Floor Statements

Offered By Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 1: Add at the end the following new title:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by congratulating the Budget Committee and the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill to the floor. We need to have more honest budgeting, and this is a step in the right direction. I plan to support it. I have long supported the use of dynamic scoring in particular. I'm pleased to see this issue on the floor today.

It's necessary to ensure that Congress has the most reliable information possible. Not all tax cuts are created equal when it comes to the ability to actually generate tax revenue, and I think that we ought to recognize that, and that's what dynamic scoring is all about.

H.R. 3582 requires CBO to provide a supplemental dynamic analysis for a bill with a gross budgetary impact greater than a quarter percent of the U.S. gross domestic product in any fiscal year. Based on the current GDP, I believe the threshold would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion, meaning the dynamic scores would be limited to bills with a gross impact of $40 billion a year.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that setting a trigger for a supplemental macroeconomic analysis would have yielded dynamic scores for somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple dozen bills introduced last year, let alone the number that we considered. The amendment that is ruled in order here would lower the threshold for requiring a supplemental dynamic score to any legislation that would have a budgetary impact greater than $5 billion in a year.

Now, I understand that there are concerns with setting the trigger considerably lower than the quarter percent of GDP, including it would mean that CBO would have considerably more work to do. I am sensitive to that. But I do think that we ought to set the standard a little lower, or the trigger a little lower than $40 billion a year.

CBO scores hundreds of bills a year. This is a lot more analysis that they would have to do, but I think it is important. But, as I mentioned, I'm sensitive to the concerns that have been raised that this would require too much work or too much additional work, which might require additional staffing and everything else at the CBO, so I'm prepared to withdraw this amendment. But I hope that, as this process moves forward, we can set a standard or a threshold a little lower than $40 billion a year. I think that that would benefit lawmakers as we consider the impact of this legislation.

I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I'm happy to yield to my

friend from Georgia the time that he might need.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say I support this legislation. It's good legislation. I look forward to working with the gentleman as we move ahead, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of this legislation. It is needed and will help on the border to close this loophole to make sure that we can better protect the border.

I also want to pay tribute at this time to my friend and colleague Gabby Giffords for bringing this bill forward and for her work on this over the years. I have traveled to the border many times to meet with those property holders there, particularly the ranchers--the Glenns, the Ladds, and others--that she knows so well, that she has worked with over the years to develop legislation like this and the other legislative initiatives that she has pushed to make sure that we have a secure border.

She met with these groups and then committed to have conference calls routinely to make sure that she was hearing their concerns, and she did so over a long period of time. And I can tell you, those who reside at the border, those who live there, who have property there, who work there, who have been there for generations appreciate so deeply the work that she has done over these years.

I want to pay tribute also to her family, especially her good husband, Mark, for this difficult and challenging year, for supporting her, and for making sure that she had what she needed and that she is recovering. What a wonderful story they have together and will continue to have.

I also want to pay tribute to Gabby Giffords' wonderful staff. This has

been a challenging year for them, and they have done everything possible to ensure that the people from the Eighth District have received the representation that they deserve. They've worked long hours under difficult circumstances and have made sure that those constituents were well served. I was down in Sierra Vista last week and spoke to many of her constituents who recognize the efforts of Gabby and her good staff in this difficult time.

We, as the Arizona delegation, will miss her in Congress deeply. We are so appreciative of the service that she has rendered; and we know that she will continue to serve, whether in the future in an elected office or in whatever capacity, she will continue to serve the good people of Arizona and this country.

This vote has been called a charade. That is true; it is. Let's face it. The President will veto this. The Senate will sustain the veto.

Having said that, for years and years we raised the debt limit without a discussion, let alone a vote sometimes. It would just happen procedurally. That's wrong. At least this time we've had a discussion back in August. I didn't favor the budget agreement that we had there. I did not vote for it because I think, if we're going to raise the debt ceiling, then boy, we ought to have a plan to pay down the debt or actually deal with the deficit.

But I think we have to admit that even if the Senate had passed the House-passed budget, the so-called Ryan budget, we would still have to raise the debt ceiling. I don't think anybody really disputes that. We're going to have to raise the debt ceiling again and again. But at least let's put together a plan to deal with our deficit, and we haven't done that.

Now, in our candid moments over here on the Republican side of the aisle, we have to admit that we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current President took the wheel. He stepped on the accelerator a bit, and we're going to get there a lot faster.

Having said that, this Congress seems to only take action when we're right at that cliff, right staring off into the abyss. We can't do that anymore. We don't know where that next cliff is. It could happen when we have a treasury auction and have no buyers for our debt. That could happen sooner than we might want to realize. So it behooves us now to actually put together a plan to deal with our debt and deficit. That plan does not exist today.

So I think, for that reason, we ought to vote for this resolution and then actually put a plan in place to deal with it rather than just letting future generations inherit this debt.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One year ago, Mr. Speaker, many of us stood in this Chamber and pleaded with the leadership on both sides of the aisle not to put this payroll tax holiday in place. It was bad policy to put it in place, and it's bad policy to extend it. By the end of this year, we will have taken a quarter of a trillion dollars from the Social Security trust fund. And for what purpose?

In our candid moments, we must confess that this effort is more toward securing votes than securing economic growth.

We may point fingers across the aisle, but it's a pox on both of our Houses. Democrats paint themselves as champions of Social Security; yet they blissfully endorse taking another $120 billion out of the Social Security trust fund. We Republicans paint ourselves as fierce guardians of the public purse; yet we're eager to pretend that the payroll tax holiday is paid for by fleeting fees and phantom spending cuts.

We keep hearing that we're kicking the can down the road. We're $15 trillion in debt. Ten thousand baby boomers retire every year into a program that is already running in the red. Mr. Speaker, we're out of road. The responsible thing to do is to not extend this payroll tax holiday for 2 months or for 12 months.

Mr. Speaker, the House will soon have the opportunity to approve the Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act of 2011. This bill will make changes for those using or planning to use ultralight aircraft in cross-border smuggling similar to those using other aircraft. It will also continue ongoing cooperation between the Department of Defense and Homeland Security that is enhancing efforts to combat illicit cross- border trafficking.

As pressure has been applied to the border, Mexican organized crime has turned to a new and innovative smuggling approach--the use of ultralight aircraft. It's a pressing concern.

A similar bill introduced by my colleague from Tucson was overwhelmingly approved by this body in the last Congress, and those provisions were included in standalone legislation that I introduced in this Congress.

I congratulate the Senate for having passed S. 1974. I appreciate cooperation on both sides of the aisle to get this important matter to the President's desk.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of section 1245 in the conference report to the NDAA that would require what we hope are crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. These provisions, offered as a bipartisan amendment in the other Chamber and approved by a unanimous vote, would severely limit the funding available for the Iranian regime to use in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. I have introduced similar legislation as a stand-alone bill here in Congress, and we also wrote a letter encouraging the conferees to accept this language. I am pleased that they did.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to stopping the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, but if there is any sweet spot where we can make a difference, it is with the Central Bank of Iran. And so I am pleased that this provision is in the bill, and I would urge adoption of that section all the way through the process. And I hope that this signals our intent certainly to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

While the Clean Air Act obviously serves a useful purpose, all too often States and localities are tied up in knots in just trying to comply with the provisions of it in which the rules that were promulgated in response to the law, or amendments to the law, just weren't well thought out.

In this regard, in 2005 Congress amended the Clean Air Act so States and localities could get off the regulatory hook for so-called ``exceptional events''--dust events--events that they cannot control but that impact air quality. In 2007, the EPA adopted the Exceptional Event Rule, implementing Congress' amendment to the Clean Air Act; but this rule has proven flawed, costly, and inconsistently implemented.

Let me give you an idea of what we're talking about here. Here is a picture. It's an actual photograph of one of the events that happened just this year in the Phoenix metropolitan area which was caused by a monsoon.

The monsoon comes along. When it rolls along flat ground, it tends to pick up every loose bit of dust or dirt that's there, and it causes an event like this. Obviously, this is not something that the State or local government can control; yet we're forced to go then to the EPA and beg for an exception to the Clean Air Act, which has proven to be extremely costly when we have to do it over and over again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, just to give you an idea of how prevalent the problem is, I'll just summarize a little more. In Arizona, the Maricopa Association of Governments, or MAG, has said that there have been about 100 events that have exceeded the PM10 standard this year. All but one was from an exceptional event--dust storms that occurred naturally.

What happens then is States and localities, as I said, have to go to the EPA and beg for an exception to the rule. In some cases, just for an example, if you take all of the events in 2011, the Maricopa Association of Governments is estimating it will cost over $1 million to just argue and put together the paperwork to go to the EPA and say, This was a big monsoon that caused this. It was an exceptional event. In the end, the EPA may rule in our favor, but it is the cost of actually going through it.

This is not just in Maricopa County. It's not just in Arizona. In the San Joaquin Valley, I believe it has noted that the paperwork for just one high-wind exceptional event takes more than 400 staff hours to prepare in order to go to the EPA. It takes 400 staff hours for one exceptional event like this to go and say, This shouldn't count against our air quality or count against us in terms of new regulations and costs that will be imposed on us.

I am a cosponsor of the underlying bill to which this amendment will be attached, and I support it. This is an important amendment. It is not just an academic question, and I'm glad that all sides recognize this. So I thank the gentleman from California for accepting the amendment.

I now wish to yield time to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem). I thank her for her dogged work in bringing this forward.

I thank the gentlelady.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the EPA does recognize there is a problem here, and they are working to correct it. It's just taking a long time. The rule was promulgated in 2007. We've had 3 or 4 years since that time, and every year it costs States and local governments millions of dollars just to seek exceptions with these exceptional events. The language in this amendment simply encourages the EPA to move more quickly, and Congress stands ready to help them to fashion a new rule that will truly account for these exceptional events.

With that, I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for arranging this Special Order. This is something that we in Arizona and anywhere in the West in Utah and elsewhere have great pride in and that this recognition, as the gentleman mentioned, came far too late and has been far too little, given the amount of the impact that the Navajo Code Talkers had on World War II.

So I'm pleased to be here and to lend my voice to recognition. As the gentleman mentioned, only one of the original Code Talkers is still living. So I think it's important that we recognize others who carried on this code and tradition and helped out in this way.

This was a group, as we mentioned, of many Navajos, Native Americans, who volunteered for the armed services in World War II. This was, as the gentleman said, very successful. It was the only code that remained unbroken. And one of the most amazing aspects of World War II is how these people came together, as the gentleman mentioned, young kids in their teen years and others, and volunteered for this effort. It's even more remarkable when we note that many States did not permit Native Americans to vote until the 1950s. Yet the Code Talkers were undeterred. They wanted to help their country.

It's fitting that we honor this group on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the start of World War II, because they had such an integral part of ensuring that that brutal war came to an end. I want to thank my colleague from Arizona and others who have come here for putting together this timely tribute to make sure that these individuals are recognized for the impact that they had in ending this war and to ensure that this world remains free.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3012, The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.

I congratulate my colleague from Utah and my colleague, the esteemed chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, for moving this bill through the committee process and bringing it to the floor. I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

This bill will eliminate per-country limits on employment-based immigration, which limit the total employment-based immigration from any one country to just seven percent of the overall number of visas allowed.

While there may have been a rationale for per-country limits in the past, currently they have created a bottleneck for those seeking to legally emigrate from high population countries. These high population countries also happen to be countries from which a large percentage of high-skilled workers come.

Simply put, H.R. 3012 will reform our employment-based immigration such that our economy will have better access to the best and the brightest in the world.

The value of foreign-born, high-skilled talent simply cannot be overstated.

For example, researchers at Duke University and University of California--Berkeley found that, from 1995 to 2005, more than a quarter of engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder and in 2006 these companies employed 450,000 workers and produced $52 billion in sales.

Facilitating U.S. industry having access to the best and the brightest from around the world is crucial to ensuring that we stay on the leading edge of global innovation.

Given the economic realities we face, these reforms could not come at a better time and this legislation has received support from CompeteAmerica, the Information Technology Industry Council, TechAmerica, and Immigration Voice.

This bill is the right policy at the right time and it is my hope that it moves through the legislative process and ultimately lands on the President's desk expeditiously.

In addition, Congress can and should continue to look for fixes to our current approach to legal immigration that will benefit our economy.

For example, there is a growing consensus that steps should be taken to ensure that we are able to retain foreign-born graduates with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, as opposed to losing them to countries with which we compete.

I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues on commonsense reforms that can help the U.S. retain its competitive edge and remain at the forefront of the global marketplace.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank those who have brought this resolution to the floor, particularly the gentlewoman from Florida, and for the hard work she has put into it, and for the staff of Gabby Giffords for working so hard to get this done, and for the family of Gabe Zimmerman, working with this body, both sides of the aisle, to make sure that this resolution came to the floor today.

I was fortunate enough to be in Tucson just a few hours after the shooting and was with those assembled at the hospital, with friends and community activists and others when it was confirmed that Gabe Zimmerman had lost his life. I wish all who are within the sound of my voice today could feel in that room, that day and the days that followed, the love that was felt for this good man, for the work that he did for our colleague, and for how much he is loved throughout the State of Arizona. The State of Arizona will not forget what he has done. And with this resolution today, with this naming, we ensure that this institution does not forget Gabe as well.

Now, all of us as Members of Congress here have a plaque outside of our office that denotes that we are serving the people of our representative States. When we retire, when we leave after serving here, we will take those plaques with us, and maybe they'll decorate our office at home or a room at home. I think it is fitting that this plaque will remain here forever and will honor the service of Gabe Zimmerman and also honor the service of many staff who work so hard that are often forgotten and often not appreciated for the work they do.

So it's an honor to be here, and I appreciate again those who have helped bring this resolution to the floor, particularly the family of Gabe Zimmerman. And I hope they know how much we appreciate their sacrifice and Gabe's sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I can match the volume that's been displayed today, using partisan accusations as to who's responsible for the budget mess that we're in. But I think that all of us, we Republicans, for example, in our candid moments, would admit that we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current President took the wheel. But we're in this together. It has been decisions made by Republicans and Democrats to expand entitlement programs and to expand discretionary spending that have put us in the situation we're in today.

I think we would also concede that any bout of fiscal discipline we've had over the past couple of decades has been caused by--or at least accompanied by--statutory spending caps that have been put in place. The problem is those only last for a few years, and then this body simply waives them.

So we need a backstop. We need a constitutional backstop that will force us to make decisions that we know have to be made. It is sad commentary on this body that we have to have a constitutional balanced budget amendment to force us to do our jobs of prioritizing spending, but I think with a $15 trillion deficit we can concede that we need it.

So this won't make the decisions for us--we'll still have to make the tough decisions going ahead--but we need it, nonetheless.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 31, UNESCO voted to award the Palestinian Authority full membership in its organization. UNESCO made the decision in spite of an existing U.S. law which prohibits U.S. contributions to the United Nations or any associated organization that awards the Palestinian Authority the same standing as full member states.

It defies logic that UNESCO would willingly forgo nearly one-quarter of its budget--the 22 percent that is contributed by the United States each year--in exchange for awarding the PA full member status. This decision is especially troubling considering that it will only diminish the prospects for genuine peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties involved and not by fiat.

Nevertheless, UNESCO has made its decision, and the U.S. should stand by existing law and cut off funding for the organization. Anything short of this will send a clear message to other international organizations considering similar action that Congress and the United States does not follow up on what it says. It will also send a message to America's allies, most especially Israel, that the United States cannot be taken at its word. Congress needs to stand by Israel and all of its allies and hold UNESCO accountable for the decision that it made.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, listening to the debate, you wonder what bill we're debating

here. The opposition seems to be talking about something completely different. We heard under the rule debate yesterday and some of the debate today that this won't create any jobs in Arizona, that somehow these jobs will go to robots. I mean, come on, this isn't the Jetsons doing this. I have no idea what's being talked about here.

Let me give you a couple of examples of those who are employed currently. There are 500 people currently employed by Resolution on the mine, 500, and 90 percent of them are Arizonans. So 90 percent of the 500 right now. There are an estimated 1,400 jobs directly related to the mine or directly in the mine, and some 3,700 beyond that, ancillary jobs, would come as a result of the mine.

Albo Guzman, he's a local Superior Trading contractor. He has several local employees working for him on this project. He is a person, not a robot.

Jeff Domlin, a Globe-based contractor whose company is doing much of the reclamation work on the project.

Elizabeth Magallanez, she's a longtime resident.

Melissa Rabago, she was actually born in the hospital that was run by the company on the previous mine that her father worked on, the Magma project. That company hospital now serves as project headquarters. Two of her sons work for a Resolution contractor.

Mike Alvarez, third generation from Superior, works as a map technician. These are all real people, not robots. You didn't here me say C3PO or anything like that. So the arguments that we hear coming out of the opposition on this are just complete nonsense about this not creating jobs.

And this talk about royalties; if we want to go in and change the Mining Act of 1872, let's do it. I'll be there. A lot of us have argued for that. But this is not the place to address the Mining Act of 1872. Let's address that when it should be addressed, and let's address the facts at hands. The facts are these: Jobs will be created. This is a great bill. Let's pass it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just point out, if we want to address the royalty issue on this and other mining ventures, let's address the Mining Act of 1872. There were attempts to do this in the nineties, attempts to increase royalties or impose a 5 percent royalty, and many on the other side of the aisle opposed that measure. And so there have been a few attempts. I would encourage, let's go back to it. But this is not the place to

do it. We can't do it here on this one bill.

And make no mistake about it; this is an attempt to kill this legislation, nothing else. It's not an attempt to garner the taxpayer more revenue. This is an attempt to kill the bill.

I would encourage rejection of the amendment and adoption of the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the chair for bringing this measure to the floor, and to the sponsor, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

This is an extremely important measure for the State of Arizona. I would invite those opposed to this legislation to walk down the streets of Superior or walk down the streets of Globe or Miami, Arizona, and see those empty streets, empty classrooms, and to try to say that these jobs aren't real, that mining jobs are not real; or to meet the hundreds of people, as I have, as well, who have gone to this mine and have toured it, and not one robot did I meet, not one, that I'm aware of. And the notion that a mine is going to be operated by robots owned by some foreign company somewhere rather than local workers who will pay a lot of taxes, who will generate other jobs that are ancillary is just unbelievable.

The notion that a foreign company can't have a significant investment in this country just runs afoul of everything we know about what has gone on for centuries here. The gentleman talks about a foreign company and they would only employ foreign workers. How about BMW in South Carolina, for example? Do they only employ foreign workers? No. Other car companies, other mining companies--part of the reason we have so few U.S. mining companies is because regulations here have driven them out of business. And so we relied on foreign mining companies to come in and actually make the investment to hire American workers. And make no mistake, there will be thousands of American workers hired here.

Walk the streets of Superior right now and meet the hundreds of people already working on this venture and try to convince them that these jobs are not real. I would invite anybody opposing this legislation, just try to do that. Try to tell somebody who finally has a paycheck to take home that that is not a real job or that other jobs that are going to be created here are not real.

It's all fine and dandy for people in Washington to try to tell people in a local community that have seen mining jobs in the past that have gone that when new mining jobs come that those jobs somehow are not real or that because a foreign company happens to have some ownership here that that makes it less of a job for them and that we should be able to tell them, ``I'm sorry, you can't have your job because a foreign corporation has made an investment here.'' How arrogant is that? That's just wrong. We shouldn't have that.

So I applaud the gentleman for bringing this to the floor. This has been a long time in coming. Many of us have worked for years on this to get this land exchange to go. And the gentleman is right. This is a win-win for everyone. It is a win for the Federal Government and others who want to see pristine lands preserved because far more acres are actually preserved here, sensitive, environmentally sensitive acres, than are actually given up to the mine. Most of the mining here will take place between 4,000 and 7,000 feet underground.

I thank the gentleman.

This is good for everyone and it means real jobs. The notion that these jobs are not real, that this bill does not create jobs is simply not the case. It doesn't square with the facts.

I urge adoption of this rule so we can debate this bill.