mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as flake number three. the chair: this -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three paferede mr. flake of arizona. at the end of the bill insert the following, -- mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection. pursuant to thed orer of the house of tuesday, june 5, 2012, the gentleman from arizona mr. flake and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair this amendment would provide -- prohibit funding, i'm sorry, for the wind powering america initiative under the dotcht energy. hot air jokes aside here, nobody can say the federal government ha not been good to the wind industry. turbines made for popular earmarks in congresses past.

wind technology research and development receives tens of millions of federal dollars annually. developers continue to reap billions of dollars from a two decade old production tax credit that will hopefully be allowed to expire this year but as much as i disadepree with my colleagues who would have us continue to prop up an industry that even secretary chu of the energy department describes as mature, that's not what this amendment is about this amendment is about putting an end to wind powering america, an initiative that blows right -- it blows -- i'm sorry, it picks winners and losers and operates in the rarefied air of a federal program that's actively advocating on behalf of a particular industry. had you happened across an associated press article announcing w.p.a.'s creation 13 years ago, you would have mistaken it for a trade organization. the energy department describe

-- described w.p.a. as an initiative aimed at building national awareness of wind benefit, increasing customer demand, overcoming institutional biases and advocating on behalf of the wind production tax credit. these goals have evolved into egregious examples of unnecessary waste like a podcast titled, when wind developed doesn't match up to potential, look at policy. with episodes like "careers in wind energy." wba goes around to the nation's k-12 schools to promote wind development and promotes its wind for schools project to develop wind energy curricula. it's down right impossible to find out how the department is funding w.p.a. last time w.p.a. was mentioned in an appropriations bill was in 2003 in a conference report approving level funding at $3.1

million. in fact, we coont find funding figures more recent than 2008 when an energy department budget request confirmed it to be $5.5 million. after that, w.p.a. fall into a bureaucratic abyss. this amendment would not only put an end to this federal wind advocacy program it would end the practice of blind by funding it. this is anything but tilting at windmills. congress ought to make a point to not only oversee what we spend but how we spend it. we can do just that by eliminating the wind powering america project and i urge support for the amendment and reserve the balance of my tame. the chair: the gentleman reserves the mans of his time. the gentleman from washington. -- the plans of his time. the gentleman from washington. >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: this proiblets funding for the wind power program.

mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment. i prishte my colleagues' continue -- my colleague's continued effort to stop inappropriate or wasteful government spending. however there is a distinction between improper and proper federal activities and i believe this amendment would eliminate an example of the latter. i agree with my colleague that the government should not be funding the deployment of proven technologies and for that reason we have significantly ramped back the wind energy program. in fact, our bill cuts the program by 25% and focuses the remaining funds on unproven technologies not yet in the market, like offshore wind. i know they don't have any of that in arizona but we have significant offshore wind in washington state. there is also a proper federal role for facilitating the free flow of information where market failures prevent the efficient operation of free markets. in this case, a small program

facilitates the free flow of information collected by national laboratories such as resource maps and detailed wind data. programs like this use small amounts of federal funds to fix a market failure and get government out of the way. to get so that our private sector can get to the work of creating manufacturing and construction jobs here at home. we can talk about which specific parts of the program should be cut but i cannot support its complete elimination and i must oppose the amendment. i would yield to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. visclosky. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i believe there is a proper role for government where there's no private organization willing or able to fill an -- an information need. information is vital if we are going to improve our energy policy this program provides a venue at a very modest cost to the taxpayers to disseminate

valuable information that supports the diversify case of the nation's energy supply. while i do appreciate the gentleman's efforts to search out sources of wasteful and inappropriate spending, i disagree that this program is one of those instances and join my colleague from washington in opposition to the amendment. i appreciate the gentleman very much. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: again, i -- the gentleman from arizona would elame -- eliminate this entire pral. we think that's overstepping. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rides in support of the gentleman's amendment. while we may have our differences and not in all of the amendments he's propose have had passed, he's been congenial and a class act and

i'd like to thank him. i'd like to thank him also for his continued efforts which have been recognized on the other side too to fight wasteful federal spending. and i think we agree as i think most of us, our government should not be funding the deployment of proven technologies. for that reason, our committee and our bill -- in our bill has significantly ramped back the wind energy program to 25% below fiscal year 2012 and focused the remaining funds on unproven technologies, not yet in the market like far offshore wind. if there are small cases where the department is carrying out activities not appropriate for the federal government, they should be eliminatedism salute the gentleman, i'm pleased to support his efforts and i would be happy to yield to him although i believe he may have some time reserved himself. if not, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. flake: i rise to thank the gentleman. and to express a lot of shock here. i appreciate the fine work the gentleman does on this legislation. and again, what this program is, is advocacy for a proven technology. after 13 years of this program, to spend more, we really don't understand how much each year, but it could be $5.5 million for people in the federal government on taxpayer dollars to go and advocate on behalf of wind energy. all of us receive visits frequently from people in the wind industry. who have proven technology. who are out there already deploying it. why in the world should we continue to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to advocate for these programs, i don't know. so i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee for supporting the amendments and i urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to -- the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i suspect that my ranking member, mr. visclosky, will use this -- and i will use this opportunity to thank a whole host of people that have allowed taos bring this bill to the floor and we hope to a very successful conclusion. first of all, to chairman rogers of kentucky and his working partner, congressman norm dicks, on behalf oaf this committee, we want to thank you for giving us full support, bipartisan support, and giving

us the flexibility to have a numb of hearings, to do a comprehensive approach through that hearing process and your insistence, both of you, on what we call regular order, the ability of the appropriations committee to work in a bipartisan way. i shopt comment on the house in general but in terms of our committee, there's been bipartisan -- good -- a good bipartisan working relationship. you have laid the foundation for mr. visclosky and me to sort of proceed in regular order. we're grateful. i would also like to thank the members for their cooperation in terms of amendments. i think we started maybe last year with 140 amendments. a lot of amendments were drawn into a unanimous consent situation so we have been able to reduce the amendments and members have come to the floor, spoken on an expeditious basis and i think performed admirably. i think they made our bill better and more crompe hencive.

i'd also like to thank those who are on the floor, particularly our committee staff, rob blair, our clerk, who is to my left, joe levin, lorraine hechenbrg, carrie and trevor. i'd also like to thank my personal staff, nancy fox and katy haslet and mr. visclosky's personal staff, joe deveau. there are a whole host of people who make the floor work on the appropriations side. some of them would not like to be publicly recognized but het me say in our heart we hold them dear because we are able to get our bill to the floor, make sure that our amendments are -- all meet the letter of the law and the constitution, the parliamentarian having vetted all those amendments, we're highly appreciative of that. i certainly would be happy to yield to my ranking, if he

cares to -- the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i think the only other thank you i would add and very sincerely join the chair in all the recognitions he has enumerated, is the chair herself as well as all those others who have served us over the last four days and done a very expeditious job. i cannot thank the chairman enough for all he has done for us and for this country and for being the consummate gentleman. it is a privilege and a delight to work with you as well as the other members of the subcommittee. i would point out that while we agree very substantively on this bill, there are degrees of differences. we did not in the intervening last four days agree on every amendment. but we had reasoned and thoughtful debate, we had votes and decisions were made.

it is a profound privilege that people like chairman frelinghuysen, mr. dicks and i have serving this country in this congress. i am an institutionalist and this is a perfect example of how this institution should work. to meet collectively, to resolve our differences, and to work as hard as we can to hopefully in fiscal year 2013 leave this country a little bit better and again, thank all of the people, particularly the staff and the chair, for all their good work and appreciate the chairman for yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: this is the last energy and water bill mr. dicks will be participating in and i say on manufacture of our committee we always know that you're fully engaged in every subcommittee where you are so prominent. we want to thank you for that. and let me say, too, that we're

pleased we built in our bill some common ground for energy policy across our nation. most importantly, as i said in my remarks, the national security segment. what we need to do to make sure that our nuclear stockpile is reliable that we proceed with cleanups, things that we do relative to naval reactors and the next generation of nuclear ballistic submarines and the comprehensive energy policy that's dreblingted not only toward -- directed not only toward research in the future but trying to minimize rising gas prices which have affected every american pocketbook and lastly, we've done it with a lot less money. we're actually in some cases close to the 2008 level, somewhere between 2008 and 2009 and while some people may like to condemn us, we've done our best to cut spending and reflect the real economy out there, the fact that people are

paying too much in the way of taxes, we have too much debt and such a large deficit. we have done our part and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: thank you. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceed wrgs postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. rohr balk over california, an amendment by mr. stearns of florida, an amendment by mr. shimkus of illinois, an amendment by mr. tipton of colorado, an amendment by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri, an amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas, the clerk -- the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and owhich the noings prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise an be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 18 is -- 181, the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 348 and the nays are 60. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. shimkus of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 326 and the nays are 81. the amendment is adopted. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 355 and the nays are 51. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 168. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: fourth amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150. the nays are 260. the amendment is not adopted.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mad yame chairman. -- madam chairman. the chairman of the committee of

the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5325, and has come to no resolution thereon. >> mr. speaker.

will members please take their conversations off the floor so the gentleman from georgia can e heard. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to rule 22, clause 7-c, i hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on h.r. 4348. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may read the form of his motion. mr. broun: sir? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may read the motion. mr. broun: mr. broun of georgia moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreement of the votes on the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 4348 be instructed to insist on provisions that limit funding out of the highway trust fund, including the mass transit account, for federal aid, whie, and transit programs to amounts that do not exceed $37 million,

$500 million for fiscal year 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the notice will appear in the record. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 5855. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5855 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill oik making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: madam chair, it was 68 years ago today that more than 9,000 allied soldiers were killed or wounded on d-day in normandy, france. that courageous operation and the sacrifice of so many brave individuals serves as a someberg

reminder that freedom and security are not free. it is with this solemn commitment to both freedom and security that i respectfully present to the people's house the f.y. 2013 appropriation bills for the department of homeland security. similar to our committee's work over the past two fiscal years, this bill demonstrates how we can sufficiently fund vital security programs while also at the same time reduce discretionary spending overall. this bill does not represent a choice between fiscal responsibility and our nation's security. both national security priorities -- both our national security priorities and those vigorously addressed in this bill by focusing on four key priorities. number one, first fiscal discipline. this bill reduces spending below the f.y. 2012 enacted level. second, oversight, this bill

continues to strengthen the subcommittee's long bipartisan tradition of strict accountability. third, support for frontline operations. this bill sustains and actually increases operational programs including border and maritime security, immigration enforcement, investigations, targeted aviation security activities, disaster relief, and also cybersecurity. fourth, preparedness and innovation. despite the bill's overall reduction in spending, investments in preparedness grants and science and technology are substantially increased above the f.y. 2012 levels. in sum, i believe this to be a very strong bill that incorporates considerable input from nearly 200 members, including members of the authorizing committees and also

along with the appropriations committee which meets our nation's pressing needs for both security and for fiscal restraint. i'd like to go into a few details on fiscal discipline and spending that's included in this legislation. the bill before us today provides $39.1 billion in base discretionary funding which is nearly a half billion dollars below the f.y. 2012 enacted level and it is almost $400 million below the president's own request. there are no earmarks in this bill or the accompanying report. the bill cuts the department's bureaucratic overhead and headquarters functions by nearly 18% below the request and 17% below last year's levels. also the little substantially reduces the administrative overhead that the department of homeland security component agencies, including $61 million reduction to t.s.a. administrative functions, and a

reallocation of t.s.a.'s resources to increase privatized screening and k nine enforcement teams. in fact, t.s. is cut overall by some $422 million below last year's level. as i noted, this bill puts priority funding on frontline personnel such as border patrol, c.b.p. officers, coast guard military personnel, and law enforcement agents. it supports the largest immigration detention capacity in the history of i.c.e., and it sustains high risk aviation security. it fully funds the known requirements for disaster leaf, supports long overdue initiatives in cybersecurity, and robustly supports intelligence, watch listing, threat targeting systems, preparedness grants, and science and technology programs, including the national agrow biodefense f.a.a. silt. .

it responsibly funds much needed cutters and of aiation assets, those essential tools that will keep our coastlines safe and secure our maritime approaches against the plague of illegal drugs. this bill also provides funding where the administration utterly failed. it deals with the shortfall that was handed to us by the department by an unauthorized fee collection as well as $110 million shortfall resulting from o.m.b.'s failure to properly assess the fee collection. the administration may be able to rely on some of these fee gimmicks in the president's budget, but here in the house and in the subcommittee we do not have that luxury. with respect to oversight, our

subcommittee has a bipartisan tradition of insisting upon all the taxpayer dollars that it appropriates. therefore, the bill includes a robust oversight by a spend-plan reporting requirements and a full account of disaster relief costs and includes border patrol staffing levels and i.c.e. detention capacity. however, i must note that the department of homeland security did an unacceptably poor job at complying with the statutory requirements that were enacted in f.y. 2012. those failures are addressed in this bill, and the -- and we address this through sizeable cuts and withholding to the department. furthermore, this bill holds that the administration -- holds the administration's feet to the fire. in attempts to water down enforcement, this bill directs i.c.e. to maintain 34,000 detention beds and continues

funding for the 287-g and work site enforcement at the f.y. 2012 levels. it is the prerogative of congress to set such priorities, and i stand by at the direction in this bill. our subcommittee is serious about compelling the department to not only enforce the law but to comply with the law as well. and we cannot tolerate further failures in this regard. finally, on preparedness and innovation, the bill increases preparedness grants by nearly 17% and science and technology programs by nearly 24% above last year's levels. committee members and our authorizing members have provided considerable input on these programs, and i'm committed to leveraging technology and well-adjusted investments to sustain our nation's preparedness as well as for innovation and foster an environment for job growth.

in closing in my comments this afternoon i'd like to thank ranking member david price. he's been a statesman and a real partner during this process as we have moved this bill forward over the last several months. i do want to thank him for his dedicated professionalism and also his dedicated staff that have acted in a tremendously professional manner and their input and contributions that they have made to this bill. let me recognize and thank the members of the appropriations committee and also many of the members of the authorizing committee for their input and their vital oversight work over the past few months as well as we have moved forward in producing this bill. i'd like to thank the dedicated staff for the department of homeland security that i work with on a day-by-day basis as we move this bill forward. the clerk, ben nicholson, jeff

ashford, chris mallard, kathy, miles taylor, cornell teague and joe croshy, as well as in my personal office who worked on this bill, brian and mark. and, of course, on the minority side, stephanie, who did a tremendous job in a professional manner on the minority side. finally, i do want to thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking members of the overall appropriations committee, chairman hal rogers and ranking member norm dicks. as move as we had to make difficult choices and trade off at the subcommittee level, i know they had to make much more difficult choices as -- across all 12 subcommittees. i believe, mr. chairman, this bill reflects our best efforts to address our nation's most urgent needs for security and also to address fiscal discipline. i would urge my colleagues in the house to support this

measure, and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i rise in support of the bill and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i am glad we are debating the 2013 department of homeland security appropriations bill in an open bill. i appreciate mr. aleder holt for including input from our side all along the way. i am generally supportive of the funding levels provided in the bill. the fact remains, however, that our subcommittee was forced to accept a reduced allocation for the department of homeland security when republicans unilaterally cast aside the spending agreement we reached last august forcing the appropriations committee to

absorb $19 billion in reductions below the budget control act levels. largely because the majority broke that agreement, d.h.s. is funded at 1% below the requested level, continuing a downward funding trend for this agency over the past few years. the bill does retain the disaster cap adjustment included in the budget control act agreement. mr. chairman, fortunately, despite these circumstances, the bill before us provides adequate funding, i believe, for d.h.s. front line employees so they can continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, to protect our nation's airports and sea ports, to disrupt the latest plots against the united states and our citizens and to respond to the state of natural disasters our country has experienced. i'm also pleased that the bill significantly increases funding for critical grant programs. in contrast to the inadequate

levels. it reject the administration's poorly articulated grant structures, changes that have not been authorized. specifically, i highlight funding for fema state and local grants, $413 million above the fiscal year 2012 level, and both fire grants and emergency management performance grants are funded at the levels requested by the administration. equally important, the bill provides improved funding for research and development efforts. the bill contains sufficient resources for the science and technology directorate to fund all high priority programs. unfortunately, while the bill appears to fulfill the president's request for science and research technology, it has $75 million for the national bioand agro, in effect reducing

funds for research and development efforts. now, i support the eventually construction of this facility, but i must question the inclusion of $75 million in limited resources for a project that the president did not request, that remains under review by two national academy of science panels and that has unobligated prior year appropriations already that it could draw upon. the bill also increases funding for critical coast guard as well as air and marine acquisitions. to recapitalize aging equipment, to ensure these personnel could operate more effectively. it provides a substantial increase for cybersecurity protective efforts, to continuously monitor and detect intrusions to our federal networks from foreign espionage and cyberattacks. mr. chairman, the bill does

contain some ill-advised immigration provisions. unnecessary and wasteful statutory floors are set for a variety of programs. such as an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 detention beds. a required level of spending for the seriously flawed 287-g program, and an inflexible amount for work site enforcement. including these type of spending flors and mandates in -- floors and mandates in floor language does not answer the decisive immigration challenges and is likely to waste taxpayer dollars for no good reason. i also object to the three abortion general provisions that were added in full committee. we all know, mr. chairman, abortion is a politically charged subject. numerous restrictions in law have already conditioned and qualified reproductive freedom in practice. among those are prohibition on the federal funds for abortion

procedures which are specifically applied to immigration and customs enforcement and the department of homeland security by the president's executive order 13535 issued on march 24, 2010. until now, our bill has never touched on the topic of borges -- abortion because it's not relevant to the department of homeland security and it falls far outside the lines of jurisdiction of this subcommittee. so these provisions are redundant, they will accomplish nothing, they make no change whatsoever in current law or procedures. they seem designed mainly for political effect, but i tell you, political effect cuts both ways. these abortion riders, while unnecessary, are inflammatory. they're divisive. they should not be included in the final bill. finally, i also strongly disdepre with provisions that -- disagree with provisions that withhold the following -- 62% that the undersecretary

chief financial officer, 10% of all funding for salaries and expenses at customs and border protection personnel. about 37% for coast guard headquarters directorate until they submit numerous reports required by statute. even more egregiously, these withholdings are coupled with a provision that prevents the secretary, the deputy secretary, the commandant of our coast guard and the vice commandant from using their aircraft -- from using their aircraft until certain key reports are received by the committee. these constraints are excessive. they will prevent department employees, coast guard leadership from effectively doing their jobs. i support efforts to hold the department accountable, and in fact we included carefully calibrated and targeted withholdings in this bill when i was chairman. but excessive and unrealistic limitations frankly detract

from this subcommittee's credibility, and they're likely to be counterproductive. mr. chairman, i will close by thanking the hardworking professional staff which helped craft this bill and assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year. i also want to thank, as the chairman did, ben, kathy, jeff, chris, joe, miles and cornell on the majority side and, of course, stephanie on our side of the aisle. and i want to reiterate my appreciation to the chairman for his efforts to work with us on so many issues and to sustain our frontline federal homeland security operations. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield five minutes to the chairman of the full appropriations committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman aderholt, for yielding the time. mr. chairman, this is the 10th anniversary bill for this subcommittee. we began work in 2003, and the first three speakers that are on the platform today are the three chairmen of that subcommittee in its 10 years of history. i have the honor of being the first chairman and then was followed by david price as chairman and now robert aderholt. so we have, if there is any accumulated wisdom, we possess a portion of it. so we want to thank chairman aderholt and ranking member price for their hard work on

this subcommittee. this is truly a bipartisan, nonpartisan subcommittee because the nation's security cannot bow to any partisan spirits. but i think after these 10 years we can all agree that the country is indeed safer than it was then. we've thwarted the -- the country's thwarted several attempts at terrorist attacks in our skies. we eliminated the world's most heinous terrorist, osama bin laden, and more recently the number two al qaeda leader in afghanistan, pakistan, but we face constant reminders that the war on terror is anything near over. . our freedom is not free. and we can't skimp on our national security if we ant want to stay vigilant and safe.

discretionary funding in this bill totals just over $39 billion, which is a cut of $483 million below last year, and $393 million below what the president requested. the chairman aderholt and his subcommittee drafted this bill with four priorities in mind -- one, putting security first. second, encouraging strong fiscal discipline. three, mandating robust oversight efforts. and four, boosting the research and grant programs that support american jobs, innovation, and preparedness. to support and address vital frontline operations, the bill makes smart increases or holds constant programs that enhance intelligence, targeting, or that act as the first line of

defense, and response. this includes providing funding for the largest immigration detention capacity and border patrol agents in history. but at the end of the day the bill totals less than it did last year, and that's because of thoughtful, responsible reductions. our limited government resources must be put towards programs and services with proven benefits and tangible results. these cuts targeted programs with known inefficiencies, program delays, excessive overhead costs, or those that simply had lower budget requirements. the bill also rescinds excess or unspent prior year funds. now as the department enters its 10th anniversary, we are reminded that the department in its current form is still,

quote, under construction, end quote. but we have seen some real promise made. d.h.s. can still improve the way it spends taxpayer dollars and administers its grant programs. this legislation i think takes the right steps to direct spending accordingly, enacting reforms, requiring tougher oversight, and demanding justifications and spending plans from programs that do not have a history of wise spending decisions. again i want to thank chairman aderholt, ranking member price, all of the members of the subcommittee, and the hardworking staff for all the many hours that they have spent drafting this important bill. but this legislation is proof that we can do more with less. a reduction in spending coupled with reforms to encourage efficiency, and sustainability

that will help us get on a stronger fiscal path. i believe this is a good bill, mr. chairman. it's as good a bill as i have seen in my 10 years on this subcommittee. and i want to again congratulate those who had a hand in making it possible. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, to help prevent future terrorist attacks, to protect air passengers, and keep our border security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i would like to yield three minutes to an outstanding member of our subcommittee, the the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey. the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized for three minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman aderholt and ranking member price for their bipartisan work on this legislation. the fiscal year 2013 homeland

security appropriations bill would make smart investments in our national security infrastructure, including increasing funds for a cybersecurity, focusing homeland security dollars at communities most at threat of terror attacks, and providing our first responders with the resources to protect us. with limited resources, we must prioritize assistance to the regions most likely to be attacked. that is why i'm so pleased that this bill takes a step towards restoring the original intent of the urban area security initiative by focusing resources on the 25 most at-risk cities while still providing funding for other regions through other programs. 108 years after 9/11 the threat of radiological attacks and new york's status as the number one

terror target remains. that is why i'm so pleased that this bill would maintain 22 million to support securing this city. which seeks to prevent the smuggling of illicit nuclear material into manhattan. i'm also pleased that assistance to firefighter and safer grants will be adequately funded and local governments have faced difficult budget decision, firefighters have been laid off, leaving our neighborhoods with inadequate protection. this legislation would fund firefighter hiring grants and extend the safer waiver to allow communities to retain or rehire laid off firefighters. i'm extremely disappointed, however, that republicans needlessly injected divisive social issues into the bill. i served on this subcommittee, or the authorizing committee, for nearly a decade, in that

time i met with the first responders, i.c.e. agents, border patrol, and many other security personnel. not once have they said that women's reproductive health makes our country less secure. not one. and laying down this bill with ideological riders is a disservice to all first responders. in closing, again, i would like to thank the committee for its investments in homeland security and first responders and hope that this legislation will not be used as a vehicle for ideological policy riders on the floor. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: yes, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to recognize the chairman of the homeland security authorizing

committee, mr. peter king, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: mr. chairman, i thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for yielding. let me at the very outset thank you for his leadership and cooperation in working through such a difficult bill at a biff time in our history. we are faced with a severe terrorist threat and restraints. reluctantly voted against the homeland security appropriations bill, but i want to commend chairman rogers and chairman aderholt for working to resolve the good faith differences we had and also, for instance, in areas such as state and local grants, increase them by $350 million, to increase by 50% the amount allocated to the highest risk areas in our country. programs such as the urban area security initiative, state homeland security program, port security, transportation security all was addressed in this bill. nothing as much as we want, but

considering the realities we face as a nation, chairman rogers and chairman aderholt have done an outstanding job. come interesting a district which lost so many people on september 11 and still faces threats and where we every day quite frankly analyzing terror threat reports, this funding is extremely important, especially to the nypd which does such an outstanding job in spite of the gratuitous, mindless, shameless attacks made upon it by those in the media and others in elected office as well. this funding is extremely vital. also especially the secure the cities program which will protect not just new york but provide a template to protect urban areas against dirty bomb attacks throughout the country. let me focus on the issue of the twic program. and the ranking member of the homeland security committee shear. this is an issue of bipartisan concern to our committee. the fact that we still have not been ablele to perfect a tort system and there's been burden

some polls on our workers as far as time constraints imposed on them, funding they have to spend, and this is a real burden that's been on them. today in the homeland security committee, we passed by voice vote the bill which attempts to alleviate this burden on the port worker. what it does is extends the validity currently set to expire later this year until a department of homeland security finally rereleases the twic rule. truck riders who need to obtain a twic should no vm to have the burden of the government getting the job done. i believe this provides sufficient motivation to coast guard and c.s.a. i can assure you on behalf of myself, and the ranking member of the committee as well, we will work together, our committee will work and appropriation the committee and with the department as we try to resolve this issue.

again, i thank chairman aderholt for his leadership, the job that he has done. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i would like to yield three minutes to a leading member of our full appropriations committee, ms. kaptur. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to thank ranking member price for yielding this time. as well as chairman aderholt and full committee chairman rogers for their work on this legislation and accepting and including the buy american language that we worked so very hard and requested. the department of homeland security needs to raise its consciousness about the importance of buying american and its relationship to jobs in america. our language further clarifies what has long been the intent of congress that the department of homeland security must comply with the barry amendment and buy

u.s.-made products. this is an essential provision for the american economy and our manufacturers. congress has already voted to explicitly direct the department of homeland security to comply with the barry amendment, and the department of homeland security is either muscle bound or been dragging its feet, but somehow they are not hearing us for some odd reason. also, the department of homeland security's authorizing committee

unanimously adopted an amendment that would ensure permanent compliance. the department of homeland security, one of the largest departments in our government, should be the leader in homeland security, starting with strengthening american procurement. can you imagine what they procured in a year? i know they buy a lot of u.s. made flags, or at least they should, but vessels, our coast guard's full array of equipment, security systems, weapons, uniforms, the list goes on and on. so why wouldn't they make an effort to do what congress directed? i would like to also acknowledge the fine work of the gentleman from north carolina, congressman larry kissell, for his consistent leadership on this issue of buying american and i would also like to acknowledge

representative kathy hochul, who in her first term has been a steadfast leader for buying american as essential for u.s. job creation. i want to thank the full committee for their commitment to this issue and we would like to invite the department of homeland security to the american table. let's follow suit with the department of key fence -- defense and other major departments of our government, let's buy american and help to contribute procurement of goods and services made right here in the u.s.a. it's the best investment that we an make in the future. mr. chairman, i would like to yield my remaining time to the ranking member and i thank you so very much, along with mr. aderholt for including this language in the bill. let us hope the department of homeland security is listening and pays attention to the law. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i would like to recognize the hardworking chairman of the energy and water subcommittee who has also been on the floor this week with his legislation, mr. frelinghuysen, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman,

i'd like to thank the chairman for yielding and i rise in support of the homeland security appropriations bill. our nation lives with the memory of september 11, 2001, each and every day. we can never take back the events of that day, nor the thousands of lives, including 700 from new jersey, that were lost. like mr. king, i'd like to highlight that this legislation includes critical funding for investments in first responder grants. the bill includes $1.7 billion for department state and local grant programs which include homeland security grant program, what we call uwasi, urban area security initiative, both of which have been greatly benefiting new jersey and the new york metropolitan area for the last 10 years. the bill also includes $650 million in firefighter grants, $350 million for emergency management performance grants. . it includes language to improve accountability and transparency to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well spent. lastly, i think all of us would recognize how much we depend on hard work and dedication, tireless work of so many homeland security

professionals, emergency squad, fire and police that do the job and some of whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i'm privileged to yield two minutes to the outstanding ranking member of the authorizing committee, mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from north carolina for allowing me the time. i have a number of thoughts on the underlying bill before us today that i'd like to talk about the twicc program.

the authorizing committee on a to tisan basis improved help the twicc holders from being forced by t.s.a. to pay for new identification cards beginning in october of this year given the program is not fully implemented and the department has not even issued a rule for biometric readers. the twicc program is focused on protecting the maritime transportation facilities and vessels by requiring maritime workers and other workers who need unescorted access to secure port facilities to obtain a biometric identityification card. after initial delays, -- identification card. after initial delays, all maritime workers were supposed to have cards by april of 2009. the cost to workers for these cards is $132.50 per credential. to date, over 2.1 million longshoremen, truckers,

merchant mariners, rail and vessel crewmembers have undergone extensive homeland security and security background checks to secure these cards. even they obtained twics to continue working in our ports, t.s.a. is more than two years late in starting the reading pie lots. our committee has been told even under the best circumstances regulations are not going to be issued until more than five years beyond the date required in statute. yet congress or the administration, starting october, 2012, workers will have to renew the cards they were issued. i ask for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.

mr. thompson: the point i'd like to make, mr. speaker, is 2.1 workers have t. twic cards. through no fault of their own, they are required to renew these cards unless we act. i appreciate this legislation acknowledging they have to do something for those workers or through no fault of their own they have to renew a card which is at this point at best a flash card is not really worker identification card. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i at this time like to recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, who is the chairman of the transportation and housing and urban development for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: i like to thank the chairman. chairman aderholt, thank you for the time.

i rise in strong support of h.r. 5855, the department of homeland security appropriations act for fiscal year 2013, and i commend the chairman and the ranking member, the staff for doing a really excellent job of crafting a bill that both strengthens our security and reduces government spending. i am pleased the committee adopted an important amendment which i co-sponsored which would waive federal grant requirements to allow the retention of firefighters hired in our local communities. this is a critically important provision for maintaining the response capabilities throughout the nation. i also want to highlight the fact that despite spending reductions elsewhere in the bill, we will fully fund fema's stated requirements for disaster relief, including flood-related grants. congress has long recognized the federal role and disaster relief and prevention efforts since the first disaster relief bill was passed in 1803. the funding contained in the bill today is important because

it continues the move away from ad hoc disaster legislation and toward including relief in mitigation funding in our regular appropriations. this assistance is vitally important for the safety net for communities at risk for natural disasters throughout the summer of -- throughout the summer of 2011, i saw damage along the missouri river in western and southwestern iowa and spoke with iowans whose lives were disrupted by that disaster. the flood took a breathtaking toll of nearby communities. hazard mitigation and other disaster assistance funding is absolutely necessary to help them rebound from this tragic flooding. with that, mr. chairman, i would urge all members of the house to support final passage of this h.r. 558 -- 5855 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: yeah, at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, who is the chairman of the subcommittee on the coast guard authorizing subcommittee and i'd like to recognize him for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in very strong support of h.r. 5855. earlier this year the president requested to cut funding for the coast guard more than 4% below the current level. this was the first time in over a decade that a president has proposed to reduce funding for the coast guard. in his budget, the perfect proposed to slash the number of service members by more than 1,000, which would take recently upgraded helicopters

out of service and exacerbate the control boat mission -- retiring vessels before their replacement arrives. the president proposed to slash the budget by more than $270 million or 19% before the f.y. 2012 enacted level. the request propose to terminate or delay the several critically replacement assets and to generate housing for the service members and their families. the cuts were simply unacceptable and myself and i think a large number of members were grateful concerned. as chairman -- were gravely concerned. as chairman, i know how critical it is for not to repeat the mistakes of the 1990's when cuts of the acquisitions budget left it entirely unprepared to meet the 9/11 -- post-9/11 mission demand. fortunately, the bill before us today rejects the draconian --

30 seconds, please. mr. aderholt: yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lobiondo: fortunately, the bill before us rejects the draconian cuts and ensures that the coast guard carries out its critical missions. i want to especially thank chairman aderholt and ranking member price and their staff for recognizing the critical mission needs of the coast guard and accommodating those needs for the protection of america. i urge all members to support the legislation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: at this time i recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee on homeland security, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 5855, the 2013 homeland

security appropriation measure. as a member of the homeland security appropriation subcommittee, i believe that under the leadership of chairman aderholt we have exercised the much-needed oversight that the department -- of the department through the course of this year's hearings. this bill, along with the accompanying report, continues to ensure that congress is kept informed of how the valuable taxpayer dollars will be spent by requiring numerous reports and briefings of d.h.s. this bill funds front line security operations at their highest level in history. ensuring that our border patrol agents and i.c.e. officers have the resources they need to secure our bored -- our borders. i'm glad that there will be cooperation between federal agents and nongovernmental organizations to help combat the heinous crime of human

trafficking, also known as modern day slavery. again, i urge my colleagues to support this critical measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, a hardworking member of our subcommittee on homeland security, mr. dent, for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the department of homeland security act of 2013, and i want to thank chairman aderholt and ranking member price for their leadership on this subcommittee. h.r. 585 is a fiscally responsible measure and totals

$39 billion in discretionary funding for d.h.s., a decrease of about $484 million below current levels. it ensures adequate funding is needed while weeding out unnecessary spending. i want to take a moment to highlight a few of the critical aspects of this bill. first, our first responders. we provide $.8 billion for fema first responder grants. additionally, the assistance to fire grants and emergency management performance grants will receive $670 million, equal the president's request. furthermore, i'm pleased to note an amendment offered by mr. price, mrs. lowey, mr. latham and i during the full committee markup to foster flexibility for local departments in utilizing fire grants, the funds that were adopted in this measure. as for border protection, the bill contains $10.2 billion for u.s. customs and border protection, supporting the largest totals and officers in history. similarly, the u.s. customs immigration enforcement received $5.4 billion. supporting the visa security program as well as 34,000 i.c.e. detention bed spaces, our highest capacity to date. these are just a few of the provisions in the bill i want to touch on this afternoon. h.r. 5855 has been crafted as a

smart and fiscally responsible funding bill for the department of homeland security. i encourage my colleagues to support passage. also just want to commend the leadership of chairman rogers and ranking member dicks for their leadership on this measure as well. at this time i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to recognize my colleague from alabama, mr. rogers, who was the meb on the authorizing homeland security committee and for the transportation security administration subcommittee. i'd like that he be recognized for a minute and a half. the chair: mr. rogers of alabama is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rogers: i rise in strong support of this bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. i want to commend the chairman for his leadership on this

bill. he helps protest us from terrorist attacks, funds vital programs and grants. it does so in a fiscally responsible manner by spending almost $500 million less than last year. the bill protects our borders and prioritizes immigration enforcement. it provides critical grant funding for our first responders, our heroes on the front line of the -- it takes on transportation security administration's bureaucratic mess. it cuts $61 million from t.s.a. managerial overhead. it caps screening personnel at $47 million. importantly, it does not increase any fees that would fall on the traveling public, which would threaten jobs in the of aiation industry. i know firsthand of chairman aderholt's dedication and leadership on these issues. i also know of his commitment to reducing wasteful spending and restoring fiscal sanity in washington. again, i commend my friend and colleague from alabama, his

fine staff on their hard work and dedication. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, does the majority have any more speakers? does the majority have more speakers? mr. aderholt: we are finished with our speakers at this time. mr. price: all right. then mr. chairman, i will conclude by, again, commending the chairman and our whole subcommittee. we have a good subcommittee, a good active group of members, and virtually all had positive input into this legislation. i appreciate the spirit in which the chairman has made an honest effort to accommodate constructive input from all sources. there is much to commend about this bill, starting with the support of front line operations but also some improvements from the funding situation we're looking at this

year with respect to state and local fema grants, for example, and with respect to science and technology operations. there are funding shortfalls in this bill with respect to the headquarters needs of st. elizabeth's, which affect a certain administrate -- with respect to certain administrative needs of the department and others we could name. but under the -- but under the constraints of the budget allocations, there is a good balance in this bill, i think, and one that we -- that has required a great deal of accommodation and a great deal of hard work. i've already said i think there are some extraneous elements in this bill that are not so constructive. the immigration provision the abortion provision, and some excessive withholding provisions. i sincerely hope that in the debate to come that we will not compound that problem. we know we are going to be

dealing with dozens of amendments. we're going to be dealing with additional rider proposals, ill-advised for the most part. we're going to be dealing with perhaps some to temperaturing spending provisions that will cannibalize those front office expenses or the science and technology expenses or other accounts in this bill. for the sake of amendments that may sound good but really will upset, could upset some of the delicate balances that this bill has struck. so we are going to have -- i hope and believe, probably a lengthy and also constructive process of discussion and amendment under the open rule and i very much hope that the end result of that process will be a bill that can claim broad support. so we're going to have a few hours of -- until that process begins but with the chairman, i

look forward to getting on with this and at the end of the week having a homeland security appropriations bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned earlier in my hoping comments, i do belief this is a good bill, it reflects our best efforts to try to address our nation's most urgent needs. first of all security and second of all, fiscal discipline. both of those are important in this age in which we live. i would urge my colleagues to support this measure as it moves to the floor. at this time, i yield back the remainder of the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i move that the committee now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 5855, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5855 and has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. flake of arizona mr. flake of arizona moves that the managers on the part of the house on the --s in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses of congress be instructed to receive from this agreement with the matter to be

inserted as section 104-1-b by section 1105 of the senate amendment that reads as follows. for each state, the amount of combined apportionment for the programs shall not be less than 95% of the estimated tax payments attributable to highway users and the state paid into the highway trust fund other than the mass transit account and the most recent fiscal year for which data are available. the chair: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair this motion is simple, it ensures that the minimum rate of return for any state under any new highway re-authorization is 95%. as i'm sure everyone is aware, every gallon of gas sold in your state provides money to the highway trust fund via the

federal gas tax. trust fund money is dispersed -- disbursed back to the state using complex mathematical formulas that are determined with each surface transportation re-authorization. a reoccurring issue is a debate surrounding federal transportation policy, it's been the historic disparity by which a number of states have received less back in funding than they've invested in the highway trust fund through the gas tax. for years, these donor states have fought for more equity and a higher minimum rate of return to make sure they recoup as large a slice of their gas tax dollars as possible. this would increase the minimum rate of return to 95% as passed in the senate map 21 bill. with the influx of multi-- with the influx of general fund moneys to back fill the highway trust fund over the past couple of years, this donor-done state

issue has been a bit blur bud the issue going forward can't be going forward. this is simply an issue of fairness. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion and tell the countries to not agree to anything that gives states less than 95 cents on the dollar for what they pay in. for years and years, there has been a disparity, states like arizona, california, florida, texas are donor states. under safetea-lu, the minimum rate of returns is 92 cents. these are growing states. why are we giving a dollar and getting 92 cents back this disparity has existed for a long time for a number of reasons. one of the primary reasons has been the existence of earmarks along the way. whereby members of coe donor state delegations were convinced to go ahead and accept a lower rate of return for their state in exchange for moneys to spend however they

wanted with regard to earmarks. and that has not been a good trade for most doe mor states. -- donor states. when you add up the numb of representatives who represent the donor states, it's over 00. if we all band tailgate as donor states and say we're not going to sign off on anything that gives us less than 95 cents on the dollar. we recognize there are reasons why certain states with very small populations and very big infrastructure needs might receive more than $1 -- more than the $1 they put in. but there is no excuse to, in perpetuity, treat states like arizona and others, to a smaller rate of return year after year after year. it's simply not right. this is simply telling the conferees, agree at least to what the senate is doing.

i should note we're going to conference in the house with the extension of safetea-lu which is 92 cent ops the dollar. we're saying just take it up to 95. that's what this motion is apt. i urge my colleagues to agree to it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. flake. this motion directs the transportation and -- and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: this motion directs the transportation re-authorization conferees to agree to a provision contained in the senate bill increasing the guaranteed minimum return that each state receives in federal highway aid funding from 92% to 95% in pames in the highway trust fund collected in that state. this is the same old donor done

yes argument we've had for years but it's becoming more ridiculous as all states are now donee states. for several years, general fund revenue has been filling the gap between what the highway trust fund can support and current funding levels. now every state gets back more from the program than the amount of taxes collected in that state. in effect, every state is a donee state. under safetea-lu, under the current formula, which guarantees 92%. mr. flake mentioned texas. texas gets back $1.035 for every dollar it puts in. there's no state that gets back less than $1 for $1. increasing the guarantee from 92% to 95% frankly, i don't understand the point of it. unless my -- unless the senate bill continues to fund the program through nongas tax

related revenue. unless my colleagues are proposing to raise the gas tax, and i don't think they are, this motion is meaningless. but the idea behind the motion is wrong in any event. it is highly irresponsible to pick out and insist upon one factor that affects the overall distribution to the states without a complete idea of how they'll be funded and apportioned. the senate raised the hin mum to 95% but within an overall frame worg that each state get the overall percentage of funds it got in the last year of safety lew. -- safety lue. -- safety lew -- safety lu. i would caution against anyone voting for something that affects how much transportation funding will go to your state without knowing what the ultimate impact will be. we know that house plups would like a different formula than what is in the senate bill, since they took a different approach in h.r. 7. depending on how the final bill

is structured and what the ult mt. funding levels are for the program, raising the minimum to 95% could result in steep cuts to certain states. in t-21 and safety lu, the last two transportation bills we had, we opposed raise toing the minimum percentage but ultimately we could live with it because the overall funding levels were increased and states were held harmless and even though some states got a lower percentage of the funding they would have gotten without introducing the minimum guarantee they got more money because the pie was bigger. each state got an increase in funding, just not as big an increase as some others. increased funding is highly unlikely in this environment so this type of motion, though probably meaningless in the long run, because every state gets more than 100% right now, is potentially dangerous.

i'm sure that mr. flake and others will say that it is the principle of the matter, that those who contribute to the program deserve to benefit from it at the same level. but if that is the principle, why then do they just look at the gas tax? if you believe in user pays, why shouldn't that apply to all revenue in the program? why apply it just to the highway program? for example mitigating circumstance state of new york contributes much more to the federal government every year than it receives back in federal expenditures. we have a huge balance of payments, deficit with the federal government. yet the one area where we get more back is the gasoline tax so that should be abolished. this is not about equity. this is about gaming the system by applying this principle to one aspect of one program to benefit certain states at the expense of others. if you follow the logic through, what these donor arguments are really saying is that each state should get $1 back for every $1 it puts back in the federal system. if so, why do we have a federal

government at all? i'm sure some of my colleagues would be happy to have no federal role in transportation and leave it completely to the state but that's not yet the policy of the united states congress and i would question my colleagues about going too far down that road. the fair thing to do is to spend federal funds where they are needed. by the way, one of the things the current formula has done is to say if a state invests a lot of its own money in efficiency, new york, for example, has spent billions of dollars of its own money building up a mass transit system. because of that, we're very energy efficient. we use far less gasoline per capita than other states because we have a mass transit system. that helps the country, it reduces the amount of petroleum we have to import. for that, a state that does that should be punished by getting a smaller percentage of highway funds because it invested in mass transit? that doesn't make sense. we should be encouraging states to invest in energy efficiency. the fair thing to do is to spend federal funds where they're needed. we have a national transportation system that

benefits everybody. these kinds of debates are illogical and divisive, especially when it has no practical impact at all because every state is a donee state. our time would be better spent to draft a bill that benefits all states. if the purpose of this bill is to create jobs and spur economic growth, we should ensure that all states benefit. by the way, we have, this year, we have a house bill that didn't go anywhere because in the conference committee, the senate bill -- the senate passed a real transportation bill. the house only passed a 90-day extension. a 90-day extension because the republicans couldn't agree among themselves a bill, but the bill they had and they are trying to use as the basis of the conference committee, which they cannot do legally, airdrops in the conference

committee a lot of poison pills that makes sure that no comprehensive bill is adopted. it airdrops in the conference committee a provision that says that hazmat provisions should not apply to certain transportation workers. it airdrops in the bill a completely unrelated provision about the x.l.line that has nothing to do with the -- x.l. pipeline that has nothing to do with the bill. we shouldn't get involved in side debates over provisions that would be unfair if they could be implemented, like this one, but in any event could not be implemented because to say that every state should get at least as it much puts in when in fact every state is getting back more than it puts in has no practical impact and i don't understand why we're wasting our time, frankly, debating a provision and motion to instruct conferees on something that may -- will have no practical impact, will affect no dollars, will direct no

dollars away from any state at all. we should be debating how to finance the overall bill. we should be debating how to get more funding for highways, for mass transit, how to get our construction workers back to work in this construction season to reduce the unemployment rate in this country, that's what we should be -- not debating, should be acting on, instead of wasting our time debating entirely theoretical questions that are philosophically wrong. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the chair. amusing discussion. what is a side issue or a theoretical issue with no practical application? sounds just like someone who comes from a state that receives more than a dollar for the dollar they kick in and that's exactly the case here. it may seem like a side issue or a theoretical issue to

somebody else, but it's a very real issue if you come from a donor state. i suppose it would -- by the same argument, that, you know, when i got here i think the rate of return was 89 cents. we managed to get it up to 92. that heapt been theoretical. that's -- that hasn't been theoretical. that's very real dollars that goes back to a state that is putting in more than they're getting back. you realize that the argument to keep the disparity going is coming from someone who comes from a donee state, a state receiving more than they're putting in. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, because we are backfilling that line is blurred. everybody is getting back more than they kicked in because the general fund is kicking it in. that won't always be the case. we can't afford for that to always be the case. so when we go back to the

highway trust fund used as it was intended to be used, then it's not theoretical at all for a donor state to require -- and the gentleman keeps mentioning, get a dollar for dollar. we are not saying a dollar for dollar. we are saying 95 cents on the dollar, and the gentleman says, you know, what's the purpose of the federal government? many of us have introduced legislation to say what should be sent to washington should be what is required to maintain the interstate highway system. the purpose for which the gas tax was put in place to begin with. but 18 cents a gallon doesn't need to be sent back because so much of it is sent simply by formula back to the states. and when it does come back to the states it is incurvered by things like davis-bacon requirements, mandates and stipulations that drive up the cost of construction projects in every state. and so what was a dollar you sent to washington spends like about 70 cents once it comes back and you don't even get that dollar you send to washington.

so the gentleman's point about let's refigure how we do this is well taken, and i've introduced legislation as have several of my colleagues to do just that. turnback proposals to ensure that, yes, we still send money to washington to take care of and to refurbish and to replace and to restructure that which is truly interstate, the interstate highway system is a wonderful thing, but to just send it to washington to be rewarded with only part of it being sent back and that part of it that is sent back incurvered by so many stipulations and -- incumbereb by so many stipulations isn't just right. in the meantime, in the meantime, let's at least send a signal to the conferees. we all know that these motions to instruct are not binding.

all they are is a signal from the house to act in a certain way when you get into conference, and what we're saying here -- and i think the message should be from the more than 300 members of this body who represent donor states is, let's be treated a little bit more fairly here. that's all we're asking. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. national defense authorization act thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume at the moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler there is no donee state. arizona over the last four years, five years, got $1.07 for every dollar they put in. there is no such thing as a donee state. if is because we're supplementing the gasoline tax with federal -- with general funds to maintain the highway program, to maintain the mass transit program. he says it better not continue.

we only have several choices. number one, we can raise the gasoline tax. i might support that. i think most members of this house probably wouldn't. i'm sure mr. flake wouldn't support raising the gasoline tax. two, we can fund our transportation system at a totally inadequate level and watch the system deteriorate and watch our country become less competitive with other countries which is what we're doing right now. three, and the fact is that we funded the last bill at $286 billion, safetea-lu, when the secretary of transportation under president bush said we needed at least $375 billion just -- for that time period, just to make -- just to keep the system at a system of reasonable repair and reasonable efficiency. never mind major new construction. but we did that because

president bush said no raising the highway taxes and no funding from the general fund. no use of other revenues. if we keep doing that, if we try to maintain the system only -- on the gasoline tax and don't raise the gasoline tax, then that's a declining revenue base. it's declining for two reasons. one because of inflation and it costs more. number two, we're becoming more energy efficient. we want to use less gasoline. and since the gasoline tax is a per gallon tax, not a percentage, if you use less gasoline you will have less revenue. you have less revenue every year and inflation won't be negative. it will be something. how do you maintain your system? you don't. we either have to raise the gasoline tax or bring in some other source of revenue or watch the entire transportation system of our country deteriorate and eventually collapse. so we cannot stop supplementing the gasoline fax for the transportation -- for --

gasoline tax for the transportation. bring in other revenues on an ad hoc basis. we can't do that without raising the gasoline tax or see the slow decline and eventually collapse of our transportation system. so we're not going to do that. i hope we're fought going to do that. if we don't do that -- i hope we're not going to do that. this motion to instruct is completely meaningless because there is no such thing as a donee state. every state will get more than it puts in. let's talk about what it needs to put in. how much gasoline taxes are collected in one state and how much is spent on transportation in that state. and there is no principle of equity that says it should match. there is no principle of equity that says you should get as much or percentage of the amount of gasoline taxes

collected in your state. maybe some states because they are bigger perhaps need more money spent on highways because there are more distances. it may be that some states have invested a lot of money in mass transit and therefore are more energy efficient and therefore generate less gasoline tax revenue but that helps the country. they shouldn't be penalized for that. there are a lot of different factors that go into this than simply state that the state should not get back more is wrong. why should this one account be the only one? i -- as i said, new york state an -- annually sends the federal government between $14 approximately and $15 billion -- $14 billion and $15 billion more than any other state. is that a terrible thing? well, some people think it is. it's unfair. new york ought to pay less

taxes. we have a federal union. taxes should be raised when they can be raised more equitablely and efficiently. that's why we're one country and europe isn't. so it's wrong theoretically. the motion to instruct is wrong theoretically. it does not contribute to equity but it does and it is totally relevant for the foreseeable future because there is no state that will be affected by this in any way as long as the gasoline tax is not supporting the entire transportation system which it is not now or in the foreseeable future. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i think we are talking in circles here. those who are receiving more than dollar for dollar, once the general fund revenue is not

supplementing what is taken in by the gas tax, those receiving more than a dollar are going to argue to keep the current disparity in place. those of us who represent donor states are going to want a better return. that's the bottom line. that's what this argument is about. and so the more than 300 members who represent donor states who will be coming to this floor soon to vote on this motion, that's all they need to remember. let's send a signal to the conferees to give us a better shake and to treat us more fairly. the gentleman mentions that our decage infrastructure and whatever else around -- decaying infrastructure and whatever else around the country, it is abysmal to know what is happening. you have to understand from the perspective of a representative of taxpayers from arizona who are receiving 92 cents on the dollar they are kicking in, why in the world will they tell me, go raise the federal gas tax?

we'd like to get less of that. instead, if arizona was to impose an additional -- raise their own gas tax, they get to keep dollar for dollar everything, plus it's not with davis-bacon requirements and all the setasides which raise the costs of construction projects. if the gentleman wants to no why there is resistance, there it is. they say, why should we continue to do that? we're funding somebody else or we're funding these inequities. this is what this boils down to. if you are from a donor state then you are going to be saying, hey, let's instruct the conferees to give us a better deal than we've had. 92 is better than the 89 we were getting a while ago. but let's at least take it to 95. that's pretty reasonable here. that's all we're asking with this. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman re--

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler mr. speaker, the argument sounds reasonable and i have no doubt it is going to pass because there are a lot more people from so-called donor states than donee states and people will vote purely on that basis. many people are. but it is not equitable. if it were equitable why don't we say that the taxes that some states pay for the agriculture programs should be reduced because after all not all states get the same amount of money in the weed subsidy? some states get a lot more back for agriculture assistance than the applicable part of their taxes. i remember an argument on the floor a number of years ago in which we were debating i think funding for the national endowment for the arts and mr. burton of indiana was already

against the n.e.a. and he said it's wrong for this reason and that reason and the other reason. he said, all the money goes to new york and los angeles. and i got up and i said, you know, mr. burton, i'm shocked to discover that new york city with 8.5 million people don't get a penny of the wheat subsidy. the fact is we don't grow wheat in new york and the fact is money should be distributed -- and i am not opposed to the wheat subsidy. it may be i am not an expert on the farm program but it may mean that farm states need it and it may be that some states need other things. we should tax it where we can tax it efficiently and equitablely. and the two may not have the same relationship with each other. if you start this principle that you have to get at least back as much as you put in on this thing, in this case transportation, why not on everything else? and then you'd say, well, it's very unfair that a given state sends more to washington than it gets back at all. well, some states do. new york does. other states do. other states get back more than they send to washington but that's the point of a federal union. so to simply say under any

given area that we send our state send more to washington or more taxes collected than we get back does not demonstrate inequity or equity. there may be good reasons for that and you may want to make an argument that overall they have a deficit with the federal government but there may be good reasons for that too. when many of these formulas were set up, the educational formula, for instance, a lot of states send more money to washington that gets paid back in education than they get back. other states it's the other way around. because when because it was decided that richer states should subs die poorer states. the fact is, that's the way a federal union operates and if you want to say a federal union shouldn't operate that way, we should start saying that it's unfair, then you're questioning the entire basis of our constitution. frankly there's no equity in

that, especially when you limit it to one subject, one area. again what we're going to be debating is not this very interesting theoretical thing that has no application in the real world because no state is a donor state but this highway bill has been in conference for six weeks. last friday, the u.s. department of labor reported -- reported that more than 2.2 million construction and manufacturing workers remain out of work and we're in the height of the summer construction season. the highway bill has been in conference for six weeks and the conferees, of whom i'm one, are wasting precious times as house republicans are working to drop poison pill provisions into the report. without further action, highway investments will entirely shut down at thed on they have month. why are we wasting time here on this theoretical motion to instruct which has no practical

consequences whatsoever when conferees are being faced by republican poison pills eliminating ockization, safety and health protection for hazmat workers, eliminating funding for transportation, expanding truck weights to destroy highways faster. that's what's holding up the highway and transportation bill that will get two million people back to work. that's what we ought to be saying, let's move this bill instead of wasting our time on entirely theoretical questions like this one. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: again, we have an argument from somebody that is getting more than they kick in. that's the bottom line to relate this highway user fee, and it's not a pure quser fee, because we'ric kicking -- we're kicking money back in from the general fund, but it was meant to be a user fee, to relate that to funding for the arts or whatever, it's completely apples and oranges argument.

and the notion that because one state receives more than -- more in agriculture subsidies than another, some of us don't like those subsidies at all. we can have that argument another day. but we're talking about the highway trust fund here. a trust faund that is theoretically supposed to give the states roughly what they put in. nobody is arguing, i vice president made the argument at all that every state gets 100% of what they put in. the gentleman may have made that argument but i haven't. what i'm saying is, right now, the minimum guarantee is 92 cents on the dollar. can't we just get it to 95 cents? is that unreasonable? if the gentleman says that the whole concept of this federal union is that states share, i understand that. but does that mean that one state, you know, should only get 10% of what it kicks in? of course not. there's a figure at which, you

know, a point at which some states like my own say, you know, we've been getting 89 cents or 92 cents for decades here. at some point, let's do another better. and arizona is not the only state that feels that way. so again, i would ask those of you who are coming to vote on this later on, check with your offices, if you aren't aware, and say are we a donor state or not? is there a minimum guarantee 92 cents? isn't it reasonable that that should be brought up to 95 cents? is it reasonable for a state, in perpetuity, to be short like that? i don't think it is. i don't think there's any constitutional justification or theoretical justification or anything. it's just an issue of fairness here. that's all we're asking. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. i'm prepared to yield back as soon as the gentleman is. the chair: the gentleman reserves --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i think we've beaten this dead horse as much as we can. is 95% reasonable? it's unreasonable in my opinion. 92% is unreasonable, 89% is unreasonable. there ought to be no such figure because money should be allocate wrd needed and should be raised where it can best be raised on questions of equity, efficiency, etc. i'll give you one other example. certain states have coastlines. the gulf coast has a lot of hurricanes. we spend a lot of money there. should we say, well, gee, we don't have as many hurricanes, we shouldn't spend that percentage of our tax money on hurricane relief in the gulf. we don't say that because we're one country. we don't say that we shouldn't spend money on relief to states that have other natural disasters because we don't have those kinds of natural disasters.

as a general principle, money should be raised. you say it's a user fee. all taxes is a user fee. the price for civilization. maybe you shouldn't have gasoline taxes, you should finance it another way, that's a whole different discussion. and yes, as i said before, i'm quite well aware that people are going to come here, they're going to society, they're going to look at, are they a theoretical donor state or donee state even though nobody is a donee state right now. it won't have any practical effect but someday it might. there's no reason to pick the highways as against everything else. some states contribute a lot more in federal taxes than they get back in federal money. others don't. my state does. we don't say it's unfair. we don't say we've got to change the formula.

maybe specific formulas should be changed for various reasons. there are all kinds of reasons for the formulas, there's a different formula for agriculture, for education, they have all kinds of different justifications and different histories. to pick out this one areas dir area, and say this one area but no other has to be 95%, why not 75%? or 92%? it's been going up every time we pass a bill. we think it's beyond fair. to pick out one particular area and say it's got to be an equivalence or relationship between how much money comes in and how much goes out, or from where it comes in and goes out, whereas we don't do that in the rest of the federal budget, that's not equitable. and i wish we were spending our time now not on this theoretical discussion, theoretical because there's no practical implication, as i said before, because it will not in fact effect any state or any dollars.

instead of dealing with the fact that the republicans are holding up a bill by parachuting poison pill into the conference discussion, that's what we ought to be talking about. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. this has been an interesting discussion. it went about how i thought it would. those of us who are toe nor -- donor states want a fair shake. that's all we're asking. those coming to the floor, check and see where your state falls. you'll find that most of you coming to the floor to vote are from a donor state. state that is giving more than it's giving. all we're asking for is a fair shake here. we're not looking to solve all the world's problems, there are a lot of things that should be changed as well. right now we're dealing with this one. let's ensure that those who fill up their car and send 18 cents every time they put a gallon in, that they get a little more of that back.

that's what this is about. i urge adoption of the motion an yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman yields back. all time -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceed option the question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to instruct the conferees on the transportation conference bill.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348 offered by mr. doggett of texas. mr. doggett of texas 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. 4348 be structed to receive from disagreement with provisions contained in section 1012001 related to stop tax haven abuse, authorizing special measures against foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions and others that significantly impede united states tax enforcement. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 2, the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, and the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: thank you, mr. speaker. this transportation conference bill is appropriately focused on the transportation systems and improving them and

sustaining them across our country. but there is one important provision of this measure as approved by the united states senate that deals with transportation networks of a different type. those are the secret networks that lead to the exporting of jobs and of revenues that ought to be used in the financing of the operations, the essential services and national defense of our country. this motion is very narrow. very directed. since that particular provision concerning stop tax haven abuse was not included in the house bill, it simply instructs the conferees to recede to the version approved by the senate, an important provision. it is a provision that will authorize special measures against foreign governments and financial institutions and here's the key language of the amendment as adopted by the senate that significantly impede u.s. tax enforcement. this provision will be just one more tool that is available for the treasury to address what some have estimated is as much

as $100 billion a year that is drained from the united states treasury as a result of offshore tax abuses. these abuses not only undermine the public confidence in our tax system from all the many law-abiding taxpayers, both business and individual taxpayers, but the effect of these abuses is that we see the deficit raised and we see more of the burden, the tax burden, shifted to individual taxpayers and to small businesses that don't have the fancy accountants and attorneys and financial institutions to aid them in hiding their revenues. as we continue debating how best to deal with our debts and deficit, i believe that a fundamental principal -- principle that should apply is that before we ask individual taxpayers or business tax payers to pay additional taxes, we ought to ensure that those who have abused the system and

have avoided their fair share of the taxes, this they -- that we have the enforcement tools to see that they fulfill their responsibilities. i always find it extremely difficult to explain to a mechanic in san morcass -- marcos or a small restaurant own for the san antonio why it is that they have to pay a greater proportion, a higher rate on their taxes than some of these multinationals that manage to shift their revenues offshore because some bankers or some accountants are able to use these tax haven banks to hide the accounts in some remote jurisdiction. over the years, i have fought against this kind of abuse. it took a decade but finally a couple of years ago, i was successful in getting the

economic substance doctrine to strike down phony transactions that were for no purpose other than tax avoidance, to get that legislation approved. i have other legislation i've offered that deals with schemes that other corporations use to siphon off much-needed tax revenue and jobs out of the united states. it's a big problem that does not have any one legislative solution but the measure before us that would be encouraged by this motion to instruct does provide one tool that would be very useful. we know that some foreign banks have peddled a wide array of offshore tax shelters, offering to set up paper firms and accounts in places like switzerland, panama and the british virgin island. the united states sued swiss financial services and the banking firm u.b.s. to force disclosure of thousands of undeclared assets of americans that were being held in secret accounts abroad. just get an inkling of how big this problem is, mr. speaker and colleagues, by noting that at this one bank this one swiss bank, they admitted that there

was $18 billion, $18 billion in undeclared assets of american clients that could well be taxable. this cost the united states treasury billions of dollars over the years. and this was one bank in one country. even though a settlement was achieved, i don't think it got all of the tax revenues back that we ought to have gotten back and it really is an indication of how rampant this problem is and how necessary a provision of this type is. and with that opening, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate my colleague's passion and understand this is

an important matter. mr. grimm: but the underlying section of the senate bill, i think it's important to say that it is a distraction from the issue at hand, it is to pass a transportation bill that's going to keep this country's vital transportation system resilient, robust and a future contributor to economic growth. i think it's unfortunate but it is too often that in congress efforts are made to slip in extraneous sections into bills that have no to do with the issue at hand regardless of their merits. in this case, the section in question is a tax bill. i say again, it's a tax bill, and it's written into a section of existing law under the sole jurisdiction of the financial services committee which in

turn is being considered and of all things a highway bill. this is why the american people think there's insanity going on. this is merely an attempt to paper over a spending -- paper over spending without actually finding the money to pay for it. this is not how our constituents expect us to do business, mr. speaker. this proposal could and it should come before both ways and means and financial services committees. where it would get the very serious consideration that it deserves. the business of this congress can and must be tackling our country's enormous fiscal challenges and getting american workers back into productive jobs. the best way we as congress can do that is by focusing on the tasks at hand instead of distracting ourselves.

and we distract ourselves constantly with issues unrelated to our nation's pressing infrastructure needs. when it's time to consider tax law and specifically tax evasion, i'm confident the congress will do the right thing. however, this transportation bill is not the right venue for this discussion. it's important to note that this is a nonbinding procedural vote. a vote for or against this motion does not impact the outcome of the conference negotiations. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to instruct. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: a distraction, $1 billion distraction. we get $1 billion more transportation out of this measure available for all of the states if we approve this section which the senate has

adopted. a distraction in tell that to the cleaning crew that pays a higher rate of taxes when they clean the corporate board room than they do. i think it goes to the core of our responsibilities. and, yes, the powerful lobby groups that line up their lem zeens, they block considerations in these committees but this brings it to the floor for action and i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin who serves on the financial services committee and understands how urgent it is to address this problem. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. ms. moore: thank you, mr. daugherty. i am so pleased to join you here today to support this motion to instruct. i was of course one of the original co-sponsors of the stop tax haven abuse act which resides the authority of the treasury to take action against foreign governments and

financial institutions that significantly impede u.s. tax enforcement. now treasury already has similar authority to combat money laundering. so the infrastructure and the know-how already exists. congress has an opportunity in this transportation bill to transport the very important debt reduction initiative into our proceedings here today. it will stop sophisticated tax avoidance schemes that add to the national debt and ultimately the burden for that debt that honest taxpayers must bear and are concerned with. in my own state of wisconsin, it's estimated that every single honest taxpayer in wisconsin pays an extra $372 in taxes in 2011 to make up were the revenue loss from corporations, criminals and wealthy individuals utilizing

illegal tax avoidance schemes. these numbers are even more offensive for wisconsin small businesses that pay an additional $2,165 due to these abuses of the tax code. now, that may not seem like a lot of money to anyone, $372, but you multiply that by taxpayers and by 50 states and according to a g.a.o. study, that turns out to be $100 billion. a really nice piece of change. i have heard this congress often harp on the percentages and the numbers of united states taxpayers who are so very, very, very low income that they have no tax liability. people who make $10,000, $11,000 a year and are so poor they have no tax liability. but yet 83 of 100 publicly

traded companies have one of these offshore tax provisions and avoid $100 billion in tax payments. compare that with someone trying to get an earned income tax credit. so i've heard from republicans that this is not germane to the bill. well, i hope you'll remember that when you put some gun provision in every bill that comes around or some effort to minimize and take away women's right to reproductive health in one of your bills which seems to be the transportation for all of those kinds of initiatives. this is an opportunity to act on the deficit. $100 billion is not small change, and to stand up for taxpayers. it is not spending, as the gentleman has indicated that it is. all it is -- it's not leftying a new tax, it's -- levying a

new tax, it's not spending, it's not imposing additional burdens, it has us stop tax avoidance schemes. again, thank you for this opportunity. i hope our colleagues will stand up for honest taxpayers and support this measure and i yield back to the gentleman, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. grimm grimm reserve the balance of my time -- mr. grimm: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 21 minutes remaining and the gentleman from has 22 minutes. mr. doggett: i want to even the time. perhaps there's someone else in the house that actually opposes this motion and i want to allow them time to speak. so i would continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york.

mr. grimm: i am ready to close whenever they're ready to close. mr. doggett: i yield myself 15 seconds. apparently there is no member that is willing to defend these tax abuses. that says a whole lot about the merits of this motion and how essential it is to adopt it. with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. peters: thank you, mr. chairman, and i rise today in support of representative doggett's motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348. this is a commonsense measure that would direct the surface transportation bill of conferees to preserve an amendment offered by senator carl levin and agreed to by a voice vote. this provision is pulled from the stop tax haven abuse act, legislation which i am very proud to have co-sponsored and strongly support. the amendment will give the treasury the power to go after

tax cheats by taking action against foreign governments or banks that significantly impede u.s. tax enforcement. michigan's working families and small businesses already pay their fair share in taxes, and they deserve a more just tax code. that starts with making sure that we close the tax gap and crack down on tax cheats. it's estimated that corporations and the wealthiest americans avoid paying $100 billion per year by exploiting offshore tax shelters and it's time we close these loopholes. when multinational corporations and the very wealthy abuse the tax code to shelter their funds overseas, hardworking americans and small business owners are left to pick up the tab. these same multinational companies and wealthy individuals enjoy taking advantage of american infrastructure and markets but

they don't come close to paying their fair share in taxes. senator levin's amendment and representative doggett's motion to instruct represents a significant step in the right direction. this measure has real teeth, and by enabling the treasury to bar u.s. banks from honoring credit cards issued by institutions harboring tax cheats, we can gain leverage over these institutions and tax havens. based on the $100 billion tax gap that we see every year, the average tax filer in michigan is now paying over $300 in additional taxes each and every year. and the average small michigan business is paying over $1,500 in additional taxes. this is simply unacceptable and it must be stopped. i'm committed to continuing the fight for tax policies that put middle-class and working americans first, and i urge my colleagues to support the doggett motion to instruct, and

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. grimm: i'd like to inquire if the gentleman from texas has any more speakers. mr. doggett: yes, i do. i'd like to inquire if the gentleman from new york has anyone to defend opposition to this measure? mr. grimm: i reserve the balance of my time for now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i yield myself an additional three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, this is a truly amazing debate. the motion is a narrow one asking that the house simply join with republicans and democrats in the united states senate to include within this transportation bill a provision that will yield about an additional $1 billion for the repair of bridges, for the construction of transportation systems across the country, and will do so not by raising taxes or the tax rate on anyone, not

even by closing one of the many outrageous loopholes that exist in our tax law that allows some to gain advantage because of the power of the lobbyists and their lawyers and their accountants to write special provisions into the law and then to exploit those provisions, no, it doesn't do any of that. it simply gives a tool to our law enforcement to enforce existing laws and to say that you cannot violate the law, here is a way for the treasury department to enforce the laws effectively, and, as the gentlewoman from wisconsin pointed out, there is an infrastructure in place upon which this amendment properly builds and which senator carl levin, who is the sthoor of this and who has been the -- author of this and who has included this in legislation that he and i filed independent of this bill concerning stop

tax havens, the stop act. special provision are fwrapted by the patriot act with money laundering concerns. if the secretary of the treasury has reasonable grounds for believing that a foreign government or financial institution is involved in money laundering, the secretary can impose special measures. that's what we're doing for those involved in substantial tax abuse. the patriot act has been used sparingly by the treasury, it has not been abused. it was used, for example, against the country of burma. it's been used to stop financial institutions from laundering funds through the united states system. other time the treasury has pinpointed its measures against a single problem financial institution to stop laundered funds from entering the united states. the stop tax haven abuse provision that is included in this transportation bill and under consideration by the conference would empower the secretary of the treasury to

use the same type of tools it currently has to deal with those that significantly impede u.s. tax enforcement. in addition to the existing measures available, it would also give the treasury the authority to block u.s. banks from honoring credit or debit cards from foreign entities that are primary money laundering concerns or that significantly hamper u.s. tax enforcement. because of these sanctions, the treasury will have an added tool needed to end offshore tax abuses that allow tax sheets -- tax cheats to profit at the expense of honest taxpayers. the amendment would would -- would put discretionary authority on the treasury. the treasury doesn't have to use this authority but it is there to use as a tool when needed. these measures offer the treasury flexibility in dealing with tax dodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doggett: i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. grimm: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds to again observe how extraordinary it is that there are those just like these secret accounts held in abusive places abroad there are those in the wings of the capitol that oppose this measure and don't want the impacts abuse but they are unwilling to come to the floor and speak about it but one person who is willing to speak about it is the victories -- victorious bill pascrell of new jersey. i'm honored to have him join me. he has worked with me. i yield to the victorious gentleman from new jersey, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas. i think this is a very important amendment. we've talked about reining in

tax cheats. that's what we're talking about here. given the relationship between offshore tax avoidance, and we've seen chapter and verse of how people avoid taxes, i want everybody in this room to understand when they avoid taxes that means those who pay taxes have to pay more. to make up the difference. talk billion dollars to help tack they will nation's deficit and debt. if we follow up on the specifics of this legislation. so we have tax avoidance, i don't think anybody supports tax avoidance unless you like being taxed more yourself.

tax evasion. the actual attempts to avoid paying specific taxes. in other words, you know what the law is, evasion is a very conscious act. whether it's done by an individual or a business. and money laundering. we've heard that phrase which is referred to many practices and activities. that's serious business and as my brother from staten island remembers, the f.b.i. looks into a lot of money laundering. you worked for the f.b.i. and did a stellar job. money laundering is critical. when money is laundered, average american gets hurt in the specific connection -- and the specific connection is very, very ominous. this is a natural fit, mr. speaker.

to combat financial crime. i think it is -- one minute -- mr. doggett: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: treasury could prohibit u.s. banks from accepting wire transfers or honoring credit cards from banks found to significantly hinder u.s. tax enforcement. we all support, i would hope, in this body, enforcing of the tax law. as much as we have derided the i.r.s. and its efficient -- efficiencies and proficiencies, think if we had less people in the i.r.s. overseeing these transfers. i don't recommend that. i don't recommend that at all. this amendment will give the treasury greater power to fight against offshore tax havens and

tax cheats. and the counter argument, my friend the speaker, from new york, i want you to pay particular attention to this, this is my final point. 30 seconds? mr. doggett: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. you say you're giving the government more power. why are we so -- this is what got us into a big jam in the last 20 years. when it was very little oversight over financial transactions. we need to have more power to the federal government to fight against offshore tax havens and tax cheats. because the bottom line is, if we don't, then more of the burden is placed upon us. thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. grimm: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the yom from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i would hope that everyone would support this motion to instruct because i think you probably know that nothing annoys american taxpayers more than the notion that offshore tax havens -- tax shaven a place for tax cheats to go so they don't have to pay their taxes but normal americans, everyday americans have to pay to the government. so this amendment will give the treasury greatly -- greater power to fight against offshore tax havens and tax cheats that will allow the treasury department to take a range of

measures against foreign governments and financial institutions that significantly stand in the way of u.s. tax enforcement. these special measures already exist for treasury in combating money laundering by foreign governments and banks, money that could be used to finance terrorist activities and now treasury will have greater power to investigate offshore tax abuser and tax abuses. and crack down on offenders and banks that aid them. for example, treasury could prohibit u.s. banks from accepting wire transfers or honoring credit cards from banks found to significantly hinder u.s. tax enforcement. treasury can impose conditions on foreign banks and prohibit them from opening or maintaining bank accounts within the united states that are significantly standing in the way of u.s. tax enforcement. enacting this amendment makes our tax system fairer and helps reduce the deficit. common sense -- this is a commonsense amendment that

could raise nearly $1 billion to help tackle the nation's deficit and debt. the provision is -- ends offshore tax abuse ps without raise anything taxes, without creating new obligations for any americans and without amending the tax coat. we need to crack down on foreign governments and foreign banks that help privileged individuals and corporations dodge taxes while the rest of americans have to shoulder the extra tax burden. this amendment does that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. grimm: i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 9 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from new york has 27 minutes. mr. doggett: does the gentleman anticipate he will have any

speaker this afternoon? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. grimm: we have no more speakers, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. doggett: i believe i have the right to close on the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to emphasize, all the speakers, my friend from new jersey mentioned how money laundering is a serious matter. everyone here had a lot of passion. and there's no question tax evasion and the things we spoke about here today are of the utmost importance and are extremely serious. i agree. and that's why i stand today in opposition because the committees of jurisdiction should be given the opportunity and the respect to hear these

arguments and to look and make sure that everything is done procedurally correct. this is such a serious matter that i believe it warrants being in order. so again, i want to emphasize that i'm not here to debate the merits, i'm simply here to say that we have two committees of jurisdiction. two very good committees. one of which i sit on. financial services committee. and ways and means. they should have the opportunity to do their jobs. i think that's what the american people and our constituents demand of us. and i believe that in this case because it is so serious and because it involves very serious amounts of money, money laundering, tax evasion, so on, that regular order should be demanded. so with that, again, i would like to urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to instruct and stick with the possess of regular order and give the committees of jurisdiction the respect they deserve so this can have the full hearings necessary and have debate.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, throughout this debate, there's only one thing both sides agree on. that is that this transportation bill ought to move forward and move forward expeditiously. this transportation bill has not moved forward expeditiously because of obstruction here in the house. it should have become law long ago, months ago, perhaps years ago. so that we could deal with the infrastructure problems in this country and deal with the jobs that could be created by doing though hard work of building things that we need in order to strengthen our economy and improve job growth in the private sector. that's where the agreement begins and that's where the agreement ends. because the basic position of the gentleman in coming to oppose this is to give no argument on the merits as to why this provision that the senate has already adopted with

republican and democratic support combined, why it should not being -- should not become law. let me tell you a little of the perspective i bring to this. about 10 days ago, i went one business to another across san antonio. i was at a tire shop. they put on wheels, tires, rims, on cars and pickups. it is hot, dirty work. they struggle to make a living. they work long hours. they work odd hours. they're not air-conditioned. they're out there, they've got to deal with local regulations, government at all levels, pay their taxes, meet their payroll, take care of their sick workers. i went down from there to a ta maul lee factory, a woman who had a great idea and expanded it, she's selling ta maul lees all over -- tamales all over america. it was a greaty to begin the day, to eat herta malis.

-- to eat her tamales. the small tech companies i have represented in austin and now increasingly in san antonio that have an idea, one group i talked to, their office was at a local coffee shop until they got run out. they sat with their computers, came up with an idea and now they have dozens of employees in a new startup. why is it that those kind of businesses, whether it's putting on tire rims on a pickup truck or a startup tech company owlingt -- ought to have to pay a higher rate of taxes than some company that can afford to link up with a foreign bank in a big c.p.a. firm and hide their revenues in a bank in switzerland or in panama or in the cayman islands? it cries out that this congress would correct that injustice and the fact that that injustice is not being corrected by this congress, it

tells all the problems that we have here in washington, if you just watch the last hour of debate. because you have people that linger around this capitol, whispering in the corridors, hiding in the shadows, coming out only at campaign time when now under the campaign rules they can pour unlimited amounts of secret corporate money into their favorite candidate and they decide that we haven't had enough process on this issue. it took 10 years to get a small provision added through the ways and means committee to simply say you can't go out and do a transaction simply for the purpose of dodging taxes. it has to have some economic substance. 10 years in which people avoided paying their fair share. you know, my little company down there in san antonio that changes tires all day, they probably never been to switzerland. much less considered hiring a bank in switzerland to help them

hide their revenues that they work so hard to earn. that one of these companies involved in these abusive transactions has found to be rather routine. he said, well, this is just academic. surely people can't get away with this stuff. let me tell what you they're getting away with. i pointed out that with regard to one bank in switzerland, u.b.s., they finally had to disclose $18 billion, that's billion with bambings, $18 billion -- b, $18 billion of assets of united states citizens sitting there in hidden accounts in that bank. there were some 50,000 such accounts that u.b.s. had to disclose and eventually they had to pay over $700 million in fines. but they're not the only bank that is involved. currently the treasury has under investigation 11 swiss banks. there's one bank that is under federal indictment. this is not an academic problem. it's academic only to those who

talk about process instead of solutions. we have a serious problem that undermines the confidence in our government and in our system of tax collection. why should somebody who's out there struggling at that tire rim company or that tech startup or just a working family that's out there trying to make ends meet with two people, some work oning overtime, some working the night shift noord to provide the foot -- in order to provide the food and firer that their family needs to survive, why should they comply with our tax laws when you have these kinds of companies that can afford the special treatment, that can afford the lobbyists to block measures like this? so today i would say to you that there is an opportunity for this house to make itself clear on this issue. yes, we want to move a transportation bill and while republicans have told us we can have transportation without really paying for it, we have a measure adopted on a bipartisan basis that will provide us a

billion dollars more of the transportation we need. but we not only get that additional transportation but we have an opportunity today to make our views well known, to all of the people of america. do you stand on the side of preventing abuse? do you stand on the side of equity and fairness to all american taxpayers? or do you want special treatment? do you want the few, the privileged to continue to enjoy the privilege of can naiving, of the could naiveness that goes on between some of these folks and their lobbyists and their accountants and their high-powered lawyers to get advantaged that most americans don't want? as far as i'm concerned, almost no mat whart topic is on this floor of this house, that's the basic issue involved. is whether there will be equity and fairness that gives americans confidence in this system of government, in this

democracy, or whether it again and again will be subverted and in this case, with one member coming to offer an objection to the motion, not because the matter doesn't have merit but because it hadn't been studied enough. we have studied this problem to death. it requires an answer today and this motion is a narrow way of answering it. it won't solve all the problems. there will still be ways that these special interests will find to dodge and avoid their fair share of the taxes. but it will close one abuse. it will give our law enforcement authorities one more tool to deal with criminal tax evasion and i believe we ought to adopt that very narrow measure and write it into the laws of the united states, so this bill that has been lingering -- send this bill that has been lingering so long to the president to be signed and include that this congress did at least one little

thing to address the inequity, the special privileges and advantages that the few enjoy here in washington. say no to that and yes to prompt action on this transportation bill and include that bill at $1 billion of additional transportation revenues. i urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to instruct and to do it promptly today and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion -- >> i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, chair declares the house in the committee of the hole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5325. will the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, kindly take the chair? the chair: the state is in the committee of the whole house for

the further consideration of the bill which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 56, line 24. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. an amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas. an amendment by mr. connolly of virginia. an amendment by mr. kucinich of ohio. an amendment number 9 by mr. burgess of texas. and amendment -- an amendment by mr. reed of new york. an amendment by ms. loretta

sanchez of california. an amendment by mr. polis of colorado. an amendment by mr. lugen of new mexico. an amendment by mr. chabot of ohio. an amendment by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. an amendment by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. an amendment by mr. flake of arizona, an amendment by mr. king iowa. an amendment by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time of any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 328, the nays are 89, the amendment is adopted. members are advised that remaining votes in this vote series will be two-minute votes. two-minute votes. the unfinished business is request the for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceed, were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 257, the nays are 16, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]