Daniel Webster

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 537 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act. The rule makes six amendments in order. Of these, five are Democrat- sponsored amendments and one is a Republican-sponsored amendment. The only amendments not made in order were either because of a lack of germaneness and/or they were duplicative in nature or the subject of other amendments. H.R. 1734 has come to the floor under regular order. The applicable subcommittee held two hearings specifically on this bill and held an additional six hearings on the subject of Federal property consolidation. The subcommittee held a markup and subsequently passed the bill out by voice vote. The full committee also held a markup during which several amendments were considered before the bill was reported out of committee. Further, H.R. 1734 enjoys a bipartisan list of cosponsors. The Civilian Property Realignment Act enjoys bipartisan support because it tackles an inherently bipartisan issue: making government work more efficiently in order to better safeguard taxpayer dollars. The Federal executive branch agencies hold an extensive real property portfolio that includes 429,000 buildings and over 1 million total properties. In fact, the Federal Government is the largest owner and manager of real estate in our country. The Office of Management and Budget in 2007 estimated that the Federal Government is holding $18 billion in real property that it does not need. If we sold all excess Federal properties, the resulting proceeds could approach $15 billion, on top of the annual savings reaped from reduced maintenance and operating costs. These properties have been accumulated by the agencies over time and in many cases these agencies' missions have evolved over that period. As missions change, so agencies' needs also change. As a result, many properties that were once crucial have become less useful, or in some cases unneeded altogether. According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 2009--the most recent data available--the government held 10,327 unneeded buildings and spent $134 million annually to maintain them. According to Office of Management and Budget testimony delivered before Congress, the Federal Government has approximately 55,000 properties classified as ``underutilized.'' It costs taxpayers nearly $1.7 billion annually to operate underutilized Federal buildings, according to the Government Accountability Office. H.R. 1734 would establish an independent commission to make recommendations to Congress to better manage the inventory of Federal civilian real property. The commission, consisting of eight members appointed by the President, would report annually on its findings. Under the bill, within 6 months of enactment the commission would identify and recommend to the President and Congress the sale of at least five high-value Federal properties with an estimated fair market value of at least $500 million. Both the President and Congress would have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. The President could transmit recommendations from the commission, with or without his approval, to Congress, where an up-or-down vote would take place under an expedited procedure. H.R. 1734 is modeled after the base realignment and closure--BRAC-- process and would require an examination of Federal civilian real properties across government, used and unused, and make decisions based on the best return to the taxpayer. Military installations, properties deemed essential for reasons of national security, and national parks are not subject to the commission's jurisdiction. The cost-saving initiative would achieve a reduction in the size of the Federal Government real property inventory by selling or redeveloping underutilized properties, increasing the utilization rates of existing properties, and expediting the disposal of surplus properties. Given the vast real estate holdings of the Federal Government, poor asset management and missed market opportunities cost the taxpayers significant sums of money. The Government Accountability Office has placed real property management on its list of ``high risk'' governmental activities, citing excess and underutilization of real property, deteriorating and aging facilities, unreliable data, and overreliance on costly leasing. H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, seeks to reduce the Federal Government's footprint, increase efficiency, and ultimately enhance stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. It isn't just about closing buildings. It's about looking at the taxpayers' assets and deciding whether or not they are being efficiently utilized. Given the realities of the current economy, this is the same type of belt- tightening taking place all over our Nation right now. It's time for our government to start leading by example. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both the rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WEBSTER. For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we're finally getting ready to provide certainty and stability to our aviation industry and to those who depend on it for their livelihoods and safe travel. The agreement reached between the House and Senate conferees is far from perfect, and I doubt everyone got everything they wanted. But it promises to improve air travel for passengers, comfort and safety, while ensuring a more modern air traffic control system. It keeps spending flat, and it's free of earmarks, tax increases, or any increase in passenger facility charges. It provides funding for airport infrastructure projects that will spur much needed construction jobs for an industry that has been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn. This conference report represents a step in the right direction. While long overdue, in this instance, the legislative process has finally worked, and Congress stands ready to work the people's will. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and its passage along with the underlying bill and its passage. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I would like to inform my colleague I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the House know and the Speaker know that this conference report was signed by all the Republicans and Democrats. There are a few people against this, but not many. It's a bipartisan effort. All the Democrats in the Senate signed the conference report. So I believe this is a great bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 533 provides for a standard rule for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, the United States aviation industry currently accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and contributes $1.3 trillion to the Nation's gross domestic product. Regrettably, since September 30, 2007, the FAA has operated under a series of short-term, stopgap extensions. In fact, there have been 23 extensions of the FAA programs since the last multiyear reauthorization was signed into law 8 years ago. I'm relieved that we have finally stopped playing politics with the safety of our airline passengers and appear to be on the verge of passing a necessary, meaningful, and long- term FAA reauthorization. The FAA conference report provides responsible funding for FAA safety programs, air traffic control modernization efforts, known as NextGen, and operations through 2015. It holds spending at fiscal year 2011 levels while providing $13.4 billion in projects that will create much needed construction jobs. The conference report contains no earmarks, and it does not raise taxes or passenger facility charges during this difficult economic time. With the passage of the reauthorization, the deployment of NextGen technologies to replace our current, outdated, ground-based air traffic control system will begin. NextGen will bring an estimated net $281 billion benefit to the overall U.S. economy through decreased flight delays, decreased fuel use, and job opportunities for new, high-tech companies. The House-Senate agreement will also improve aviation safety for passengers, reform antiquated programs that have become overly reliant on government subsidies, and establish a process to address outdated and obsolete air traffic control facilities, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. Because we are finally passing a 4-year authorization, the conference report will provide long-term certainty for the aviation industry and all who rely upon it. This certainty will produce an environment which allows for the creation of high-paying and sustainable jobs. Instead of wondering whether or not the next extension will squeeze by just before the expiration, employees and job creators can budget, plan, and grow with confidence that government will not pull the rug out from under them. While I'm excited that we have finally embraced the benefits of certainty and stability when it comes to our aviation system, I can't help but state what many Americans probably feel is obvious: This is how the system is supposed to work. Far too often, Congress jumps from crisis to crisis, many of which appear to this freshman Member to be self-created. Far too often, because of the unwillingness of some to cooperate, we have been forced to wait until we're up against some kind of deadline that if we don't act, something else looms on the other side. This is no way to legislate, and it's no way to govern. It certainly isn't the legislative process I learned in my 7th grade civics class. Instead, we should be striving to do our work as the Founding Fathers envisioned. They understood and anticipated that the House of Representatives and the Senate would not always walk in lockstep agreement on every issue. On the second day of the first Congress, on April 7, 1789, there was a conference committee appointed by the House and Senate, and they worked out their differences. Since that time, the House and Senate have formulated positions, each of which may be somewhat different, and yet conferees would be appointed to manage that Chamber's position and to hash out differences and produce an agreement that both Chambers could agree on. In my first year in Washington, however, it seemed that is the exception much more than the rule. Much more often, one side takes a position, and then on the other side they refuse to do the same, and there's a lack of any kind of compromise or cooperation. I'm not interested in assigning any blame on whom or why that has taken place or why the process is the way it is. I do believe, though, that cooperation takes a willing partner, and we can be that willing partner. Today is a good day, but we have so much more work to do. Even though the process is not a headline-getting opportunity, the process is important. To me, the more we can push down the pyramid of power and spread out the base and let every Member be a player, we'll have a process that both the House and the Senate can work on and work with each other on and cooperate and the better the policy will be. If the process is broken, sure enough, the product is broken. If the process is good, as this process has been, then I guarantee you, the unintended consequences that usually appear in bills that are pushed through in the dark of night are done away with. And we have an opportunity to do that today. So no one got everything they wanted, and yet this is a picture of how it ought to be. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both of those measures. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome the Orlando Deanery Boychoir and Girls Choir to Washington, DC. An outreach ministry of the Cathedral of St. Luke in Orlando, the choirs are founded on European models and affiliated with the Royal School of Church Music in England. Students participating in the choirs develop the ability to create beautiful music and learn teamwork, professionalism, and respect for other cultures. As representatives of Central Florida, the choirs serve our community, nation, and world. In addition to frequently performing in the greater Orlando area, the choirs have toured venues in the United States including Carnegie Hall, and abroad in many countries, such as Canada, Austria, Japan, and the Czech Republic. Recently, the President Barack Obama recognized the choirs' talent and invited them to perform at the White House on Tuesday, December 20, 2011. The parents and directors of these choirs should be pleased with these exemplary students due to the discipline and dedication required to achieve this level of recognition. On behalf of the citizens of Florida's 8th Congressional District, I am pleased to recognize the Orlando Deanery Boychoir and Girls Choir and congratulate the students for their hard work and accomplishment.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Valencia Community College on earning the inaugural Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence. The Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence recognizes extraordinary accomplishments in community colleges, applauding those that serve as models for elevating community college education. Valencia Community College was selected by the Aspen Institute after a competitive, year-long process during which 120 of the nation's top community colleges were judged based on student performance and graduation rates. Of Valencia Community College's full time students, more than half graduate or transfer within three years. This is well above the national average of 40%. Founded in 1967 as Valencia Junior College, Valencia Community College's goal was to make its students successful, both in the classroom and in their personal and professional lives. Today, Valencia Community College is the third largest community college in Florida, educating more than 50,000 students each year. This is not the first time Valencia has been recognized for excellence in education. Indeed, Valencia has a long history of national distinction. Valencia was recognized in 2009, with the inaugural Leah Meyer Austin Institutional Student Success Leadership Award; in 2007, by the New York Times as a leading community college; in 2001, by TIME Magazine as one of the nation's best schools at helping first-year students to excel; and in 1998, the National Alliance of Business named Valencia the Community College of the Year. On behalf of the citizens of the State of Florida, I am pleased to congratulate Valencia Community College's President, Dr. Sanford Shugart, and Valencia Community College's Administration, Board of Trustees, and faculty for pursuing excellence in community college education, both nationally and as a critical part of Florida's education system. May their hard work and dedication inspire others to follow in their footsteps.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill provides for ample open debate, allowing for the colleagues here on this floor and across the aisle, both on our side and theirs, to offer amendments to this bill. The underlying bill isn't particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, it's rather simple. This bill has no effect on direct spending. It does not appropriate any money or have any new appropriation in it at all. This bill creates no new programs. It has nothing to do with CutGo or pay-as-you-go, either way. It doesn't do either. In the end, I can't imagine 186 different groups being so stirred up in this country to write and to call and to ask for this legislation, groups like the National Corn Growers Association and the Sheep Growers Association and the Association of Cooperatives and the Farm Bureaus across this country and the American Soybean Association and many, many more getting stirred up about nothing? No, that argument is heifer dust. It is. This argument is real, it's true, and it's right, and it's absolutely just like what's happening in EPA in many other areas. The underlying bill, as I said, is quite simple. It provides much- needed certainty in the short term for agricultural, ranching, and rural businesses by hitting pause on the EPA's runaway regulatory machine for just one measure for just 1 year. H.R. 1633 simply says that now is not the time to thrust yet another burdensome, costly and, in EPA's own judgment, unnecessary regulation on rural job creators. In the long term, it offers regulatory relief to rural America by acknowledging that States and local communities are better suited to manage dust in their own communities and thus grant them the flexibility to do so. It's particularly offensive because it's like the old cookie-cutter approach that Washington uses, the same program that's good for Ocoee, Florida, is good for Butte, Montana, and inner-city New York, and it's wrong. We ought to get rid of the cookie-cutter approach and go back to local communities and State governments and let them solve their problems, as opposed to one-size-fits-all Federal Government. Given the state of the economy, given the EPA administrator's own comments about the lack of need to further regulate farm dust, given the dearth of scientific evidence that says that this is a danger, there is some sort of danger from farm dust, this legislation represents a commonsense effort to create an environment for job creation that all Members should support. It gives farmers, ranchers, and other rural small business owners the certainty, at least when it comes to dust, that costly regulations would not shackle their ability to focus on growing their business, providing for their families, and creating much needed jobs in rural America. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. WEBSTER. I am prepared to close.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Yes, Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over. We've got time. We have a plan. House Republicans have a plan. It's down here on this card. We have a plan, a jobs plan. Twenty-five of those issues have already passed this House and they went to the Senate. And where are they? I don't know. They're there. They're ready to be acted on. Let me just give one. The union labor in this country rallied around that bill a couple of days ago and said we want to build the pipeline. It's tens of thousands of jobs. Many of the Democrats opposed that, and yes, it's thousands and thousands of jobs. Is it a job creator? Absolutely. Do we have a plan? We have a plan, and that's just one of the 25 that's waiting in the Senate for action. We need to have action there. We have a plan. We have job plans, this is it, and we're ready to move this country forward, get our economy rolling again, creating jobs, and making this economy better for everyone in America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. That's a good reason as to why we should pass this bill. The real cure for unemployment is employment. If we can remove the uncertainty from the marketplace for farmers and for those in other places in this country through limited regulation--good regulation but not by overburdening the businesses and the job creators of this country--then we will have the opportunity to solve that problem, to solve it by hiring people. I am hoping that this bill will pass. In knowing that it probably will pass in the House, I hope the Senate takes it up and the President signs it, and I hope we end up with less regulation in an area where many, many jobs could be created and where certainty could be provided if we would only pass this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 487 provides for a structured rule for consideration of House Resolution 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. The rule makes 8 of the 11 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, a majority of which are Democrat amendments, in order to have robust debate here on the floor of the House of Representatives. H.R. 1633 passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support after proceeding through the committee process under regular order. A subcommittee hearing was followed by a subcommittee markup, and then a markup was held by the full committee, which passed the bill with bipartisan support. The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is quite simple. It seeks regulatory certainty in the short term and a regulatory, commonsense approach in the long term. Specifically, this legislation does two things. First, in the short term, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act would temporarily prohibit the EPA from issuing a new coarse particulate matter standard for 1 year. H.R. 1633 does not prohibit EPA from issuing a revised standard for coarse particulate matter after this 1-year timeout. Coarse particulate matter, or PM10, is also known by a much more common name: dust. Second, in the longer term, this legislation would limit future EPA regulation of nuisance dust to areas where it is not already regulated by State or local government, where it causes substantial adverse effects, and where the benefits of the EPA stepping in would outweigh the costs. Nuisance dust is particulate matter that is generated primarily from natural sources, dirt roads, earth moving, or other common farm activities. Nuisance dust is pieces of plants plowed up during tilling, soil disturbed by the movement of livestock or bits of rock kicked up by a truck driving down a dirt road. The definition specifically precludes combustion emissions, coal combustion residues and radioactive particulate matter from mining operations. H.R. 1633 does not eliminate EPA's authority to step in if local or State regulatory efforts fall short of what is needed to adequately protect the public. The bill would allow EPA to step in and regulate ``nuisance dust'' in areas where States and localities do not do so, if it substantially hurts the public health, and if benefits of applying these standards outweigh the cost. So in summary, if it isn't regulated, it would harm public health, and the benefit of regulation would outweigh the cost of regulation. The EPA could, and presumably would, fill that void. While EPA Administrator Jackson has announced that she does not plan on changing the standard, EPA has been actively considering a revised, more costly and stringent standard as part of the review process. The same review process increased the stringency of that standard in 1996 and most recently in 2006. Prior to the administrator's announcement, EPA's staff had recommended further changes to the standard. Despite Administrator Jackson's statement, there is nothing currently on the books preventing the EPA from adopting a stricter regulation. Further, as we all know, the environmental lobby could force a more stringent standard regardless of what the EPA announces, finalizes, or proposes through legal action. This legislation provides ironclad certainty to farmers, ranchers, small business owners that farm dust would stay off the EPA's to-do list for at least another year. For that very reason, farming, agricultural and rural small business organizations of all shapes and sizes have put their steadfast support behind this legislation. To them, certainty means the ability to grow their business by creating jobs in their communities, feeding every American, and providing for their families through the sale of the fruits of their labors. The agricultural community and, more largely, rural America is critical to economic growth and job creation. The agricultural sector alone supports 1.8 million American jobs and represents 5 percent of our Nation's total exports. The Obama administration has acknowledged the importance of economic health for rural America. In fact, the President's White House Rural Council has claimed that rural America is ``central to the economic health and prosperity of our Nation.'' Unfortunately, it is often rural communities, particularly those in the western United States, that suffer from the highest rates of unemployment and are least equipped to bear the burden of additional costs stemming from Washington. So once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The relevant committee of jurisdiction has worked to provide us with a bipartisan bill which, at its core, quite simply offers regulatory certainty in the short term and commonsense regularity relief in the long. This bill is not a cure-all, but is a step in the right direction. While a small step, it is a commonsense approach to fixing what's wrong in Washington, D.C. It's a step that many in Congress on both sides of the aisle seem ready and willing to take. As I mentioned, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act passed out of subcommittee and full committee with bipartisan support. The bill has over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. Companion legislation in the Senate also enjoys that same bipartisan support. Let's ensure rural businesses and American farmers that at least for 1 more year they can cross dust off the list of the potential bureaucratic burdens passed down from Washington. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes ``on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.