Floor Statements

I certainly appreciate the support of Mr. Pitts and Mr. Pallone for their leadership on this issue. It's deeply appreciated.

This issue of synthetic or designer drugs was first brought to my attention by a woman, a mother in my district whose son had been abusing legal substitutes for marijuana. These synthetic cannabinoids, as they're referred to, or synthetic marijuana, affect the brain in a manner similar to marijuana, but can actually be even much more harmful.

Synthetic marijuana, or cannabinoids, are just one category of designer drugs. Even more potent substances have properties similar to cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and other hard street drugs. These substances are marketed as innocent products like bath salts, plant food, incense, and they're sold under brand names familiar to their users, such as K2 Spice, Vanilla Sky, or Ivory Wave. However, these are total misnomers designed to facilitate their legal sale. These drugs have no legitimate purpose, period.

H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act, drafted in consultation with Federal law enforcement, has three principal components:

First, a prohibition of broad structural classes of synthetic marijuana or the cannabinoids;

Two, a prohibition of synthetic stimulants and other designer drugs, such as bath salts, mephedrone, MDPV, C2E, et cetera, several of those;

Third, an expansion of the DEA's existing authority to temporarily ban a new substance from 1\1/2\ to 3 years. Under current law, if the DEA and Department of Health and Human Services can prove that a substance is, one, dangerous and, two, lacking legitimate value while it is temporarily banned, the prohibition will become permanent.

Over the past year there's been a sharp increase in the number of new reports detailing horrific stories of individuals high on synthetic drugs. A man in Scranton, Pennsylvania, stabbed a priest, and another jumped out a three-story window, both high on bath salts. Several deaths from West Virginia to Florida to Pennsylvania to Iowa have been attributed to abuse of synthetic drugs.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced a companion bill with provisions very similar to H.R. 1254, named after one of his young constituents who tragically took his own life while high on synthetic marijuana.

A man in my district was arrested this past May for firing a gun out of his window in a university neighborhood. Police charges indicate that he injected himself with bath salts, and he later told police he thought there were people on the roof watching him.

Finally, I was approached by another distraught mother from my district whose son was hospitalized for over 2 weeks after suffering liver failure and other complications after injecting himself with bath salts. These substances pose a substantial risk, both to the physical health of the user as well as to the safety of those around them when these drugs contribute to dangerous, psychotic behavior, suicide, and public endangerment.

The fact that these drugs are legal in many States contributes to the misconception that they are safe. And the use of easily recognizable brand names and logos on the packaging promotes the concept of a consistent product.

Significant variations of potency from one unit to the next have led recurrent users to inadvertently overdose. One of the major difficulties in combating these designer drugs is the ability of the producers to skirt the law with different chemical variations. By modifying the formula in some minor way, producers can generate a new compound which circumvents legal prohibitions but has similar narcotic events. DEA needs enhanced authority to temporarily schedule new variations when they hit the market, and they usually hit Europe first, and then they enter the United States.

A growing number of States, including Pennsylvania, have enacted bans on many forms of synthetic drugs, but Federal action is necessary to prevent these drugs from being obtained by simply crossing State lines or, increasingly, ordering them over the Internet.

I believe over 30 States have passed bans, if my memory serves me correctly. State-by-State differences in which individual substances are controlled and how strongly makes for a confusing legal patchwork, and Federal legislation certainly will facilitate enforcement.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced its support of H.R. 1254 as amended by the House Judiciary Committee in a letter dated September 30, 2011, and I would submit that for the Record.

I also want to point out, too, that the American College of Emergency Physicians, which notes the devastating physical and psychotic effects of these drugs, has also endorsed this bill, and I think that's quite significant as well.

Finally, go to a hospital like Children's Hospital of Philadelphia-- they'll tell you they get a case every day with individuals who are suffering from these particular drugs. A year ago at this time, they probably got no calls. And now every day, and that's not just typical in Philadelphia but throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

You will also hear some folks here today who might actually argue that medical research will somehow be impeded. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation does not in any way impede medical research. I would be happy to get into that at some point.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,

Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman. This letter provides the Department of

Justice's views on H.R.

1254, as amended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce,

titled the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.'' The bill

would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to address

the growing use and misuse of synthetic drugs by placing a

number of substances in schedule I and by extending the

length of time that a drug may be temporarily placed in

schedule I.

We support the bill as drafted, but believe it can be

strengthened with the addition of the ``2C family'' of drugs

listed in an appendix to this letter and in S. 839. The

Department also supports the goals of S. 605, Dangerous

Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011 or the ``David Mitchell

Rozga Act''; S. 839, Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011;

and S. 409, Combating Dangerous Synthetic Stimulants Act of

2011. H.R. 1254 already contains many provisions included in

S. 605 and S. 409, and we urge that the bill be expanded to

include the provisions of S. 839.

The Threat of Synthetic Drugs

In recent years, a growing number of dangerous products

have been introduced into the U.S. marketplace. Products

labeled as ``herbal incense'' have become increasingly

popular, especially among teens and young adults. These

products consist of plant materials laced with synthetic

cannabinoids which, when smoked, mimic the deleterious

effects of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), the

principal psychoactive constituent in marijuana. To

underscore the scope and breadth of the synthetic cannabinoid

problem, a recent report prepared by the United Nations

Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) notes that more than 100

such substances have been synthesized and identified to

date.''

There is also growing evidence demonstrating the abuse of a

number of substances labeled as ``bath salts'' or ``plant

foods'' which, when ingested, snorted, smoked, inhaled, or

injected, produce stimulant and other psychoactive effects.

These synthetic stimulants are based on a variety of

compounds and are purported to be alternatives to the

controlled substances cocaine, amphetamine, and Ecstasy

(MDMA). These drugs have been distributed and abused in

Europe for several years and have since appeared here in the

United States. According to a recent National Drug

Intelligence Center report, poison control centers and

medical professionals around the country have reported an

increase in the number of individuals suffering adverse

physical effects associated with abuse of these drugs.

There are other newly developed drugs that also pose a

significant threat to the public. This includes the ``2C

family'' of drugs (dimethoxyphenethylamines), which are

generally referred to as synthetic psychedelic/hallucinogens.

Recently, a 19-year-old male in Minnesota died of cardiac

arrest after allegedly ingesting 2C-E, one of the substances

within this class of drugs. We note that the 2C substances

listed in the attached Appendix are included in the list of

substances covered by S. 839. The Department supports the

addition of the 2C family of substances listed in the

Appendix to H.R. 1254.

Products containing synthetic drugs are dangerous and

represent a growing challenge to law enforcement. Apart from

the wide array of harmful or even lethal side effects of many

of the listed substances, neither the products nor their

active ingredients have been approved by the Food and Drug

Administration for use in medical treatment, and

manufacturers and retailers of the products containing these

substances do not disclose that there are synthetic drugs in

their products. Synthetic drug abusers may endanger not only

themselves but others: some become violent when under the

influence of these substances, and abusers who operate motor

vehicles after using synthetic drugs likely present similar

dangers as those under the influence of controlled

substances.

With the exception of the five substances recently

controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

pursuant to its temporary scheduling authority, the listed

synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic stimulants are not

currently in any schedule under the CSA.

Efforts to control Synthetic Drugs

Congress created an interagency process for placing new and

emerging drugs into one of five schedules of the CSA (21

U.S.C. 811 et seq.). One such mechanism, temporary scheduling

(21 U.S.C. 811(h)), was specifically designed to enable the

Department to act in an expeditious manner if such action is

necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

In response to the growing threat posed by known synthetic

cannabinoids, on March 1, 2011, the DEA temporarily placed

the following five synthetic cannabinoids in schedule I: JWH-

018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47, 497, and CP-47, 497 C8

homologue.

The DEA is currently gathering scientific data and other

information about synthetic cathinones as well as evaluating

their psychoactive effects to support administrative action

to schedule these substances under the CSA. To temporarily

schedule these stimulants, the DEA must find that placement

in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the

public safety, a finding that requires the DEA to consider

the following three factors: history and current pattern

of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

and what, if any, risk there is to the public health,

including actual abuse; diversion from legitimate

channels; and clandestine importation, manufacture, or

distribution. Once data have been gathered to meet the

statutory criteria to temporarily schedule these

cathinones, the Department will initiate an action to

temporarily place them into schedule 1. In fact, on

September 8, 2011, the DEA published a notice of intent in

the Federal Register (21 FR 55616) to temporarily place

mephedrone, methylone and MDPV in schedule I.

Unfortunately, however, the distribution and abuse of

synthetic drugs cannot be fully addressed by temporary

scheduling because as law enforcement investigates,

researches, and develops evidence to support such action,

illicit drug makers create new synthetic drugs for the

purpose of evading federal law. Scheduling via legislation is

an additional tool to promote public health and safety.

Purpose of Legislation

Placing synthetic carnnabinoid and synthetic stimulant

substances in schedule I would expose those who manufacture,

distribute, possess, import, and export synthetic drugs

without proper authority to the full spectrum of criminal,

civil, and administrative penalties, sanctions, and

regulatory controls. Unless authorized by the DEA, the

manufacture and distribution of these substances, and

possession with intent to manufacture or distribute them,

would be a violation of the CSA and/or the Controlled

Substances Import and Export Act.

H.R. 1254, as well as S. 409, would amend the CSA by

expanding the list of substances in schedule I of the CSA (21

U.S.C. 812(c)). To address synthetic cannabinoid abuse, the

bill names 15 unique substances that would be placed in

schedule I; this list includes those temporarily scheduled by

the DEA. Additionally, the bill creates five structural

classes of substances collectively referred to as

``cannabimimetic agents.'' In order for a substance to be a

cannabimimetic agent, the substance must: (1) bind to the CB1

receptor; and (2) meet any of the definitions for those

structural classes. If both criteria are met, that substance

will be a schedule I cannabimimetic agent controlled

substance.

To address emerging synthetic stimulant abuse, H.R. 1254

names 17 unique substances that would be placed in schedule

I. These substances have either been encountered by law

enforcement here in the United States or are most likely to

be encountered by law enforcement in the United States based

on their use and misuse in Europe, which is likely where the

use and misuse originated.

Finally, the bill seeks to double the amount of time

allowed for the Department to temporarily schedule new and

emerging drugs by amending 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In this regard,

the bill seeks to enhance the tools available to the

Department to combat the abuse of new drugs that will appear

in the future.

For these reasons, the Justice Department supports H.R.

1254 and recommends that the Committee consider strengthening

it in the ways we have proposed.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The

Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the

perspective of the Administration's program, there is no

objection to the submission of this letter.

Sincerely,

Ronald Weich,

Assistant Attorney General.

Appendix

Additional Synthetic Drugs for Inclusion in section 202(c)

of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)):

Redline of H.R. 1254, as amended by Energy and Commerce on

July 28, 2011--

``(35) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)

ethanamine (2C-E).

(36) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)

ethanamine (2C-D).

(37) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)

ethanamine (2C-C).

(38) 2-(4-lodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)

ethanamine (2C-I).

(39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]

ethanamine (2C-T-2).

(40) 2-[4-(lsopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl

-[ethanamine (2C-T-4).

(41) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).

(42) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)

ethanamine (2C-N).

(43) 2-(2.5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)

ethanamine (2C-P).''

I do want to address a few of the statements I heard on the floor from my friends from Tennessee and Virginia.

My friend from Tennessee made some comments, but I want to be very clear, these drugs are dangerous, have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, which is why they belong on Schedule I. Schedules II and V are reserved for drugs used in legitimate medical procedures.

So we're talking about Schedule I here, not Schedules II through V. Let me be very clear on that point.

Second, the FDA has stated that the drugs listed in H.R. 1254 have no medical use, and there are no INDs--that is, investigational new drug applications--for these substances pending with the FDA. This is from the FDA. H.R. 1254 will not prevent further research into synthetic drugs. It's simply false to say that it will.

DEA has a routine, well-established procedure in place to facilitate scientific study of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Currently the DEA has licensed nearly 4,000 individuals and other entities, including universities, manufacturers, researchers, and labs to handle Schedule I drugs for scientific and investigational purposes. These are facts.

I also want to point out, my friend from Virginia made some comments about I guess eight compounds having been found in the United States. Actually, dozens of compounds have been found in the United States. Many bath salt chemicals currently are in the United States, but only three synthetic stimulants and five synthetic cannabinoids have been emergency

scheduled by the DEA because they have to go chemical by chemical in order to act on this matter. They have to deal with this on a chemical- by-chemical basis.

We need Congress to give the DEA authority to be more effective and get ahead of this problem. We know that these drugs are coming into this country from Europe. That's where they're coming from, these compounds. There are some in Europe right now. Our goal is to get out in front of this before they have a chance to be exported into the U.S.

Another comment I heard about 325 researchers, well, 325 researchers because that's all who have applied to do this type of research. DEA is not in the business of turning researchers away, so I want to be clear on these points.

There's so much more that can be said on this. But again, research will not be impeded in any way. There is a mechanism, there is a process in place to do research on these Schedule I drugs. It's well established. This has nothing to do with the medical marijuana debate. I heard that argued earlier, too. We're talking about synthetic marijuana and synthetic cocaine. This stuff is dangerous. And, in fact, some would argue worse than the real stuff, so let's get to it.

This is about public safety. This is about the health of our constituents. We know what's going on. In fact, somebody pointed out to me today that a store in Washington, D.C., a few blocks from the Capitol, somebody is selling this stuff. My State and over 30 other States have seen this problem. They know what's happening across this country. We need to do something about it. DEA is alarmed by this. Justice is on board. DEA is on board. Let's do something for the good of the American people. Please pass H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011. It's in the best interest of the American people, and the best interest of our children. We're doing the right thing.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this bill.

First, I am the co-chair of the Cement Caucus, along with Congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas.

My district is the largest cement producing district in America. I have a town in my district called Cementon. I have a high school team called the Konkrete Kids. This is what we do in my district in large part.

I have five cement plants, Lafarge, Buzzi, Keystone, Essroc, Heidleberg-Hanson, Lehigh Portland cements. I have a company that manufactures and constructs cement plants, FLSmidth-Fuller. This is a big business where I live. It's an important business, the basic industry and the manufacturing to the industrial sector of this country.

These three rules that we are dealing with are going to have a dramatically negative impact on cement production in America. Foreign imports currently make up more than 20 percent of total U.S. cement sales, and that number is going to grow if these regulations are implemented.

Many of these foreign producers, as has been pointed out by some of the previous speakers, do not operate with anything close to the types of regulations that we are talking about here today, whether they be in Europe or Mexico, China or elsewhere. And as has been stated previously, close to 20 percent of all cement production facilities in this country are likely to close as a result of these three rules.

What are they? It's NESHAP rule, which cobbles together a whole range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any single cement plant to comply with all the various standards simultaneously.

Also one called CISWI--and I won't read the acronym--but that is going to have an impact on the ability to use solid waste in the form of tires, waste plastics, and other materials that we use in cement plants. This material would be land-filled. We'd have unsightly tire piles all over America, breeding grounds for mosquitos and West Nile virus. We burn them in cement plants. They have high Btu content. This will make it much more difficult, these rules, if they are implemented. So we have to stop it.

So what this bill does, it scraps its three existing rules and requires the EPA administrator to develop and propose more realistic and achievable regulations within 15 months. This is completely reasonable. Support this. This is about protecting American jobs. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise with strong reservations about this amendment, but I also want to talk about the underlying legislation.

I think, really, what we have to be focused on here is jobs. Again, as I stated earlier during floor debate, I represent the largest cement-producing district in America. We have five cement plants in my district. Those five cement plants produce more cement than did the 50 plants that preceded them. We used to have 50 plants in my district, and now those five plants that are remaining produce more than the 50. The point is that the industry has become much more productive in many respects, including being environmentally more productive and sensitive.

That said, these new rules, these three rules in particular, will restrict the industry's ability to remain competitive with foreign producers. These foreign imports currently make up more than 20 percent of the total U.S. cement sales. If these three rules are implemented, we will see less domestic cement production.

To add insult to injury with respect to what the EPA is doing with their regulatory assault on the cement industry as well as on the coal industry, what they are doing here is just unfair to basic industry--to manufacturing, to industrial America. When you look at the stimulus law that was enacted a couple of years ago, look at what happened. Our stimulus dollars, Federal dollars, are being used to finance a cement importation terminal in New York City for the purpose of bringing in Peruvian cement.

No, I am not making that up; that's real. And I've talked about this issue before on the House floor. Because this regulatory assault on domestic cement and our own Federal Government, another arm of the Federal Government, trying to basically subsidize the importation of foreign cement, it's going to have a very negative impact on my congressional district, which is, again, the largest cement producing district in America.

And it's been stated before these NESHAP rules just cobble together a range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any single cement company to comply with all these standards simultaneously.

There are two other rules, the CISWI rule and the nonhazardous solid waste rule, that will deal with issues like tires.

And many modern cement plants here, as well as in Europe, use alternative fuel sources with high Btu content. They use tires. They use waste plastics ground up. Many of these materials and waste would be otherwise, ordinarily, landfill. We burn them in cement kilns with a high Btu content, and that replaces other fuels like coal.

So this is very important. It's a great reuse of these materials. If we leave those unsightly tire piles out and about, what will happen is we'll see another situation like we saw in Philadelphia years ago where the tire pile ignited and melted the I-95 bridge in Philadelphia. That's when many people started to realize that there was a better use for tires than letting them sit in these piles under interstate freeways and use them in cement kilns. It makes great sense, and these new rules will imperil our ability to use those types of waste fuel oils, waste tires and ground-up plastics. So this is something I think we really have to focus on as we deal with this issue.

Finally, I wanted to mention a couple of other things about what's occurring here. By scrapping these three existing rules and requiring the EPA administrator to develop and propose more realistic and achievable regulations within 15 months, we are going to provide more time for the industry to prepare for full implementation and compliance.

We are going to require that the EPA administrator establish compliance dates and requirements after considering compliance costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, energy requirements, the feasibility of implementation, the availability of equipment suppliers and labor, and the potential net employment impacts. That means jobs.

As has been pointed out at various points here, the industry today employs about 17,000 Americans, and we have lost more than 4,000 jobs in the cement industry since 2008. As I pointed out, in a district like mine where we have five cement plants that are operating, and operating effectively--and not only the cement plants, but we also have ancillary industries, like the FLSmidth Company, formerly the Fuller Company, where they actually make cement equipment and build cement plants. These types of jobs are good-paying jobs, are essential to America's industrial base, to our basic industry.

We have to stop this regulatory assault on these types of manufacturing jobs. We can make things in America if our government will just allow us.

So, once again, I want to express my concerns regarding the underlying amendment but, at the same time, expressing my strong and unreserved support for the underlying legislation, which is much overdue.

Again, cement is a critical industry to our Nation, and it's time that we adopt this very important Cement MACT legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment simply adds the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP or Cement MACT, to the covered rules within H.R. 2401. Reasonable efforts to limit the emissions of hazardous pollutants by cement manufacturing facilities are most certainly appropriate, but EPA has failed to craft effective and efficient regulations.

These NESHAP standards will be very, very difficult and extremely costly for domestic cement manufacturers to meet, severely jeopardizing the ability of an essential American basic industry to remain competitive with foreign importers. Including NESHAP and H.R. 2401 will allow the loss of American jobs and the weakening of domestic manufacturers' global competitiveness to become key considerations during the completion of the rulemaking process.

We must understand the impacts of these rules on jobs and our manufacturing competitiveness. Here now are some simple, basic facts about the American cement industry, and I represent the largest cement- producing district in America. I'm cochair of the Cement Caucus along with cosponsor Mike Ross of Arkansas. This industry employs about 13,000 Americans. Four thousand of those jobs have been lost since 2008. There are 97 cement plants in America producing today, and there's a presence in nearly every State as well, I might add. Cement is an absolutely essential basic industry in American manufacturing. It plays a major role in the development of our Nation's infrastructure.

I think we need to better understand some of this background, too, regarding these NESHAP rules.

NESHAP, of course, amends EPA's maximum achievable control technology, or MACT, and performance standards for cement kilns. And this is utilizing an unrealistic pollutant-by-pollutant approach for application of MACT. MACT requirements are designed to direct industries toward the pollution control technology used by the best performers in a certain industry sector. It cobbles together a range of different performance characteristics applicable to different pollutants without determining if it is feasible or even possible for any one kiln to comply with all of these standards.

The truth is there is not a single cement manufacturing plant in America that can comply with all of these standards simultaneously. The chemical composition, too, of key cement inputs, such as limestone, vary from region to region. Consequently, NESHAP will have disproportionate impacts on different manufacturing locations across the country simply based on the type of limestone being used in the process of manufacturing cement.

We should talk, too, about the impacts on the domestic cement industry: $2.2 billion worth of compliance costs, and that's an EPA estimate; $3.4 billion in compliance costs, and that's the industry estimate. So there's a lot of cost here. We're in the billions.

There are numerous plants. There are estimates that from 12 to 18 of these plants across the country may be idle or permanently shut down. And these are massive facilities with tremendous capital investment. And we believe that the national price for Portland cement may increase by 5.4 percent. Domestic production will fall by 11 percent. Thousands of high-quality jobs could or would be lost.

One major domestic cement producer has already publicly announced that, due to other regulatory uncertainties of this NESHAP and other pending regulations, it is halting construction of a new state-of-the- art cement kiln, suspending over $350 million in new investment and the creation of over 1,500 construction jobs.

With respect to global emissions, what will this mean? The reduction of domestic production of cement will naturally lead to an increase in our Nation's reliance on foreign cement. And I can assure you those foreign producers are not going to be complying with the NESHAP rules. So this is going to shift overseas production and will likely increase global greenhouse emissions in two ways:

First, transporting cement to the U.S. from international markets will require tremendous amounts of fossil fuels, substantially increasing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of cement used; and

Second, foreign suppliers will be manufacturing in countries with little or no environmental protections.

So it's critically important that EPA produce realistic and achievable regulations. Including NESHAP in H.R. 2401 will help EPA take into account the economic impact of its flawed regulations, and a more thorough economic analysis will lead to a better final rule.

Finally, I wanted to say one thing. The Federal stimulus law is actually helping to finance the construction of a cement importation terminal in Staten Island, New York City, designed to displace many cement workers in my district and all across the northeastern United States, using Federal money to create a handful of jobs while displacing many in basic industry and manufacturing. That's got to stop.

Pass this amendment, and then pass the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this continuing resolution. It will fund the government through November 18. It takes care of many of our disaster needs.

As you heard from my colleague so eloquently, Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania, you heard about the plight of so many people in towns like Shickshinny and West Pittston who are living in the front yard in the cars. People are broken. Communities have been ruined, and so we need to pass this bill.

I urge you to support this bill.

I've heard a lot of talk tonight about manufacturing. My dad's family spent 100 years making industrial hardware in Pennsylvania. If you really care about manufacturing, some of you might have considered voting for a bill last week to allow the Nation's largest exporter to open up a billion-dollar facility in the State of South Carolina to hire a thousand people to make aircraft. If you really want to help manufacturing, you should've voted for that bill.

You can also help us in stopping EPA's assault on the coal industry and on the cement industry. I represent the largest cement-producing district in America. These industries are in trouble, and they're under assault by this EPA. Help us. There'll be measures considered here to deal with them.

If you are truly concerned about manufacturing, innovation and research, you wouldn't have slapped a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices. It's going to kill tens of thousands of jobs in this country. We make a lot of devices in my part of the world, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We need help. Our manufacturers need help.

So rather than defending a company out in California that just wasted $500 million, down the drain, taxpayer dollars, 1,100 people out of work, let's do something to help manufacturers. And most importantly, let's pass this bill tonight to help so many people who are struggling throughout this country in Pennsylvania; New Jersey; New York; Vermont; the people of the South; Joplin, Missouri; and elsewhere who have been affected by these horrible natural disasters. Please, stand up, do the right thing and vote for this continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Budget Control Act. First and foremost, we, the United States House of Representatives, have an obligation to govern. We have a tremendous responsibility to the American people to consider this plan that ensures our Nation does not default on our Nation's commitments while at the same time places this country on a sustainable fiscal path.

Let me be clear: Defaulting on America's obligations to our creditors, to our seniors, disabled veterans, activity military personnel, college students, and many others is not an option. This bill prevents a default and it pays our bills. Congress must act swiftly to deter a ratings downgrade of our U.S. Government, a downgrade that will affect families and small businesses across the country. Only a sound, credible plan that places us on that sustainable trajectory will prevent that downgrade, driven in part by an unprecedented spending binge by this administration which has blown up the fiscal balance sheet.

A previous speaker said a few moments ago that we're playing games. I can assure you this is no game. This is serious stuff. And speaking of serious, the White House has still refused to offer a serious specific plan in writing that we can review. In fact, in a stinging rebuke of the administration, the nonpartisan Director of the CBO, Doug Elmendorf, said, ``We don't estimate speeches.''

The Senate has dug in its heels, too. It would be nice if they passed the bill, any bill. It's been 800 days since there's been a budget. It's time for them to act and to move to prevent this type of a fiscal calamity that many have predicted.

Again, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It's a step forward. It may not be the final product, but it moves this process forward. I encourage the Senate to take it up.

Most importantly, we have a sacred duty and a solemn obligation to lead and to act. We do have that affirmative obligation to govern for the benefit of our country and for the American people. The world is watching. Americans are watching. It's time for us to lead and demonstrate American exceptionalism.

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

I rise tonight in support of the Dicks-Fitzpatrick amendment. I voted for this same language in the Appropriations Committee markup a few

weeks ago, and we have all heard some pretty compelling arguments here tonight about some challenges with the Endangered Species Act. And as has been previously stated by Mr. Thompson and others here tonight, I agree with those who said that the proper venue for this discussion is in the authorizing committee. I have great confidence in Chairman Hastings, that he would take a thoughtful and sincere look at the act to make reforms that I think many people would agree are needed. But again, I don't think this is the right place to do it.

Again, I support the underlying bill. I think overall this legislation, this Interior bill, while it is not everything to everybody, and certainly the funding levels might not be where some people would like, Chairman Simpson has done a commendable job putting a bill together.

But I think this language in the underlying bill should be stricken as proposed by Mr. Dicks and Mr. Fitzpatrick, and so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Tonko amendment. Mr. Tonko and I have offered this amendment for consideration by the House.

We are the cochairs of the Heritage Corridor Caucus. I represent the areas of the Delaware-Lehigh Heritage Corridor as well as the Schuylkill Valley Corridor in eastern Pennsylvania, and we have seen a great deal of positive activity as a result of these heritage areas. Specifically, as Mr. Tonko conveyed, a great deal of tourism activity, recreational opportunities, as well as economic development occurs as a result of this. Also, significant community development activities have been the result of our efforts and investment in these heritage areas.

Obviously money is very tight, and this program is taking about a 50 percent reduction under the underlying bill. The amendment before us will simply restore about $8.4 million to the heritage area, to the heritage partnership program; and we'll be taking that money, substituting it from the National Park Service, where we believe they have sufficient funds to operate.

I support the underlying legislation. I know Chairman Simpson has put a lot of effort into this. I think he has really done a great deal, given the numbers he has had to work with. So I do support the underlying bill. But I think that this amendment strikes a proper balance and preserves and protects these heritage areas that are making a real impact across the country.

I guess there are 49 of these heritage areas currently in existence, and most of them, I believe, are receiving under $1 million of support through the Interior Department. So I just think this is a program that is worthy of our support. We're just simply, in these tough economic times, trying to bring this program back to neutral. I know the administration did not, in their budget proposal, cut this program as well. But I think this might be one way this amendment could help us bring this program back to a level that will be sufficient in supporting these heritage areas.

Again, as was stated by Mr. Tonko, these communities are benefiting. We are seeing so much tourist activity. We are seeing increased recreational opportunities. I know in my community, we are all of a sudden doing things on our rivers and discovering our rivers and the natural beauty of them that many of us had not really noticed before, and it's really as a result of this. Again, it brought the rivers back to life, economic life, community life, and it has become really, once again, the center of our existence. And a lot of this would not have been possible but for the efforts of these heritage areas. So, again, I rise in support of the Tonko-Dent amendment and would urge the House to adopt this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Dent

Amendment No. 57: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

limitation of funds related to indian gaming on settlement lands

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 601 and 602: I regret that I was unavoidably absent on Monday, July 18, 2011, due to a family obligation. Had I been present for the two votes which occurred, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 33, rollcall No. 601 and ``aye'' on Approving the Journal, rollcall No. 602.

I too rise today to urge the Senate to take up this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate has a bad habit of waiting to do just about anything. It's bad enough that the Senate has refused to even take up a budget. It's been hundreds of days before they considered to do one. But now they're derelict in their duties by failing to deal with the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We need to fund ICE, we need to fund CBP, we need to fund the Coast Guard, and many other critical functions of this Department. Of course, FEMA has great needs right now with the floods in Missouri, and elsewhere, and all the tragedies we've seen with the tornadoes across the country. It's important now that we get this funding, which was appropriated out of the House, through the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, with the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and those horrific attacks just weeks away and disasters occurring all over the country, I certainly urge today that the Senate move forward. There can be no further delay. The motto of the Senate simply can't be: do nothing, do nothing, do nothing; start slow and then wind down from there.

That's what we seem to be getting. But not on this bill. Move the House appropriations bill on Homeland Security immediately.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2017, the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. As we all know, we are closing in on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, and this week marks one month since the death of Osama bin Laden. Communities across the country, particularly in Alabama, as ably represented by the chairman of this subcommittee, and Missouri, are reeling from some of the most devastating storms and tornadoes in their history.

I am pleased that the Homeland Security funding bill is the first of the FY12 appropriations bills to be considered on the floor this afternoon. H.R. 2017, this legislation, tackles both fiscal discipline and national security, both of critical importance to the American public.

With regard to fiscal responsibility, H.R. 2017 provides $40.6 billion in discretionary funding, or almost $3 billion, or 7 percent, below the request, and $1.1 billion, or 3 percent, below the fiscal year 2011 level.

As for our national security, all of our front line personnel, including Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, ICE agents, and Coast Guard military personnel are fully funded to sustain their forces and meet mission objectives. Obviously, we wish we could do more in this legislation, but I think this is a very important start that should move this process forward.

Furthermore, this bill, 2017, does not shy away from oversight to ensure the Federal Government is a good steward of the American public's tax dollars. For instance, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, will be required to cap their full-time screeners and generate a plan to improve the integration of screening technology and the deployment of its existing workforce. Having served on the authorizing committee for 6 years, I very much appreciate this initiative and have paid very close attention to these TSA issues over the years.

I do believe this bill we are considering today is timely and specifically targets our Nation's security needs. I know that we are going to have a robust debate on some of these amendments that can further enhance this legislation.

Finally, I want to thank Chairman Aderholt for his hard work and his leadership, as well as the minority staff.

Offered By: Mr. Dent

Amendment No. 26: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount,

insert ``reduced by $63,000,000''.

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $112,000,000''.

Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``increased by $175,000,000''.

Page 50, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``increased by $62,500,000''.

Page 50, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``increased by $112,500,000''.

Offered By: Mr. Dent

Amendment No. 26: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount,

insert ``reduced by $63,000,000''.

Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced

by $112,000,000''.

Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``increased by $175,000,000''.

Page 50, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``increased by $62,500,000''.

Page 50, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``increased by $112,500,000''.

Mr. Chair, I rise this evening to express support for the Dent Amendment offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The purpose of this amendment is to analyze the current manufacturing capabilities available in the United States to support a Nuclear Powered Navy. More specifically, this provision would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to measure the domestic capacity in accordance with the Defense Acquisition Regulations System to manufacture ship shafts and other forged components used by surface and sub-surface vessels of the U.S. Navy. On the issue of ``Forgings,'' the Defense Acquisition Regulations System restricts the production of ship propulsion shafts, periscope tubes and other forgings to domestic sources. Furthermore, this study will ensure that the Department of Defense has identified the domestic entities with the infrastructure and industrial resources to contribute to our national defense.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continues to anchor this vital manufacturing sector. Lehigh Heavy Forge, headquartered in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is a final remnant of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. Today, the Forge is integral to the production of components needed for building U.S. Naval vessels. The ArcelorMittal Steelton Plant--located approximately 100 miles to the west of Bethlehem in Steelton, Pennsylvania--produces the steel ingots processed by Lehigh Heavy Forge to produce Navy ship shafts. In total, these two facilities provide over 700 jobs for Pennsylvanians, not to mention the additional 450 jobs at additional facilities across the Commonwealth with the infrastructure to meet this national need. While I am proud of the manufacturing tradition woven throughout Pennsylvania, I believe it is imperative for the Department of Defense to measure whether we have the domestic capacity to ultimately meet the challenges in the most treacherous corners of the world.

To that end, I am pleased that the underlying bill, H.R. 1540, authorized Navy shipbuilding as a permissible use of the Mission Enforcement Transfer Fund by the Secretary of Defense in FY 2012. The United States Navy is vital to our national security mission, including ongoing counterterrorism operations and irregular warfare. We need to ensure that the domestic capacity is in place to provide American sailors with the assets they need to succeed in our littoral zones, as well as on the high seas.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Dent Amendment.

I offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for the very good work they have done on this bill. They really have worked in a bipartisan manner, and they are really trying to advance the best interests of the intelligence community and this Nation's national security. So I applaud them for the spirit in which they have taken on this legislation.

I will withdraw this amendment after having conversations with the chairman. But the point I want to make about the amendment is that the amendment simply directs the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA that within 90 days of this act to provide the congressional intelligence committees all information possessed by the DNI and the CIA relating to the pursuit and targeting of one Anwar al-Awlaki by the Federal Government as well as an analysis of the legal impediments to pursuing the capture of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Americans are all very much familiar with who Osama bin Laden is. Everybody knows who he is, and we're all extremely gratified about his demise. At the same time, we should all be aware too that Anwar al- Awlaki seems to be the leader of many of the operational aspects of al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. He is a real threat. He is an American citizen. He is also a Yemeni citizen. He has targeted Americans. We always thought he was a spiritual adviser and certainly a recruiter for al Qaeda. But now it's quite clear that he has also gone operational.

We're aware of that as it relates to the underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab and his attempt to the blow up the airliner near Detroit.

So the point of this amendment is to raise awareness on Anwar al- Awlaki, also to point out the fact that he is a citizen, to point out the fact that I think it's important that we consider essentially that he has committed expatriating acts. I mean, the fact that he has targeted American citizens, that he has called for the death of many

Americans, I have legislation that is also prepared to deal with his citizenship issue, that it should be revoked, or at least we should seriously do that, just as we would for any other individual who takes up arms against this country. We have laws on the books from 1944 when there were individuals who were signed up with the Nazi army or the Imperial Army of Japan who took up arms against this country as citizens. Those are expatriating acts.

I simply believe that if an individual takes up arms with al Qaeda or the Taliban or any other terrorist organization, foreign terrorist organization that is intent on killing Americans, that we should treat them just as we would an individual who is an agent of a foreign government or part of a foreign army. That's the whole point.

But recognizing this is probably not the best place to offer this amendment at this time, I have agreed to withdraw it. I appreciate the chairman's consideration, and I will be working to make sure that this Congress has the opportunity to address the citizenship issue of Anwar al-Awlaki. It has reported in the press that our government has a kill or capture order on Mr. Al-Awlaki. I don't know if that is true or not. I read it in the press.

Just last week we saw reports that Anwar al-Awlaki was supposedly the intended target of an attack, unsuccessful, in Yemen, and so he is still alive. And the point I want to make is that I think that if we're targeting an American citizen for assassination, then I think we should at least take up the issue of his citizenship and revoke it if at all possible. So at that point I will address it in another forum.

At this time I would again urge everybody here to support the underlying legislation. I will withdraw this amendment, and I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, H.R. 1473, the fiscal year 2011 spending agreement.

Clearly, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a good one, and we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Just 6 months ago, cutting even $2 billion in Federal spending seemed impossible. But today we're cutting non-defense spending by nearly $45 billion, or 7.7 percent, from the fiscal year 2010 level.

Madam Speaker, we have, in fact, turned the proverbial ship around, the aircraft carrier around, when it comes to Federal spending. We're no longer debating about how much we're going to increase spending; we're debating today, rather, how we're going to cut spending and how much we're going to cut in spending. That really represents an enormous shift in the culture of this place.

From the transportation accounts, we have cut $2.9 billion from the high-speed rail initiative. From HUD, the bill will force public housing agencies to operate more efficiently, eliminate duplicative housing counseling efforts, and reins in spending for development programs with a history of inconsistent results.

So we have a lot here to celebrate today. In November the American people voted for change, and the culture of that change is occurring.