Floor Statements

I thank Chairman King.

Earlier this year, I introduced the No-Hassle Flying Act, legislation brought to our attention by the Transportation Security Administration. Senators Klobuchar from Minnesota and Blunt of Missouri introduced my original language in the Senate, and this is the bill we're considering today.

Over the past decade, TSA has classified 14 foreign airports as ``precleared'' for security purposes. These airports are routinely checked by TSA to ensure their screening procedures for both people and bags meet the high standards of the United States, and, as such, passengers originating from these airports and returning to the United States are not required to go through physical security checks again. Unfortunately, their bags are not excluded and must be rescanned and rechecked. If you've ever had to do this during a layover at Chicago O'Hare; Newark, New Jersey; or even Miami International, you know it's not an easy task, especially in the middle of the night.

The bill before us allows TSA to waive the baggage screening requirements as well. Giving TSA this kind of flexibility will allow them to free up time and resources to focus on higher-risk baggage and passengers and will also make traveling easier for those coming in and out of the United States.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee-- especially Chairman King--and their staffs for the work they put into this bill, along with Senators Klobuchar and Blunt, and, of course, TSA for bringing this bill to our attention.

I urge all Members to vote in favor of this commonsense bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4631) to amend title 5, United States Code, to institute spending limits and transparency requirements for Federal conference and travel expenditures, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

The Government Spending Accountability Act, or GSA Act, will end the days of unnecessary boondoggles and lavish trips for Federal bureaucrats.

I think we're all aware of GSA's recent escapades in Las Vegas where the agency paid more than $44 a head for breakfast, $7,000 in sushi at a networking reception, and $75,000 to build bicycles.

I think we can all agree that all of this spending is outrageous and unacceptable. We can't continue to ask hardworking taxpayers to tighten their belts and make tough decisions when for years the GSA and other Federal agencies have thrown away those taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences like this.

The days of wasting taxpayer dollars on fancy junkets for government bureaucrats should soon be over. I introduced the GSA Act because, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not wasted on lavish conferences and posh junkets.

The GSA Act requires that every quarter Federal agencies publish an open report that details every conference for which the agency paid travel and expenses. The bill also limits the amount that an agency can spend on any one conference to $500,000 and on travel annually to 70 percent of the amount the agency spent on travel in 2010.

I would like to thank Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and my friends across the aisle for joining me in this effort. The bipartisanship displayed here shows what Congress can accomplish when both parties come together to tackle reckless spending.

We need to come together to fix Washington and start cultivating some respect for hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The GSA Act will help change the culture of waste in Washington and put us on a path to a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

Please join me in standing up for taxpayers. I support this measure and urge its adoption.

With that, I 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.

I appreciate the concerns of my colleague, and I would only note that new technology, I think, has made it easier to teleconference and communicate remotely. This not only would save money, which is important, but it has already and will continue to increase the amount of collaboration.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, again, I would say Congress, in today's day and age, where we hit $16 trillion in debt last week, Congress, like all institutions in this country, needs to figure out how to work more efficiently and save hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 538) to require the establishment of customer service standards for Federal agencies, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, the private sector has raised the bar for customer service, and citizens expect the same from their government.

The American people rely on Federal agencies to provide important services and information, but these agencies often fall short of providing the customer service taxpayers deserve. H.R. 538 ensures the Federal Government keeps pace with the public's expectations and delivers better value to the taxpayers.

Agencies currently have discretionary authority to include ``courtesy demonstrated to the public'' in employee performance appraisals and to reward superior performance. While some agencies have incorporated customer service standards in employee performance expectations, they do not always require good customer service to the public.

Under this bill, OMB and agencies will develop performance measures and standards for agency customer service, with employees at all levels held accountable for achieving results.

Taxpayers should have high expectations of government. Agencies must deliver services efficiently and at low cost. Federal employees must provide effective service to customers. H.R. 538 will help ensure agencies streamline service delivery and improve the customer experience.

CBO has said there are no costs associated with this bill and, in fact, any savings incurred are due to be put toward paying down the Federal deficit. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to advance this legislation. I supported it when it passed by voice vote in committee, and I urge its adoption today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support me in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6028) to authorize the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to modify screening requirements for checked baggage arriving from preclearance airports, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced H.R. 6028, the No-Hassle Flying Act, which is a very simple bill that streamlines baggage security measures for international flights.

Over the past decade, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has designated 14 international airports as preclearance airports. They are located in Canada, the Caribbean, and Ireland, and continue to exhibit comparable security standards to ours right here in the United States. When passengers originate from one of these airports and fly into the U.S., they are not required to go through security again because they have already been fully vetted. Unfortunately, an ambiguity in U.S. law does not exempt their bags as well.

U.S. law today requires all baggage entering the United States to be rescreened by a TSA agent, regardless of where it originates. That means that passengers, often on short or late-night layovers, must exit security, claim their bags from baggage claim, recheck them, and go through security again. This double security does not equal double safety. It equals missed flights, more hassles, and it wastes taxpayer dollars.

Therefore, all this bill does is give CBP and TSA the authority to exempt baggage coming from one of those 14 preclearance airports from being rescreened as well. This issue was brought to my attention by TSA, and H.R. 6028 has come together with a great deal of their help.

I would like to also especially thank the staffs of Representatives Thompson and Sheila Jackson Lee for helping improve upon this bill. With their help, H.R. 6028 has been redrafted to clarify the intent of the bill, which is that baggage originating only from preclearance airports can enter the United States without being rescreened.

As TSA and CBP gravitate toward more efficient risk-based security measures instead of 100 percent blanket checks, this type of bipartisan legislation will make that process easier. It will also save travelers time and allow security officers to focus on higher-risk baggage from overseas locations.

I also want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Rogers and his staff for their assistance on this bill.

I urge Members to vote in support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no more speakers.

I thank the ranking member.

I urge all Members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in support of this bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman.

And to my colleague on the other side, the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit has proven incredibly ineffective. The GAO itself has said that it is much too complex; and like everything Washington does, its temporary nature has really done nothing to reduce the cost of health care for small business.

Mr. Speaker, my State of Illinois is hurting. Real unemployment has been above 11 percent for the past 3 years.

I've heard from employers throughout my district that they do not support the President's health care law. They do not support the more than 13,000 pages of new regulations. They're already buried under regulations. They don't support the 21 new taxes. They're already overtaxed. And they definitely do not support the increased health care costs. They've seen their health care costs rise at an unsustainable rate.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves: 74 percent of small businesses say the law makes it more difficult to hire additional employees.

Why don't my colleagues on the other side listen to the people who create jobs in this country?

Why do my colleagues on the other side always think they have all the answers?

It's time we listened. It's time we repealed ObamaCare.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Illinois is hurting. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for the past 3 years. The medical technology industry is one of the only success stories in the State, employing thousands and still growing.

The district I represent is home to many of these medical technology companies. These are quality jobs with employees earning, on average, 10 percent more than their counterparts in similar manufacturing fields.

We must act now without hesitation. Illinois alone could lose anywhere from 1,200 to 1,300 good-paying jobs that support American families. That's why I cosponsored H.R. 436, rise in support now, and will continue to support all efforts to repeal the medical device tax.

Mr. Speaker, the highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Illinois has suffered enough. We can't stand idly by and watch more burdensome taxes prevent honest, hardworking American from getting the quality jobs they deserve.

Offered By: Mr. Walsh of Illinois

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Walsh of Illinois

Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $13,400,000)''.

Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $13,400,000)''.

Mr. Chair, the unemployment rate among post-9/ 11 veterans is staggeringly high. Part of the problem is they routinely have to undergo lengthy certification processes for professions in which they are already qualified.

Thankfully, Congress took ownership of this issue last year and developed a pilot program to streamline this process. This program, however, ignores industry-recognized certifications. These types of certifications are as important as licensing and are widely used by the manufacturing industry. They prove a job applicant's skills competence, experience, and knowledge.

Many returning veterans have already obtained those skills and that experience in the military, which is why I'm introducing this amendment. The Walsh Amendment will expand the pilot program Congress authorized last year to include these industry-recognized certifications.

It will enable our returning service men and women to find good- paying, fulfilling employment that rewards their skill-level and experience.

As the 28 Founding Principles remind us, a free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.

As a Small Business subcommittee chairman, I know how important small businesses are to the future of our great Nation. They are the engine of this economy and the key to pulling America out of this economic recession.

But, Madam Speaker, small businesses are also vital to our armed services. Over $500 billion in Federal contracts are awarded each year, and 70 percent of those dollars are awarded by the Department of Defense. It is vital for taxpayers and the military that small businesses compete for these contracts. Small business entrepreneurship will provide our brave servicemen and -women with the equipment that will best enable them to defend this country and our families.

It is clear that the Armed Services Committee shares this dedication to small businesses. I am proud that they have chosen to include the bipartisan Small Business Protection Act in the NDAA. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and I introduced the Small Business Protection Act to guarantee that American small businesses are not driven out of the competition for government contracts.

I cannot stress enough the vital role American small businesses play in the success of our military and the future

of our country. It is imperative that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle come together and support American entrepreneurship and small business.

Offered By: Mr. Walsh of Illinois

Amendment No. 1: At the end of subtitle E of title V, add

the following new section:

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

Mr. Chairman, immigration enforcement--whether issuing or revoking a visa, deportation, and even providing citizenship--is a Federal responsibility and should remain so. However, our law enforcement in cities and States is sometimes the first line of defense in these Federal courts.

In 1996, almost 20 years ago, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This bill not only required localities to communicate with Federal agencies when legal and illegal aliens may have been picked up for crimes but also provided money to help them do so. Since then, additional programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and Secure Communities have been implemented to ensure further that localities have the resources they need to meet their responsibilities.

The Federal Government has stated time and again that participation in these programs is not optional. Yet despite that, some cities and even whole States blatantly ignore Federal requirements. What is even worse is that these sanctuary cities still receive money for their so- called ``immigration efforts'' under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. In fact, one city received $1.1 million at the same time it designated itself as a city and county of refuge. And one State has even passed laws that prohibit law enforcement agencies from detecting or apprehending those in violation of U.S. immigration laws.

For this reason today, I am offering an amendment that would prohibit the Department of Justice from providing funds to these sanctuary cities for immigration enforcement efforts. This is a smart amendment that will require America's local law enforcement officers to do just that--enforce the laws we pass to receive the money we provide them to do so. I urge the House to vote in its favor.

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

Offered By: Mr. Walsh of Illinois

Amendment No. 51: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Walsh of Illinois

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

A big thank-you to the gentleman from Virginia for taking a lead--a very strong lead--on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my fellow freshmen, I was sent here to Washington because we're broke. We have a government we can't afford. Like all of us, we were sent here, though, not just to cut spending. We were sent here, hopefully, to try to change the way this town does business so that we never get to this point again and so that our kids and our grandkids aren't stuck with a bill they'll never be able to pay off.

As a freshman in Congress, the very first bill I introduced back in March was a balanced budget amendment, and it was a stronger balanced budget amendment than this. It included a spending limitation, and it made it more difficult for myself and my colleagues to raise taxes. I support this balanced budget amendment with everything I've got because, again, we have an opportunity to do something fairly historic, and this amendment will enable us to do that.

I've learned in my year--almost a year--as a Congressman that there's plenty of hypocrisy in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. The hypocrisy today is regrettably, Mr. Speaker, with too many of our Democratic colleagues who really would like to vote for this but they simply can't because of political reasons.

I would implore my Democratic colleagues to just think about, again, what our kids and our grandkids will say--and we throw their names around here often--what they will say to us 20, 30, 40 years down the road when they know we didn't exhibit the courage we need to exhibit right here and now.

I stand with my colleague from Virginia in full support of this balanced budget amendment.