chairman, for the time, and let me just rise in strong support of this amendment.

This, I think, is one of the most outrageous, offensive taxes that I've ever heard of. The idea of taxing U.S. travelers from any point in the United States just because they're traveling to a destination in Europe is simply outrageous. It's going to be devastating to U.S. carriers, and it's something that we have got to put a stop to.

Like the gentleman talked about the international community's strong opposition, I think on a bipartisan basis everyone is opposed to this. It is, again, a far overreach. It is something that is unnecessary. It is simply wrong.

I really appreciate the gentleman's work on this to have this amendment brought forward as at least a first step in stopping this very, very, I think, egregious new tax.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Obviously, we all want pipeline safety. That is the number one issue, but what you're talking about here is truly beyond the pale as far as any kind of common sense. We've got to find a balance, like you've talked about. The overreach that we're seeing in so many areas of the Federal Government causes things like this that are just simply nonsensical.

I appreciate the gentleman for bringing the issue forward and would want to work with him in the future to find a resolution to your concerns.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of this amendment.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Florida bringing this issue to the attention of the House and, again, very strongly support his proposal to do away with this wasteful spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Let me just say that this has been a subject of great discussion with the ranking member and me over time. I hope the people of the House understand and the American people understand what an outright waste of money these projects have oftentimes become.

Everybody here is talking about our needing more money for infrastructure, transportation; let's get the trust fund built up; we're trying to find new ways of funding. I hope everyone understands that, 2 years ago, before we got control of this committee, they took $150 million out of the highway trust fund to pay for sustainability projects and grants.

That's rather interesting.

When it's an unauthorized program, no one even has a definition of what a ``sustainable community'' is. There is no definition of where this money could go. This is $150 million, and people talk about all their projects at home--of their highways in disrepair, of the bridges falling down--and we're spending $150 million out of that trust fund for things that aren't even defined and that are not authorized.

Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous.

I just spoke with the Secretary of HUD a few weeks ago on this issue because I have zeroed it out in this bill. There is no money for sustainable communities, whatever that is. Do you know the example the Secretary gave me of a good project? It would be to take millions of dollars from the Federal Government and give it to the area in North Dakota where they're having the expansion of the oil boom.

The State of North Dakota has billions of dollars in surplus. It has more money than it knows what to do with. Yet the Secretary says we should take sustainable community dollars from the Federal Government, of which we're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from China, and give it to North Dakota to find out where it should put up its buildings in the oil boom area. I'm sorry, but I think they can afford to do that themselves.

So I would very strongly support the gentleman's amendment. Again, this is money that is coming out of the trust fund. Everybody here talks about roads in disrepair, bridges falling down, all that we need to do in the way of help for infrastructure, for jobs--and we're giving it to places like North Dakota. I'm sorry, but this is a waste of money, ill-defined, unauthorized. I very strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of this amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue on my reservation, and I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman. Unfortunately, for consistency, we're going to have to pursue the point of order.

This issue has been brought to my attention. I've expressed concerns myself as to how information is used. Certainly, we want to make sure that we're very careful as far as privacy issues in this country, the way that these things may be used for purposes that no one quite understands or intended to have happen.

While I share your concerns, for consistency reasons here, I must insist on my point of order.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member.

I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, let me just say, in the authorization of the FAA, their specific role was air traffic concerns that they may have safety concerns, collisions with other aircraft. I agree with the gentleman, it should probably be a Homeland Security issue. I also serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations. It has not been brought up in that.

I do share your concerns. But unfortunately, I must insist on my point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties and requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

I move to strike the last word.

I would just like to lend my support for this amendment. It's something where clarification needs to be done, and the rules need to work for veterans for these processes. This has been one of the hang-ups for veterans being able to get into assisted living or houses. And any backlog that there has been has been basically a bureaucratic backlog, rather than a funding issue in the past. So it's a good amendment, and I would urge its passage.

I move to strike the last word.

Let me just stand up in support of the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. Insurance companies are not able to determine risk, and that oftentimes means much greater cost.

I think it's a good amendment going forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We are pleased to accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I understand the gentleman's concern, and I'm prepared to accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is it your impression that what the gentleman is saying is that they can't take highway trust fund money and put it into high- speed rail and that they can't take transit dollars and put it into high-speed rail?

It would be my understanding, since there is no money in the bill for high-speed rail, that he is talking about other pots of money that would go to California and about just trying to wall that off from being used. That's my understanding. Maybe the gentleman has a different interpretation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I withdraw my reservation of the point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate very much the gentleman's concern on this amendment. I think his timing is, maybe, unfortunate. This is a major issue in the reauthorization bill that, hopefully, is going to be filed tonight. This issue will be dealt with. It truly is an authorizing issue that should not be on this bill.

So, while I may share some concerns with the gentleman, I certainly don't think it's appropriate on this bill, especially at this moment when the highway bill is being filed and when, hopefully, this issue will be resolved in that bill.

With that and with some reservation, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, unfortunately.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I understand the concerns you have, and I would look forward to working with you as we get towards conference to try and address your concerns on this very important issue, obviously, for your constituents and would be pleased to be of any kind of assistance we possibly could.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I believe we are coming to the end here, and I just want to make a couple of comments.

As far as the gentleman from Massachusetts, once again, this will be his last appropriation bill on the floor as the ranking member and a former chairman of this subcommittee. Mr. Olver has done an outstanding job over the years. We don't always agree on everything. Do we, John? But we work very, very well together. And I just want to wish you and your wife the best.

You are a great partner and someone who I admire very, very much-- your intelligence, your ability to look in detail at programs. And we kid each other--or I kid Mr. Olver a lot about maybe having debates inside his mind sometimes in committee. But he's always extraordinarily thoughtful and someone, again, that I admire very, very much.

Madam Chairman, we've been through a 2-day process here. We have gone through a lot of amendments. I believe that we are to the point where we can bring this effort to a conclusion.

And I would, again, thank Mr. Olver, thank the staff, the professional staff on both sides, on the majority and on the minority side, for doing such an outstanding job. Working together is very difficult sometimes on these bills. Also, in my office, Doug Bobbitt does such a fabulous job working on this bill for me. But I just want to say thank you to everyone.

Madam Chairwoman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding time.

I am very pleased to speak in favor of the rule on H.R. 5972, the fiscal year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee for their assistance in moving this important bill forward. I also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their commitment to moving appropriations bills through the House so that we can fund America's priorities while demonstrating the committee's proven record of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.

In particular, I want to thank THUD Ranking Member John Olver for his assistance in crafting this legislation. This is his last THUD bill before retiring at the end of this year.

The Transportation and HUD bill represents responsible choices for our Nation's most pressing housing and transportation needs. This bill's allocation of $51.6 billion is almost $4 billion below fiscal year 2012 and is almost $2 billion below the President's request. The bill also reflects the budget resolution passed by the House.

The bill is largely free of authorizations, leaving that important work to the Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services Committees. As the amendments to the THUD bill are rolling in, we are seeing a very familiar theme--authorizing provisions. There are a multitude of issues, especially in the transportation title and the housing title, that very desperately needed to be considered and acted upon by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. A number of Members have good ideas for improving these programs, and the authorizers need to have the opportunity to turn these ideas into law.

The Appropriations Committee can only deal with existing law, so I would urge my colleagues with amendments that are out of order to please bring these issues to the relevant chairmen, and let's improve the underlying statutes. We can't make these authorizing changes on this appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I look forward to the general debate on the Transportation and HUD bill and to a very speedy amendment process.