Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support of H.R. 6582 today. I am so pleased to stand and to thank Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Aderholt for the work that they have done on this. Also, I want to thank Mr. Waxman for his efforts in this bill.

I also want to commend my colleague, Mr. Cooper, from Tennessee. He and I had authored a piece of legislation, H.R. 482, the Water Heater Rating Improvement Act of 2011, and it is now section 3 of the underlying bill.

Essentially, what this section 3 would do is to fix a regulatory problem related to the test methodology that the DOE uses to calculate the efficiency levels of water heaters, which even the DOE has acknowledged that the way they're doing this is broken and it does need to be fixed.

This legislation will also level the playing field for our domestic water heater manufacturers who are currently at a competitive disadvantage with the foreign manufacturers. Of course we all know our focus is on jobs and the economy and getting our domestic manufacturing back to the pace where it should be for global competition.

Essentially the problem is this: under the current standards, the small and large water heaters are divided into two categories under two separate Federal statutes. These statutes are based on an arbitrary gallon capacity and energy input ratings. The smaller water heaters are covered by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act and are rated using an Energy Factor, or an EF rating. Now the larger water heaters are within the scope of the Energy Policy Act and are rated using a Thermal Efficiency, or TE rating.

The problem facing American manufacturers is that under the current rules of the road, only the small water heaters are deemed eligible under the ENERGY STAR program. This is nonsensical. It's an outdated measure and disqualifies our large American-made water heaters from being covered by the ENERGY STAR ratings regardless of how advanced or how highly efficient they may be.

The legislation before us today would provide the necessary regulatory and business certainty that is needed by our manufacturers. This legislation has the potential of adding upwards of 1,000 jobs for domestic water heater manufacturers, many of them in my home State of Tennessee, where there are already 3,000 jobs directly involved in the manufacturing of water heaters.

I thank the chairman again. I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), and I also want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, a little bit later today the House is going to vote on the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act. This is a bill that is very important to our civilian and civil aviation operators. It would block them from participating in the European Union's emission trading scheme.

Now the reason this is important is because of this: according to Bloomberg news, the inclusion of the airline industry in the EU's 2005 cap-and-trade program will cost U.S. airline companies between--get this--$10.1- and $39.4 billion from 2012 to 2020. Now who do you think is going to pay that cost? Consumers are going to pay it.

The House has already decided we don't want a cap-and-trade system. We voted against that domestically, so why would we want our airline industry to have to participate in this on an international basis? MIT economists have looked at it and said the new rule will increase costs on passengers flying to Europe, all to subsidize their cap-and-trade systems.

With rising fuel costs and a down economy, we simply cannot afford this. So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to protect American sovereignty to support our domestic aviation industry and vote in favor of H.R. 1956.

Mr. Speaker, in operating rooms and in hospitals across the great state of Tennessee, there is a team of professional and dedicated workers who serve us in some of our most frail and vulnerable moments. As we celebrate National Surgical Technologists Week, I rise to honor those surgical technologists who have dedicated their life's work to the care, service, and work of our healing.

From processing surgical instruments to focusing on patient care and everything in between, Surgical Technologists are a crucial part of patient care. I ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking them and the Tennessee Association of Surgical Technologists for their works of mercy, especially during National Surgical Technologists Week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a Music City gem that is celebrating its Diamond Anniversary. This fall marks the 60th Anniversary of the Nashville Symphony Orchestra League. Helping to bring the lofty sounds of the soul to Middle Tennessee, the Orchestra League's good work adds more than just notes to our great State, it adds a glorious soundtrack to our story.

The Nashville Symphony Orchestra League works to support and promote the work of the Nashville Symphony. Since 1946, the Nashville Symphony has been enriching audiences and shaping cultural life through a diverse mix of concerts and performances. The Nashville Symphony Orchestra League, founded in 1952, engages the community by providing innovative programs and educational opportunities; a mission that has been at the heart of the orchestra since its beginnings. For over 60 years the Orchestra League has touched countless lives, the young at heart and in age, as it continues to offer time, talents, and treasures to enrich the music.

Were it not for the Nashville Symphony Orchestra League, and its hard work throughout the years, Middle Tennessee might not have another beautiful note in her composition known the world over. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honor of those who dedicate their work to the ongoing preservation of the Nashville Symphony; ensuring Nashville's extraordinary and musical legacy rises and settles for another generation of Music City listeners.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his good work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chair, there is a war being waged on energy and on coal in this country. But it's not coming from another country; it is coming from our own government. And we see this taking place every day.

Here are a few facts. The United States produces 35 percent of the world's coal, which is more than any other country in the entire world. Most Americans think that we should be using our natural resources to improve the quality of life and to benefit our citizens. And indeed we should. We have more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal here in this country.

Coal produced about 42 percent of all the electricity that was generated in the U.S. last year. Shutting down the coal industry might sound like a good idea at the Sierra Club meeting, but it doesn't make any sense. This legislation is needed because it puts the brakes on the EPA. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the Obama Administration is following through on their HHS mandate that violates religious freedom as today begins the date where the rule goes into effect. 24 separate lawsuits across the country have been filed representing 76 plaintiffs.

On Friday, a Carter-appointed judge in Denver provided a preliminary injunction against the HHS mandate to the Newland family, the Catholic owners of a HVAC company in Colorado. This case, led by Alliance Defending Freedom, is a welcomed initial victory for religious freedom. We will need the courts or the Congress to reverse this tragic disregard for American's First Amendment right to freedom of religion without government interference.

Protecting the First Amendment has to be our First priority. The first words of the First Amendment read: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .''

What happened to the promise that ``if you like the health care you have you can keep it?''

The radical mandate makes it so religious-based institutions are forced to defy a Higher Order at the will of a Goverment Order. Religious liberty is a sacred and fundamental right. It's central to who we are as a country, a country founded by people who fled Europe for their religious beliefs.

If President Obama does not reverse his administration's attack on religious freedom, Congress, led by the People's House, will do it for him.

People who go to church on Sunday and who put money in an offering plate shouldn't have to worry that their donations will go to pay for things that they don't believe in their hearts to be good.

The House is going to address this matter fairly and deliberately, through the appropriate legislative channels in the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The rule announced by the Obama Administration's Department of Health & Human Services would require faith-based employers--including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals--to provide services they consider immoral. Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception (FDA approved items).

The effect is government crowding out religious-based institutions. Government is using raw political force to impose a government view on society where religious institutions are not welcome to serve or practice their faith freely. It is government forcing private and religious institutions off the public square. They're forcing resources off the table that serve the public good. Since when was that a good idea?

I thank the gentleman from California for the time. And I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his excellent work on this issue.

Recently, I had a constituent say to me in a townhall meeting they thought it was time for Congress to start putting some mandates on the Federal Government. They're tired of government mandates on them. Why don't we mandate, why don't we hold them accountable?

This is a piece of legislation that does exactly that. It requires the GAO to conduct a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General before the end of the year. That is significant. A timeline to do a job, to be held accountable to the people of this great Nation for how they spend their time, their money, the decisions they make that affect us.

It is imperative that we get this economy back on track. The actions that we will vote on today are part of that, having a Federal Reserve that is accountable--accountable to our constituents, accountable to the people of this Nation. I commend the gentleman for a move toward transparency and accountability.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

It was just last month that the administration announced its proposed final lease plan for developing the U.S. offshore energy resources for the next 5 years, 2012-2017. There was a lot of anticipation about this. We thought that finally the administration would hear the calls that have come from this House saying we need to increase our American energy supply and we need to create jobs, but we were disappointed. Our calls for relief obviously fell on deaf ears.

Instead of opening up 98 percent of the U.S. offshore, which is currently unleased for energy exploration, the President's plan will make the situation worse by closing 85 percent of our offshore areas to energy production. I think that's significant.

You have to ask the question: What do you really want? If you want energy independence, open it up. Let's explore for these sources.

To put that into context, I think what we need to do is look at this President's plan and compare it to previous Presidents. And, Mr. Chairman, what we find is that this President's plan offers fewer offshore drilling leases than former President Jimmy Carter had offered. The President's plan also ignores the economic struggles that are facing our country, and it really does not move us toward energy independence.

What it does do is it moves us a step backwards. We are heading in the wrong direction on this issue, and it reimposes a drilling moratorium that had been lifted in 2008, a moratorium that the gulf coast still has not recovered from. And I think that we need to look at that and consider those jobs in our coastal regions.

In stark contrast to the President's plan, H.R. 6082 proposes a drill smart job creation plan that expands offshore drilling and opens new areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources. I encourage my colleagues to support this plan.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I stand here today to support the repeal of ObamaCare. Some of you are asking, how many times are we going to do this? We're going to keep at it until we get this legislation off the books. It was a bad bill, it has become a bad law.

Quite frankly, if you are satisfied with a tax-based, government- controlled, limited-access and bureaucrat-centric health care program, then this is for you. That is what ObamaCare is. That is not what the American people want. And repeatedly, they have said to us, look, Congress should admit ObamaCare was a bad idea. Let's start fresh with a clean slate. Let's focus on increasing choice and options, decreasing cost and mandates, simplifying the system for both patients and providers, and making certain that we restore the $500 billion of cuts that were made to Medicare and make health care tax free.

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

I want to begin by thanking the committee for its extraordinarily hard work in identifying ways to cut spending.

All of us hear from our constituents. They want us to reduce what the Federal Government spends, to be wise and proper stewards of the Federal taxpayer dollar. All too often, they look at Washington and they see a monument to waste of the American taxpayer dollar.

Mr. Chairman, for the legislation that is in front of us, the fiscal year 2013 proposed funding level is $51.6 billion, which is $1.9 billion below the President's request. I think it is admirable that we have saved nearly $2 billion below the President's request. However, we know that there is much more work that can be done, that should be done, that must be done. Therefore, my 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction amendment will save taxpayers an additional $516 million.

That is $516 million that our children and our grandchildren will not have to pay back with interest.

I'm fully aware of the strong opposition that many appropriators have for these across-the-board spending cuts. When I've offered these cuts, I have been told that ``the cuts of this magnitude, quite honestly, go too deep.'' I've also heard that these 1 percent spending reductions would be ``very damaging to our national security and to things that are important to life and property.''

However, the taxpayers are demanding that the bureaucracy do what they are doing and save a penny on a dollar. Our Governors are quite active in this arena. Of course, we have heard from former Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Mitch Daniels, Governor Brian Schweitzer, Governor Chris Gregoire, just to name a few of our State executives. In the chairman's home State of Iowa, former Democratic Governor Chet Culver issued a 10 percent across-the-board spending reduction.

These across-the-board spending cuts are used around our country in a bipartisan fashion, and the reason they are is because they work. They work. This is how you get results, by actually cutting into the baseline and reducing the outlays of government. They are effective because they cut spending within each agency and force each agency to do a review and find the waste and find ways to preserve those precious dollars that are coming from the taxpayers.

Admiral Mullen made the statement that ``the greatest risk to our Nation's security is our Nation's debt.'' Mr. Chairman, we all know that. The American people know this. They have grown ill and fatigued with what they see as waste of their money here in Washington because this government never satisfies its appetite for the taxpayers' dollar. Because of that, because they think they can go to the well and ask for more, because they think they can go to the presses and print those dollars, they don't do the hard work of prioritizing. That is what we're to do here in this House.

In that spirit of forcing the actions of prioritizing, forcing the actions of the bureaucracy, having to save one penny on a dollar so that our children and grandchildren are not paying that back with interest, that is the reason that I bring these amendments. It's important because right now we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. We cannot afford this. It is incumbent upon us to make certain that we do the hard work, that we cut a little more, that we make the demands on the bureaucracy that our constituents are making on their businesses and on their family budgets. It is time for us to save just a penny on a dollar, make the cut, do it for our children and future generations.

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

I thank the chairman for yielding, and as I said at the beginning, I applaud the committee for the good work they have done.

I think when you're broke, though, that what we have to do is say now is the time to make further cuts. And to the ranking member, it's not indiscriminate. This is the way our Governors have found to arrive at balancing a budget. It's looking at every agency and saying get in there, do the heavy lift and find this. The result we want is to preserve the foundation of this great Nation for our children and grandchildren.

Are you saying that salaries and expenses are more important than the future of these children who are going to have to pay this debt back with interest, $16 trillion worth of debt and growing, and you've got to pay it back?

My two grandchildren, my children, is it fair to look at them and say, You're going to spend over half of what you earn? I know that it is tough.

As the gentleman inferred, I'm at it again. Yes, you're right, Mr. Chairman. I am at it again. And let me tell you something. I am going to be at it again and again and again, just as I have every single year that I have been a Member of this House because preserving the firm financial footing of this Nation is work, coming at it again and again and again until we get the job done.

It has worked for our cities. It has worked for our counties. It has worked for our States. It will work for this Nation that is so richly blessed. It means that we have to have titanium backbones to get the job done.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding the time.

I am so pleased, Madam Speaker, that we are pushing forward on some bills that are going to actually create the environment for jobs growth to take place. Of course we know that that is needed by the American people. We hear about it every single day.

We are at the longest streak that we have had since the Great Depression, the longest streak with unemployment being above 8 percent. If you look at underemployment, it's at 14.8 percent. Clearly, the American people are speaking out that they want action and they want to get back to work. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will do that, helping to create the environment for jobs growth to take place and helping to create the environment where we take actions to fuel this economy.

Our unemployment and underemployment numbers should be a wake-up call to the President, should be a wake-up call to the Senate. They can't continue to sit on their hands and play the blame game while 13 million Americans remain out of work.

As I said, this legislation will help create the jobs that are needed in our Nation's energy sector. What we want to see is more American- made energy, more American exploration. We want to see American innovation and end our dependence on foreign oil. Those are worthy goals, and these are steps in the right direction.

We also hear a lot about the price at the pump. I have many friends who are the mom in the minivan and are getting children back and forth, to and from activities. And at $3.50 a gallon as the new normal, if you will, gas having doubled, the price of gasoline as a transportation fuel having doubled since this President was sworn in, this is something that women talk to us about regularly. There are deep concerns about this.

The greatest potential for economic growth in this country can be found in this Nation's precious natural resources, in our energy resources. While the President is clearly preoccupied with telling Americans what we won't do on energy, what he will not take steps to do, the economy and jobs and what he isn't going to do there, House Republicans are laying out a pathway for what we can do.

By working hard, we can empower those innovators to harness our domestic energy capabilities using so many

of those new technologies that are out there, new innovations that have been brought forward by so many of the petroleum engineers and the innovators in this country.

I have to say this: with every new discovery of American energy and every new technology advancement, we are able to put more into the marketplace for our Nation's manufacturers, engineers, our leasing specialists, our rig operators, and much more.

I recently had the opportunity to be back in south Mississippi, where I grew up. I had the opportunity to talk with some of the men and women who are involved and working and innovating in the oil and gas industry every single day. What I heard from them was the degree of advancement and the number of opportunities that exist if the Federal Government will get out of the way and return our focus to creating the environment for energy exploration and jobs growth to take place in this great Nation.

I thank my colleague from Georgia for all those kind comments.

Once again, looking at this chart, we see the broken promises over and over and over again. And not only the cost to our job creators, which certainly is affecting our economy, but also those to the typical families who are already struggling to get health care. Now we have increased that cost to them by almost $2,400 in just a few short years.

Now it is my honor to yield to a gentlelady from Alabama, Martha Roby, who represents Montgomery.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We all know that the TSA is out of control and Congress does have an institutional role to rein them back in. In 2005, the TSA administratively reclassified airport security screeners' title to Transportation Security Officers, or, as they are called, TSOs; and subsequently they changed their uniforms to resemble that of a Federal law enforcement officer. In 2008, a metal badge was added to this uniform. This title and the uniform, the changes that were made, Mr. Chairman, were simply made to give the TSOs an authoritative appearance.

Despite the new title and appearance, the TSOs and the BDOs, or Behavioral Detection Officers, do not receive any Federal law enforcement training, they're not eligible for Federal law enforcement benefits, and the TSOs and the BDOs are in name only, I remind you. The problem is they were set in place as airport security screeners; and administratively, since 2005, they have moved through all of these changes.

As of November 2009, the TSA had spent $1,027,560.10 on TSO badges. The current amount is unknown because TSA will not release the figure.

When Congress created the TSA, their presence at our Nation's security checkpoints at the airports was supposed to be in the capacity of airport security screeners, not transportation security officers or law enforcement officers. Almost every day of the week you can turn on the news and you see story after story where a TSO in uniform has been arrested or has acted inappropriately with a passenger. I believe many of these problems stem from the fact that the TSA does not consistently conduct what we would call routine preemployment or ongoing background checks of new and existing employees. Yet after inconsistent use of background checks and only 80 hours of classroom training, we are giving TSOs a badge and a uniform.

Meanwhile, if you were interested in joining most of our police departments, you would spend up to 6 months in an academy, where you would receive law enforcement training. This would come after you met certain application requirements and were accepted to that academy. And then, after you pass a test and complete that training, you would be given the right to wear a uniform and be called Officer. Here in D.C., the TSA has advertised for Washington Reagan International Airport TSOs on pizza boxes and on pumps at discount gas stations.

TSOs are abusing their uniforms and badges. Just days before Thanksgiving, a Virginia woman was raped after a TSO from Washington Dulles approached her wearing a TSA-issued uniform and flashed his badge. This past March, the TSO supervisor at Washington Dulles was arrested for allegedly running a prostitution ring. However, it's been reported that the individual pled guilty to a second degree assault in 1999. Why didn't TSA catch that while performing that background check before they gave him a badge and a uniform?

TSOs are abusing this limited authority. I just released a report this week that details 50 arrests involving the TSOs. These are reasons enough that we need to take them out of the uniforms, disallow the uniforms, and put them back to their job title of airport security screener.

I urge my colleagues to join the American Alliance of Airport Police Officers, which represents rank-and-file airport police officers in Dallas, L.A., and New York, who are tired of the TSA's mission creep and to adopt and support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. One point where I think we all agree is that there are many good people that work with the TSA. I have some good friends that work with the TSA. But to my colleagues here on the floor, I would remind you, those that are our airport screeners and now called transportation security officers, they cannot detain anyone. If they find someone they want to detain, they have to call the airport police.

I would also remind you, in the legislation that was passed in this House, they are designated as an airport security screener to assist the traveling public. I will also remind you that these TSOs receive 80 hours of training--80 hours--and then 3 to 5 weeks of on-the-job training. Our air marshals, our policemen, those law enforcement officers are receiving much more training. And despite TSA's growing presence, more than 25,000 security breaches have occurred at U.S. airports in the last decade, and they are dealt with by the airport police.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, that is the correct amendment, and I want to thank the committee for working with us to make certain that we get it right. One of the things that I have learned through my legislative career is that many times leg counsel will advise something is done one way and parliamentarians another way. And whether it was at the State level or the Federal level, it is good to say let's get it right and let's do it right the first time. You have less cleanup. If we did more of that in this House, we would be coming back to this floor to correct wrongs that have been done. Certainly our plate is full of them this year.

There are some great aspects in the DHS bill, but there is one I have a lot of concern on, and it is the funding that is there for these DHS VIPR teams.

Now, this is what has happened since 2005. The VIPR teams have begun conducting random searches and screenings at train stations, subways, bus terminals, ferry terminals, and other mass transit locations around the country.

The objective of VIPR deployments is to augment capabilities that disrupt and deter potential terrorist activity. However, to date, we have not received any report of a VIPR team successfully preventing a single terrorist activity, despite the fact that during this timeframe the FBI, the CIA, and police officers have been highly successful at discovering and apprehending terrorists here in the U.S.

Last year alone, VIPR teams ran more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations. This comes at a rate of approximately 170 to 190 deployments each week. This past October, Tennessee became the first State to conduct a statewide VIPR team operation with TSA transportation security officers. The VIPR team randomly inspected truck drivers on the side of Tennessee's highways. And I remind you, these are individuals that have no law enforcement training.

Recently, we even saw TSA TSOs at the Capitol South Metro station a few weeks ago randomly inspecting----

No, I do not yield. And I'm going to finish my statement and discuss the activity of these teams that are working outside of an airport.

What we have to remember is that TSOs were previously called airport security agents. Now they have become transportation security officers, and now they are working outside of the airport.

I want you to keep in mind this about what transpired at the Capitol South Metro. Passengers had their bags randomly inspected. Keep in mind that these TSOs did not inspect every bag that came in front of them. They entered the station looking through some random selections, and they ignored everybody that was leaving that station. They only took people going in, not people coming out. That should really give everybody concern right now. If there was some reason for actionable intelligence, you would have been searching everybody just a few steps away from this Capitol.

Funding for almost 200 VIPR deployments each week that are random and are not based on and driven by intelligence is not an effective national security policy, nor does it serve the American taxpayer well. Catching terrorists isn't a secret; it needs to be driven by intelligence, which is why the FBI, our Nation's law enforcement, and the Capitol Police have been successful at it.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And yes, all of these TSOs that are working outside of our Nation's airports, as I said, they were originally put in place as airport security officers. As the gentleman well knows--

At this point, the amendment is addressing those that are working outside of our Nation's airports. This is an overreach; it is a stretch. They are not put in place to do that, and I think the gentleman from North Carolina understands that very well.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, since 2009, the Department of Energy has used title 17, and specifically 1705--section 1705--to create a government-run venture capital firm using taxpayers' hard-earned funds. Unfortunately, in this zero-sum game being played and led by this administration, American taxpayers have continually ended up on the short end of the stick as we have watched companies like Solyndra, Beacon Power, and others lose hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Through section 1705, DOE has closed transactions that guarantee approximately $16.15 billion of loans for renewable-energy projects through a policy of acceleration implemented by Secretary Chu.

With 82 percent of all funding within section 1705 going to solar projects, it appears that even in the field of renewable energy this administration has a very aggressive policy of picking winners and losers.

Throughout the program, there have been countless red flags raised by career DOE staff about the financial viability of firms looking for taxpayer funding, as was the case with Solyndra. Many of us have been around solar power for years. We have watched it go through many stages of development; And while many of these companies have great ideas, they are just not ready for prime time.

The high level of frustration with the loan guarantee program is not only being felt by taxpayers, but by companies who have also tried to go through the loan guarantee process. This amendment should send a clear signal to the Senate, to DOE, and to the administration that we have truly grown ill and fatigued with the mismanagement of the loan guarantee program and that we do not want any funding put into section 1705 in fiscal year 2013 through the appropriations or through any other vehicle.

I ask my colleagues for their support as we close the door on the Solyndra debacle.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the chairman for the acceptance, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the committee for its hard work in identifying ways to cut spending in this appropriations. The fiscal year 2013 proposed funding level is $32.1 billion. Now, that is $965 million below the President's budget request. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more that can be done; and thereby I again am making the request that we make an additional 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction which will save taxpayers an additional $321 million.

Now, I am fully aware that as I come with these amendments for each of our appropriations bills, I hear about how these cuts are too deep, they are going to have too far of a reach, they are damaging our national security, they are going to cut things that are important to our life and our property. And imagine that--we are asking the bureaucracy to go in and shave one penny out of a dollar--one additional penny out of a dollar--in order to help put our Nation back on a track to fiscal sanity.

As I've said before, across-the-board spending cuts effectively control the growth and the cost of the Federal Government. They not only give agencies flexibility to determine which expenses are necessary; but, more importantly, they do not pick winners and losers. Not only do I support the use of across-the-board spending cuts, but so does former Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Mitch Daniels, Governor Brian Schweitzer, and Governor Christine Gregoire, just to name a few of the Nation's chief executives of their States.

In the chairman's own State of New Jersey, I would like to point out Governor Christie's statement. Now, this was November 7, 2010 on ``Meet the Press.'' Governor Christie said:

In New Jersey what we did was we cut spending in every

department, a 9 percent cut in real spending, not projected

spending, real spending year over year.

That is because these work. And Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels took the State's 2-year budget. He enacted that budget in June, and he cut most agency spending by 10 percent from the previous budget.

And we hear about Indiana being on the road to fiscal health.

Then former Governor Mitt Romney has said, as President, Mitt Romney will send Congress a bill on day one that cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board.

Governor Rick Perry, starting in January 2010, we asked them to identify 5 percent savings in the 2010 11 biennium, and 10 percent for the '12 and '13 biennium. The point, Mr. Chairman, it works. Across- the-board cuts work. We know that. The Governors know it.

The American people have really grown so tired of this wasteful Washington out-of-control spending. They want to see cuts made. Let's do this for our children and grandchildren. Let's cut one penny out of every dollar and have the bureaucracy do exactly what our small businesses are doing every single day--sitting down, making cuts, figuring out how they're going to handle very difficult economic times.

I ask for the support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership on the issue.

Simply put, this bill gives baby girls the same chance at life as our baby boys, Mr. Speaker. I think it's hypocrisy to say that one is pro- woman and that it's okay to end the life of an unborn child just because of its gender. Since when did America subscribe to the idea that males are worth more than females?

We know that sex-selection abortions happen all over the world, as was evidenced and certainly brought to light by human rights activists like Mr. Chen, who fled to America this month. But according to at least six academic studies published in the past 4 years, this tragic reality is playing out in our own backyard. Just this week, an undercover video showed a Planned Parenthood employee encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl, and she wanted to have a boy instead.

A vote against ending sex-selection abortion is a vote in favor of gender bias and female gendercide. A vote against is a vote for organized and systematic subtraction of women in America through targeted abortions. It's sick, it's discriminatory, it's sexist, and it's blatantly antiwoman and antihuman.

It's no surprise that a poll conducted this month by the Charlotte Lozier Institute showed 80 percent of women in this country support a law banning abortion in cases where the sole reason for seeking an abortion is that the developing baby is female.

I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.