Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of our great Nation, American patriots have answered their Nation's call to defend the freedom that we all hold dear. Lance Corporal Anthony DiLisio was one such hero.

Anthony DiLisio grew up in Macomb Township, Michigan, which I am very proud to represent. He was an all-American kid. He was a member of the swim team and the baseball team at Dakota High School. And after graduating from high school in 2008, Anthony could have gone on to college or he could have gone to work in his family's small business, but he was determined--determined--to serve the cause of freedom. Against the wishes of his family, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in August of that year.

Lance Corporal DiLisio was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. And he shipped out with his brother marines to Afghanistan for combat operations in the Helmand province in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. And on May 30, 2010, Lance Corporal DiLisio was told by his superiors that he could take the day off. That wasn't Anthony.

That night Lance Corporal DiLisio went on patrol with his marine brothers when they were ambushed just outside the camp and a battle ensued. In that battle, Lance Corporal DiLisio and two of his marine brothers were killed in action in defense of our freedom, just 1 month shy of their scheduled return from Afghanistan.

Lance Corporal Anthony DiLisio loved his country. He loved the Marine Corps, and he fought with courage and honor and distinction to preserve our liberty. In this great Nation, we honor heroes like Lance Corporal DiLisio.

And while nothing we can do will ever fully honor his incredibly brave service and his ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, we have a responsibility to do what we can. So I ask every Member of this House to join me in honoring this American hero, this great American patriot, by supporting this legislation which will designate the postal facility in Macomb Township, Michigan, as the Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex.

Anthony, Mr. Speaker, was loved by his family: his father, Lorenzo; his stepmother, Tina; his mother, Tamra, who sadly just recently passed away; his brothers, Dino, Angelo, and Joe; his sisters, Lisa and Marie. We also honor them for sharing this person whom they loved so much with all of us. We cannot remove their sorrow for the loss of Anthony, but we can show them that the entire Nation honors his service and his sacrifice.

And of course the motto of the United States Marine Corps is Semper Fidelis--always faithful. Faithful to their duty, faithful to the cause of freedom and liberty, and faithful to this great Nation.

Anthony was a true marine, and he was always faithful. Again, I would ask every Member of the body to join me in honoring this great American hero and patriot, Lance Corporal Anthony DiLisio.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6025) to provide for annual reports on the status of operational control of the international land and maritime borders of the United States and unlawful entries, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Among the enumerated powers of the Constitution, providing for the common defense is, in my mind, the most important responsibility of this Congress. A key part of the common defense is ensuring that we secure our Nation's borders, and in the coming months, determining how to measure progress along the thousands of miles--north, south, and coastal--will be absolutely crucial.

H.R. 6025, the Mandatory Operational Control Reporting and Performance Measures Act of 2012, requires that the Department of Homeland Security resume reporting miles of the border under operational control and provide an estimate of the number of unlawful entries between ports of entry.

For years, we relied on operational control as a proxy for border security. It really became sort of the de facto term of art that indicated how much or how little of the border the Border Patrol could effectively control. But at last count, only 44 percent of the southwest border was under operational control, and less than 2 percent of the northern border was adequately secured.

I'm not quite sure how we can go from having less than half of the border under operational control to get to the current thinking that the border is more secure than ever, as the Secretary of Homeland Security has said, without having a legitimate way to measure border security.

In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security stopped reporting the number of miles of border under operational control with the promise of a new, more holistic measure of border security called the Border Condition Index. Nearly 3 years later, we're still waiting for the introduction of that measure without any idea if it will ever be used.

It's time for the Department to provide a suitable measure that adequately captures the security situation on the border, whether that is the Border Condition Index or something else. Until then, the Department should resume reporting miles under operational control.

To ensure that the numbers DHS gives us are sound, this bill, Mr. Speaker, requires that the Department give the Government Accountability Office access to the operational control numbers for third-party verification.

I fully understand that the leadership of the Department believes operational control, as it is currently configured, is not the right measure to describe security at the border. So I think we are all really open to new, more robust standards if it supplements operational control and better describes the level of security at our borders. But we can't just take this administration's word for it that the border is more secure than ever without some agreed upon standard.

To that point, I'm not sure that we should automatically assume that any new measure stacks up against operational control. With an issue this important, we can't just change the rules if we don't like the results.

Under this bill, the use of anything other than operational control to describe the security along the border must be vetted by a national laboratory with prior expertise in border security. Validation by a third party to ensure it accurately measures security along the border boils down to this: trust, but verify.

In testimony, the Government Accountability Office has been clear that the use of apprehensions of aliens at or near the border as a proxy for border security is, at best, incomplete. It tells us that we are catching lots of people, but it doesn't answer the most important question: How effective are we at keeping the drug cartels, human traffickers, and others from crossing our borders at will?

H.R. 6025 asks the Department to address this issue with an estimate of the number of unlawful entries between ports of entry so that the American people can put the apprehension numbers in the proper context and can stack apprehensions against the number of people who successfully cross the border illegally.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection have a very difficult job, and I certainly want to thank them, as I'm sure we all do, for the very hard work that they do in some very demanding conditions to keep secure our Nation.

How we determine or measure what a secure border looks like has been the subject of a lot of debate, but the fact remains that the Congress and the American people should have a verifiable way to determine if we are making progress along the border.

I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had another speaker, but I do not see him here. If the gentleman from Mississippi has no further speakers, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues to support this legislation that moves us toward a more full understanding of the security situation along the border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Macedonian Community in honor of their Independence Day. On September 8, 1991, the Republic of Macedonia voted to officially gain its independence from the former Yugoslavia beginning a new era in the proud history of the Macedonian people. By approving the referendum, the people decided that it was time for their country to forge its own path. This 21st anniversary of their independence provides us all an opportunity to recognize the Macedonian Community's significant contributions both within our country, and throughout the world.

Macedonia has been a dedicated ally to the United States in the Global War on Terror and has done much to promote liberty and democracy throughout Europe and the world. With American cooperation and support, Macedonia has emerged as a center of multi-cultural peace and stability in a part of the world known for strife and ethnic tensions. Their staunch support of freedom makes them a model for other countries in the region, and their commitment to a U.S.-Macedonia relationship will lead to a richer, more prosperous future for citizens of both countries.

As a way to recognize this partnership, I started the first Congressional Caucus on Macedonia and Macedonian-Americans. This Caucus is a bipartisan group of members of Congress dedicated to maintaining and strengthening a positive and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and the Republic of Macedonia, as well as advocating for the concerns and interests of the Macedonian community in the United States.

Michigan's 10th District has one of the largest populations of Macedonian-Americans in the Nation. I would like to acknowledge their contributions to our District and our State, and I look forward to continuing that relationship as we deal with the problems facing our great Nation.

Again, congratulations to the Macedonian community for their achievements as we commemorate the anniversary of their independence.

Mr. Speaker, in America we believe in freedom, in democracy and in the belief that in this country the people rule. And in order for the people to rule responsibly they must have knowledge and information about the handling of our economy.

Unfortunately, the American people are denied the basic information they need on one of the most important pillars of our economy, the Federal Reserve.

Today the Federal Reserve operates in secrecy. It creates money out of thin air, it can make purchases of questionable assets from friendly Wall Street firms and it can loan hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments and central banks--all out of the sight of the American people and even policy makers in Washington.

It is time to lift the veil of secrecy by passing H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

This bill will allow for a thorough audit of the Fed, including transactions with foreign governments, central banks and the decision making process in setting monetary policy.

We should never fear transparency in a free society--it is vital--and we should embrace it. Today I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill which provides for a long overdue audit of the Fed.

Mr. Speaker, America's Family Farmers have built the most productive agriculture sector in the world and this abundance helps feed not only our nation, but also the world.

Family farms are truly based on the family where each generation trains the succeeding generation.

Last year the Department of Labor tried to inject itself into the family farm by proposing onerous new regulations that would have basically denied family farmers the ability to train the next generation of farmers.

Some would have you believe that the Labor Department was just looking out for children, but does anyone truly believe that a bureaucrat in Washington cares more about a family's children than their parents, or aunts and uncles, or their grandparents?

Faced with overwhelming opposition earlier to this overreach the Department of Labor withdrew the proposed regulations and went back to the drawing board. The legislation we are considering today would stop these regulations in their tracks and keep the bureaucrats from getting between family farmers and their children.

I urge my colleagues to support the heritage of the family farm and join me in passing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have some simple questions for those who support Obamacare . . . how does the hiring of over 16,000 new IRS agents provide anyone greater access to care? How does hiring 16,000 new IRS agents improve the doctor patient relationship? How does hiring 16,000 new IRS agents lower the cost of healthcare?

The fact is those new IRS agents won't do anything to improve healthcare because IRS agents don't help deliver affordable and accessible healthcare--they collect taxes and Obamacare is definitely chock full of new taxes to be collected.

Taxes on tanning, taxes on healthcare policies the government deems are too good, taxes on employers for providing health insurance the government deems is not good enough, taxes on income, taxes on drug manufacturers, taxes on medical devices, and even a massive new tax for not having health insurance.

While President Obama has done little to help create the private sector jobs we so desperately need in this country he has certainly done a lot to promote full employment among tax collectors.

The fact of the matter is those who wrote this bill sold it to Congress and the American people saying that the individual mandate was not a tax, and it is a massive new tax. And I would hazard to say that if it was sold as what it truly is then it never would have passed either the House or Senate.

Just before passage then Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Well the American people have found out what is in Obamacare and they don't like it one bit. Sure there may be parts that they like, but not the full trillion dollar monstrosity.

We can do better and the American people certainly deserve better.

Let's repeal this bill today, start over and give the American people what they want . . .

legislation that supports private sector solutions to reduce costs, improve access to care and strengthen the doctor patient relationship out of the reach of your local IRS agent.

I certainly want to thank the chairman for his support of the bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding the time as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4251. I'm absolutely convinced that the bill before the House today, the SMART Port Act, will tangibly enhance the Nation's maritime security.

We spend a lot of time, as a Nation, and as a Congress, focusing on security threats at the southern border and on the northern border, but sometimes we also need to remember that we have a very long maritime border that deserves our attention as well.

A major disruption at one of the Nation's ports, especially a terrorist attack, is a high-consequence event that has the potential to cripple the global supply chain and could severely damage our economy. We simply cannot afford to ignore threats to our Nation's maritime security.

To that end, SMART Port builds on the work of the 2006 SAFE Port Act to enhance risk-based security measures overseas before the threat reaches our shore. It emphasizes a stronger collaborative environment between the Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard in sharing port security duties, and it leverages the maritime security work of our trusted allies.

If we learned anything after 9/11, it's that we need to move from the need-to-know information to the need-to-share information. The Department of Homeland Security components with shared jurisdiction must cooperate in maritime operations and form partnerships with State and local law enforcement agencies in order to improve the Nation's maritime security.

What happens in our waterways and ports affects the entire Nation, so it is incumbent on us to realize that maritime security is not the province simply of the government alone. Leveraging partnerships with private industry, as well as our international partners, is common sense; and trusted-shippers programs, like the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or the C-T PAT, where companies who make significant investments in their security, reduces the amount of resources that CBP needs to spend on looking at cargo shipments that we know the least about.

Our trusted allies, like Canada and the European Union, have programs similar to C-T PAT in place, and this bill supports the concept of mutual recognition where the Secretary can accept other countries' trusted-shipper programs when they provide an equal level of security. And not only does this save CBP inspectors from the added burden of having to verify companies who participate in both programs. It also really expedites commerce across our borders, and we really need to do that because of limited use of taxpayer dollars, certainly. And so it makes fiscal sense, as well, to do that.

The American port worker, truck driver, and others who make port operations run smoothly are another critical maritime security layer. They're all required to obtain the TWIC cards that the ranking member just mentioned here, and the chairman as well. These individuals have complied with the law. They've done their part. They've purchased a TWIC card. In many cases they've traveled long distances to go to the enrollment center, maybe not once but twice, and undergone the background check. But the problem is that the United States Government has not done its part.

The Department of Homeland Security has yet to release the TWIC reader rule, meaning that the biometric information embedded on the card validating the worker's identity just isn't being confirmed. And in reality, because of that, the TWIC card has become little more than an expensive ``flash pass.''

This bill will extend the validity of TWIC cards until the government upholds its end of the bargain and puts out a reader rule. The Coast Guard and TSA must produce the TWIC reader rule which is necessary to give American workers and port facilities certainty after years of delay.

As well, we should be cognizant of the fact that CBP and the United States Coast Guard cannot intrusively scan every truck, every cargo container or bulk shipment that comes into American ports. It's certainly cost prohibitive, but it would also cripple the just-in-time delivery system that the industry relies on to keep American commerce running.

Instead, I believe that the security of the supply chain is maximized through the use of a risk-based methodology, which is a key element in this bill. Smart, cost effective choices have to be made that maximize our resources while ensuring the security of our ports and, by that, our extension of our way of life.

This bill, Madam Speaker, is a step toward smarter security that encourages DHS to become more efficient, better integrated, and more closely coordinated amongst its component industry and international partners.

Again, I want to thank the chairman, Chairman King, for his support of this bill, and Ranking Member Thompson of the full committee, and certainly my counterpart on the subcommittee as well, Ranking Member Cuellar.

I certainly appreciate the gentleman for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, our economy is struggling, the American people need jobs, and too many families are struggling under the burden of ever- rising energy prices. It's certainly long past time for the Federal Government to act; and, today, this House will act.

This Nation, Madam Speaker, has been blessed with so many vast energy resources that if we actually advantaged ourselves, we could actually meet all of our Nation's energy needs. We could create countless good- paying jobs right here at home. We could provide needed funding for our Federal Treasury, expand our economy, and make our Nation more secure.

But, unfortunately, we don't do that. Instead, in fact, we are nearly the only Nation I think on the face of the planet, really, that does not take advantage of its own natural energy resources. Instead, we, unfortunately, have made the choice to rely on foreign sources of energy to meet many of our needs--many from unstable or unfriendly nations to whom we export literally hundreds of billions of dollars of our national wealth each and every year and we bypass the opportunity to create needed jobs right here at home. This absolutely needs to change.

While President Obama talks about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, his actions tell a different story, really. While exploration of oil and other energy resources is up overall, it's been reduced on lands under Federal control under this administration. And this administration's EPA has made the coal industry public enemy number one, even though it's the cheapest and most abundant source of electric generation that we have here in our Nation.

Today, this House will act on a true all-of-the-above energy strategy. This legislation will streamline and remove government red tape as a hurdle to energy production. It will require our Nation to put forward goals for production of all energy sources, including oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, of course, on Federal lands. And it will make the permitting process much easier, and it will open up new areas to exploration and development both onshore as well as offshore. This legislation will lower energy prices for hard-pressed consumers, it will create good-paying jobs here at home, and it will enhance our economic security and national security as well.

I certainly urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation, and I support the rule as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, among the enumerated powers of the Constitution, providing for the common defense is, in my mind, the most important responsibility of the Congress. A key part of the common defense, of course, is ensuring that we secure the Nation's borders.

H.R. 1299, the Secure Border Act, moves the Nation closer to a more secure border by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to gain operational control of the border within 5 years. As part of that plan, the Department must account for staffing requirements, investments and infrastructure, and the justification and rationale for technology choices and deployment locations.

Since 9/11, this Nation has spent billions of dollars to increase security along our borders. We've doubled the size of the Border Patrol; built 700 miles of fence; and have invested in technology, such as UAVs and a wide array of surveillance equipment, for use along the border. Most of these investments have been worthwhile. Yet, instead of spending money in an ad hoc fashion, the Department of Homeland Security needs to develop a comprehensive and coherent plan to achieve control of the border while taking into account personnel, technology, and infrastructure needs. The need for a comprehensive strategy is apparent as previous border security efforts succeeded in shifting smuggling and illicit activities from urban areas of the Southwest border to more rural and remote areas, such as Arizona. However, this balloon effect has only succeeded in shifting the problem.

How we determine or measure what a secure border looks like has been the subject of a lot of debate, but the fact remains that the Congress and the American people should have a verifiable way to determine if we are making progress along the border. For years, we've relied on operational control as sort of a proxy for border security, and it has become a de facto term, but at the last count, only 44 percent of the Southwest border was under operational control, and less than 2 percent of the northern border was adequately secured.

In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security stopped reporting the numbers of miles of border under operational control, and as yet has really not supplied an alternative measure of border security to replace the discarded operational control measure. Just a few weeks ago, the Border Patrol released its new 2012 strategic plan, which makes no mention of operational control.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Department believes operational control is probably not the right measure to describe security at the border, and is working on something called the ``border condition index,'' which is supposed to be a holistic measure to inform our border security efforts. I think we are all open to a new, more robust standard if it supplements operational control and better describes what is happening with security at our border.

To this point, I don't think we can automatically assume that this new measure stacks up against operational control. With an issue this important, we just can't change the rules if we don't like the results. So, if the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security decides to use a measure other than operational control, this bill would require that any other measure of border security would be vetted by a national laboratory with prior expertise in border security. I think that boils down to ``trust but verify.''

Security along the border is more often than not described in terms of fences, Border Patrol agents, UAVs, and camera towers. However, that is only one side of the story. We also need to increase security at our ports of entry--the conduit to much of the commerce and cargo that sustains our way of life. This bill requires the Secretary to develop a measure which gauges our progress at the points of entry so that, when combined with operational control or its successor, we have a very full picture of our border security.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the United States Border Patrol and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection have a very difficult job. I know that we all want to thank them for the very hard work that they do in some very demanding conditions to help secure our Nation. Certainly, it is our hope that the requirement for a comprehensive strategy will inform the Congress of the resources needs of the Department of Homeland Security, will give the men and women on the border the tools that they need, and will move us toward a more secure border both at and between the ports of entry.

I certainly would encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in strong opposition to the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.

With all the challenges our nation faces I have a simple question for everyone . . . why in the world is the federal government in the flood insurance business?

The federal government is a bad insurance company. This program which began issuing policies in the 1970's is now almost $19 billion in debt with no hope to ever repay that debt because it is not run with sound actuarial standards.

I opposed this bill a few weeks ago when it passed this House and while the Senate made improvements by taking away subsidized rates from second homes, which is a start, but it still provides others with subsidies while charging premium rates to others, like many in my district with little risk of ever flooding, to provide that subsidy to others in more flood prone areas.

I believe strongly that this is a practice best left to the private sectors or individual states. It is long past time to get the federal government out of the flood insurance business and I continue to oppose this bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of the underlying bill, the Violence Against Women Act.

Madam Speaker, for several years, I had the great honor to serve on the board of my local domestic violence safe house. And I call it a safe house. We didn't call it a shelter. We called it a safe house. So I have personally seen women and children who so desperately needed that safe haven to escape from a cycle of violence. Throughout my service here in Congress, I consistently fought to make certain that support is there for all of the safe houses across my district.

Those women and all those victims of domestic violence, who far too often suffer in silence, need to know that they are not alone and that there are people who care. Today, this House is doing what we need to do, by taking a stand in defense of those who face the danger of domestic violence, by passing this reauthorization.

I certainly applaud the author of the bill, Sandy Adams from Florida. She's kept politics away from crafting this bill. Instead, she's really focused squarely on protecting the victims of domestic violence.

The bill that we are debating here today produces funding at the same level as what was passed by the Senate, but I think it allocates that funding in a way that better supports the victims of domestic violence. For instance, this bill doesn't make any special carve-outs for any particular victim group, because it protects everybody equally. It also includes outstanding revisions developed by listening to those involved in protecting victims from across the Nation.

It strengthens penalties for sexual assault and abuse. It improves Federal stalking laws. It helps young women in college by working to prevent violence on our campuses through improved education programs. And it dramatically improves emergency and transitional housing services.

As well, the Senate bill mirrors current law, which only mandates 40 percent of the funding in the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to address a backlog of rape testing kits which are required, quite frankly, to successfully prosecute rape cases. Our bill mandates that 75 percent of the funding be used for that purpose so that we can eliminate the backlog that exists and put rapists where they belong, and that's in prison.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me today in standing up for women in need and all victims of violence by supporting this outstanding legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlelady yielding time to me, especially because I am opposed to this bill. I would just have one question for my colleagues, and I would ask this: What in the world is the Federal Government doing in the national flood insurance business?

And I would give the sponsors certainly of this legislation credit for the fact that they're trying to reform what I think is an unnecessary Federal Government boondoggle. But rather than reforming this, I think we need to eliminate this program.

Let me just give you an example, Mr. Speaker.

So many of us were very strongly opposed to ObamaCare, the government takeover of health care, because we didn't believe the Federal Government should be running the health care for our entire Nation. But apparently we have no problem with the Federal Government running a National Flood Insurance Program.

This program was created in 1968. We started writing policies in 1972, and today this program is almost $18 billion in debt. And FEMA says that this debt will never be paid for, never, never be paid off. So not only is the Federal Government improperly running a flood insurance program, it's operating a very bad flood insurance program.

This program is not actuarially sound. It charges some of the highest risk areas subsidized rates and charges other areas of no risk astronomical rates to pay for those subsidies.

You can use my home State of Michigan as a great example where our residents have been forced into this program and have been charged thousands of dollars every year even though we have almost no risk of flooding. In Michigan, we actually look down at the water, not up at the water. We've paid multiple times more in premiums than we've ever received back in benefits. In short, Mr. Speaker, the people of the great State of Michigan are getting fleeced by this program.

Obviously, we are a compassionate Nation. When we have a case of a natural disaster, or what have you, we need to make sure that we step up and give relief to our fellow Americans, but what we are doing here today is simply not fair. What we should have is a national catastrophic fund so that everybody pays, not just some who are being forced to subsidize others. That is not fair.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would join me in rejecting the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program so that we can get to work on a way to allow the private marketplace to move in and to replace it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor and personal privilege to represent Selfridge Air National Guard Base, the home of the 107th Fighter Squadron, also known as the Michigan Red Devils.

The 107th flies the A 10, and they just recently returned from a redeployment to Afghanistan, where they performed so magnificently, so bravely, and made us all proud.

The 107th was one of the units scheduled to be eliminated under the President's proposed budget; but, fortunately, the House Armed Services Committee will present a Defense reauthorization bill, scheduled for a floor vote here next week, which reverses that and saves the 107th along with protecting the Air National Guard across the entire country.

Instead, the Air Force will be required to do a cost analysis of the National Guard cuts, which is very good because the Air National Guard performs 35 percent of the flying missions for just 6 percent of the budget. That is the best bang for the taxpayers' buck in these very restrained budgetary times.

This House, Mr. Speaker, is going to do the right thing for the great American patriots of the Air National Guard, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent Selfridge Air National Guard Base, which is home to the Michigan Red Devils, the 107th Fighter Squadron.

The 107th, Mr. Speaker, flies A 10s, and they recently returned from a redeployment to Afghanistan where they performed so bravely and made us all proud. The 107th was one of the Air Guard units scheduled to be eliminated under the President's budget proposal, but fortunately the House Armed Services Committee will present a Defense reauthorization bill next week which reverses that and saves the 107th, along with protecting the Air National Guard actually across the entire country.

This House is going to do the right thing for the great American patriots of the Air National Guard by prioritizing spending within our budget, not by spending more money. So I would certainly urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us.

Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that the cuts that caused the Obama administration to target the Air Guard were before the sequester. If the sequester is allowed to go into effect, the impact on the community that I represent, for example, would be immense, and the defense corridor we are building as a part of our economic revitalization would be stopped, really, dead in its tracks. Not only would the National Guard again be put at risk of massive new cuts, but military contracting across the board would be faced with additional cuts. In Macomb County alone--the county that I'm proud to represent as part of my congressional district--this would mean $200 million in additional cuts, Mr. Speaker, and obviously would cost countless jobs in the defense-related corridor.

This House has taken steps to stop the devastation of our Air National Guard and now is taking steps to stop the devastation of our defense base and needless loss of jobs with commonsense reforms. So I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting reconciliation today, and the Defense reauthorization bill that's coming to the floor next week.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 228, I made an error voting. It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on the Blackburn Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against: