Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of a bill I introduced to prevent the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that was unlawfully created by executive memo on August 15, 2012. H.R. 5160 is the House companion to legislation introduced by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and would freeze DACA by defunding it.

DACA promotes amnesty by using prosecutorial discretion to allow illegal immigrant children and those who came here illegally as children a deportation deferral to remain in the country for up to 2 years. The deferral period is subject to renewal.

DACA also permits illegal aliens to obtain work authorization, despite the fact that they are not in the country legally. This takes jobs away from hardworking American taxpayers and hurts our economy. According to ICE, remittances from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are estimated to cost the U.S. taxpayer $10 billion a year.

Last month, DHS Secretary Johnson announced that DACA would be extended and that those who have been protected from deportation would have a chance to renew their applications.

Democrats say that DACA is irrelevant because it only applies to illegal immigrants who have been here since 2007, but let me tell you why DACA reform does matter.

First, the administration will expand DACA. President Obama has instructed DHS Secretary Johnson and Attorney General Holder to come up with a list of executive actions to address immigration reform. DACA is going to be on that list.

Second, DACA has given Central American children false hope that they will be able to obtain amnesty as those before them have done.

DACA began in 2012, and the numbers tell the story. In fiscal year 2013, there was a 305 percent increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children that came to the U.S. That figure is expected to increase by 1,381 percent in fiscal year 2014. Yes, you heard me right: 305 percent in 2013; 1,381 percent in 2014. Those numbers are evidence of the correlation between DACA and the influx of unaccompanied alien children coming to the U.S.

Just recently, I learned that the administration secretly placed 760 unaccompanied alien children into Tennessee. This was done despite assurances I had received from the administration that alien children were not in Tennessee. Indeed, the administration appears extremely organized and eager when it comes to resettling the illegal immigrants in this country. I wish they were as eager and organized about addressing the concerns of our veterans, some who have died while on the VA waiting list.

Sadly, the President and the Democrats have moved from the party of ``yes, we can'' to the party of ``because we can.'' DACA provides another example of how the President is using executive action to circumvent Congress.

Soon, if he continues on this path, we won't need legislators or the courts. The President will make the law, interpret the law, and then, if he chooses, enforce the law. The Obama doctrine of lawlessness is cracking the foundation of our democracy. It is shredding the Constitution and consolidating power within the executive branch.

Mr. Speaker, I ask, if the President has the power to tell illegal immigrants that they can stay in the country, does he have the power to tell legal citizens to leave the country? If the President can delay part of a law, does he have the power to delay the entire law? Where does his authority begin and end?

The President's immigration policies are causing every town to be a border town, every State to be a border State. And not only is it turning America into a country without borders, it is turning it into a country without laws.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's inability to secure the southern border is also placing America's national security in a pre-9/11 posture. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that 90,166 unaccompanied children will arrive in the U.S. in 2014. If 90,000 unaccompanied children can sneak into our country, how difficult will it be for a terror cell to infiltrate America and plan an attack?

We need to be concerned about securing our borders. We must secure our border. We must end the cruelty of providing children with false hope, and we must stop the lawlessness of this President.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his work on this issue and for working with Congressmen Marino and Welch and Congresswoman Chu as we sought to move the issue forward. We also thank Chairman Upton for working with us as we brought the issue forward.

The gentleman from Vermont mentioned the epidemic and the widespread abuse that is taking place in prescription drugs and the need to do something about that. We all agree on this, and here are some stats that really back this up and show why it has become an epidemic.

In 2013, more people died in the U.S. from prescription drug abuse than from heroin and cocaine combined. Deaths involving prescription pills quadrupled between 1999 and 2010.

In 2012, the number one cause of death in 17 States was prescription drug abuse. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses. Most of these death were caused by prescription drugs. That 36,000 number isn't a number to be taken lightly. It is associated with names and faces and serves as a stark reminder to every family member who has lost a loved one to an overdose.

More can and must be done to treat this growing epidemic. That is why we have all worked together on H.R. 4709, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2014. Our bill seeks to facilitate greater collaboration between industry stakeholders and regulations in our Nation's effort to combat prescription drug abuse.

There are three things that we set out to accomplish in this bill. Number one is to provide clarity to the phrase ``imminent danger to the public health or safety'' to ensure the law is crystal clear for both the DEA and legitimate businesses who want to understand what the rules of the road are, so they can do the right thing. Definitions matter and have real consequences.

Number two is require the Secretary of HHS to consult with industry players in the pharmaceutical supply chain; key regulatory agencies; Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; and public health experts to create a report to come to Congress within 1 year of enactment.

Number three is establish procedures for companies registered with the DEA to work together to develop corrective action that addresses concerns and clarifies key terminology in the Controlled Substances Act, so that everyone knows and has a better understanding of how to comply with the law.

This bill will not solve every problem that prescription drug abuse faces. It is one that is important that we take this meaningful step. It is a good step.

Congressman Marino, who has led on this issue, is to be commended. We have appreciated the opportunity to work with him to address what is an epidemic in so many of our communities and States.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and appreciate being here on behalf of my colleagues and to have a discussion that is going to focus on what we are doing with our time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like it never fails. When we are out and about in our districts talking with our constituents, people will approach us, and they want to talk about how concerned they are about the cost of living and what they see happening to the price at the pump and to the price at the grocery store. They want to talk about how concerned they are with how much more education seems to cost them. They are concerned about our national security. They are concerned about the border security. They are concerned about their retirement security. The list goes on and on and on.

They will look at us and, Mr. Speaker, without fail, they will say: Tell me exactly what you are doing about this. I want to know what you are doing to address this problem or that problem

or any of the issues that all of us hardworking families are out there facing every single day--every day.

What they are looking for is solutions. What we have realized is that many times they don't know exactly how hard we are working here in the House and that the obstruction that is happening is not necessarily here in the House. What is happening is across the dome over on the Senate side.

Now, I have got in front of me 300 of the 332 bills that have passed this House--300 of the 332 bills that have passed this House. Now, sometimes people will say: Where are those bills sitting? Why haven't they gone to the President's desk?

Well, I always like to tell them, they are on the desk of Harry Reid. It is unfortunate, but it is where those 332 bills are languishing.

Now, as we begin to look at being out of D.C. and working in our districts for August, one would think that the majority leader over in the Senate, Mr. Reid, would get busy with trying to clean his desk. Most people do that. When they expect to be out of town working for a few weeks, they try to get their desk cleaned off, and they try to get things pushed out to where they need to go. They get things organized. They get things done. But that is not what we are seeing in the Senate.

I had one of my constituents come up to me one day and say: Look, I am all for the Larry the Cable Guy approach.

I said: Tell me what that is.

They said: Git-R-Done.

That is what people are looking for, getting the job done on behalf of hardworking taxpayers.

Now, sometimes people will say: Tell me what all is in this list of things that you have done.

Let me just go through what we have found in our bills that have been passed. 178 of these 332 bills, 178 of the bills passed with no opposition, none at all. There was agreement, total agreement, on these bills.

One would think that the Senate majority leader would say: 178 bills in which there is complete agreement, those bills coming out of the House? Surely we can move those forward in the Senate. Surely, out of 100, we can get 60 to agree on something.

But it is amazing. The Senator still has not called for a vote on those.

Beyond that, 54 more bills passed under suspension. That means you had to have two-thirds of this body agree. So all totaled, that is 232 of the 332 bills that have passed this body with either no opposition or two-thirds of the body voting in support of that.

I also find it very interesting, and probably some of our Democrat colleagues would like to join us in our Special Order tonight, because 55 of these bills--55 of these bills--were authored by Democrats. I am certain that they would like to see the majority leader take up their bills and push them through.

Mr. Speaker, when you are so far behind in your work, you generally work nights and you work weekends. You roll up your sleeves, you buckle down, and you get the job done. But that is not what we are seeing happen coming from the Senate. What we are continuing to see is a resistance, an absolute resistance, to moving forward and taking up these bills.

Now, as we go into our last week next week before our August work period, there are several issues that we would love to see the Senate address. As I said, the issues that are stacked in front of us cover everything that the American people are talking to us about, that our constituents are talking to us about when we go into our town halls.

On the issue of energy, we have 16 bills that deal with the issues of energy, 16 different bills that are right here that would address energy issues. Many people have heard us talk about the Keystone pipeline. Do you realize that the bill that would address the Keystone pipeline approval you are going to find right here in this hefty stack of paper?

For those who are just really concerned about what they are paying at the pump--and I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I have been watching the price of a gallon of gas when I fill up my car, and in the last few months, I have gone from $3.59 to as high as $4.15 to fill that car up--far too much. For people who are paying too much at the pump, there is legislation in here that would get the cost down. It is Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America that Works, getting that price down at the pump.

For individuals that feel like we are paying too much on our electricity rates--and we have all watched these rates go up. You look at that bill every month and you see, compared to last year, you are using fewer kilowatt hours but you are paying more. And you think, how could this be? Well, of course, we all remember the President saying that the prices would necessarily skyrocket under him, and he has made good on that promise. Maybe a lot of promises he hasn't made good on, but, the fact that gas was going to cost us more and electricity was going to cost us more, he is making good on that.

Well, here is a bill, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act. All of these are cost-of-living items that we look at in our monthly budgets, energy being one of those that affects us all, everywhere we drive, when we turn on the lights, when we light the fireplace or turn on the burner of the stove to cook lunch. Bills that address those issues, they are found right in front of us.

So there is plenty of work on Harry Reid's desk. Harry Reid has been unwilling to call the vote. I know that my colleagues join me in saying we would love to see him call the vote on one of these 332 bills.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I thank the gentlelady.

She mentioned jobs bills. Mr. Speaker, 40 of the bills sitting in this stack are related to jobs. Just the Keystone pipeline bill, there are 42,000 direct and indirect jobs that are related to getting the Keystone pipeline started. So the question becomes: What are you afraid of? What do you fear from taking up some of these bills? Do you fear the American people going to work? Do you fear that things just might get on the right track? That you would find in these 332 bills that we expand some opportunities and the environment for opportunities and the environment for jobs growth to take place? Why is it that the Senate is content with being a do-nothing Senate? Why is it that they are accepting of being a do-nothing Senate? I think we would all like to know the answer to that question. Do they like it? Do they like that they have a stack of work this high sitting on their desk that they are just not able to get around to?

You know, I used to do some door-to-door sales, and we had a little wooden coin and it was called ``a round to-it.'' Any time we felt like procrastinating, any time we felt like we just didn't have the energy to do the heavy lift or make one more sales call or go to another prospect, we would take that round to-it out of our pocket and look at it and remind ourselves, the important thing is to get around to doing the job in front of you.

You know what, Mr. Speaker, I still have my round to-it. I have it on my desk. It is getting old and worn-out, but anytime you think I could just be lazy, I could just not finish this and go do something I want to do, you look at the work in front of you, you look at the fact that you have a cluttered desk, and you look at the fact and consider that people are counting on you to do your job, and you make it a priority to get around to it and to get the job done. That is precisely what the American people have expected of this body, and we have done it. We have done that. And it is frustrating to us and to the American people, and I tell you, we join them in their frustration because look at this, all of these bills, and nothing has been done.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota mentioned the issue of veterans. Do you think it would be considered appropriate to not solve the VA issues and the issues for our Nation's veterans? Of course not.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, on the veterans issue, there are three bills specifically that cover exactly what Mrs. Bachmann has just mentioned. H.R. 4031, which is the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act, this is something desperately needed. Accountability in the VA, absolutely. Why will the Senate not take this up? Why will they not come to work on this bill?

Another, H.R. 2072, Demanding Accountability For Veterans Act, again languishing on the desk of Harry Reid. Of course the VA should be accountable to the veterans and to the American taxpayer. Why are they not moving this forward so that it gets addressed?

H.R. 4810, Veteran Access to Care, precisely what Mrs. Bachmann is speaking of, making certain that the veterans are guaranteed that they are seen in a timely manner.

I have one constituent who got on the VA list for a primary physician 15 years ago. Guess what? He is still waiting. I have another constituent who has been on the list for 3 years and has never gotten a call.

This is completely unacceptable, and in this stack of 332 bills, you are going to find bills that will put that accountability in place. Mrs. Bachmann mentioned also the issue of taxes. We hear about it everywhere we go. People are overtaxed. They are overworked. They realize that they are taxed far too much, and they are tired of it. They want to see the tax rates lowered and the tax burden lowered as well as seeing the regulatory burden lowered.

And on taxes, we have got seven bills, one we passed today, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act. We have got permanent Internet tax freedom. It is right here, seven bills that deal with taxes. We also have H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act. Hardworking men and women, small business owners, small business employees, they all want to make certain that we deal with this complicated and overbearing Tax Code. They want to make certain that we are reducing that burden on them.

We could take some steps, not solve all of the problems, but take some steps in that direction if the Senate would show up and take up some of the tax bills that are here and help us lower that burden.

We hear a lot about government spending. You know, government never gets enough of the taxpayers' money and government spends too much. You give them a little, they are going to take a little more. We have 31 different bills that are in this stack that deal with reining in government spending, that deal with some of the budget reforms that are desperately needed so

that we get rid of some antiquated processes and move to a new template for how we need to approach our spending and approach being a good steward of the taxpayers' money; 31 different bills. Pick one. Get going.

It is amazing, once you get going on a task, it is easier. You get momentum, and that is something that we would like to see the Senate get and take up some of these 332 bills that are sitting over on Harry Reid's desk.

Maybe you are aggravated about government waste and you are frustrated with regulatory overreach, and you would like to see a smaller Federal Government, and you would like it if some of these Federal agencies would stop wasting your money.

Well, we have 16 bills in this stack that deal with stopping that overreach and curbing that waste and putting the bureaucracy on the track to being a better steward of the taxpayer money. We have to remember it is not Federal Government money, it is not the money of this Chamber, it is the taxpayers' money. They want these issues addressed.

How about reining in red tape? You know, I talk to lots of small business manufacturers on a regular basis and they will say to me, the red tape is killing us. The regulation and the red tape is just killing us. We spend too much time on compliance. We have four different bills in here that deal with compliance and cutting red tape. That is another way that government can do a better job of responding to the needs of the American people and the taxpayers.

I think everybody, Mr. Speaker, is concerned about national security.

Every time you pick up a paper or you flip on a channel or you turn a page on your iPad and go to a Web site and look at what is happening, whether it is in Ukraine, the belligerence of Russia, whether it is what is happening in the Middle East, and what we see happening in Israel, concerns about Iran, everybody is concerned about foreign affairs and concerned about our Nation's security.

We have six different bills that would deal with these issues of national security. We would appreciate it if the Senate would take up some of these House-passed bills. Again, Mr. Speaker, 178 of these bills--178 of 332 bills have come out of this Chamber with no opposition at all.

Another 54 have passed, 54 have passed, with a two-thirds vote of this Chamber. As I said earlier, that is 232 of the 332 bills. By the way, 55 of the bills out of the 332 bills are bills that have been authored by the Democrats, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about repealing and replacing ObamaCare and making the health care system work, getting it into a healthy, healthy place, so that you are going to see people actually have access to health care.

Right now, we have got a situation where everybody's health insurance costs are going up, and they are concerned about that. Access with these very narrow networks is becoming more difficult. We are hearing of people that are having to travel great distances to get to physicians or they are having longer waits.

We found 11 bills right here that deal with health care. Some of these are repealing and replacing ObamaCare, 11 bills right here that could be taken up that would help with those situations, that would help with the access to health care, access to the doctor.

What we have seen happen with ObamaCare is that people have access to the queue because they have got a health care card, but what they do not have is access to the physician.

By the way, education--I talked to a constituent at the grocery store on Saturday morning, and she said that she was beginning to plan toward back to school for her two children. I said: Oh my goodness, it seems so early to be planning for back to school.

She said: Well, you know, they are going to be starting back to school the end of the first week of August and then into school the second week of August, and there are fees to pay, there are different class fees that have to be paid, sports teams that have to be signed up for, sports physicals that the children have to get, and those beginning-of-school expenses.

So she was beginning to focus on education and asked what were we going to do about letting parents and local school districts and getting rid of common core and replacing it with commonsense and putting parents and teachers in charge of those classrooms.

Well, we could make some progress in that direction. Seven of the bills that we have right here deal with education and with the issues that face parents and students and teachers. We are all concerned about the future and what is going to be there for our children, in making certain that they are prepared for the future and having access to a quality education and having that right there in our neighborhoods and our communities.

We could take some steps in that direction if the Senate would begin to take up some of the legislation that is over there on the Senate desk. As was said earlier, we are facing a do-nothing Senate because they have chosen not to get to work on this stack of legislation that would address some of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, this week, as we have looked at the crisis on the southern border, we have heard quite a bit of talk and conversation about the issues of human trafficking, drug trafficking, the sex trafficking that is taking place in this country.

Many people probably are not aware, and many of our colleagues probably haven't thought about the amount of work that we have done over the past 2 years on this issue, getting ready to address the issue, doing some research and some digging and some education and addressing human trafficking, taking steps to prevent this, to have the ability to do some intervention, penalties, and making certain that we are strengthening the family unit and fighting these trafficking elements.

We have 11 bills specific to human trafficking that are right here, 11 bills that would help hold accountable some of the traffickers and smugglers and put penalties in place, strengthen and shore up families, take care of victims, do some work on prevention. It would be encouraging if the Senate would join us and address those.

There are other bills that are here. We have got bills that deal with innovation. We have got flexibility for working families to make it easier for working moms. All of those issues are issues that could be addressed.

Yes, we have worked in a bipartisan manner. Indeed, we recently--just a few minutes ago, Congresswoman Jackson Lee was here on the floor talking about some of her work. I thought it was interesting. There was a report earlier in the week. She had had 18 rollcall votes on her amendments in the House in the past year. That is more rollcall votes than all the Republicans in the Senate combined.

She was asked about the amendments in a recent interview, and she said, ``I want to thank the Republicans for their generosity.''

That is the manner in which we have approached our job. As I said, 178 of the 332 bills that you are going to find in this stack, unanimous votes. You have got another 54 bills that are in this stack that had two-thirds majority support.

I thought it was also interesting, in the same article, Senator Manchin has not received a rollcall vote on an amendment since June of 2013. He had recently aired his frustration. He said, ``I've never been in a less productive time in my life than I am right now in the United States Senate.''

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that there are many people that probably share that thought over in the Senate because they are looking at the fact that things are not getting done in the Senate. Ninety- eight percent of these 332 bills have passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans.

If we were in school, that would be making an A grade on bipartisan support for legislation that is coming out of this House. Our committee chairmen have worked hard to be able to do that, and we have, in good faith, passed these bills, and in good faith, we have moved these bills to the Senate.

Right now, we are watching these bills sit on Harry Reid's desk. For whatever reason, he is choosing not to take these bills up.

At this time, I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

I thank the gentleman. I love the fact that he talked about Montana and what is going there and the northern route approval, Mr. Speaker, the H.R. 3. I wish he would hold that bill back up.

I will yield to the gentleman. How many pages is actually in that bill that would approve the route for the Keystone pipeline?

So it is 2,700 pages.

That is easy to read, and people could easily read that.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that our bills are not 2,000 pages or 2,700 pages or 2,300 pages. You are talking about bills that are readable. They are easy to work through. You can take them up one at a time, get going on them, and get some things done for the American people.

You can see the different bills. This one is two pages. This one can't be more than about 15 or 20 pages.

So this is not too much of a heavy lift. You can look at a bill like the Keystone pipeline bill, H.R. 3. It is simple and easy to read, but yet this would help create the environment for jobs growth. It would put in motion the components that are necessary to get 42,000 direct and indirect jobs started and on the books.

For an electric power co-op in Montana--and I think it is important to realize that co-ops are membership-led and owned organizations; these are the people that live in the communities that own these utilities--it would be able to hold those utility rates flat.

What a boom that would be for those families that are members of that co-op and those small businesses to be able to say, We have got certainty and stability and we have got security of electric power that is going to be predictable and our rates are going to be stable and low for a 10-year period of time.

That helps them to know what to expect, to work those business plans, and develop plans for expansion. That aids job growth. And that is an indirect benefit. It is a positive consequence of taking a step and passing a bill that is not even 3-pages long that would approve a route for a project.

I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

That is exactly right. And it is about making certain that we get our labor force participation back up in this country. We have the lowest labor force participation rate we have had since the misery index days of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. We would love to see more individuals back into the workforce.

There are 40 bills that would deal with creating the environment for jobs growth to take place. There is opportunity for innovation in some of these bills. There is predictability and certainty in bills as simple as the little bit on the Keystone pipeline. All of it is sitting on Harry Reid's desk.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier tonight, one of the questions many of us in the House are asking is, What is the Senate afraid of? What is it the majority leader and the Senate fearful of? Why does he not take up some of these bills?

We have 332 bills, and 232 passed either unanimously or with a two- thirds vote. That is a pretty amazing record. And in these bills are solutions that the American people are looking for--solutions to jobs, to veterans issues, solutions in certainty for our Nation's economy, for our national security, and opportunity for our children.

Those are the things that our focus is on. It is what our constituents have sent us here to do and the job they have sent us here to do.

So I would encourage my colleagues. And as we move forward, we will continue in the House to do our job and to send bills to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you I think that we would be encouraging of our friends in the Senate to not be a do-nothing Senate--not to be content with that--but to be aggressive in taking up these bills. And as they get ready for August and go back to their districts to work, to get around to it and get to work to clean and organize their desks and do what is right for the American people by addressing the issues that concern them and finding solutions to the issues that they bring to us each and every day.

With that I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who has done a wonderful job bringing this bill to the floor.

As I do with all of the appropriations bills, it is a focus of mine to come in and ask for an additional 1 percent cut on top of the great work that has already been done.

I think it is important to give credit to our Appropriations Committee. This is a $21 billion bill, and it is appropriating $566 million less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2014, and it is $2.2 billion less than what the President requested. That is to be commended. Our appropriations team has done a terrific job on beginning to rein in what the Federal Government spends. The Republican House leadership is to be commended for making their focus to get our fiscal house in order.

I think we have to go a step further, and that is the purpose of my 1 percent across-the-board spending cut amendment. What we need to do now is to engage the bureaucracy, engage these Federal agencies, rank-and- file employees, to come to the table with their recommendations of how we continue to cut.

We are $17 trillion in debt. We cannot continue to borrow 30 cents of every dollar that we spend. We have to think about the future for our children, our grandchildren. This is an amendment that we should all support because we do this for our children, for the sovereignty of our Nation, and for the fiscal health of our Nation for years to come.

I think it is important to note that through the years, Governors have used across-the-board spending cuts, Democrat Governors--a former Democrat Governor from my home State of Tennessee. You have got the Democrat Governor in New York. You have got the Governor over in Missouri. They have all used across-the-board cuts.

The American people like this idea. They like having the bureaucracy engaged in saving money. A Washington Post/ABC News poll from March 6, 2013, revealed that 61 percent of all Americans even supported a 5 percent across-the-board cut in Federal spending.

It is time for us to rein this in and get our fiscal house in order. This is a way to save an additional $228 million.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the work that the chairman has done on this bill, and our Appropriations Committee is to be commended.

I think we do have to recognize Washington has a spending problem. They don't have a revenue problem. They have got a spending and a priority problem. We see it every single day.

What I am asking is to engage those rank-and-file employees, have them find 1 penny on the dollar out of their appropriations that they could save in order to get this burden of debt off the backs of our children and grandchildren--one penny on the dollar. It has worked in the States. It works in our county and city governments. People like that and appreciate that you push for better stewardship, and it is the right thing for us to do as we watch the debt totals climb, skyrocket, and explode.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would prevent the Federal Government from bailing out public pensioners in cities such as Detroit and Chicago.

We have been reading for the past several months that the Obama administration has been in talks with the city of Detroit to transfer $100 million to the city.

According to an April 16, 2014, article from the Detroit Free Press, the administration has looked to transfer $100 million from the Hardest Hit Fund to shore up Detroit's unfunded pension liability. The Hardest Hit Fund was created by the Obama administration in 2010 with money from the 2008 stimulus package. The money is meant to help States that have been adversely affected by the housing downturn, and that is according, again, to the Detroit Free Press.

The article adds that:

The $100 million in Federal money was discussed Tuesday

night in breakneck negotiations that resulted in a tentative

deal to reduce pension cuts for the city's retired general

workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I refuse to let Federal taxpayers be on the hook for unfunded pension liabilities made by Big Labor organizations. Cities such as Detroit, Chicago, and others where Big Labor has created extremely generous retirement benefits for public service workers are going to have to find their way out of the mess that they have created.

Now, it is my understanding that the city of Detroit has reached an agreement with the State of Michigan to shore up Detroit's unfunded pension liability for the time being. However, it does not foreclose this as a possibility to occur in the future for Detroit or any other city where Big Labor agreements have caused financial destruction.

According to an April 7, 2014, article from chicagobusiness.com, Chicago's unfunded pension liability stands at $19.5 billion. A February 20, 2013, article in Forbes notes that Federal bailouts of State pension funds ``would implicitly encourage States to keep spending and doling out entitlements, as doing so is popular for politicians, even if unsustainable.'' The article adds that this is especially true in liberal-leaning areas where public-sector labor unions have a lot of control.

Mr. Chairman, we must foreclose the administration's bailout of Big Labor as a possibility. I refuse to stand by and watch hardworking taxpayers be on the hook for the irresponsible decisions of liberal, Big Labor groups.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I appreciate that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I find the gentleman's choice of words so interesting. I think he used ``mean'' and ``mean-spirited'' several times.

Let me tell you what is mean-spirited. Mean-spirited is looking at future generations and saying, you didn't want this, you didn't ask for it, but guess what? You have got a $17 trillion bill on your head. Right now, the birth tax for every child born in this country is $54,000. Is that good? Of course not. Is that mean-spirited? You bet it is. You are saying you owe this money like it or not because Washington can't get its spending habits under control. Washington is spending money it does not have to pay for programs that my grandkids do not want.

You are saying it is not the American way. Let me tell you something. Using borrowed money to pay for debts that have not been created by this government is not the way we do business.

I would remind you of a Congressman from Tennessee who stood on this floor at one point in history, and he reminded the body that this was not their money to give. It is the taxpayers' money. That Member of Congress was Davy Crockett.

This is the taxpayers' money. They expect us to be good stewards. Bailing out cities that have not been good stewards of their money is not what this body should be doing with Federal tax dollars that come into our coffers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It is amendment 080.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to prohibit any taxpayer funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, to preempt State municipal broadband laws.

In other words, we don't need unelected Federal agency bureaucrats in Washington telling our States what they can and can't do with respect to protecting their limited taxpayer dollars in private enterprises.

As a former State senator from Tennessee, I strongly believe in states' rights. I know that is an issue that is important to many of my colleagues in this Chamber. And that is why I found it deeply troubling that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has repeatedly stated this past year that he intends to preempt states' rights when it comes to the role of state policy over municipal broadband.

Chairman Wheeler's statements posed a direct challenge on the constitutionality of States' sovereign functions. It wrongly assumes Washington knows what is best and forgets that the right answer doesn't always come from the top down.

Mr. Chairman, 20 States across our country have held public debates and enacted laws that limit municipal broadband to varying degrees. These State legislatures and Governors have not only listened but have responded to the voices of their constituents. They are closer to the people than the chairman of the FCC. They are accountable to their voters.

Mr. Chairman, States have spoken and said that we should be careful and deliberate in how we allow public entry into our vibrant communications marketplace, a sector of our economy that invests tens of billions of dollars each year, accounts for tens of thousands of jobs, and serves millions of consumers.

Municipal broadband projects have had a mixed bag of results. There have been some successes and also some spectacular failures that have left taxpayers on the hook. For example, look at the failed UTOPIA project that has created massive disruption and is challenging taxpayers. In fact, it was recently reported that the ``residents of 11 Utah cities would be billed as much as $20 a month as part of a plan to salvage the State's once-heralded UTOPIA fiber optic network.''

That doesn't sound like a model the Federal Government needs to force against the wishes of State-elected officials. That doesn't sound like competition, and it sounds like another Federal bailout waiting to happen.

State governments across the country understand and are more attentive to the needs of the American people than unelected Federal bureaucrats in Washington. That is why this past June I was joined by 59 of our colleagues in sending a letter to Chairman Wheeler stating our concerns and requesting a response to a list of questions, questions that we are still waiting for him to respond to. The U.S. Senate also sent a letter to the FCC on this issue, and they are, likewise, waiting for a response. It seems the FCC is content to tell our States how they will manage their sovereign economic affairs, but they won't answer to the Congress who is responsible for exercising oversight of the agency.

Inserting the FCC into our State's economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates State sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination. This Congress cannot sit idly by and let an independent agency trample on our states' rights. This is an issue that should be left to our States, and if it comes to a point where we need a national standard, then that debate should be held by Congress, not the FCC, and should be done with the participation of the American people. I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that what this amendment does is to allow those citizens in those cities, in those States that have made this decision--this is how they want to handle broadband--to do it.

It gives the power to them. It keeps bureaucrats, sitting at the FCC, from making these decisions and overriding the wishes of our States and of those cities that are located therein. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have one final amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds for the voluntary recall proposed rule at the Consumer Product Safety Commission and would prevent them from moving forward with a rule that would cripple the highly successful voluntary recall program that is currently in place.

For nearly 40 years, the CPSC and manufacturers and retailers, big and small, have partnered to ensure that the system of voluntary recalls is effectively reducing the safety risks that are posed to the public.

In fact, the CPSC recently highlighted the success of the program, noting that 90 percent of the recalls through the award-winning Fast Track program are implemented within 20 days. The Fast Track program was created by former CPSC Chairman Ann Brown to greatly reduce the amount of time it takes recalls to be implemented.

Instead of working to increase the efficiency of its programs, the CPSC's proposed rule change effectively kills its most successful program. On May 30, Ann Brown, a Democratic former Chairman appointed by President Clinton, sent a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee expressing deep concerns over the impacts of the Commission's proposed rule.

Concerning the substantive provisions of the proposal, former Chairman Brown stated:

A Fast Track procedure would be rendered impossible under

these circumstances.

The success of this Fast Track program is based on the shared commitment of the Commission and the private sector to remove harmful products from the marketplace.

The Commission, however, now seeks to transform the voluntary recall process into a legal negotiation equivalent to a settlement agreement. The proposed substantive changes would require companies seeking to implement a recall to hire an attorney to negotiate binding and enforceable terms with the CPSC staff.

This places significant burdens on small businesses that use the Fast Track program because the program allows them to work with the Commission staff without having to pay expensive legal fees. The CPSC should not discourage companies from working closely, efficiently, and effectively with the CPSC when potential hazards or defects are identified.

As the letter from former CPSC Chairman Brown shows, this is not a political issue. Senators from Pennsylvania--Casey and Toomey, a Democrat and Republican, respectively--submitted a letter in January for the docket, raising concerns about the proposed changes.

Senator King sent the Commission a letter in March expressing similar concerns, and I include these letters, Mr. Chairman, from former Chairman Brown and from the Senators into the Record.

Ann Brown,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL, May 30, 2014.

Hon. Fred S. Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Hon. Henry A. Waxman,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Minority Member Waxman, I

had the privilege of serving as Chairman of the U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission from March 1994 until November 1,

2001. During my time as Chairman, we prevented numerous

deaths and injuries through enforcement actions, product

recalls and working with consumers, consumer groups and firms

regulated by the Commission. Product safety is best

accomplished when government, Industry and consumers work

together.

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA),

manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of consumer

products must report certain potential product hazards to the

Commission. They must report immediately if they obtain

information which reasonably supports the conclusion that a

product (1) fails to comply with certain mandatory or

voluntary standards, (2) contains a defect which could create

a substantial product hazard, or (3) creates an unreasonable

risk of serious injury or death.

If the Commission believes that a product presents a

substantial product hazard to the public, it may pursue

corrective action. Early in my Chairmanship, I learned that

some number of companies were offering to conduct product

recalls but because of entrenched procedures, those firms

were not allowed to proceed with a recall until the CPSC

staff performed a technical evaluation of the product

involved, agreed that there was a product safety problem by

making a ``Preliminary Determination'' (PD) of hazard, and

then sent a letter to the firm advising it of the preliminary

determination of hazard and requesting a product recall.

This process could and often did take many months-months

without a recall, months where consumers were at risk, even

though the firm was ready, willing and able to proceed with a

recall at the time of its report. We changed this

bureaucratic process early in my tenure as Chairman by

creating the Fast Track Product Recall program in August

1995.

Originally called the ``No PD'' program, firms who reported

to CPSC, identified a product safety problem, agreed to and

initiated a recall within 20 working days of their report, no

longer required a staff technical evaluation of the problem

reported. Rather than performing a technical evaluation to

confirm the product problem reported upon, the CPSC staff

evaluated the remedy proposed to assure that it adequately

addressed the problem identified and spent time working with

the firm on conducting the product recall.

The Commission made this Fast Track program permanent on

March 27, 1997, and it has been hugely successful. More than

one-half of all CPSC recalls are now conducted through the

Fast Track Program. Recalls conducted through this program

benefit consumers, the recalling firm and the CPSC. Recalls

are announced faster better protecting consumers from injury.

Recalling firms do not receive a letter stating that the CPSC

staff has preliminarily determined their product is a

substantial product hazard. And the government spend less

resources investigating a product that a company has already

agreed should be recalled.

The CPSC staff received a ``Hammer'' Award from Vice

President Albert Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing

Government for the Fast Track Product Recall Program. This

award honored federal employees for significant improvements

to customer service and for making the government work more

efficiently. Also in 1998, the Fast Track Program was named a

winner of the prestigious Innovations in American Government

award, an awards program of the Ford Foundation and Harvard

University, administered by Harvard University's John F.

Kennedy School of Government in partnership with the Council

for Excellence in Government.

Now this award winning program appears to face the risk of

being unintentionally undermined by a rule proposed by the

CPSC in November 2013 that is Intended to enhance voluntary

recalls by setting forth principles and guidelines for the

content and form of voluntary recall notices that firms

provide as part of corrective action plans. One of the CPSC's

proposals is to prohibit firms desiring to conduct a

voluntary recall from disclaiming that there is a hazard

presented by their product unless the Commission agrees to

the disclaimer. I am concerned that this proposal if adopted

could undermine the efficacy of the Fast Track program.

Another proposal would classify a voluntary Corrective Action

Plan (CAP) as ``legally binding'' thus transforming a CAP

into a Consent Decree, potentially delaying an otherwise

effective recall weeks or even months due to haggling over

legalities. A Fast Track procedure would be rendered

impossible under these circumstances.

CPSC urges firms to err on the side of caution by reporting

potential product safety problems and conducting recalls. It

is my understanding that virtually every firm that reports

under the CPSC mandatory reporting requirement and requests

to participate in a Fast Track recall, asserts that their

product does not present a substantial product hazard, but

nonetheless they wish to conduct a recall. If reporting firms

are not allowed to make this disclaimer, they have no

incentive to participate in the Fast Track Program.

Not making the disclaimer may be perceived in product

liability litigation as akin to admitting that the product

reported on is a substantial product hazard. If so, reporting

firms might just as well report to CPSC, not offer to conduct

a recall, and take the chance that the CPSC staff might

conclude their product is not a substantial product hazard

and that no recall is necessary.

If this occurs, recalls would be delayed, CPSC would be

required to use substantial technical resources to evaluate

products so that the staff can determine whether to make a

preliminary determination of hazard, and consumers are left

unprotected potentially for many months.

I respectfully request that the Committee urge the

Commission to consider its proposed rule carefully and to

assure that it does not adversely affect CPSC's Fast Track

Product Recall Program.

Sincerely,

Ann Brown.

I also ask that Members of this Chamber recognize that the proposed rule change would slow a process meant to be conducted with speed and without red tape and would harm a system that ensures that consumer products sold in the U.S. are the safest in the world.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.

I urge support of this amendment. The program in place at the CPSC has worked well. It is supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The process they are going through at CPSC is expending a tremendous amount of time and money.

Looking at setting up a system that would force these retailers into legal negotiations and settlements is not the way to address this.

The Fast Track program has been enormously successful. Former Chairman Brown worked during the Clinton administration--was appointed by President Clinton. They did a great job putting this program together. We should leave it in place. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the

short title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, I bring a very simple amendment. As the Clerk read, you saw it is just two lines.

Let's reduce another $2 million of that IRS enforcement account, and let's move this over to help another Federal agency do its job. Because we have had one agency that is making life difficult for taxpayers and business owners, now let's have an agency that is supposed to be doing their job. Let's make certain that they do it.

What we are doing is redirecting this million dollars over to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's budget for third-party testing relief to assist them in completing and meeting their statutory requirements.

What has happened, in August, 2011, Congress passed an amendment to the CPSC Improvement Act mandating that they identify ways to reduce the third-party testing burdens that are facing our American businesses. That was to reduce the burden.

After soliciting comments in November of 2011, CPSC staff identified 14 ways in which this could be done. In October of the following year, 2012, they approved eight of the 14 recommendations, suggesting ways that the Commission could move forward. However, as we stand here 2 years later after that period, I am sure few are surprised to hear that CPSC still has not followed through with this mandate. In fact, the only action taken thus far has been a single workshop held on April 3 to identify materials that may not require testing. In fact, the only action taken thus far on these approved recommendations has been to solicit comments from industry on three separate occasions and to hold one workshop. It is clear that the agency has placed the requirements of burden reduction on the industry, not on the bureaucrats at the

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I think it would be instructive to my colleague to realize what we are doing is saying the agency doesn't have the right to continue to cherry-pick. Fourteen suggestions 3 years ago; we have been waiting for 2 years. They have said eight were approved.

What we have is businesses who would like to expand the business, businesses that would like to bring American products to the American marketplace, and the third-party testing burden is placed on these businesses. The CPSC is not doing their job to create the right environment.

I would encourage everyone to support this amendment. Let's make certain that these agencies do their job and work with the industry to be certain that we create the environment for jobs growth to take place in this country.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition of my amendment, and it is only a two-line amendment.

Before I get into the specifics on that amendment, I do want to thank Mr. Dent, the subcommittee chair, and Chairman Rogers for the work they did on another issue on this bill which deals with the Department of Energy rules finalizing for ``Standards for Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and prohibiting money from being used on that regulation because of the impact that it would have on our constituents and on the price of ceiling fans. I appreciate the good work that they have done on that issue. I also appreciate the great work that they have done on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have got a $34 billion bill in front of us. I so appreciate the work of the appropriators as they have approached this and the responsible manner that they have gone about in bringing this bill forward. It is a bill that is going to spend $50.5 million less than in 2014. That is a good thing. The appropriators are to be commented for that. In addition, it is $326.9 million less than what the President wanted. All of those are the facts and figures.

Tonight, this two-line amendment that I have says this is great work, but we have got problems. When you look at the economic situation in this country, when you look at what is happening with our debt, as we are pushing toward that $18 trillion in debt, you have to say: How is it fair for us to keep borrowing money, borrowing money and spending it on Federal programs that are going to be left for our children and grandchildren to pay for? These are programs that many of them will never use. They are programs that will have outlived their usefulness by the time my two grandsons earn their first paycheck. By borrowing and not continuing to cut a little bit more and a little bit more, what we are doing is passing the bill to them. It is passing the buck onto future generations to pay for it.

My amendment is another 1 percent across-the-board cut. It would be another $341 million in savings. What it says, very simply, to all of our agencies that are involved in this bill, everybody, a penny on the dollar; just reduce your spending by one penny on a dollar. Get in here, challenge yourselves, challenge your employees to save a cent, one penny, out of what they have been appropriated. Do it responsibly. And do it not only for the sovereignty of this Nation; do it for our children and our grandchildren. Don't burden them with debt.

What is happening with all this Nation's debt is the ultimate cap- and-trade. What we are doing is capping our children's future and trading it, trading it.

While there has been tremendous work done and our Republican-led Appropriations Committee is doing work which never has been done and reducing this spending and pulling it back, we need to challenge these agencies to join us in this effort. Just as our businesses in each of our districts are cutting back and saving money, the Federal Government needs to be doing the very same thing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate their arguments. I am not going to argue with much of what they had to say. Indeed, the committee has met its goal. But to say this is not the context, I would beg to differ with the gentlewoman from Ohio.

If we wanted to spur energy production in this country, the President could go out here and do a one-stop shop. He could lift the ban on leases. He could open up U.S. production and exploration. Yes, there is a way to do that, and we would love to see him do that rather than restricting energy production.

When it comes to across-the-board cuts, whether it is a Democratic Governor like in Missouri with Nixon or when you have Cuomo in New York, they have done across-the-board cuts. Why do they do them? Because it works. It spurs economic growth.

Go back to 1964 with Johnson and the Revenue Act. Why did they lower unemployment and generate revenue growth? Because they cut Federal spending.

There is a benefit to getting your fiscal house in order. While we may have set a goal and met that goal, which I applaud, I continue to say it is not going to be enough while we continue the deficit spending. It is time to get our fiscal house in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, today, I am rising in support of H.R. 4836, the Providing Rigorous Oversight to Terminate Extreme Criminal Transfers, or PROTECT, Act.

The PROTECT Act is a piece of legislation I have introduced with Congressman Wolf of Virginia. It will ensure that Guantanamo Bay detainees do not ever end up on American soil. The PROTECT Act will prevent the transfer to the United States of Gitmo detainees or any other unprivileged enemy belligerents captured overseas. Current transfer prohibitions are tied to annual funding bills. The PROTECT Act is a long-term solution to the detainee issue and punishes unlawful transfers by up to 5 years in prison. It is supported by the 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.

We do need the PROTECT Act. Why do we need it? Because of lawlessness. This administration has demonstrated a pattern of lawless behavior that is creating a constitutional crisis in our Nation. The most recent example of this was the President's failure to notify Congress about the release of the Taliban Five.

Make no mistake. The administration fully intends to bring Gitmo detainees to American soil, read them their Miranda rights, and give them access to our civilian courts. Gitmo detainees do not belong here. Their presence would endanger our local communities. We need a solution that will deter this administration from looking for ways around the law. It is important to consider the administration's actions regarding this detainee issue.

First, President Obama signed Executive Order No. 13492 on January 22, 2009, to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Second, in November 2009, the administration announced 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in New York. It later abandoned the idea.

Third, on December 15, 2009, a letter signed by Hillary Clinton and several other administration officials was sent to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, stating the administration's intent to bring Gitmo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois.

These actions triggered an avalanche of opposition and forced the President to temporarily abandon his plan to bring these Gitmo detainees to the U.S.

However, in this year's State of the Union address, the President renewed his pledge to close Gitmo by stating:

And, with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year

Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee

transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Cliff Sloan, an administration special envoy for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, recently told ABC that the administration would have to work with Congress on changing the law so that detainees could be brought here.

He stated:

For detention and trial and prosecution, we think people

should be allowed to be brought to the United States. Our

supermax facilities are very secure, and we have hundreds of

people convicted of terrorist offenses in our supermax

prisons.

The President may not like having three branches of government, and he may not like checks and balances, but this system of checks and balances has served our Nation well. His lawless actions are creating a constitutional crisis, and it must stop. Gitmo detainees are coming to American soil unless we pass the PROTECT Act. Its criminal penalties will ensure that the President respects the law.

I encourage my colleagues to join me on the PROTECT Act, which includes a transfer prohibition, provides a long-term solution, enacts criminal penalties, and provides an exception for American citizens.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for the diligent work that they have done to do their part to get this funding bill, this appropriations bill, to begin to bring the costs down. I think that it truly shows how dedicated many of us on this side of the aisle are to having government get its spending under control.

We all know Washington does not have a revenue problem. It has an acute spending and priority problem. We see it every single day. My constituents in Tennessee see it, and they talk about it a lot.

Last week, I heard a lot about the outside spending that takes place in this town, and the thing that really offends my constituents is that Congress spends, D.C. spends money that they don't have. All of it is taxpayer money, and it is so inappropriate that the spending continues to grow year by year, and the taxpayer has to pay more.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that there is something immoral about citizens and taxpayers struggling to live within their means, so they can pay taxes to a government that refuses to live within its means.

That is why, every year, I come to the floor and offer bills for 1, 2, and 5 percent across-the-board cuts, and then during appropriations season, I know I kind of wear a path in the carpet here, offering amendments that would cut a penny on the dollar, 1 percent across the board, and that is the nature of this amendment that I offer today.

I do it because my constituents know that Washington spends too much money, that we borrow too much money and, therefore, what we are doing is capping and trading our children's future to the people that own our debt because we couldn't be spending it if we weren't borrowing it.

Go talk to China, Japan, OPEC, the top holders of our debt, and they own a lot of it right now. They are the ones who will be making the decisions--probably decisions we won't like--and at some point, they may call that bill due.

Now, across-the-board spending cuts are not a partisan issue. In 2010, Peter Orszag, who was the President's pick for Director of the Office of Management and Budget, turned to the executive departments and agencies and said: I want you just to go in and cut 5 percent across the board.

Governor Christie of New Jersey is well known for turning around that State. It was a 9 percent across-the-board cut; Governor Cuomo of New York, a 10 percent across-the-board cut; Governor Perry of Texas, a 10 percent across-the-board cut.

States do it because it works. What it does is it engages the rank- and-file employees who know where you can make these cuts, so I think it is time for the Federal Government to begin to do this.

In our history, we have had six across-the-board cuts. They have ranged from 0.22 percent to 1 percent of covered appropriations. At those times, it saved us from $1.1 billion to $8.5 billion.

For this bill, we need to be doing the same thing; and yes, we are below the funding levels, to the credit of the appropriators who have worked on this. We are below the 2014 funding levels. That is a good thing, but we need to do a little bit more because we are borrowing way too much.

It is time to get our spending under control. I encourage my colleagues to support the 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction to this bill, and let's take one more step to bring this spending problem under control and move to a balanced budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin first by thanking Chairman Wolf for his patience. Every single year, as he has shepherded this appropriations bill, I have come to this floor and offered an amendment that would include a 1 percent across-the-board spending cut. He has been very gracious and very kind, even though he opposes. And even though I appreciate the good work that the committees have done to reduce spending and to get these levels down, I believe that we can do more--and that we should be doing more.

I think it is admirable that the committee is showing us a 0.8 percent reduction. But if we would pass my amendment, we would save another $400 million. And that is a step that we need to take.

I think it is important to realize that this amendment exempts the $8.5 billion budget that is for the FBI. We think it is important that they get that for their vital mission that they conduct every single day in protecting American citizens at home and abroad and in conducting the activities that do help to keep the homeland and our people safe.

My amendment will not affect the efforts that are combating terrorism, cyber crime, human trafficking or violent gangs. It is a targeted spending cut that will result in a savings to the taxpayers of over $400 million.

Given the $51 billion price tag of this bill, I do not feel that it is asking too much to cut a little bit more.

I think it is important to note also that across-the-board spending cuts have worked at the State level. There is no reason not to utilize them here in Washington.

We have heard from so many of our Governors and our mayors that have trumpeted the use of across-the-board spending cuts. We have heard Chris Christie, a 9 percent across-the-board spending cut; Rick Perry in Texas, a 5 percent savings.

We have Governor Cuomo, who was looking at reducing 10 percent across the board; Schweitzer in Montana, 5 percent across the board.

They work, and there is a reason they do--because it is an equitable cut.

Mr. Chairman, we are $17 trillion in debt. This is something we can do for our children and our grandchildren and begin to responsibly roll back the amount that the Federal Government spends.

At this point in time, we are spending the money that our children have not made for programs that they do not want and will never, ever use. What we need to do is be wise stewards of the taxpayer dollar, now and in the future.

I also think this is an idea that the American people are beginning to support. I noted a recent poll--Washington Post-ABC News poll. This was March 6, 2013. Sixty-one percent of the American public actually supports not a 1 percent or a 2 percent, but a 5 percent across-the- board cut in all Federal spending.

It is time for us to do a little more to save a little more, to make a few more spending reductions, and to think about what the addition of debt--piling on more debt does to our children and our grandchildren and to their futures.

It is, indeed, capping and trading our children's futures to the people that hold our publicly-traded debt.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of my amendment to shut down the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. The amendment would prohibit any funds being made available for operations, renovation, or construction at Thomson Correctional.

Section 529 of our CJS bill prohibits funds to construct, acquire, or modify a facility in the U.S. to house detainees. However, my amendment goes further, by not allowing any funds for operations at Thomson.

In addition, I recognize that CJS also prohibits the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. However, the administration has proven resourceful at finding pots of money to achieve their goals.

Thomson Correctional Center is ground zero in this debate. As long as it remains operational, we run the risk of seeing Guantanamo Bay detainees on American soil.

One of the President's first acts in office was signing Executive Order 13492 on January 22, 2009, to close Guantanamo Bay detention center. The administration has attempted to purchase the facility since 2009 to hold these detainees.

We have the letter from December 15 to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, which was signed by several administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, stating the following:

As the President has made clear, we need to continue to

detain some individuals currently held at the Guantanamo Bay

detention facility. To securely house these detainees,

Federal agencies plan to work with me and other State

officials to acquire the nearly vacant maximum security

facility in Thomson, Illinois.

It later adds:

The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to

house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo.

Congress passed language in subsequent bills to prevent the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo prisons to the U.S. However, the administration, once again, went behind the intent of Congress and purchased the Thomson facility in 2012 for $165 million, using money from various DOJ accounts. Supposedly, that was to combat prison overcrowding.

Mr. Chairman, today, the prison is still empty.

President Obama also requested $43.7 million in his fiscal year 2014 budget to begin activating Thomson. I think that we all know that this administration intends to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. When it is shut down, those detainees are going to go somewhere.

The handwriting is on the wall. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats have clearly stated their intent to bring those detainees to American soil.

I think that it is imperative that we accept this amendment and make certain that there is no money for operational funds for the Thomson facility.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my colleagues of a couple of things. Number one, going back to the letter dated December 15, 2009, it says in the letter: ``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.''

Now, I have to ask my colleagues: Who do you think is going to be there? This is a prison that is empty. It is empty right now. We know what is going to happen. This is going to be used to receive Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The 9/11 families support this amendment. It is supported by these families. They do not want to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees here

on American soil. They do not want them to have access to our civilian court system. And passing this amendment will save us millions of taxpayer dollars that could end up being used not only to house, not only to give access to the courts, but to pay for lawyers to defend enemies who have taken up arms against our brave men and women in uniform.

It was clear from 2009 what the intent was. It said it in the letter: ``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees.''

I encourage support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following: