Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Les Oesterreich, a resident of Dixon, California, a man respected as an American, a husband to Pat Oesterreich, a father to their combined seven daughters, and a grandfather. Perhaps more germane to this moment is his position as chairman emeritus of Superior Farms, the largest harvester and processor of lamb in the United States. Under his leadership, the company has grown from having a single plant in Dixon, California, to having plants in Denver, Colorado, Boston, Massachusetts, Hawarden, Iowa, and Blue Island, Illinois, with contractual arrangements in Australia as well. Today, Superior Farms employs 494 employees and operates under an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), so that every employee has a stake in the company's bottom line.

As CEO of Superior Farms, Mr. Oesterreich skillfully guided the company by working with other industry organizations. He was honored in 2008 by the American Sheep Industry Association with its Camptender Award. He served several terms as a director of the National Meat Association, and as chair of its Small Stock Committee. He was recognized by the United States Department of Agriculture for his work with the Agricultural Marketing Service on the implementation of fair standards for lamb grading. He served on the Advisory Committee for the Animal Science Department at California Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo and the University of California at Davis. His input to the American Lamb Board and the California Sheep Commission has guided those organizations, and during all these activities he has guided the growth and prosperity of Superior Farms to ensure that he recruited the brightest and best professional management talent available.

Mr. Oesterreich's father worked for Armour Food Co. for 35 years and he learned a lot about the meat business during his formative years in Brownsville, Texas, and Sterling, Illinois. He started work in the slaughter facilities at age 16, then learned how to load trucks, and was finally trained in meat cutting, all at Armour. He joined Superior Farms in 1981 as general manager of the Dixon, California, facility and moved up the chain of management, by dint of hard work, to become its CEO in 2004.

Off the job, he has served as president of the local fire district in Dixon; he is passionate about cars and horses; and he is a member of the American Quarter Horse Association.

As Mr. Oesterreich moves into retirement, he leaves behind an incredible legacy to be continued by the professionals that he has recruited to Superior Farms. Men like Mr. Oesterreich make the United States of America a wonderful place to live. Congratulations, Les Oesterreich!

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let's be reminded of what the 9/11 Commission report observed. That report said the choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. In this case, freedom presupposes security. That's what we're talking about here.

The distinguished former chairman of the Judiciary Committee basically has called into question the lone wolf terrorist provision. He says it's never been used. I heard this same argument on the floor last year before we had the domestic lone wolf known as Major Hasan. I heard the same argument on this floor last year before we saw the consequence of a loan wolf action in Times Square.

I heard the same argument last year before we saw the lone wolf action of the Christmas Day bomber. I heard the same argument 2 years ago before we heard that.

The fact of the matter is and the greater concern that we have today, as expressed just this last week by the Secretary of Homeland Security, is that the level of the threat is as high today as it has ever been since 9/11. When asked about it, she explained, as did the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, that it is the less consequential attacks done by those who are not directly associated with al Qaeda or with affiliate organizations, i.e., lone wolves, that cause them to be of greater concern today.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who is of this administration, has warned that it is the lone wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention to as the main threat to this country. The gentleman from Michigan would have us wait until that threat is carried out before we then say, well, maybe now we have a reason to have the lone wolf provision.

Professor Robert Turner of the Center for National Security Law has written as to how the absence of authority to conduct surveillance of a lone wolf terrorist undermined the FBI's effort to gain access to the content of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer and how it materially impeded a critically important investigation that in the absence of FISA might well have helped prevent the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Now, the distinguished former chairman of the committee has said this allows us to use this provision against anybody. Not true. It has to be someone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States who is engaged in international terrorism but who may not be linked to a foreign power or terrorist organization.

Today, in the age of the Internet, when someone is incited or inspired by one of these individuals from a foreign country and then carries out a terrorist act, that is the definition of a ``lone wolf.'' The gentleman from Michigan would have us shackle ourselves so as not to be able to deal with this, as was explained by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former agent of the FBI.

These are antiterrorism cases, not criminal investigations. What we are trying to do is not collect the body parts after a successful attack and then try and find those who caused it and try and bring them to justice. No, we are trying to stop the attack in the first place and protect Americans. That's why you have the FISA court. That's why you have some of these different definitions. What we have done within the ambit of those definitions is try and protect the civil liberties of Americans while at the same time allowing us to take reasonable, responsible and, yes, proactive actions against those who would murder Americans.

There is a difference between a criminal investigation and a counterterrorism effort. It is the difference between trying to prosecute someone for a crime that has already been committed as opposed to trying to prevent the death and destruction that would be rained upon the United States by these terrorists.

I am the author of the sunset provisions. I brought this because I thought it required us to look at these three provisions because, yes, they were the most controversial; but I am convinced after looking at it in these years that these provisions have not been abused.

At the same time, I am going to be working with the gentleman from Wisconsin and others to have rapid, intensive, active oversight of these provisions to ensure that we do not have some deprivation of civil liberties as we carry out these necessary functions.

Will the gentleman yield?

I did not question the motivation of the gentleman from Michigan, nor would I; but I would question his conclusions and the impact of his decisions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me 2 minutes.

What I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that with respect to roving wiretaps, it's only available after the government has been able to prove to the court that the target may engage in countersurveillance activity such as rapidly changing the cell phone number. It doesn't allow the government to make a general boilerplate application. It requires them, if they can't identify the individual, the very specific individual, to give some particularity in the request to identify that person as much as they possibly can.

It is also a requirement we put in the law that once they have actually utilized this roving wiretap on different instruments of communication, they have to report to the court within 10 days as to what took place. So we have refined this as much as absolutely possible.

What we're trying to do is keep up with technology. We know that some of these targets will buy 100 cell phones and use them for a single conversation and throw that cell phone away. You can't just think that's going to happen. You have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that there is a reason to believe that they are going to take these kinds of efforts to try and stop surveillance in these regards.

Again, this is before the FISA court, and it only deals with these kinds of cases. This is not regular criminal cases. So the gentleman's concerns have been raised before, and we met those concerns in our prior treatment of this law. So it is a careful balance that we created here, to take into consideration the new techniques utilized by those who would threaten us and at the same time try and provide for a third party, a court, a Federal court made up of Federal judges, to look at this. We have to report before, and we would have to, that is, our agency activists, would have to report afterwards, within 10 days.

I believe that's about as much protection as you can give and still be effective in this environment.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for granting me this time.

I sit on this floor as the author of the sunset provision that requires us to consider these three portions of the Patriot Act. I offered that when we had the reauthorization of the overall bill because I thought these were three sections that were at that time controversial and that we ought to be required to review it. So I did support the authorization for a year that we had last year, but I fully expected that the Judiciary Committee would hold hearings so that before this date we would have acted on any changes that anyone deemed necessary.

I would say, I am not aware of any changes that are necessary, and I have followed this ever since they put the sunset provisions in. But nonetheless I had thought that during the last year while my friends on the other side were in charge, we would have acted. As a matter of fact, I believe our committee passed out a full reauthorization of the Patriot Act, that is, the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Conyers, but it was never brought to the floor for us to consider, under any rule, open or closed.

So what we are asking for, in concert with the President of the United States, is to extend it to the end of this year so that we can carry out the constitutionally mandated obligation of oversight.

Chairman Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, has a track record. I believe it was 13 hearings that we held on these subjects. We went through chapter and verse. We had the FBI before us. We had the Attorney General before us. We had the head of the criminal division before us. We had the ACLU before us. We had classified briefings as well as public hearings. We made some changes in 2005 pursuant to requests and information that was presented to us.

Now, I know some of our members said after they voted against this on the suspension calendar, ``Well, look this bill's been in effect for 10 years. Times have changed.'' Yes, they have. And if we would examine the changes, we would see that these three provisions are more necessary today than they were when we first put them into the law. Why? Because as Secretary Napolitano, the Secretary in the Obama administration, stated just today, we are on as high alert today, as far as she's concerned in terms of the threat, as we have been at any time since 9/11. And as the two cochairs of the 9/11 Commission said in testimony last year, which is basically repeated by Secretary Napolitano and the head of the NCTC in testimony this week, we have a different threat today.

We have the continuing threat of those of al Qaeda on the international scene, still attempting to probe and find where they might be able to provide a catastrophic event against the United States. But the new facts show that the greater threat to us today is, as they have said, less consequential attacks from smaller groups, some not even officially allied with al Qaeda, sometimes inspired by them, sometimes incited by them. And these three provisions go directly to the investigations that are necessary for us to deter that.

This is not the regular criminal justice system where you examine the evidence after the crime has been committed to try to convict the individual. This is in the essence of deterrence, to make sure that we're not collecting body parts after the attack has occurred. As a result, we have tried to make changes in the law that will allow us to do what the 9/11 Commission said we couldn't do beforehand, connect the dots.

Why do we have the lone wolf provision in here? Because that is more and more the concern we have to have. Now, this would not apply to Major Hasan because he is an American citizen. We are talking about lone wolf provisions for those who are not U.S. citizens. But he was a lone wolf, if you want to understand what a lone wolf is. He wasn't officially connected with al Qaeda or anybody else, but he was in conversation. He was incited by or inspired by. And if anybody doesn't believe that he committed a terrorist attack, they don't know what terrorism is.

You talk about a lone wolf. How about the guy who was on the airplane on Christmas a little over a year ago? That would be a lone wolf. We might have been able to collect information on him had we had an opportunity to get some of this information.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Absolutely. I mean, the reason I came to the House of Representatives was in response to 9/11, to try to make sure we had the tools necessary to protect this country from these kinds of attacks and, at the same time, as someone who has devoted his entire life to enforcing the law but with the protection of civil liberties, to make sure that is done in this case as well.

Let me just say one last thing about the roving wiretap. It is not controversial. It has been used in domestic criminal cases since at least 1980. And all it does is respond to new technology.

You have a wiretap that now grants authority--once proven--grants authority to follow the person with whatever device he uses because-- guess what?--most people are not confined to a single landline today. That's all this does. And you would think that we would have the same provisions we use against criminals, that we could use those against those who would want to destroy Americans and America, terrorists.

I thank the gentleman from California for taking this time and for yielding this time to me and I know to others as we come about this.

You and I have and the other gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) were privileged to be in that crowd on Sunday where we celebrated Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday.

I was reminded that the last time I spoke with him was 20 years before on his birthday, his 80th birthday, when I was calling him from my office in Sacramento, and he was his usual open, affable, and interested individual who always had an expression of concern for the person he was speaking with and who didn't take himself too seriously but obviously took the job that he had very, very seriously.

One of the insights into President Reagan I think is seen in a film that was done about Ronald Reagan's life that I saw recently, and at the end of the film or close to the end of the film, they had an interview with the Secret Service man who continued to be with Ronald Reagan to the very end, and this Secret Service man was distinguished by the fact that he was a fellow equestrian. He rode with Ronald Reagan, and it was the last time Ronald Reagan rode a horse. He went out riding with him, and when he came back he went to Mrs. Reagan and said, the President didn't have a very good day on the horse today, and that was a nice way of saying maybe it's time that he not risk injury by horse riding. And everybody knew that Ronald Reagan loved to ride horses. Probably his third greatest passion--his passion for his wife, his passion for this country, and then his passion for riding horses. And Mrs. Reagan told the Secret Service man, well, I can't tell him; you've got to tell him. And it was very uncomfortable. And the agent went up to the President and said very, very quietly, Mr. President, we didn't have a good day riding today. And Ronald Reagan sensed exactly what he was going to say, and instead of protesting, he made every effort to put the Secret Service agent at ease, knowing that it was a difficult thing for him.

You have to understand that. He was being told that something that he loved almost as much as anything else in his life, his avocation, his-- some people play golf; Ronald Reagan rode horses. He was being told he could no longer do that, and instead of thinking about himself and the pain it was going to cause him and the lack of opportunity to enjoy himself, his first concern was for the person who was delivering that message to him, and he wanted to put him at ease.

And that gives you a bit of an understanding of the character of the man who thought about what he was doing for others rather than what they were doing for him, or, excuse me, to put it this way: He thought more about what gratitude he had for what other people were doing for him, rather than accepting praise for what he was doing in that circumstance.

I remember the last great speech that I remember that Ronald Reagan gave. It was at the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, and some of you may remember it. You've seen film of it if you weren't there. He wore a suit or a sport coat and a shirt that, if we wore it, we would be told you don't wear those sorts of things when you're appearing at a political event. It was sort of a maroon or almost maroon to brown jacket, and I remember the shirt had a white collar and it had stripes that were of the same color as the coat.

And when he started to speak, and I was watching closely because my son, who at that time was in college, had gotten a pass to the floor of the convention, and I said, I want you to see the master speak, using that in quotation marks, because this may be the last great speech he ever gives. When Ronald Reagan got up, he looked every bit his age. In fact, he looked a little bit tired. As he started to speak, some young people in front of him began chanting his name and cheering him, and at first he couldn't hear very well. And then he realized what they were saying, and you saw that Ronald Reagan grin begin, and you saw him start to speak. And at the end of his speech, I guarantee you he was 20 years younger than when he started that speech.

And he gave that vibrancy to the entire assembled crowd there in that convention hall, and I was so happy that I had my son there to be able to see this remarkable man give this remarkable performance at the end of his career. But when you think about that, sometimes you think maybe we just think

about him as the communicator, and as we know in the final address he made to the Nation from the Oval Office, he said some people say that I'm a great communicator. It's not so much that I'm a great communicator, it's that I was able to communicate great things that came from this country.

That always remained with me. I always thought Ronald Reagan had spent his whole life reading, thinking, thinking about this Nation, thinking about the principles that made this Nation great.

And in my own mind, whenever I met with him with other Members of Congress or alone, you had this idea that he had developed this philosophical or political schematic.

If you were speaking to him about a subject, he would put that schematic over that discussion. And if, in fact, it fit within those principles he had developed over a lifetime, he would basically allow you to go do it. He would basically give you a charge, and he would be behind you--may not tell you the details, but he would be with you. And if you didn't, if you had something that was outside that philosophical political schematic that he had developed over a lifetime, he would in some ways gently tell you that, No, I don't think we're going to do that. And you knew at that point in time that he wasn't going to be with you on it; but he was, again, thinking a little bit about you and the reaction that you would receive when he would tell you ``no.''

One of the most difficult things I ever had to do was to tell him ``no'' on the phone. I was in my office. He was calling on a vote. And I can't even recall what the subject was.

It may very well have been that.

He called me personally to talk to me about that. And I had the hardest time saying ``no'' to him, but I did. The remarkable thing about it was that he didn't pressure me anymore. He didn't make me feel bad. He didn't say, Well, you'll hear from us again, or if you want something in your district. All he said was, I understand. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I got off that phone. I thought I was right in the decision I had made, but I felt badly that I had to tell him ``no,'' and I think that was it.

One of the highlights of my first 10 years in the Congress was going to my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, on Air Force One with Ronald Reagan when he was going to unveil the stamp commemorating the 100th birthday of Knute Rockne--or as he said, ``Ke-Nute'' Rockne because that's what Knute Rockne's widow had told him was the proper pronunciation. And we flew there, and it was a great day. A little bit of rain. We got in the Athletic and Convocation Center, and it was standing room only. They didn't have enough room for all the students. The overflow crowd was in another room that had a television.

There were four of us, graduates of the University of Notre Dame, who were Members of Congress at the time that he had with us and Dick Lyng who was the Californian who was the Secretary of Agriculture, also a Notre Dame grad. And in his speech, he said, ``I want to introduce you to the new Four Horsemen of Notre Dame,'' and then mentioned each one of our names. I have that on tape, and that is one of my highlights of my life. And at some point in time, I will make sure I make copies and give it to my children and my grandchildren.

But he loved the fact that people remembered him for that role and for the spirit that he had there. And I am proud of the fact that after his recovery from that assassination attempt, the first public major address he made away from the Capitol was at the University of Notre Dame.

Ronald Reagan was a hero to many of us. He was an inspiration to many of us, but he was a real man. He had his weaknesses as well as his strengths. He had his shortcomings, and he would be the first one to admit it. But above all, he was that person who told us, as Republicans, that we should approach the future not only with confidence, not only with hope, but with a sense of joy, an idea that this country is the greatest country in the history of the world and gives us the greatest opportunity to succeed. And he always felt a sense of gratitude that he was here, that he was born here, that he was allowed to raise himself up. And he thought that ought to be the opportunity given to everybody.

When he came into a room, there was just a feeling there that was not there at any other time. And it's hard for some of us to realize that he has been gone for 6\1/2\ years now and that he would be 100 years old today. All we can say is, we're not looking backwards. We're trying to take the essence of the man, his commitment to the foundations of this country, his openness and his optimism, and utilize that at a time when we desperately need it.

I never thought that he looked at a person and thought, You're African American, you're Caucasian, you're Hispanic, you're Asian. He looked at you and said, You're an American; and therefore I'm going to expect the best out of you, and this country is going to give you the opportunity to be the very, very best.

So I thank the gentleman from California for this time. And this weekend was wonderful not only for us to reflect in our memories but also to bring the Ronald Reagan we know to the present people of America, particularly those young people who were not born when he was President of the United States and let them have a sense of what it was that commanded this country, that led this country, that inspired this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 359, which terminates the taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions.

At the outset, I just want to mention in response to something that was said by the other side, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court. That changed not one iota of campaign finance law. Corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. It does not change that.

Citizens United had to do with the question of whether or not one loses his or her First Amendment protections of free speech, particularly with respect to expressions of political nature, merely because they associate with another person. The Supreme Court told us that you do not in fact lose your First Amendment rights because you happen to say it jointly with someone else. As a matter of fact, they pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a society actually expand their influence in the political debate by joining with others. And then the question that the Supreme Court answered was, if that association happens to be corporate in nature, happens to be a union, happens to be a for-profit, happens to be a not- for-profit, whether that changes the dynamic as contemplated by the First Amendment protections, and they told us it did not. So let's get rid of that canard here on the floor right away. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate contributions to campaigns or foreign contributions to campaigns, both of which remain illegal, with criminal sanctions, under the law.

So let's get that out of the way to begin with so we don't have a lot of debate here that has nothing to do with the bill before us.

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves at a unique juncture in the longstanding debate over this issue; but, frankly, in reality, it is a juncture no longer. Taxpayer financing of Presidential elections and party conventions of the two major parties is simply no longer defensible.

The first tax liability contributions from American taxpayers to be diverted toward the funding of Presidential elections began 35 years ago in 1976. This new practice was, as we were told by the other side, supposed to raise the public's trust in their government as well as increase both the number of candidates and, thus, electoral competition and the financial footing between parties. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it has failed on all accounts.

It did allow us to have Lyndon LaRouche be a participant in the Presidential elections. I am not sure when we have had someone who had been subjected to a criminal conviction and actually conducted part of his campaign while still incarcerated, but that was brought to us by way of this fine law.

Since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on this system. As we speak, there is a balance of $195 million sitting in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund at the U.S. Treasury Department. And yet this system of electoral subsidization has not changed the public's perception of our Presidential elections or our politics. According to one survey after another, Americans continue to harbor deep distrust of their elected officials. So does anyone think that our Presidential elections over the past 35 years have shown a virtuous progression toward more accuracy and more honesty?

Mr. Chairman, prominent Presidential candidates, candidates who even supposedly believe in this system, have opted out of this taxpayer financing scheme in recent years. In 2004 and 2008, several candidates declined public financing for their primary campaigns.

And as was mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois, during the most recent Presidential election, for the first time, a nominee of one of our two major political parties withdrew from the public financing during the general election and instead went on to raise record amounts of money for his campaign. And I recall when I thought we heard a pledge to participate in this program because of the virtuous nature of the program. Somehow that was lost along the campaign trail.

One of the things I would like to point out is this: There is this idea that somehow we are going to be able to suppress money that goes into politics. The fact of the matter is it is like a balloon, a water balloon. If you squeeze it on one side, it comes out on the other side. The question is: How do we get it within the system?

We should be talking about the idea of this silly demarcation between our parties and our candidates where we limit in extreme fashion the amount of money that can be transferred or coordinated, as if somehow that corrupts the candidate to have him or her identified with the very party they represent. We ought to be working towards those kinds of changes that will allow a greater responsibility on the party and the candidates to express their positions and to hold to their positions, be responsible for their positions. But no, we talk about these ways of how we are going to somehow reduce the impact of money in campaigns. It hasn't worked under this system. It hasn't worked.

In addition to Presidential primaries and general elections, if there is anything the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing, I would say--as much as I enjoy them--it is the week-long Presidential conventions. On our side of the aisle, in our party, I think we've had some indications of what I consider to be wasteful spending in preparation for our upcoming convention; and to say to the taxpayer that, in light of that, we ought to continue to subsidize the production of our Presidential conventions by the two major parties, it is very difficult to articulate and even to understand.

They are, as I say, grand fun, wonderful occasions--week-long party gatherings that are, unfortunately, in this day and age, largely symbolic. One can't even argue something important is being decided because, unfortunately, they ceased to have real significance sometime ago, and that was part of our effort to try and cleanse the system.

Rather than having people selected by these delegates that come to these conventions, we should move more and more to the primary operation and, of course, then earlier and earlier in the season so that somehow it becomes a 2-year event. I guess we're already in

that. Taxpayers would be shocked, if not outraged, to discover that they have been funding these extravagant photo ops.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on publicly funding our Presidential primaries, our Presidential general elections, and our Presidential party conventions. The American taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise experiment. I think it should be ended and the balance in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account returned to the Treasury to be used for deficit reduction. I think we'd actually have the American people cheering us for that. According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate, the elimination of this program will save American taxpayers $617 million over the next 10 years.

Now, some could say, Well, that's your opinion. We have our opinion. Why change things?

Well, why don't we look to the opinion of the American people. Not a bad idea in this House. Simply put, this program does not have the support of the American people.

Taxpayer support has declined precipitously over time. I remember, years ago, I thought it was a good experiment. I thought it was a good idea. I checked off for some of my taxes to go to this program. I was in hopes that it would actually prove to be a good change. I, like most Americans, though, who contributed to that in the past, have given up on the program. We don't believe it gave us what we thought it might.

In 1980, for instance, the percentage of taxpayers participating through their tax form checkoffs was 28.7 percent. It was so popular that in 1985 it was 23 percent. It proved so successful that in 1990 it was 19.5 percent. Boy, it really proved itself by the year 1995, because then 12.9 percent of the American taxpayers decided they'd participate. In the year 2000, it dropped to 11.5 percent. In 2005, it was 9.1 percent. According to the IRS data obtained from the FEC, the checkoff rate in 2010 was 7.3 percent.

In other words, on a direct vote, a plebiscite taken by the taxpayers of America, 92.7 percent reject the notion. Now, where I come from, that's a landslide. I think even in Chicago it would be a landslide-- even if you paid your taxes only once.

Mr. Chairman, this candidate and convention subsidy is obviously unpopular. To paraphrase one former member of the Federal Election Commission, ``Any system of public financing must have popular support to succeed. Today's low taxpayer checkoff rates cast serious doubt on whether the public financing system has this support. When only one in 13 taxpayers are participating, it is very difficult to conclude that the public financing system has broad popular support.''

Mr. Chairman, as we promised in the Pledge to America and as we have promised here on the floor during these initial weeks of the 112th Congress and as we have verified by our transparency-enhancing rules package, our bipartisan votes to trim Congress' budget and end excessive congressional printing, by our determination to return discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and now through this bill, the Republican majority is committed to fiscal stewardship, to having a relentless eye on waste and inefficiency, and to a continued commitment through this 112th Congress to reduce spending, to create private sector jobs, and to produce meaningful legislation that makes long-lasting reforms.

Mr. Chairman, if we, in fact, mean what we say when we say we are willing to look at those programs that already exist and to judge whether or not they have proven to be efficacious, or efficient or successful, in promoting the principles that underlie their passage in the first place, we ought to start with this. This is a program that almost 93 percent of the American people who pay taxes reject, and we're asking them to participate. Maybe we ought to listen to what they are saying and, instead, allow the savings garnered by this particular bill to go toward deficit reduction.

This bill, introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, should garner overwhelming bipartisan support. We should thank him for introducing it--and I do--and for his commitment to a more responsible and efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I would urge my colleagues to understand what this bill is and understand what it is not and to support H.R. 359.

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

Before I yield 1 minute to our majority leader, I'd like to take 15 seconds to say when I find myself on the floor listening to my colleagues on the other side declaring Ronald Reagan to be the patron saint of Democratic Party ideas, I am bemused a bit because I served here when Ronald Reagan was President, and I don't recall those same words at that time.

However, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of our committee has been very fair in the proceedings that he had with us over the last number of years, and I appreciate that. We will continue that tradition.

We were unable to have any hearings or consideration of this matter before our committee until yesterday when we finally were told by the minority party as to who they wish to have on our committee.

We could not meet as a full committee until we had a complement of both Democrats and Republicans. We established our side several weeks ago.

I am sorry that happened. We will have plenty of hearings in the future on this and other issues.

What is the current system that we are hearing the other side defend? What has it given us? It has given us Lyndon LaRouche, but it would prevent Eugene McCarthy from being a successful Presidential candidate. That's what we don't hear.

The system works against some people like a Eugene McCarthy, who was a poor fundraiser but managed to have a number of people who supported him, who gave him large contributions.

And yet he was able to change the course of history, bringing down a sitting President and allow for--well, he was called the Pied Piper of the youth vote.

So let's understand the complexity of the history of this law. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, this law has failed us. It has failed the American people.

The American people have rendered their judgment. Nearly 93 percent of the American people who paid taxes have voted ``no'' to this system. That ought to give us good guidance as to where we could find savings to bring down our national debt.

As I understand it, we are going to have an amendment from the Democratic side of the aisle which causes any money saved here to go to bringing down the debt. I hope that it comes forward, and I will support it.

I hope we have the support of our colleagues for this bill.

On the most recent clarification by the gentleman from Colorado, the intent of our legislation is to stop this program. Not only would the funds be returned that are already in there, but the program would not go forward.

So, therefore, the administrative costs to the IRS would be eliminated. The gentleman, by continuing the program, increases the net cost because you will continue having the administrative costs that otherwise would be no longer in effect as a result of the underlying bill; and therefore, the point of order would still be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor my friend, Chief Sam L. Spiegel, for the years of service he has spent as chief of police and director of Emergency Services for the city of Folsom, California. Altogether, Chief Spiegel has a 39 year tenure in law enforcement in California.

Chief Spiegel holds a Master Degree in Management, a Bachelor Degree in Criminal Justice, his State teaching credential, and is a graduate of the P.O.S.T. Command College and the FBI National Academy. Sam began his law enforcement career as a police cadet with the Corona Police Department in November of 1971. He was trained as a schools cadet and dispatcher before becoming a reserve police officer in June of 1974. He was hired as a deputy sheriff with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department in December of 1974 and assigned to Lake Elsinore Station Patrol. In January of 1976, he returned to Corona Police Department as a reserve officer and was hired as a full time police officer in December 1976. During his tenure with Corona PD he was assigned as a traffic officer, commercial enforcement officer, detective, and was promoted to sergeant in 1983 and lieutenant in 1985. In both of these ranks, he held assignments in patrol, traffic, investigations, and administration. In April 1996 he was promoted to captain--holding that rank until March of 2001. In April of 2001 he was hired as Folsom's 15th chief of police. He held the position of chief with Folsom until his retirement on October 26, 2010.

Sam has also served in various other capacities, including as the chairman of the Law and Legislative Committee for the California Police Chiefs Association, past-president of the California Peace Officers Association, and former member of the California Homeland Security Public Safety Advisory Council. He continues to serve as a governor appointee to the State 9-1-1 Advisory Committee, the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication Advisory Committee and served 6 years as a member of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Advisory Committee.

It has been my pleasure to know Sam Spiegel and more importantly, to call him my friend. I am pleased to congratulate him upon his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, in the scope of the American constitutional system of governance, the Congress is the body whose power is defined within the context of enumerated powers, and this is more than a matter of structural mechanics because it goes to the heart of the issue of governmental power, or if one prefers the flip side of the coin, personal freedom and responsibility.

If government has the power to require that you buy item A, it means that you are less able to buy item B, C, D or anything else.

Now, economists would call this the opportunity cost of foregone goods or services, but the fundamental question is the question of freedom to choose how we as individuals will spend the fruits of our labor.

Certainly the commerce clause lacks the elasticity that would accommodate a requirement that every American buy health insurance which conforms to the dictates of the Federal Government, as the Federal Government would change it on a yearly basis. Such an interpretation would render the notion articulated by James Madison and Federalist 45, that is, one of limited government, a nullity.

Now, I know we have smart people here. I know we have those in the administration who believe that this is totally constitutional; but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, my bet goes with James Madison.

He did say that the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution of the Federal Government are few and defined. He did say that the Federal Government will be exercising their responsibilities principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce and the States would do much else.

Then, of course, we have the 10th Amendment, later adopted, which said, again, that this is a government of limited enumerated powers. Now, either the 10th Amendment means something, or it means nothing; and either James Madison knew what he was talking about, or he does not.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, so we may be able to equalize the remaining time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, last week Gabby Giffords did speak the words of the First Amendment here on the floor. They talk about the right of citizens of the United States to come and plead their case to their Members of Congress and to seek the redress of their grievances. I think our Founding Fathers anticipated that we would be involved in robust and vigorous debate, but they also hoped that we would utilize some sense of civility as we did so.

I would like to read an e-mail that I received in my office from a constituent that I think would bring a smile to the lips of Gabby Giffords, and it responds in some way to what the gentleman from Michigan has just said.

These are those words:

``Dear Representative Lungren: I write to share with you my feelings upon hearing the news of the terrible shooting in Tucson, Arizona. I find I am overwhelmed by emotions. In the past, and I suspect in the future, I have disagreed with you on many of the political things that you have said and done. I have voted against you. I have even felt and expressed frustration and anger about you. I wish now to state that if unlikely circumstances arose and I were in a position to protect you from physical attack, I would do whatever I possibly could to preserve your safety and your person at whatever risk to myself.

``Our democracy and freedom cannot survive if elected officials feel threatened and find themselves having to consider their physical safety as they make the decisions and fill the responsibilities of office. Please continue to do your job as a Member of Congress as best you can. I will continue to disagree with you when and as needed. I am just one man, but all of us citizens can only do what we can do.

``I, for one, will never threaten, encourage or resort to any violence whatsoever while debating, disputing, and arguing politics. For whatever tiny weight I count for in the great sea of Americans, I want you to feel safe from any harm.

``Make your decisions, and vote your votes in Congress--please try and not be such an idiot Republican about it--and know that you are safe in the Third District for all of your life if I shall have any say in the matter.

``Thanks for all the work that you do. Most sincerely . . . ''

That's a message that I know Gabby would want us to embrace and one that would not only give her resolve but would, hopefully, attract her sense of humor as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the former distinguished sheriff of King County, Mr. Reichert.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a distinguished presiding officer of this body, Mrs. Bono Mack.

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Madam Speaker, before I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who has returned from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, Dr. Hayworth.

Madam Speaker, at this time I do not believe I have any other speakers. I reserve my time to close.

Madam Speaker, contrary to my previous statement, I do have another speaker. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in enthusiastic support of H. Res. 32.

Madam Speaker, I am privileged and humbled to be able to close out this debate. I am not, as some who have come to the floor, a close personal friend of Gabby Giffords; but I have, as have others, been under her spell here. I have had the chance to talk with her on several occasions in an informal setting, and I might mention that on each of those occasions she reminded me that she used to be Republican. I don't know if that was her way of thinking that maybe we could have a rapport--you didn't really need that with her because of her openness and her smile, but it was interesting. She always did it with a smile, and she always did it with an invitation to engage with her that is the mark of her.

We pray, all of us together, that she and those others grievously wounded will have a speedy and full recovery. We pray for those who have lost their lives. We pray for this institution, that we will take the correct lessons out of this tragedy. And when I use the word ``tragedy,'' it is a tragedy on the side of those who were attacked and the institution that was attacked. It is, however, the product of a criminal act, and we should understand that.

Madam Speaker, it is always within our power to either take the proper lessons from a particular incident or to discard them, to think deeply about them or think of them superficially. I believe that the fact that we have dedicated this entire day to trying to find the right lessons out of that and to give proper respect to those who suffered in this tragedy is evidence of the fact that we will attempt to take the proper lessons out of this.

One is, of course, that this is the people's House. If you read the Constitution, article I, it is clear that the House of Representatives is meant to be the closest to the people of any of the Federal institutions. We all, in a real sense, no matter where we come from, are institutionalists in that we love this institution--we fought in many ways to get here--but we honor one another by showing respect to one another and we honor our constituents as well.

Speaker Boehner has said, ``An attack on one is an attack on all.'' That is true. Perhaps several hundred years ago the writer and the poet, John Donne, said it best. He said, ``No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And, therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.''

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 p.m.), pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 and pursuant to House Resolution 32, the House adjourned until Tuesday, January 18, 2011, at 2 p.m., out of respect for the victims of the attack in Tucson, Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Susan Peters, who on January 7, 2011, the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce honored as its 2011 Person of the Year.

Susan Peters is currently serving her second term on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors representing the third district, which includes the community of Carmichael. Susan was first elected in 2004, re-elected in 2008, and chosen by her colleagues to be chair in 2009.

Susan also serves on a number of boards including the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, which she chaired in 2009, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, where she currently serves as vice chair, and the Sacramento Transportation Authority, where she served as chair in 2006.

Her career started in banking, leading her to serve as treasurer of McCuen Properties beside her late husband, Peter McCuen. Susan also served as Board Chair of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, where she was a forceful voice for business and private enterprise in the region. At the chamber, she worked to locate Raley Field in West Sacramento and was the founding chair of the Chamber's ``Perspectives'' program, an annual conference hosting national and world leaders discussing topical subjects.

In addition to her duties as a member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Susan currently serves as Board Chair of the Leland Stanford Mansion Foundation which restored the historic home of California's eighth governor.

Susan has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for the Sacramento region in both the private and public sectors. She is a true public servant who is always accessible to her constituents.

It has been my pleasure to know Susan Peters and more importantly, to call her my friend. I am pleased to congratulate her on being named the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce's 2011 Person of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 22) reducing the amount authorized for salaries and expenses of Member, committee, and leadership offices in 2011 and 2012.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today is a momentous day. We are all here together as Members of a new Congress and, more importantly, at the cusp of a new era in America's political life. I find it humbling and most appropriate that while yesterday we were ceremonially sworn in in this historic House Chamber and appropriately voted on a transparency- enhancing rules package, today we began our proceedings with a reading of the United States Constitution. The Constitution not only establishes our polity and our framework of government, it enshrines as our fundamental law the proper role of government.

Mr. Speaker, as we promised in our Pledge to America, today's reading was an affirmation of our commitment to return this government back to its proper role--a smaller, less costly, more accountable one.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us, introduced by my colleague from Oregon, is extremely important to today's affirmation. And it is no accident that this is our first piece of legislative business in this the 112th Congress.

This legislation is significant because, along with our other activities here on the House floor this week, this bill committing ourselves to a more responsible and efficient stewardship of

the taxpayers' dollars demonstrates, we hope, to the American people that we are listening.

Mr. Speaker, the people's House should act first and lead by example. Everybody knows that across this country families and small businesses have cut their spending, are paying off their debt, and are striving to live within their means. We should do the same, and this legislation is a beginning. It will do that by having an immediate impact, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and his transition team for their hard work and their constructive ideas.

Under this resolution, each leadership, committee and Member office in the 112th Congress will receive no more than 95 percent of its 111th Congress funding level. In fiscal year 2011, this will mean a savings of $1 million from leadership offices, a savings of $8.1 million from committee budgets, and a savings of $26.1 million from, collectively, the Members' office budgets. For those who may not know, the Members' office budgets are the specific amounts that are given to Members so that they can carry out their functions as Members of Congress. It includes the ability to communicate with their constituents, it includes paying for their staff, it includes paying for their transportation from their district to Washington, D.C. and back; it includes the rental on their district offices. In other words, it is the money that is utilized for Members to carry out their official activities. These are important jobs that Members are required to do if in fact we are to represent our people appropriately. Nonetheless, even though these are important things that we do, we should try to be even more efficient in the way that we do them. That is the purpose of this legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, these are substantial cuts in budgets, in budgets that frankly cannot continue indefinitely on an upward trajectory. We must all find ways to do more with less, to enhance our productivity, and to ferret out waste or inefficiencies wherever they may be. With that being said, this initial savings is only a down payment on future efforts. My colleagues and I on House Administration are dedicated to continuing savings and reductions in spending in other areas as well. Thus, for fiscal year 2012, we have committed to keeping this 5 percent reduction in place. We are also directing all House officers, such as the Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms and the Chief Administrative Officer, to find savings within their own organizations without sacrificing their services and the excellence they pride themselves on maintaining; in other words, to do what all Americans are attempting in their own lives, finding ways to do more with less. We look forward to hearing from these and other House offices in specificity as to what their cost-savings plans will be.

As has been said by our Speaker, we have committed to cutting domestic spending and returning non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels. If we could live on that level of spending a mere 2 years ago, surely we can find ways to do so again. Again, American families are doing it. American businesses are doing it. We must try as well.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the American people and restoring the proper role of government means decreasing spending, ending our deficit mentality, and fostering job creation. These are the virtues that have made this country great and will sustain us in the future.

I want to publicly thank my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and his transition team for the efforts that they have put into this legislation, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who spent an enormous amount of time beginning immediately after the elections to bring us to this point.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the transition team.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), a member of the transition team.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman who served us well on the transition team, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes a new member of our House Administration Committee but a veteran of this House, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who has done great work in the past about the operations of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry as to whether the gentleman has further requests for time.

If the gentleman is going to yield back the balance of his time after his statement, I will do the same on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman, my friend from the great State of Pennsylvania, who has worked on a bipartisan basis, most of the time, and what I mean by that is about 85 percent or 90 percent of the work we do on our committee has to do with making this place work, helping Members do the job that they were elected to do to represent their constituents, and making sure this institution of the House of Representatives works. There is a sense of a pride of the institution that I think marks our committee, and we try in a very real way to work, both on the Democratic and Republican sides, to ensure the productivity of the membership here and to ensure that, frankly, the people get their money's worth.

About 10 or 15 percent of what we have to do has to do with election law, and I might say that that's not always as obviously bipartisan, but we've always done it in the spirit of civility and always done it in the spirit of respect for one another, and for that, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important vote. In comparison to a trillion- dollar budget and trillion-dollar deficit people

might say this is a small amount. It is not a small amount. It is a serious 5 percent cut with respect to the operations of this House in very, very significant ways. It is a down payment on the future actions of this House with respect to other operations of the House, but as we scan across the entire Federal Government, this marks the down payment on that new vision.

So I would once again like to thank the Congressman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I have just discovered that I do have another speaker here, and with the indulgence of my friend on the other side, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this resolution. Let's make it a bipartisan effort. Let's show that we have the commitment of the membership here towards responding to the reality of our times.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

We rarely speak on this floor of evil. Most of the issues we talk about are areas of controversy where you can have men and women of good will with areas of disagreement. And in our society we shun the idea of talking about evil because it sounds judgmental.

This is one example where evil reigns. This is an example of one of the worst kinds of evil in our society today because this affects the most vulnerable among us, and it is a population that is largely hidden from view, in some cases because we avert our eyes. In other cases because we just don't spend the time to know.

The problem of domestic sex trafficking of minors is one that plagues virtually every community in America. That's the surprise for many people. They say, Not here, somewhere else. New York City. The big cities. But it's a problem that knows no jurisdictional boundaries, as traffickers and pimps seem to cross national and international borders with impunity. It is a problem which exploits the young and vulnerable and robs them of their innocence, and it is a problem that we can do something about.

Believe it or not, many of my constituents, many in the general Sacramento region, would be surprised to know that we hold the unfortunate distinction of having one of the highest incidences of domestic minor sex trafficking in the Nation, at least according to the FBI when they did their stings just a year or so ago. One of the reasons could be that we're at the intersection of major thoroughfares that go north and south and come east and west. That might be a comforting thought to others to think it's coming from somewhere else, but we find that most of the people come from our own region and most of them are victims.

We have a courageous police chief just outside my district in the community of Truckee, right near Lake Tahoe, Police Chief Nick Sensley. He's one of the experts in the world on this. And one of the things he always stresses in the programs he's established is this: these young women, these girls are victims. They get caught up in arrests for prostitution and the system looks at them as criminals. Yet you look at almost every single one of them and they are victims. And we don't do much about it.

Oftentimes, when these young girls are able to escape from their imprisonment because law enforcement intervenes, they're let out on the streets shortly thereafter with nowhere to go. And what happens? The pimps start coming around again. And guess what? They're the only one that gives them some perverted idea of love, affection, and commitment. This evil allows the perversion such that these young girls have no other place to look.

We have got to do something about this. We're beginning to do something in California and in Sacramento. We're beginning to do it in other areas of the country. We have to do it as a Nation even more than we have done it before because, as I say, these pimps don't recognize boundaries. They certainly don't recognize laws. They recognize one thing and that is the vulnerability of these young girls.

We have got to do something; and in this Christmas season, we can do nothing better than to give this great gift of a start towards helping communities understand the nature of the problem, begin to allow us to refuse to avert our eyes to what's happening in our own areas, and allow us to support this legislation which will help move us in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. Richard Breitmeyer, who has provided exemplary public service for over 25 years.

Dr. Richard Breitmeyer has served as the California State Veterinarian at the California Department of Food and Agriculture since 1993--rising to this position through a series of senior appointments at CDFA since 1988. He has also served at the United States Department of Agriculture in Ames, Indiana and Plum Island, New York. Before joining the CDFA in 1984, Breitmeyer was in private veterinary practice.

Throughout his professional career, Dr. Breitmeyer has been a member of both the California and American Veterinary Medical Associations. He also served as president of the U.S. Animal Health Association since 2009 and was co-chair of the USDA Secretary's Advisory Committee for Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases.

In 2001, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman asked California to loan Dr. Breitmeyer to the USDA to provide leadership in addressing the very real possibility that Foot and Mouth Disease might migrate from the United Kingdom to the United States. It is a testament to Breitmeyer's leadership that this virulent and devastating livestock disease did not enter the

United States. Due to this work, the USDA presented Dr. Breitmeyer with the Honor Award in 2002.

Dr. Breitmeyer also led the effort in California to develop animal health emergency response planning with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services--an effort put to the test during the successful eradication of exotic Newcastle disease from Southern California in 2003.

Dr. Richard Breitmeyer is loved and respected by his wife and family, by the team that worked for him at CDFA, and by all those who have interacted with him during his professional life. I am grateful that since his retirement on September 30, 2010, Dr. Breitmeyer has joined the staff at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory at the University of California, Davis, to continue his outreach activities for livestock and poultry health.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Dr. Richard Breitmeyer upon his retirement, and applaud him for his dedication to California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1757. As mentioned by the gentleman from American Samoa, it provides for the approval of final regulations issued by the Office of Compliance to implement the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 and apply that act to the House of Representatives and employees of the House.

In 1998, Congress passed the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, and that gave veterans improved access to Federal job opportunities. It also established a redress system for preference-eligible veterans in the event that their preference rights were violated.

These new regulations finally fulfill that law and ensure that the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 applies fully, not just to the executive branch and other Federal employees, but also to the legislative branch and our employees as well.

I support this bill. I thank my colleague Mr. Brady for his authorship of this resolution. Getting to this point has been a long process. I appreciate his support and the efforts of his staff. I urge my colleagues to support our veterans by passing House Resolution 1757.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 77 which does approve the final regulations implementing the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. Almost identical to the legislation we just passed, this bill would extend the regulations to offices that serve both the House and the Senate.

These regulations are long overdue. I thank the chairman and his staff for their diligence in moving them forward. I thank the gentleman from American Samoa for bringing this to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to support our veterans by passing Senate Concurrent Resolution 77.

I yield back the balance of my time.