Jo Ann Emerson

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information in regards to the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill. Requesting Member: Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Entity: Missouri Department of Transportation Address of Requesting Entity: 105 West Capitol P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0270 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $650,000 for an environmental study, engineering design work, and construction work on Route 25 in Jackson, Missouri. The funds will be used to alleviate traffic and dangerous conditions on Route 25 between Jackson Trail and the city limits of Jackson, Missouri. The State of Missouri will provide 20% match. All federal funds received will be spent on Route 25 in Jackson, Missouri and will not be transferred to another project. Request Member: Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Entity: Missouri Department of Transportation Address of Requesting Entity: 105 West Capitol P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0270 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the expansion of four-lane highway south of Poplar Bluff, Missouri to south of Route 160. The funds would also be used to rehabilitate dangerous intersections on Route 67 at U.S. 160, as well as Missouri Highway 158. The State of Missouri will provide 20% match. All federal funds received will be spent on this project and will not be transferred to another project. Requesting Member: Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Entity: Missouri Department of Transportation Address of Requesting Entity: 105 West Capitol P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0270 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to rehabilitate the Chester Bridge which transverses the Mississippi River from Perry County, Missouri to Randolph County, Illinois. The bridge is vital to the region's transportation needs. The State of Missouri will provide 20% to match the federal contribution. All federal funds received will be spent on rehabilitation of the Chester Bridge and will not be transferred to another project. Requesting Member: Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Economic Development Initiatives Requesting Entity: Washington County, Missouri Address of Requesting Entity: 102 N. Missouri Street Potosi, MO 63664 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $300,000 for renovations to make the Washington County, Missouri Building accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Washington County Building is outdated and many sections are inaccessible to individuals in wheelchairs. The federal funds would provide the means for Washington County to bring the building in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Requesting Member: Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Entity: Missouri Department of Transportation Address of Requesting Entity: 105 West Capitol P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0270 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for right of way improvements and engineering design to the narrow portion of Route 63 in Phelps and Maries Counties. This project will improve the overall safety of the roadway. The State of Missouri will provide 20% to match the federal contribution. All federal funds received will be spent on right of way improvements and engineering design. None of these funds will be transferred to another project. Requesting Member: Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Transportation & Community & System Preservation Requesting Entity: Missouri Department of Transportation Address of Requesting Entity: 105 West Capitol P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0270 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to improve shoulders, as well as widen and straighten curves along Route 34 in Cape Girardeau and Bollinger Counties. This segment of Route 34 is heavily traveled by commuters and there are serious safety concerns with the roadway. The State of Missouri will provide 20% to match the federal contribution. All federal funds received will be spent on improving Route 34. None of these funds will be transferred to another project.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, in southern Missouri, rural families are struggling with job losses. We are a vibrant district with a time- honored work ethic, but job losses have hit us especially hard during a time of unprecedented economic challenges. Constituents call my office every day, and they're asking what is Congress doing for them, how are we helping the manufacturing worker who doesn't want to go to the unemployment office because he really just wants to go back to work. And I hear a lot of justifiable anger from the same callers about Congress' policies that are going to make it tougher for them to get back to work. Cap-and-trade is the focus of their frustration and mine. Today, unemployment is still severe in southern Missouri with the potential to go much higher, much higher, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law. More than 3,000 jobs could be lost in the Eighth District in a single year, and the few new green jobs this bill would create won't be in our communities. Mr. Speaker, this bill will leave with us a legacy of energy cost increases that will kill generations of jobs in rural America and in southern Missouri. Like my constituents, I am ready and willing to get to work if you will only give us the opportunity. Good energy policy is good jobs policy. I hope we can reverse course on cap-and-trade so it doesn't destroy our rural economy.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak here today on behalf of this resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture. When President Lincoln organized USDA he called it the ``People's Department.'' That legacy is truly evident in the millions of Americans served each day by the Food and Nutrition Service. Contending with hunger is a sad fact of life for 36 million food insecure Americans. The programs administered and implemented by the dedicated public servants at FNS, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, WIC, the National School Lunch Program, TEFAP and the Commodity Supplemental Food Nutrition Program--just to name a few-- provide the difference between hunger and adequate nutrition for these adults and, unfortunately, so many children. However, these programs, vital to so many of our constituents, do not run on autopilot. For the past 40 years dedicated individuals at the Food Nutrition Service have worked to reach those in need, while protecting the integrity of the programs they administer. They have driven error rates down, while working to increase participation rates; FNS has proven to be able stewards of the programs they administer. Mr. Speaker, forty years ago today man set foot on the moon. This was a dream for untold generations which this government made a priority and achieved. When we set this goal, the tools needed to achieve it did not exist--they had to be invented. Forty years ago the Food Nutrition Service was also formed, our nation's greatest tool in fighting hunger. I look forward to the day when we set our goals high again and provide the resources necessary to truly end hunger in the United States.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, since this is the first bill I'm managing on the floor as ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I'd like to say for the record how honored I am to have this position. The economic challenges facing our Nation demand that the contents of the Financial Services Appropriations bill be deliberately laid out and carefully structured. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over a diverse group of agencies which regulate the financial and telecommunications industries, collect taxes and provide taxpayer assistance, support the operations of the White House, the Federal Judiciary, and the District of Columbia, manage Federal buildings and provide oversight of the Federal workforce. I want to commend Chairman Serrano for his efforts in crafting the bill. It has been a real privilege and pleasure to work with him. And while we don't always agree, he has been very open to concerns and issues raised by Members on our side of the aisle. I thank the chairman for his commitment to bipartisanship and for listening to the minority views. I also want to thank the majority staff who worked on this bill, including the Clerk, David Reich, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Lee Price, Andria Oliver, Ed O'Kane, Alex Jobal and Nadine Berg. I also have to commend the members of the minority staff. John Martens, Alice Hogans, Dena Baron, and my staff, Justin Rone and Jeffrey Connor, who have all been extremely dedicated to putting the best possible product forward from the subcommittee. On both sides, these staff members worked very hard for the committee and the American people, and I appreciate their efforts. While I've been pleased to have a wonderful working relationship this year with Chairman Serrano, I am disappointed by the fact that we're not doing what our constituents have asked us to do, and that is to work together in a totally bipartisan way at the full committee level to make the lives of our constituents better. For example, the rule for consideration of the bill limits debate to 17 amendments, and I believe that 97 were submitted to the Rules Committee. This rule, then, doesn't, the rule governing the debate here, did not display bipartisanship or regular order because we had colleagues who want today offer amendments about which they felt very strongly, saving taxpayer money by taking extra returned TARP money and putting it toward the deficit, people who felt very strongly about the D.C. public school systems, and the like. But it's troubling that they weren't able to offer their very substantive amendments, amendments which our constituents feel very strongly about. I do urge my colleagues to support a process where every Member has the opportunity to have his or her voice heard on the floor of the House. Now, let me turn to the bill before us today. The $24.15 billion allocation provided to the subcommittee is much too large. It's a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion increase above the current year, excluding stimulus funding. This allocation allows most agencies in the bill to be funded at or above the rate of inflation. I believe the resource requirements of the agencies funded in the bill can be met with a smaller allocation. Especially at a time when every household in America faces difficult budgetary choices, Congress must be diligent when spending the taxpayers' money. The Federal Government, in this bill, is growing at an incredible rate at a time when employers who I represent in the district have cut jobs, and when people are really hurting. They're making the tough choices, and we really should too, as an example to them. The Congressional Budget Office concedes that, ``Under current law the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path--meaning that the Federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.'' This bill primarily funds government agency operating accounts. It doesn't support programs or grants, and doesn't represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. In short, this bill provides a 7-percent increase which goes straight to the bureaucracy's bottom line. We're not making the tough decisions the American people feel we should consider at a crucial time for our Nation's economy. The administration's own budget documents state that the Federal debt held by the public will be 68.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2014. This is the highest percentage of Federal debt to GDP since 1950, the year that I was born. That said, using the allocation provided to him, Chairman Serrano has done an outstanding job of crafting this bill. I'm grateful that the bill provides increases to critical programs such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Programs, and Tax Preparation Assistance Grants. I also support the proposed reduction in the ONDCP's media campaign in order to provide additional resources to the Drug-Free Communities program and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. I'm pleased the bill provides $74 million for D.C. education programs, including $42 million to D.C. public schools. My stepdaughter currently teaches in a District public school, and her reports, along with the Adequate Yearly Progress measurements, indicate dramatic improvements need to be made before every D.C. school is offering the opportunity that children in D.C. deserve. In the meantime, this bill does not eliminate the Opportunity Scholarships program, but it does restrict the program to students already enrolled in it. How can we limit educational opportunities for low-income students when we know the public school system is underperforming? Regarding the General Services Administration, I am grateful that the chairman has included language directing a review of the GSA supply schedule. In just one example of the need for this review, the Department of Homeland Security has identified $42 million of savings over 5 years by no longer using the GSA to purchase office supplies. We want to try to improve the GSA supply procurement process so that this savings can be replicated throughout all government departments and agencies. I also support the GSA construction and alteration projects funded in the bill. I don't usually have positive things to say about GSA construction and alteration accounts, but I will say that the chairman has done an excellent job in crafting the bill that funds justifiable projects. I also want to thank the chairman for including language clarifying the congressional intent regarding the cash-in-advance policy in the sale of agricultural and medical supplies to Cuba. This clarification will help American producers expand their markets in a significant neighboring export market. One area of the bill that I believe has received an excessive level of funding is payments under the Help America Vote Act. There is no question that we are obligated to provide for free and fair elections. It's a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard the electoral process. However, the administration justifiably proposed to cut this particular program to $50 million because the States aren't spending the funds that have been provided in the past years. The account contains a surplus of $186 million today. This bill needlessly adds $100 million to this underused account. The Election Assistance Commission is waiting for the States to claim the 2008 and 2009 grant funds. Of the $115 million provided in fiscal year 2008, only $25 million has been claimed by the States. Of the fiscal year 2009 funds, $100 million, only $3 million has been paid to two States. Another area of the bill that deeply concerns me is controversial changes to longstanding general provisions regarding the District of Columbia. I strongly oppose these changes. I do not believe that increasing the availability of abortions or medical marijuana will improve the quality of life in the District of Columbia. As you see, Mr. Chairman, this bill is very controversial. Not only does the proposed bill spend more than $24 billion, but it proposed to change longstanding policies on which Members on both sides of the aisle have long agreed. This is why the bill should be considered in regular order. We recognize that operating under an open rule is grueling, long, hard work, and we've done it that way for years and years, at least as long as I have been on this committee. At the same time, we believe that the responsible regular functioning of this institution is important, especially on spending measures that demand the full attention of the Congress because they have the full attention of the American people. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations regarding this bill and I'm disappointed that it's not being debated so that all Members could be heard, I would again like to thank Chairman Serrano for his openness and his friendship. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 3 minutes to a fellow subcommittee member and a very hardworking member from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 3 minutes to a member of our subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw from Florida.

Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mrs. EMERSON. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman again for his graciousness and for his openness in working with me and with the rest of the subcommittee on the minority side, and I look forward to continuing that relationship. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, while I don't oppose the content of this amendment, I do oppose the process in which it was offered. Mr. Chairman, this is a controversial bill to many Americans. Increasing spending by $1.6 billion, or 7 percent, should be allowed to be debated under this bill. In addition, the changes in long-standing policy on abortion and on medical marijuana should also have an opportunity to be debated. I think that the responsible regular functioning of this institution is so important, especially on spending measures that demand the full attention of Congress, because they've got the full attention of the American people. As my colleagues know, a manager's amendment traditionally is meant not to be controversial. It's meant to be offered and supported by both sides of the aisle to improve the bill in ways on which we can all agree. The manager's amendment is meant to have a quick debate, typically followed by debate on more difficult issues. Taking three proposed amendments by our Democratic colleagues and rolling them into a manager's amendment while prohibiting debate on the majority of amendments submitted by the Republicans is not in the tradition of this House or the tradition of what a manager's amendment should be. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike $50 million from the $100 million under the Election Assistance Commission for Help America Vote grants for States. The President's budget requested a total of $52 million for election reform programs, $50 million for grants to States, and $2 million for research and other initiatives. My amendment would simply return the State grant funding level in this account to the same amount that the President's budget requested. Sixty-two percent of the States have not even applied for their fiscal year 2008--2008--Help America Vote funds. Of the $115 million provided for State grants in fiscal year 2008, only about 20 percent of the funds have been obligated to the States; $25 million has been given to 18 States. Of the $100 million provided for State grants in fiscal year 2009, not even 4 percent has left the Treasury. Only two States have received fiscal year 2009 funds. So we have almost $186 million still sitting in the Treasury for these grants. Now, I think you all know me and you know me well enough to know that if there is a need, I'm fully supportive of matching the funding level to that need. However, I see little need to provide another $100 million in unused funds to then get to a total of $286 million in untapped funds. I respect my chairman, and I respect the need for election reform and certainty in the election process. There is no question that we are obligated to provide for free and fair elections. It is a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard our elections. However, this is one account that has a demonstrated lack of funding needs for the coming fiscal year. Even the President recognized the opportunity to save the taxpayer $50 million. I urge all to do the same and vote ``yes'' on my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. I continue to reserve my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that I have great respect for my chairman, and I certainly have great respect for the gentleman from New Jersey who has worked tirelessly on HAVA and worked to ensure that we have fair elections across this country. And I do not believe that we should, to take a quote, shortchange any piece of the electoral process. But I bring to my colleagues' attention, once again, the fact that we have $186 million that is sitting in the Treasury the States have not tapped into. Sixty-two percent of the funds from 2008 haven't been used. We've only used 4 percent for 2009. And I think that nobody better than our President understands the need for us to find savings. And when we're sitting on $186 million, and with the additional $52 million that we will have in this account, we're still well over $200 million. And I dare say that at the rate that the States are using this money, we will never spend it. And certainly, in difficult economic times, I truly believe that deferring to the President's budget request makes good economic sense. I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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