Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, despite what has been said here, it is the duty and obligation of this body to address a duly issued subpoena that has not been complied with. There has not been full compliance here. There has not been cooperation here. There has not been a willingness to share the information that is found within the Department of Justice.

We have a dead Border Patrol agent. We have more than 200 weapons that were used to kill people in Mexico. We have thousands of missing weapons. We have an Attorney General who said that this Fast and Furious program was fundamentally flawed. And yet here we stand today after doing more than just bending over backwards for more than a year, not having been given the documents that we need, as a body, to make a proper decision.

This should be bipartisan in our quest to right a wrong. It's not about Eric Holder, but it is about the Department of Justice and it is about justice in the United States of America. I am proud of the fact that we are bringing up this contempt.

It's sad that we got to this day. We have no other choice. But we, as a body, as an institution, as a separate branch of government, have a duty and an obligation, and we are fulfilling that here today.

The record will reflect that in a bipartisan way, the Acting Director of the ATF, the person that was actually appointed by President Obama, was deposed by both Democrats and Republicans about a year ago for 2 days around July 4. It was 2 days that he was deposed. That record is there. It is crystal clear.

We were also denied, by the Department of Justice, to speak with Lanny Breuer and Kenneth Blanco, two of the key central people at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. To suggest that we were given an opportunity to talk to them is patently false.

The final part I will make is you can't complain that Attorney General Holder was here nine times between the House and the Senate talking in part about Fast and Furious and then say that you never had a Democratic witness.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am so passionate about this issue is that it's about openness, it's about transparency, it's about the idea that there is no one person in our government that's above the law; that when you have a duly issued subpoena, you comply with that subpoena.

In fact, I would like to hearken back to the remarks by President Obama as he took office. He said:

Let me say as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of

law will be the touchstones of this presidency. I will also

hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. But

the mere fact that you have legal power to keep something

secret does not mean you should always use it.

He went on to say:

I expect members of my administration not simply to live up

to the letter but also the spirit of this law.

He went on to send something to all of the department heads. He said:

Government should not keep information confidential merely

because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,

because errors or failures might be revealed, or because of

speculative or abstract fears.

The President further said, relating to Fast and Furious:

There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake

was made, and if that's the case, we will find out, and we

will hold somebody accountable.

We have a dead Border Patrol agent. We have over 200 dead Mexican people. We have a program that the Attorney General called ``fundamentally flawed.'' We have thousands of weapons that are missing. We have a duty, an obligation to pursue this to the fullest extent and to make sure that we have all those documents so we can make sure that it never, ever happens again.

Now there are 140,000 documents, according to the Attorney General, that deal with Fast and Furious. We've been given less than 8,000 of those. Less than 8,000 of those. We deserve to have that.

Also, I will be submitting for the Record this statement from the National Border Patrol Council. This is the AFL-CIO-oriented organization of 17,000 Border Patrol members who call for the resignation of Attorney General Holder. In fact, they say that it's ``a slap in the face to all Border Patrol agents who serve this country'' and ``an utter failure of leadership at the highest levels of government.''

``If Eric Holder were a Border Patrol agent and not the Attorney General, he would have long ago been found unsuitable for government employment and terminated.''

These are from the people on the front lines. We have an obligation to get to the bottom of this.

[From the National Border Patrol Council, June 20, 2012]

NBPC Calls for the Resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder

June 18, 2012.--The union representing U.S. Border Patrol

agents called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric

Holder for his role in the ``Operation Fast and Furious'' gun

smuggling scandal that directly resulted in the murder of

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010.

National Border Patrol Council President George E. McCubbin

III called the actions of the Attorney General Holder, ``A

slap in the face to all Border Patrol agents who serve this

country'' and ``an utter failure of leadership at the highest

levels of government.''

Border Patrol agents are indoctrinated from day one of

their training that integrity is their most important trait

as a Border Patrol agent and that without it they have little

use to the agency. Border Patrol agents are quickly

disciplined whenever they lie or show a lack of candor. The

standard that applies to these agents should at a minimum be

applied to those who lead them. ``If Eric Holder were a

Border Patrol agent and not the Attorney General, he would

have long ago been found unsuitable for government employment

and terminated.''

``The heroism that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

demonstrated on that cold night in the dessert of Arizona was

in keeping with the finest traditions of the United States

Border Patrol and will never be forgotten by those who patrol

this nation's borders. We cannot allow our agents to be

sacrificed for no gain and not hold accountable those who

approved the ill conceived `Operation Fast and Furious' '',

said McCubbin.

``The political shenanigans surrounding this scandal and

the passing of blame must stop.'' A Border Patrol agent

cannot accidentally step foot into Mexico without a myriad of

U.S. and Mexican government agencies being made aware, so

there is no possible way that this operation was conducted

without the knowledge and tacit approval of the Department of

Justice and the Obama administration.

Mr. Speaker, Leader Pelosi seriously questioned our motivations here. Let me be crystal clear what my motivation is. We have a dead United States agent. We have more than 200 dead people in Mexico. We have more than 2,000 weapons that were knowingly and willfully given to the drug cartels. More than 1,000 of those weapons are still missing. Most of them are AK-47s. We have a duly issued subpoena that has not been responded to.

On February 4, 2011, on Department of Justice letterhead, they presented the United States Congress a letter that was a lie. It took them nearly 9 to 10 months to provide that information and say, Whoops, sorry. That's not good enough.

This is not about Eric Holder. This is about the Department of Justice and justice in the United States of America. I would hearken back to the June 3, 2011, letter that 31 brave Democrats sent to the White House. I will read part of this. And remember, this is about a year ago:

It is equally troubling that the Department of Justice has

delayed action and withheld information from congressional

inquiries.

He went on to say:

While the Department of Justice can and should continue its

investigation, those activities should not curtail the

ability of Congress to fulfill its oversight duty. We urge

you to instruct the Department of Justice to promptly provide

complete answers to all congressional inquiries.

Nothing's changed in over a year. But I will tell you this: Brian Terry doesn't have answers. You don't have answers. I don't have answers. I want all the facts. That's what we're asking for today, the facts, all of them.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I first want to applaud and thank the committee for their work. They've reached the laudable goal of reducing the overall expenditures by $4 billion. And that is much appreciated and noted. I just happen to think we can do just a little bit better.

I'm looking at the committee report regarding the committee's recommendation on the Community Development Fund, specifically the Community Development Block Grants. And I read:

``This is $396 million above both fiscal year 2012 and the budget request.''

So you have the President making a budget request, and you have last year's expenditures. What this amendment does is reduces by $396 million to get it back to where we were. Again, I think the President is even also on the same page.

Now, Madam Chair, we have to recognize what a dire financial strait we're in in this country. We have to understand that we have a multitrillion-dollar challenge. We talk about a trillion with a capital T and it's hard to get your arms around it. But if you were to spend a million dollars a day everyday, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion.

So when we're racking up a trillion-plus-dollar deficit each year, when our

national debt at the end of this year will approach $16 trillion, when we're spending more than $600 million a day in interest on our national debt, we're going to have to cut some spending.

To actually bring back and reduce this to the proper level, I think would be more appropriate. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It returns the funding to the fiscal year 2012 level. Again, as the committee report says, this is $396 million above both fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. I think this is reasonable. I hope the committee would find a place where we can join on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank Chairman Hastings, my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, for his support in this bill that we introduced, the section that will be included in this bill dealing with the Diamond Fork System.

In Utah, we're blessed to live in one of the most beautiful parts of the word. We're also one of the fastest growing States in the Nation.

The Diamond Fork System, which is included as part of the Central Utah Project, has the capacity to generate up to 50 megawatts of hydroelectric power. Currently, thousands of acre-feet of water flow through the Diamond Fork System through tunnels, pipes, and canals each and every second. This water is necessarily slowed through energy dissipaters as they travel from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front. This bill would allow those dissipaters to be easily converted into turbines, thus being able to generate the necessary energy that we need along the Wasatch Front.

The purpose of this bill, which has been included in H.R. 2578, is to waive the unrecoverable sunk cost payment requirements that are inhibiting development of the hydropower at a Bureau of Reclamation facility in Utah. Existing Department of the Interior regulation inhibits hydropower development on the Diamond Fork unit. If the sunk cost recovery requirement is waived, the project will go forward, thus being able to yield the following benefits:

The Treasury is expected, according to the CBO, to get $2 million in revenue over 10 years that it otherwise would not have received. Let me repeat this. This is a net increase to the revenues to the Treasury. It is not an expense to the United States Treasury. In fact, if we don't pass this bill, we won't be able to recover some of those sunk costs. So the net increase to the revenue to the Treasury will go up.

Energy consumers in my district--which this is so desperately needed--will get up to 50 megawatts of new power. And the environmental benefits of this energy are numerous, given that it's clean and it's renewable.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that this bill passed the previous Congress through a voice vote. We introduced this in a bipartisan way. We have Democrats who sponsored this bill as well as Republicans.

With that, I encourage its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service and dedication of Major General Brian L. Tarbet, the Adjutant General of the Utah National Guard. He has served his country as a member of the Utah National Guard for over 30 years. As the Adjutant General for the Utah National Guard, General Tarbet has been responsible for over 7,000 soldiers and airmen for the past 12 years.

General Tarbet began his military career as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve in 1973. After being a member of the ROTC program and earning his bachelor of arts degree in political science from Utah State University, General Tarbet served on active duty from 1973 to 1975. General Tarbet then joined the Utah Army National Guard as a First Lieutenant and received his juris doctorate from the University of Utah in 1978. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, General Tarbet commanded over 4,500 troops providing security in Salt Lake City, just months after the September 11 terrorist attacks heightened security concerns surrounding high profile events. He has led the Utah National Guard through many deployments of soldiers and airmen supporting operations around the globe.

I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of this incredible man who placed service to his country above that of his own ambitions. Major General Brian L. Tarbet is a great example of the men and women who have served or who are currently serving our country in the various branches of the Armed Forces. I am grateful to every member of the military for the great sacrifice that they make every day.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I have a simple amendment that takes a line item within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program back to the fiscal year 2011 level. Now, I think that's probably a pretty reasonable approach to it. It's not too long ago. If left to my own devices, I'd probably zero it out.

But if you go back and look within energy efficiency and renewable energy and then go back down and look at advanced manufacturing, which is the line item that I'm talking about, what this amendment suggests is that we would reduce spending on this, what is proposed, by $74 million, taking it back to the fiscal year 2011 level, which would be $76 million.

Now, that was not just some random number. There was real justification for this, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will find this reasonable. I'm going back, and I'm looking at the committee report for Energy and Water appropriations, and there are three things that I want to highlight within that committee report, so I will read from that.

The first one I want to highlight reads:

For example, the Advanced Manufacturing Program within

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy currently funds more

than 40 centers in a variety of sizes, ages and effectiveness

levels, only a portion of which are mentioned in the budget

request. These centers vary in how well they support the

program's new manufacturing mission.

Now, I don't think it's appropriate to literally double--double--from 2011 levels the spending that we are going to have on these programs when we can't basically answer the questions about the effectiveness levels.

In fact, I would go further into the committee's report where it reads:

Addressing this problem requires a higher degree of

transparency, evaluation and prioritization to ensure that

only highly effective centers closely aligned to program

missions are funded.

I would agree with that. Until we can as a body answer that question, it's hardly a time to double the funding for this particular program.

The report further reads:

The Department is directed to submit to the committee no

later than February 10, 2013, a comprehensive list of all

centers funded through fiscal year 2013, including the date

of establishment, the funding level in fiscal year 2013, the

total funding received to date, purpose, milestones, and

expectation of termination date.

Those are all reasonable things to look at in making this determination, but until we can answer that question, I don't think it's appropriate to double the spending.

The third point I'd like to make from the committee report on this particular line item reads:

The committee is concerned that, historically, technology

innovations developed through the EERE research and

development programs ultimately lead to the manufacturing of

new or cheaper products overseas.

So, if the conclusion of the committee is that the money we spend ultimately leads to the development of products overseas, maybe it's not time to double the spending there.

This amendment, Madam Chair, simply reduces the spending on this back to 2011 levels. It's a reasonable thing. We can live within that. Again, if it were up to me, I would zero it out, but I am trying to be reasonable here. Let's save the $76 million, answer these questions, and reevaluate the program. That's why I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service and dedication of Steve Densley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce. He served and guided Utah Valley for over three decades, becoming the second longest sitting Chamber President in Utah history. Steve Densley leaves a tradition of excellence in business and leadership throughout Utah Valley. He has been recognized numerous times

throughout his career including the Provo City Mayor's Medal of Honor and the Silver Beaver award from the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Densley was also chosen to be a representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to serve on the Western Region Board of Regents. Mr. Densley has served on over 70 boards, committees and councils during his 30-year career.

Steve Densley is a 35-year resident of the city of Provo and the proud husband of Colleen Densley. They have a beautiful family, with six children and 17 grandchildren. Mr. Densley was an All-American football and basketball player at Jordan High School and is an alumnus of Brigham Young University. He was honored with the Distinguished Alumni Award from the same university.

I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of this community leader who has served the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce for the past 30 years. In essence Steve Densley built the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce into what it is today and will leave a lasting legacy.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, one of the deep concerns that we have is the investigation of Fast and Furious. We have to remember that unfortunately we lost one of our Border Patrol agents who was out on patrol serving this Nation. He was killed with weapons that were distributed under a program called Fast and Furious.

This is a sad case of government gone amok, making terrible, awful, deadly decisions; the administration knowingly and willingly allowing guns to walk from gun shops--contrary to what U.S. law is--allowing nearly 2,000 weapons to be released out, knowing that these weapons would be given to the drug cartels, knowing that giving these guns to these very nefarious characters with the hope that maybe they would pop up and we would find out who's using these guns. Well, there are tragic, desperate consequences to what happened.

What should be totally unacceptable on both sides of the aisle is the idea and the notion that the Department of Justice would knowingly and willfully lie to Congress. Senator Grassley had presented the Department of Justice a letter directly to Attorney General Holder. Senator Grassley directly gave to Attorney General Holder a concern expressed in a letter that there were guns walking. It's a term, it's an expression that says we allow people to come in under straw purchasing--which is illegal--to buy guns and weapons for somebody else, and that despite what the ATF and the Department of Justice were doing, they weren't tracking these. They allowed these gun purchases to happen in these gun shops, and then they were let out in the greater Arizona area and allowed these guns to walk.

The consequences have been absolutely tragic. We have a dead Border Patrol agent, and the Mexican Government estimates nearly 300 people have died within Mexico. Very few of these weapons have been recovered. In fact, the Attorney General has testified that there will be crimes committed with these weapons in all likelihood for years to come.

What is totally and wholly unacceptable, I think, to this body and the integrity, despite Republicans and Democrats, is that the Department of Justice would knowingly and willfully present a letter back to Congress on February 4 that was so inaccurate, it was so wrong, and essentially they lied to Congress. It took months and months and months and months to get to the point where they finally had to rescind that letter, where they had to admit that this was a fundamentally flawed program at its very core.

Now, we've been seeking documents. We've been seeking information. We have issued subpoenas. We've been patient beyond belief, but we've mostly been stonewalled. That information has not been forthcoming. What this amendment simply says is that they will not be allowed to be able to use Federal funds--taxpayer dollars--to knowingly, willfully skirt the law and lie to Congress.

Now, on February 4, 2011, I want to remind Members, the Department of Justice lied to Congress about the taxes used in Fast and Furious by claiming Federal authorities make ``every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.'' They denied the allegations that the Department facilitated in the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels. But on December 2, 2011, the Department of Justice formally withdrew the February letter because it was filled with misleading, fictitious, and false statements. The December letter later went on to admit that Fast and Furious was ``a fundamentally flawed operation.''

What we're saying is you should not be able to use taxpayer funds to knowingly and willfully subvert Congress. You can't lie to Congress and use taxpayer dollars to do it. Surely that can be bipartisan in its approach.

All we ask is for the truth. In fact, there were more than a dozen-- in fact,

more than two dozen Members of the Democratic Party serving in Congress who sent a letter to the White House expressing the idea and the notion that the administration should be open and forthright in providing this information to Congress, but it has not been forthcoming. It has not been accurate. In fact, it was a lie.

As we look to Brian Terry, who served this country, we owe it to him and to his family to get to the truth of what happened in Fast and Furious. And no taxpayer dollars should ever be used to knowingly and willfully lie to Congress.

We as a body, as an institution, deserve to get to the bottom of this. We have not had all these answers. On March 25, 2011, President Obama stood in an interview and told the world that they would hold somebody responsible, that Eric Holder wasn't responsible for this and that they would hold somebody responsible and make sure that it doesn't happen again. To date, Madam Chair, that has not happened. In fact, the senior management there at the Department of Justice got promotions; some of them got bonuses. Nobody's been fired at the senior levels over there. We're not just looking for somebody to get fired; we've got to make sure that it never, ever happens again.

So I would encourage Members to support this amendment. We should do so in a bipartisan way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to quote President Obama in his first remarks as President of the United States:

Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of

this Presidency . . . I will also hold myself as President to

a new standard of openness . . . But the mere fact that you

have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean

you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is

perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our

government honest and transparent and of holding it

accountable; and I expect members of my administration not

simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this

law . . . The government should not keep information

confidential merely because public officials might be

embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might

be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

This country should be embarrassed by what is happening in Fast and Furious. My challenge to Members on both sides of the aisle is to stand up and have the integrity to say that we have a dead U.S. agent and that we have a Department of Justice that lied to Congress. Where are the guts in this body to stand up and say we're not going to put up with that, that we're going to demand that these documents be provided to Congress? We know, because the inspector general within the Department of Justice has said, they have 80,000 documents. They've given Congress about 7,000 of those documents. This is the test of principle. This is the test of integrity. When you can't stand up and take on your own party, that's a lack of guts. This Congress has got to stand up for itself and demand that these documents be released.

I would encourage Members on both sides of the aisle, at the very least, to vote for this amendment. I can't imagine any reason why anybody would deny the passage of this amendment. We're not going to allow taxpayer dollars to be used to lie to Congress. Unfortunately, we have been lied to. That is the reason we have to offer this amendment. It's embarrassing that we have to even get to this point.

Madam Chair, Brian Terry's family expects it, and the integrity of this body demands it. Regardless of whether it's Republican or Democrat, we cannot rest until we get to the bottom of that.

You can make the case that part of this started with President Bush. We don't know what's in these documents; but with the separation of powers, it's imperative that we get to the bottom of this and that we hold people accountable--and not just the lowest level of people down at the ATF. They've been dismissed. They've been harassed. Thank goodness for those whistleblowers who stood up and did the right thing. But at the senior level, the senior people at the Department of Justice, they have not been held accountable. President Obama said in these remarks that he would. On March 25, he went on Univision and promised that they would. It has not happened.

If we get stonewalling on the other side of the aisle--without your support--we will do a disservice to this country; we will do a disservice to this body, and we will not get to the truth. I promise you, when there is a Republican President, I will stand with you

and will demand the openness and transparency that this body deserves. I've done it. I've challenged my own party. Have the guts, have the fortitude, to do the right thing.

I appreciate Chairman Issa, Representative Gowdy, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Farenthold--there are so many people in this body--and I appreciate my colleague from South Carolina, who are passionate about this issue. I urge all Members to vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of short months ago, the Department of Justice in support of the Americans with Disabilities Act added a new provision. This provision said that in order to be in compliance with the ADA regulations, businesses must now allow service horses into their businesses. And you did hear right: they're talking about service horses to be in compliance with the ADA regulation. And I dare to stand and say we need to say ``nay'' to that type of effort. Pardon the pun. It's kind of hard to get through this without smiling about it, but this is the kind of regulation that has an untold number of consequences on small businesses.

While I recognize the imperative and the need that some unfortunate Americans go through in having to deal with things, there comes a point where we have to stand up and say wait a sec, wait a sec, wait a sec. Do we really need to allow service horses into airplanes, into hotels and into restaurants just to accommodate a particular person?

This amendment would prohibit funding from the implementation of yet another costly Federal regulation. The regulation would require businesses and restaurants to admit service horses in the same way they admit service dogs into their areas of operation. I wish I didn't have to bring up this amendment; but since the administration has now put this into a rule, we're going to have to introduce this amendment.

Despite the difficulty--and some would say the impossibility of housebreaking a horse--the Obama Justice Department has ruled that service horses, miniature horses used to accompany people with disabilities, are no different than guide dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a result, shops, restaurants, hotels, even airlines, can now be sued if they do not accommodate horses in their place of business.

That regulation joins a long list of rules with which small businesses must comply. In fact, the New York Times recently reported on a particularly insidious scheme in which lawyers recruit disabled people, pay them a fee, and use them to file lawsuits against businesses that fail to comply with any one of the hundreds of ADA rules. For small businesses, the cost of compliance with that law that designates, for instance, 95 different standards for bathrooms alone is just the beginning.

They must also pay attorneys' fees to the litigants in such case, even though many businesses say they would have complied without a lawsuit.

Some 1.65 million lawsuits are filed each year over enforcement of Federal regulations, according to Berkeley law professor Sean Farhang, author of ``The Litigation State.'' Estimates by the Competitive Enterprise Institute suggest that regulation cost the economy some $1.75 trillion in 2008 alone. That's a massive drag on the U.S. economy. With the average of nine new rules appearing in the Federal Register every day, small businesses with fewer resources struggle to keep up with the ever-changing regulatory environment.

Some 65 percent of the Nation's net new jobs are created by small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration. Overregulation has a direct effect on their ability to create jobs and compete in the marketplace.

If a person wishes to bring a horse into an establishment, then the request should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not through some new Federal mandate. Ironically, even the Miniature Horse Association-- and I'm sure all good Americans subscribe to the magazine put out by the American Miniature Horse Association--but their president, Harry Elder, has looked at this. He does not condone the use of these horses as a replacement for guide dogs. In fact, he has said:

The American miniature horse can readily be trained to be

led or driven, but in most cases it would not make a suitable

replacement for an animal such as a guide dog.

So there is an association that deals with these miniature horses. Even that association and the president is saying this is not a wise move.

If the body feels that this is an imperative thing to do, I suggest a Member of Congress be brave enough to introduce such a piece of legislation, that it be properly vetted by having a hearing about this, and we can move through the legislative process. But since the administration has introduced this regulation, this is just suggesting that we should not spend money against this and let this be a little more vetted. It would help American businesses. Unfortunately, there are already lawsuits flying.

I would encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to please vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I do want to indicate that I believe it was in March that the Department of Justice title III regulations issued a new ruling. So, we may disagree on what to do with this.

I would disagree with that assessment. This is a new regulation, and it has led to lawsuits that have already started to happen. One news report is of a lawsuit in California.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to work with you on that. I do disagree with that assessment and that reading of it.

If the gentleman will yield.

I simply disagree with that assessment. We'll have to agree to disagree, and I look forward to working with you.

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 36: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the bipartisan nature in which this is moving forward. I appreciate specifically Chairman Rogers, Chairman Issa, and the ranking member.

I stand in support of this amendment. I think FOIA is a very important principle we have in this, and this just strengthens that.

I would also say, Madam Chair, that I was opposed to SOPA. I was adamantly opposed to this. But this bill in particular is desperately needed in this country. Cybersecurity is a very real threat, and this bill is something that is needed in this country. I think it is strong in its Fourth Amendment protections. I think it's appropriate for this Nation to do this. We need to make sure that we're smart in how we advance.

There have been some much-needed amendments that were adopted. But again, the bill, as we see it moving forward, I think, will strengthen cybersecurity in this country, and I'm proud of the fact that Chairman Rogers is bringing this bill to the floor.

I urge the support of this amendment and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Issa and his foresight and leadership on this issue in driving this forward. This is so, so important to our country and our nation, and for the Federal Government to operate properly.

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank and recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, his unparalleled support and need and just patriotism for what's good for this Nation, working together in a bipartisan way. This is what I think the American people want, and this is what they get in this bill.

I also want to share the fact that cybersecurity is a real threat. It's a threat to the mom who's got the computer sitting in there in the kitchen, and the kids are going in every direction, to the most secure infrastructure we have in our Federal Government. It is imperative that we get this right, because everything from a guy in a van down by the river to nation-states, our country is under a constant bombardment and attack, for our intellectual property, to trade secrets, to what's going on in this government.

And while this is focused on what our government is doing and how it's organized, it updates the law so that we have the right provisions at the right place, and we're doing the right things. We have to be vigilant as a people. So this is focused, not--it doesn't give a new mandate. There's no new mandate upon the American people. There's no mandate upon businesses.

What this does is get the structure for what should happen in the Federal Government right, and updating and doing things like continuous monitoring, vulnerability assessments and penetration tests that are done within the Federal Government. It requires a chief information security officer within these different agencies, and it focuses these efforts upon the Director of OMB.

By really putting the focal point on the executive branch within the White House, you will get a much better response, because everything, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Department of Defense and everywhere in between, we have to make sure that our systems are updated because the threat is constant, it is real, it is 24/7. And without these updates, without the constant monitoring, without these types of things, we will be doing a disservice to the American people, and we will not be living up to the commitment that we have to make sure that these networks are as secure as they possibly can be.

This is something that will be with us, not just for the next 6 months, not just for the next year, but for the foreseeable future. And Madam Speaker, that's why I'm so enthusiastic about this bill. I appreciate the bipartisan nature in which it was done. And I certainly appreciate Chairman Issa and his leadership on this. I'm glad to be part of it.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 3288.

I first want to commend Chairman Ryan of the Budget Committee for actually doing the job that we were elected to do.

As Chairman Ryan pointed out, it has been more than 1,050 days since the United States Senate has actually decided to even address the budget. And yet I look at what they're doing. I can't figure out what they're doing. We are actually doing the job that we are supposed to be doing and doing it ahead of schedule, per the statute, per what this country should be doing, and I am proud of the fact that we are here debating a budget.

I am also terribly disappointed in the President's budget.

You know, it is interesting. As I routinely hear, Mr. Chairman, the Democrats talk about a balanced approach, the problem is the President has never, ever introduced a balanced budget, a budget that even over the course of time, at some point in time, would actually balance. It never balances.

So for 4 years in a row, we're going to have a $1 trillion-plus deficit. Understand what that means for you and your kids.

When I was first elected in 2008, this Nation was roughly in the $9 trillion debt range. Now we're going to be close to $16 trillion by the end of the year.

Now keep in mind: How much is $1 trillion? That number is so large, it's hard to get your arms around it. If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you nearly 3,000 years to get to 1 trillion.

We deficit-spend as a Nation $4 billion a day. My State of Utah, their entire budget, everything we do in our entire State is about $13 billion for the year. This Nation deficit-spends roughly $4 billion a day. We pay more than $600 million a day in interest on our debt, and yet the President proposes a budget that over the course of time will get to $26 trillion in debt in the next 10 years where we will see daily debt payments to service our debt. Those interest payments are going to be in a range closing in on $2 billion a day. We can't do this, ladies and gentlemen. There is a proper role of government. We're taking a responsible approach, but we have to cut spending.

The reason I rise in support of this House budget is that over the course of time, we take that spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product and bring it down less than 20 percent.

Under the President's vision, he is fine with spending in excess of 24 percent of GDP. What does that mean? Think of all the transactions, all of the financial transactions in this country, and he is comfortable spending 24 cents of every dollar that is spent in this Nation. That is fundamentally and morally wrong.

But there is a choice. We have put together a plan. We are doing the heavy lifting. We're putting together a budget that's responsible.

I wish we could balance the budget overnight. You can't. We've got to put ourselves on a glide path. There is a proper goal of government. We have to achieve that. I believe that the House Republican budget is bold and realistic.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his great work.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this budget. I am proud of the fact that we are actually debating a budget; for you see, you look over to the other body, you look to the United States Senate, and you'll see it's been more than 1,050 days, an exceptional amount of time--years, in fact--since the United States Senate has actually discussed a budget.

And here we are debating a budget. There's a contrast in vision. There's a contrast in priorities, but we're debating this. On some issues, there is some common ground; but on other things, there is a divergence in our approach.

This budget that's being presented here as an amendment raises taxes by more than $6 trillion. Mr. Chairman, let me put in context what $1 trillion is. If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion.

So what we have to have is a realization of the fiscal woes that we face ourselves. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up.

The reality is we cannot face tens of trillions of dollars in debt because there's a consequence of that. The consequence of this massive debt: rising interest rates, devaluation of the dollar. There's so many things. Inflation as you throw more money into the marketplace.

Imagine what this world would be like if we didn't have what will be, at the end of this year, nearly $16 trillion in debt. Right now we're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that debt.

So, while I think there is common ground and appreciation of what needs to happen for our kids and our future and investments that we do need to make, what they would like to do in terms of infrastructure and roads and all of these types of things and our military, we're saddled with a $16 trillion debt. So we don't have that $600 million. We really don't get anything for that. We have to pay that as interest on the debt.

That's where you see a contrast. What is being proposed here versus what the Republicans are offering in their budget, which has passed through the Budget Committee, is they would have to spend $5.3 trillion more over 10 years than what we have proposed.

So I stand in opposition to this. I appreciate the passion and commitment they have to their agenda, but I do want to recognize, and I hope we can applaud on both sides of the aisle at least here in the House of Representatives, we're actually debating a budget.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

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

One of the moral obligations, I think, is not only to the current generation but to the older Americans who have poured their hearts and souls into this contract. They've lived with the assumption that certain things are going to be there. We have to live up to those obligations, but we also have to live up to the obligations that we have for our kids and our grandkids.

One of my goals and objectives is to leave this country better than how I found it. One of the things that the House Republican budget does over the course of time is balance the budget and pay off the debt, which is something we have to do. So the fundamental question becomes, How do you do that?

Now, I think where we have some common ground is that we want to broaden the base. The Republicans are suggesting that we lower the rates. Let people keep their own money and spend their own money. That is fundamentally what the United States of America is all about. The contrast here in what's being proposed is that they want to broaden the base--again, common ground--but they want to raise the rates, and that's where I think we have a fundamental challenge. We talk about what people have to pay, their fair share and whatnot. Yet let's look historically at what has happened in the United States of America.

Historically, we have spent less than 20 percent of our gross domestic product. When the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency, they raised that up over 24 percent. That is more than 24 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government in this country. I think that's immoral. I think that's wrong. We have an obligation--we have a duty--to live within our means and to provide opportunity and liberty for people to thrive. No matter where they are in life, the United States of America is about freedom, it's about liberty, it's about the opportunity to succeed--and that's the foundation of this country. That's what I'm committed to. That's what a responsible Federal Government does.

The proper role of government is limited in its scope, and the proper role of government is a role of government. To me, that means the Department of Defense and other things to protect our Nation. That's where we should put our priorities, and that's why I think that this budget that the House Republicans have proposed is so responsible. I don't think we're just one good tax increase away from prosperity in this country, and that's, in part, why I stand in opposition to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

You have to recognize how much money the Federal Government is spending here. We're going to spend in the range of about $3.5 trillion to $3.6 trillion in a 12-month period. Part of my rhetorical question here is: If that's not stimulative to the economy, why isn't it? What are we spending our money on if it's not intended to, in part, stimulate the economy? There are things that we have to do in terms of security and in providing for the FAA and for the Department of Defense, but we have to utilize those resources in a very wise way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to yield the gentleman some additional time. I know he has a number of speakers who are still left. I am happy to do that. So that is my intention as you allocate the rest of your time.

For now, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman if he needs it and has additional speakers.

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

I do appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Chairman, the generosity and the approach that he took that, yes, we should debate the issues, but we don't need to attack the person. I think it is the right attitude, and I appreciate the comments about our chairman, Chairman Ryan.

I remember what Speaker Boehner said at the beginning when I started. He said, We may disagree, but we shouldn't be disagreeable. So I appreciate the spirit in which we do this today.

This is a contrast. There is a difference in opinion in the direction that we should go. I fundamentally don't believe that we're just one good tax increase away from prosperity in this country. I think one of the problems and challenges in this Nation is that our government has overreached. It is spending too much money. It is borrowing too much money. And it is regulating too much. Is there a proper role for regulation? Absolutely, absolutely. And where it's a necessity, we need to prioritize it. We need to fix those things that aren't working.

But what we have proposed, as the House Republicans, in our budget is a responsible, bold budget. It's also a realistic budget that, over the course of time, balances the books and pays off the debt. That is the imperative of our Nation. Because, as I sited earlier, we have to leave--we should leave this Nation better than the way we found it; and that means creating opportunity for this Nation to thrive. We need to remember that manufacturing is good in this Nation. We need to remember that, yes, we have to make investments, but to protect our Nation.

I look at the President's budget, and the only thing I see that it cuts is defense; and the only thing it drills is your wallet. I don't believe that that is the direction of our Nation, and that is why we are debating this issue in contrast to the United States Senate which, for more than 1,050 days now, has not even brought a budget to the floor to debate. That is fundamentally and morally wrong. I am proud of the fact that this body is doing this.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on what has been offered as the substitute, but I do encourage Members to vote for what passed out of the Budget Committee. I think it's responsible. I think it's bold. I think it's the right move for our Nation.

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