Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, passing this measure is absolutely the responsible thing to do. We are on the brink of an avoidable, potentially destructive government shutdown; and first and foremost we ensure that our troops are funded for their service to the Nation. Let's get that done.

The American people elected us to ensure the Federal Government runs effectively and efficiently, and allowing even a temporary shutdown is a failure of our most basic responsibility as Members of Congress.

Let's not forget the reason we are here today and in this predicament. It was the inability of the Democratic leadership last year to pass a budget. They didn't even try, and they failed to complete any of the appropriations bills.

In fact, Senator Schumer has made it quite clear that a government shutdown is in his political interest. Perhaps that's why the Senate isn't doing anything. You know, they have two paces over there: slow and glacial.

Today was a new day in the Senate. They started slowly and they're winding down from there. I wish they would get to work and pass some type of an appropriations bill.

We passed an appropriations bill; they passed nothing. We need to get this done. It's important to fund the troops, it's important to keep the government open, and this is the right way to do it.

I rise in support of H.J. Res. 48.

As has been stated, this legislation cuts $6 billion in funding. They are responsible cuts. This is $2 billion per week. It should be noted, too, there is broad bipartisanship agreement to nearly all the cuts contained in this legislation. Basically everything that is in this legislation was also contained in H.R. 1.

We should also note, too, that if this legislation is enacted, this legislation would represent the largest spending cut in domestic discretionary programs in history, when you combine this with what was cut 2 weeks ago, the $4 billion. Again, if enacted, this will represent the largest spending cut in domestic discretionary programs in American history, should we enact this legislation.

Now, I know that some people around here think that this bill really doesn't go far enough, but it certainly does represent a very big step forward.

The cuts that are contained in here, we are eliminating $2.6 billion in earmark funding from Agriculture, CJS, Financial Services, and Interior. The cuts include rescissions, reductions, and program terminations.

I think we all understand, too, that if we pass this, this will prevent a government shutdown, and we need to prevent that while these negotiations can continue. We need to come to some type of agreement for the balance of this fiscal year. But in the meantime, this represents responsible cuts and broad bipartisan agreement.

I say, let's cut spending, let's cut it now, and let's cut it today. Take yes for an answer. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is the right thing to do, and the American people will appreciate it.

I want to commend Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Gibson on their efforts in drafting this amendment.

Notwithstanding any technical drafting errors that may affect $30 billion, I think it is important that we have this discussion.

The intent of this amendment is to help restore funding to programs that have been zeroed out and to then better balance these cuts. Ordinarily, I would agree with the chairman and Mr. LaTourette that we would not want to engage in across-the-board cuts; but given where we are in this fiscal year 2011 process, I think we should embrace this policy, better balance these cuts in a way that I think is a bit more equitable, use the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process for oversight to make further revisions, then discuss zeroing out or, in a more discriminating manner, deal with those programs that should be cut even more substantially.

This amendment will help restore programs like LIHEAP, CSBG, CDBG, which are programs that have been substantially reduced, and others that have been zeroed out. So that is why I believe it is important that we adopt this amendment.

Again, I commend Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Gibson for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 17,

112th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 41 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, February 28, 2011, at 2 p.m.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say I rise in strong support of Judge Carter's amendment. It's absolutely necessary. Let me give you a few reasons why.

First, I'm cochair of the Cement Caucus along with Congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas. My district is one, if not the top, cement-producing district in America. This is a critical industry to our infrastructure and certainly to the people of our country.

Nationally, the cement industry employs about 17,000 Americans. We've lost more than 4,000 jobs in this industry since 2008. I am deeply concerned that EPA has failed to properly address the economic impact of this NESHAP rule. I'm extremely concerned about this for a variety of reasons. It seems to me in many respects this industry seems to be specifically under attack by the EPA. This rule is critically flawed. It cobbles together a range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any single cement plant to comply with all the standards simultaneously.

Nobody has determined if anyone can comply with this rule. This means a lot to the people of my district. This rule is going to restrict our ability to remain competitive with foreign cement producers. Foreign imports currently make up about 20 percent of total U.S. cement sales. Most foreign operators basically are producers. They operate without anything close to the level of environmental standards currently in place in America. While the EPA is trying to limit cement production with this ill-advised, job-destroying regulation, the Obama administration stimulus is providing financing to build a cement importation terminal in New York City. Stimulus dollars are being used to fund a cement importation terminal in New York City. The cement that's produced in my region supplies the New York market. It's the equivalent of one full plant. Why are we subsidizing foreign producers of cement with our stimulus dollars? It makes no sense.

So the Federal Government on the one hand is enabling foreign producers and on the other hand it's using the EPA to further cripple the domestic industry, which was flat on its back in 2010 and this year in 2011 is going to be even worse. We need a viable infrastructure, we need a viable cement in America. This amendment I think in an effective manner addresses this problem.

Somebody at EPA is going to have to answer for this because I know my constituents were enormously offended that the Federal Government would be doing so much to undermine this industry on the one hand through a stimulus and then on the other hand using EPA to further limit their ability to operate.

Again, this rule could force, we estimate, as many as 18 to 90 cement plants to end operations. Others will be forced to dramatically reduce those operations. So, again, I urge everybody in this Chamber, everybody who's listening, paying attention, please support Judge Carter's amendment. It's important for American jobs and American infrastructure.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you.

I just wanted to address a couple of issues about the EPA. I've tried to point out, very thoughtfully, that the EPA has failed really to properly address the economic impact of this proposed rule. It is critically flawed.

Let me restate once again why this rule is so flawed. Because it does bring together, cobbles together, a range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any single cement plant to comply with these standards simultaneously. That is the problem. My distinguished colleague from California is making a point that there will be less emissions. That is true. Because there will be fewer plants. They will not be emitting anything. We expect 18 plants that may be shuttered out of the 90 in this country; tremendous capital investment for an industry critical to our basic infrastructure.

These are high-paying jobs that we're talking about. We can't afford to lose that many more. That industry has become much more efficient over the years. These plants today produce far more than numerous plants would have produced years ago. I just can't emphasize enough that as we are having this great debate about the nature of the economy and jobs, that we would be willfully using regulatory agencies that we know are going to cost thousands of jobs in America, high-paying jobs. When is enough enough? I won't get into the New York plant again, about how we're using stimulus dollars to bring cement from Peru to New York to serve the market. They're going to kill more jobs than they're going to create with this importation terminal.

I just can't get over this. They're bringing this cement here because they would prefer to have fewer cement trucks from Pennsylvania, and even upstate New York and Maryland supplying New York, they would rather have fewer cement trucks on their roads. They would prefer to have huge ships coming in from Peru with cement rather than deal with the inconvenience of those cement trucks.

My region takes a lot of garbage--trash, waste--from New York. We get garbage trucks every day in my district, with New York garbage. We landfill it. We're required to under the U.S. Constitution, under the interstate commerce clause. It's been to the Supreme Court. We do that. We're not shutting down our State line to them and that industry.

The point is, it's about cement. It's about a basic industry. It's about American jobs. Judge Carter's amendment is the right thing. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these three provisions of the Patriot Act. I think it's very important that we extend them for a variety of reasons. The lone wolf provision, roving wiretaps, which have been in place for some time, we're not breaking any new ground here. Roving wiretaps have been used by local law enforcement for years in terms of dealing with drug dealers, organized crime. We're simply allowing those roving wiretaps to be extended to those who may be engaged in terrorist activities. Again, not new ground.

Also, importantly, that roving wiretap provision allows us to follow the person, as opposed to the device. Because of the changing technology, somebody can use a cell phone and pitch it and then pick up another one. So rather than having to run back to the court every time, it's much easier to just simply get the warrant for that individual.

Also, the business records provision is something that is extremely important, something that has often been the subject of a great deal of demagoguery, to be perfectly candid, where we have seen folks talk about this as a library provision. It should be noted that many of the 9/11 terrorists used public library or university library computers to make their plane reservations or to confirm those reservations.

The whole point of the Patriot Act is to allow for sharing of information and intelligence between local law enforcement, as well as our intelligence community. That's the point. We want to take down these terrorist cells and operations before they become operational.

Many folks have said that we should not use our military to deal with terrorist threats, that this should be the function of local law enforcement. But many of those same people then will deny the very tools necessary to local law enforcement to take down these terrorist cells.

That's why it's essential that we take the time today to reauthorize these three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. It is the right thing to do.

And one other thing I wanted to mention about the lone wolf. These lone wolves are a real threat; and allowing us to continue to go after the lone wolf, even if they may not be part of a terrorist organization--we're usually talking about people who are not U.S. persons here--we need to make sure that our intelligence agencies, law enforcement can go after those lone wolves.

We've seen lone wolves. Even though Major Hassan was a U.S. person, that's

the type of person we are concerned about. And we see more of that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this very important issue, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. For a variety of reasons, we need to reauthorize this bill.

First and foremost, there are three provisions I think we are all very familiar with. It's the lone wolf provision, it's the roving wiretaps of course, which is something else that we very much need to do, and also the business records provision.

With respect to roving wiretaps, I believe it has already been stated on this floor, but it should be stated once again: Law enforcement has been using roving wiretaps for years against drug dealers and organized crime, I believe since 1986. Extending that roving wiretap provision to terrorists makes good sense. We have been doing it. We need to give law enforcement and our intelligence services the tools they need to take down these terror plots before they become operational. That is why this extension is needed.

The lone wolf provision, it should be noted, is also important. Many of the types of plots we are trying to foil now are being carried out by lone wolves. Major Hasan is a good example. Jihad Jane and others are lone wolves, and we need this capacity so that we can pursue these lone wolves just as we would individuals or terrorists who are part of a terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power. So that is absolutely essential.

With respect to the issue of the business records, often people would say that we are somehow trying to examine one's library records, what books they are reading. That's really not the case. We know that 9/11 terrorists were using public library computers. We knew that they were also using university library computers to make plane reservations as well as to confirm those reservations. So the idea is to be able to access one's business records. That's what we are after, to make sure that we cannot only apprehend or go after that individual who is planning an attack but also that cell or that network of individuals with whom that individual may be working. That is why we need this issue of business records contained in this reauthorization.

In fact, I am not even certain that the word ``library'' appears anywhere in the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, this has been dubbed the library provision, which really it is not.

For all of these reasons, I think it is critically important that we continue to provide our law enforcement with the tools they need, our intelligence services with the tools they need to stop terrorism. We cannot tie the hands of local law enforcement. We are asking them to do more and more.

The critics of this legislation often say we need to let law enforcement fight these battles. This gives them the tools. I urge passage and support for this reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the House voted to repeal the misguided health care law of 2010, which is seriously flawed, both in its structure and its practical implementation. I keep hearing discussion about the Affordable Care Act. If one believes the Affordable Care Act will not add to the deficit, I think that one is apt to believe just about anything. But today we have the opportunity to direct the committees to produce practical and effective reforms.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and commit to working together to enact meaningful reforms that will lower health care costs, expand access to affordable insurance coverage, and foster economic growth and jobs.

The current law is simply unwise and unsustainable. I believe we must replace the misguided policies of the current law with reforms that will address rising health care costs. Specifically, I support medical liability reforms to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. I believe Congress must provide Americans with more options for affordable health coverage, such as low-cost catastrophic plans for younger individuals, patient-driven health care savings accounts, cross-state purchasing and effective high-risk pools or reinsurance models as a backstop.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and let's get on with this serious debate.

Amendment 25, passed by Congress July 6, 1965.

Section 1: ``In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become the President.''

Section 2: ``Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.''

I do rise in support of this legislation. Obviously, it's not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. And we have heard all the policy and political arguments against this bill. Let me just be very clear. It's really time to stop this $3.8 trillion tax increase that awaits the American people. It's time to take ``yes'' for an answer. It's really time to get on board. If this bill fails, taxes go up on American savings, investments, income, estates, small businesses. We know what is coming. We know what is awaiting the American people.

As it relates to the estate tax, just think about that one moment. After January 1, we know people will die. And if this law is not enacted, this bill is not enacted, we know what will happen. Lifetimes of hard work, sacrifice, and thrift will be punished, and this Federal Government will confiscate money from people at 55 percent who have less than $5 million in assets. It's terribly unfair to family farms and family businesses.

Let's be clear. If you're voting ``no,'' you're voting to raise taxes. Again, if you're voting ``no,'' you're voting to raise taxes by $3.8 trillion. If you're voting ``yes,'' you're voting to stop a $3.8 trillion tax increase. This is the vote that counts. The political games are over. No more posturing. The train is pulling out of the station. It's time to get on board. Vote ``yes.'' Stop the tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3167, the Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act.

S. 3167 will provide needed independence and autonomy to the U.S. Census Bureau.

This bill will ensure a census count that is fair, accurate, and free from political bias.

I am proud to have consponsored the House version of this bill, H.R. 4945 with Carolyn Maloney of New York.

This bipartisan, good government reform measure passed the Senate by unanimous consent last week.

Senator Coburn was the lead Senate Republican cosponsor and supported passage of the bill.

S. 3167 is endorsed by seven former census directors, appointed by and who served in Republican and Democrat administrations.

S. 3167 will allow the Director of the Census Bureau to give candid opinions and testimony to Congress and the Commerce Secretary on the needs of the Bureau.

The Census is a scientific agency, similar to the National Science Foundation or NASA. Its statistical mission should be unencumbered by increased political bias and bureaucracy.

These reforms will ensure that Congress receives the most accurate information on issues facing the census directly from the Bureau and without interference from political appointees.

S. 3167 is supported by the American Statistical Association, the American Planning Association, the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, the Association of Academic Survey Research Organizations, and other members of the scientific community.

Accurate census data is needed to properly account for congressional apportionment and a wide range of government services, including: Medicare, Social Security, veterans' health services, assistance to farmers, TANF, community development grants, federal housing assistance, and road and highway construction.

Making the Census Director a 5-year Presidential term appointment will prevent Presidential politics from interfering in selection.

The American people expect Congress to improve the efficiency and accountability of government through common sense bipartisan reforms. We can do this today through this bill with no cost to the taxpayers.

The Senate passed this legislation unanimously, and I hope the House will send this bill to the President for signature into law.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Ethics Committee, I have carefully reviewed evidence in the matter of Congressman Rangel and believe the Committee's recommendation for censure is appropriate. While the censuring of a Member of Congress is a rare and significant action, I am confident this is the proper penalty for the House to impose on Mr. Rangel, given the accumulation and totality of his offenses.

On November 16, a bipartisan adjudicatory subcommittee on which I served found 11 of the 13 counts Mr. Rangel faced were supported by clear and convincing evidence. I believe the most egregious of these offenses included violating the Ethics in Government Act by submitting numerous inaccurate financial disclosure statements and violating the Code of Ethics for Government Service by running a campaign office from a property leased as a rent-stabilized residential apartment.

I also believe it is appropriate for Mr. Rangel to provide restitution for his failure to pay taxes. As long time member and former Chairman of the House's tax-writing committee, Mr. Rangel's tax violations cannot be ignored.

Violations like those committed by Mr. Rangel, individually and cumulatively, damage the public's trust in their elected officials and this institution. However, the House has the opportunity today to restore the American people's confidence in this body by illustrating that Members of Congress are accountable for their transgressions and will face appropriate penalties for their misconduct.

Madam Speaker, while this difficult occasion is by no means a pleasant duty for any of us, it is nonetheless a necessity. Therefore, we now must demonstrate our commitment to high ethical standards by voting to censure Congressman Rangel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Allen Organ Company, which was founded in Allentown, Pennsylvania, by Jerome Markowitz, in 1937.

We are fast approaching the 40th anniversary of the technology used in the Allen Digital Computer Organ, the world's first digital instrument. Introduced the same year as the digital calculator, these were the first two applications of the digital technology that is so prevalent in our world today. For nearly 40 years, digital music has provided quality, versatile, and economical music to performing artists and houses of worship.

In 2004, the Smithsonian Institution acquired the very first Allen Digital Organ, which was manufactured in 1971 and originally installed in St. Andrew's Lutheran Church in Easton, Pennsylvania. This recognition is a great honor for the Allen Organ Company and the inventive people in my district who have been crafting high-quality instruments for decades.

Today, the Jerome Markowitz Memorial Center serves to display the technological advancements that Allen Organ has made over the years which have contributed to the advancement of electronic music. Allen Organ's early advances in digital technology paved the way for modern digital sound devices, such as CDs, personal computer sound cards, and portable media devices. From the company's first patent for an analog organ in 1938 through the digital revolution, Allen Organ has been a pioneer in the advancement of electronic music.

Jerome's son, Steve Markowitz, is currently the president of the company, which has been run by the same family for seventy-three years. From humble beginnings, the Allen Organ Company now employs roughly 200 of my constituents in the Lehigh Valley and has installed 80,000 instruments in more than 80 countries. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to applaud the Allen Organ Company and its employees for their enduring dedication to the furtherance of digital music technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would like to certainly associate myself with the comments of my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) on this occasion.

I rise today, as do many others in this Chamber, in support of House Resolution 1320, which commends the vigilance of the many individuals and organizations that helped prevent what could have been a catastrophic terrorist attack in Times Square this past weekend.

We should all be extraordinarily thankful that alert street vendors saw something out of place and promptly alerted authorities, who took immediate action to secure the scene and ensure the safety of the many people who are in and around Times Square, which has been called the ``Crossroads of the World.''

This incident is only the most recent in a string of attempted attacks on New York City. This attack and recent plots to blow up the New York City subway trains and pipelines at JFK Airport--which have also been disrupted--show that Islamic terrorists have their sights set squarely on New York City.

This whole notion of homegrown radicalization is something that we are all deeply concerned about. There is the radical cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, for example, who has been involved with many of the attacks or attempted attacks, including Major Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, or Abdulmutallab, the so-called ``underwear bomber,'' and his attempted Christmas Day attack. And we have others out there, too, who are homegrown radicals, and it is an increasing concern. Now the most recent radicalization that we've seen here is, of course, Mr. Shahzad. But these plots should have served to reinforce our efforts to secure New York City and every other city in America from devastating terrorist attacks.

The administration, unfortunately, had proposed cutting funding for or eliminating critical Homeland Security initiatives in New York and elsewhere. There are many initiatives that need to be addressed immediately, such as the Securing the Cities program, which is a successful State and local partnership to help prevent nuclear and radiological terrorism in and around New York. The House has passed legislation to authorize funding for this important initiative, for which the administration has proposed eliminating.

The administration has also proposed dismantling the U.S. Coast Guard's New York City-based Maritime Safety and Security Team, which strengthens the maritime security in and around the city. These reductions are being proposed at the same time that the administration has pursued trying alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court just blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood.

We should be more concerned about properly funding counterterrorism initiatives and finding every way possible to make sure that New York and our entire country is as secure as possible instead of bringing terrorists to America and granting them rights to which they are not entitled.

We all owe a huge debt of gratitude, of course, to the New York Police Department, to the Fire Department of New York, the FBI, Customs and Border Protection, and alert citizens who saw something and said something to help us dodge a potentially very deadly bullet.

I hope that Congress and the administration get serious about properly funding important initiatives that will strengthen the security of New York City and our entire country because we may not be so lucky the next time New York or any other city comes under attack.

Again, I want to commend everybody involved with helping to derail this attempted attack, especially the Police Department of New York and the FBI, and everybody else who was involved. I commend Mr. McMahon for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two fine American business owners, Joel and Ruth Spira, for their donation of a significant collection of materials to the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. The items the Spiras are donating represent some of the most noteworthy technological advancements and energy- saving inventions in the history of electric lighting. The collection tells the story of American innovation and the 50-year history

of a country that has transformed the use of electricity.

Joel Spira is the inventor and developer of the solid-state electronic ``dimming device,'' and chairman and founder of Lutron Electronics headquartered in my Congressional district in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania.

A family-owned business, Lutron is governed by five principles: take care of the customer; take care of the company; take care of the people; innovate with high-quality products; and deliver value to the customer.

Lutron is known for its commitment to creating energy-saving products. Each year, the installed base of Lutron's products save the Nation nearly 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, or approximately $1 billion in utility costs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Joel and Ruth Spira for this record of accomplishment and for their many contributions.