Floor Statements

I thank the ranking member.

Let me thank the author of the bill, Ms. Giffords, for her great leadership on what I consider to be one of the most important issues. That's energy independence.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of this bill. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this bill.

One thing is certain: the sun always rises, and it is important for us as a Nation to harness that energy. This is landmark legislation that, in my view, will make the United States a true leader in solar technology and in energy independence.

What I particularly like about the bill is the collaboration between the academic, the environment, the universities, the Department of Education, and the private sector. I, personally, like the fact that the private sector is involved in this rather than just some bureaucrat behind closed doors in Washington, D.C., who is making those decisions.

I recently met with the Stanford Research Institute, and I looked at their photovoltaic technology. The University of Texas at Austin, in my district, is also involved with the manufacturing of these photovoltaics, along with countless high-tech companies, like Applied Materials and many others.

There is a lot of support for this bill in my district, and I think it's important to note that this bill has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, IBM, BP, Intel, and National Semiconductor. The Chamber recently urged us to vote for this, and said that the increased research, development and demonstration of solar technology is crucial to America's energy security needs.

We talk a lot about energy independence around here, but today, we really have something tangible that we can do about it, and that is to support this legislation.

As a former counterterrorism prosecutor, it disturbs me that we export $700 billion from this country to countries overseas which don't have our best interests at heart. We need to change our energy policy, and this is a critical piece to that. This is a great step forward for this Nation towards achieving that goal of energy independence.

My district really represents the broad spectrum of the differences-- on the one hand, the Houston suburbs with oil and gas and, on the other hand, Austin, Texas, which is a green technology center. It's my view that we need all of this energy. We need to make more of this energy here in the United States, which will, in turn, create more energy for Americans and which will create more American jobs. In my view, we can have a hybrid energy policy, if you will. We can go green, and at the same time, we can drill.

So, again, I think this bill is an important step forward towards that path to energy independence. Solar energy, in my view, is one of the best potentials for alternative energies out there, and it can be placed on rooftops, and transmission is not as much of an issue. We are on the cutting edge with a huge breakthrough in this country where we can harness the sun's energy and can provide the energy that this country desperately needs.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, today we rise as Americans, first and foremost, to remember: to remember the victims of 9/11, the 3,000 Americans who were killed on that day; to remember the fallen heroes, the firefighters, the police officers who rescued so many lives and some who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

I remember watching the television on 9/11 with my daughter as the second airplane flew into the building and she said, Daddy, why did that airplane fly into the building? And by the time the second one hit, we all knew that this was no accident; this was an intentional act of terrorism, an act of war against the United States.

I was a counterterrorism prosecutor in the Justice Department. We saw many warning signs--the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, 1993 World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef, who almost brought the World Trade Center down that day--when they arrested him in Islamabad, many of you may not know this, but they found 12 baby dolls stuffed with chemical explosives that he intended to take on airplanes, part of the Bojinka plot to blow up 12 airplanes simultaneously.

The evil genius, his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, who to this day the information we obtained from him has saved American lives, the most chilling experience I've had as a Member of Congress was to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed imprisoned down in Guantanamo, the man who was responsible for killing 3,000 Americans.

As the 9/11 Commission said, the only way we will ultimately prevail in this twilight struggle is through good intelligence. We cannot tie the hands of the intelligence community. We cannot threaten them with prosecution. We cannot have a global justice policy that Mirandizes terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan when the first words we say to them is, You have the right to remain silent. How in the world will we get good intelligence with that kind of policy?

And if I could close with an FBI quote before 9/11 that said, ``Some day someone will die and the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems, especially since the biggest threat to us now, Osama bin Laden, is now getting the most protection.''

I thank the gentlelady.

We will never forget that day. We can never make the same mistake again. We owe that to the victims and the heroes of 9/11. It is our most solemn obligation to first and foremost protect and defend the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to tell you about a constituent of mine by the name of Cathy Magill. She represents a personal side of this health care debate. Cathy is a small business owner in my district; she and her brother own a company that installs windows in new homes. In a difficult economy, she now has something else to worry about, a new tax she will have to pay if she doesn't spend thousands of dollars a year on health insurance for each of her employees. They have told her they would rather keep the money in their own pockets and pay for health care the way they see fit.

If the Obama health care reform bill is passed, Cathy told me she will have no choice but to fire two of her employees so she can provide health insurance for the remaining three.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a job killer. We should make health care more affordable and accessible to every American, but this is not the way to do it. And people like Cathy Magill in my district deserve better, and so do the American people.

Mr. Leader and Mr. Speaker, where are those jobs? We have the highest unemployment rate since the 1930s. They say a picture speaks a thousand words.

Well, look at this picture.

Reclaiming my time, they say a picture speaks a thousand words. Well, look at this picture right here because it says it all.

This is a picture of Larry Summers, the President's top economic adviser. Look at him. He's not creating jobs. He is asleep. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you, this administration is asleep at the wheel.

The Vice President recently said that we can spend our way out of bankruptcy. What? Really? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? What happened to Economics 101? I think the American people are smarter than that.

Instead of cutting taxes and spending, which has historically worked, instead, we are enacting policies that

will devastate our economy; a national energy tax that will kill 2.5 million jobs and, according to the President, skyrocket energy prices. A health care bill that, according to the CBO, will spend over $1 trillion and kill 4.7 million jobs.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to wake up.

Madam Speaker, ``Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' That is a direct quote from President Obama describing

his ``Cap and Trade'' plan. I agree with the President. That is why we call it Cap and Tax. This is a failed European model that should not be imported into the United States. We've already seen the effects in Europe where household energy prices went up 25% and emissions were not reduced. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time. Imposing a national energy tax on the working families in my district who are already struggling to make ends meet is wrong. And who benefits from this? You guessed it, Wall Street, not Main Street.

While I strongly support investing in alternative energy and green technology, I cannot support this bill.

Overall, in my home state of Texas, energy costs will increase by $1.15 billion imposing an enormous tax each year on every Texas family. All of this for something that simply won't work.

Companies that are not able to meet the cap will simply move their manufacturing facilities overseas to countries with fewer regulations. Nationwide, our country will lose around 2.5 million jobs and Texas alone could lose 277,000 jobs in the first year alone. Perhaps that is why the U.S. Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, and dozens of other organizations oppose this plan.

I continue to support the American Energy Act which increases our domestic energy supply by developing more of our resources here in the United States, investing in alternative fuels and offering incentives for better efficiency and conservation--without placing a greater burden on our families, our businesses and our economy.

I thank the gentleman.

``Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right offer its alternatives.'' Speaker Pelosi, A New Direction for America.

This right has been denied. This is not a new direction. It is a wrong direction. My amendment would block taxpayer dollars from being used for monuments to be named after sitting Members of Congress.

I would like to yield the balance of my time to the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee as to whether she agrees that taxpayers dollars can be used to fund Monuments to Me after sitting Members of Congress; and if she does not agree with that, why my amendment was blocked when it has been ruled in order twice before.

Offered By: Mr. McCaul

Amendment No. 54: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, as the lead Republican sponsor of this resolution I would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico, Congressman Teague, as well as Chairman Reyes for all of their work on putting together this legislation.

The U.S. Border Patrol has been keeping this country safe from threats like terrorists, illicit drugs, weapons, illegal immigrants and criminals for 85 years. I would like to thank the border patrol and I commend them for their service.

In the early 20th century, control of the border was sporadic and piecemeal and included mounted guards, Texas Rangers, and military troops. After the prohibition of alcohol and the immigration reforms of 1921 and 1924, the Labor Appropriations Act of 1924 officially established the U.S. Border Patrol with an initial force of 450 officers to help defend our borders.

Today the Border Patrol uses state of the art technologies to aid in the performance of their duties; infrared cameras, remote video surveillance, unattended underground sensors, and ground radar.

CBP is responsible for guarding nearly 7,000 miles of land border the United States shares with Canada and Mexico and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida peninsula and off the coast of Southern California. The agency also protects 95,000 miles of maritime border in partnership with the United States Coast Guard.

I would like to praise for their tireless efforts the 52,000 CBP employees including the over 18,000 CBP Border Patrol agents, 1,000 CBP Air and Marine agents, almost 22,000 CBP officers and agriculture specialists and the nation's largest law enforcement canine program.

I would also like to pay particular tribute to the 104 CBP employees who lost their lives in service to their country.

In sum, CBP performs the vital task of securing America's borders 24 hours a day, seven days a week while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. I congratulate them on their 85th anniversary and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this Resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, as one of the Chairs of the Congressional Sudan Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment to require the administration to, within 60 days, submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to address the ongoing atrocities in Sudan.

July 22, 2009, will mark the 5-year anniversary of the declaration by the United States Congress that the atrocities occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan constitute genocide. It was an historic resolution because it represented for the first time that Congress had made such a determination while the killings were actually taking place.

Today, innocent civilians in Darfur are still suffering from genocide directed by a callous regime determined to hang on to power at any cost. They are dying at the hands of the Janjaweed, also known as ``the devil on horseback.''

The United States for years has been seeking to help find ways to ease the suffering in Darfur and find a lasting political solution to each of the interrelated crises in Sudan. We've passed resolutions, imposed economic and travel sanctions, frozen assets, and enabled divestment from companies linked to the Sudanese regime. The United States has led efforts at the United Nations and with bilateral partners to meet humanitarian needs while pressing for the full deployment of peacekeeping missions to help protect civilians.

In addition to supporting efforts to negotiate and implement the Darfur Peace Agreement, the United States also was at the forefront of efforts to resolve the conflict in southern Sudan, a conflict which has left over 2 million people dead and another 4 million displaced.

Today, there is universal acknowledgement that if the comprehensive peace agreement between the north and south fails, there can be little hope for Darfur. Unfortunately, the terms of this peace agreement have not yet been fully implemented, and observers consistently warn that it could fail at any time.

With the national elections due this year and reports of deadly conflict within and among various armed groups on the rise, the stakes could not be higher. During the presidential campaign, each of the candidates assured voters that Sudan would be a major priority for their administrations and spoke of robust actions that would need to be taken in order to resolve Sudan's multiple conflicts.

While serving in the United States Senate, President Barack Obama called for oil sanctions and the imposition of a no-fly zone over Darfur. While working for the Brookings Institution, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice went so far as to call for military action against the Sudanese regime. But then on April 22, 2009, almost exactly 1 year after then-Senator Obama condemned the supposed efforts by the previous administration to normalize relations with Khartoum as a ``reckless and cynical initiative,'' his Special Envoy for Sudan, Scott Gration, announced, ``The United States and Sudan want to be partners, and so we are looking for opportunities for us to build a stronger bilateral relationship.''

Obviously, this bold statement sent conflicting messages to observers and caused a great deal of confusion here in the Congress, where Sudan has such a high priority for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Implementing this comprehensive strategy will advance respect for democracy, human rights, and religious freedom throughout Sudan. It will address internal regional security while combating Islamic extremism. And by advancing regional security and cooperation, it will eliminate cross-border support for armed insurgents, and it will shut down safe havens for extremists who pose a threat to the national security of the United States and its allies.

During committee debate on an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) regarding Sudan, it became clear that there is universal agreement on both sides of the aisle that the United States needs a coordinated, comprehensive strategy for Sudan which balances the United States' imperatives in Darfur and in southern Sudan.

This amendment simply goes one step further by giving the current administration the opportunity to resolve any outstanding issues with regard to the United States' policy towards Sudan by formulating such a strategy and reporting that strategy back to the United States Congress.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Recently, I participated in a congressional delegation down in Guantanamo, the first congressional delegation since the President ordered that Guantanamo will be closed. We saw the detainees down there. We saw the top 16 al Qaeda operatives. We saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed praying, bowing to Mecca. To look at the man who was responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans was perhaps the most chilling experience of my congressional career.

As a former Federal prosecutor, to extend constitutional protections to these detainees as criminal defendants is, in my view, setting a very dangerous precedent. They were captured on the battlefield, and they're enemies of war.

The Souder amendment--while I do support the overall bill--the denial of the Souder amendment raises big concerns, in my view. The idea that detainees held in Guantanamo cannot be placed on the No Fly List begs the question who is qualified to be put on the No Fly List. And since that time, we've released 500 detainees from Guantanamo, 60 of whom have been captured on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan.

So I would like to pose a question to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and I would be happy to yield time to him.

And the question is simply this: We have debated whether the detainees currently being held should be on the No Fly List. In my view it's a no-brainer that we should reach agreement on in a bipartisan way. But as to the 530 who have been released from Guantanamo, does the chairman know whether or not they have been placed on the Terrorist Watch List or the No Fly List?

I yield.

I am happy to yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

And I yield to Mr. Thompson.

Reclaiming my time, as to the 530 detainees who we know are dangerous actors who have already been released from Guantanamo, do we know if they've been placed on the No Fly List and the Terrorist Watch List?

I submit they should be.

The administration has been vague in its response on this issue and perhaps we should entertain the idea of a bill that I would be happy to work with the chairman on to ensure that those who have been captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, those terrorist suspects who were at Guantanamo who have since been released--many of whom have been returned to the battlefield to kill our soldiers--that at the very least if we're going to put anybody on the No Fly List and the Terrorist Watch List, that these individuals should be placed on this list.

And I will be happy to yield.

There is a debate on the current detainees--and I know it's pending disposition from the President--in my view, they should automatically be placed on the list. This is not a difficult decision.

With respect to those who have been released, Congress should take a stand and not defer to the administration on this and ensure that the suspected terrorists are never allowed on a U.S. commercial aircraft.

And with that, I reserve.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I thank the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Mr. Cuellar.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that I'm proud to cosponsor. I urge its adoption. As we all know, the development of alternative energy is of supreme importance to this country both as an economic and a national security issue. I believe in the all-of-the- above energy policy that includes more energy domestically.

Unfortunately, in our home State of Texas, the construction of wind farms has been delayed because such farms interfere with radars used by the FAA. The amendment is simple. It requires the FAA to study and report to the Congress on the impact radar replacement can have on the development of renewable energy facilities. If they can still achieve their national security and public safety goals from an alternative location while still accommodating the development of renewable energy, then Congress should know this so we can then take appropriate action.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment that would prohibit naming airports, Federal programs, and other projects under the FAA's jurisdiction after sitting Members of Congress. Although such instances are rare, this practice further erodes the public trust in this institution and its Members.

Recent press reports from the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport highlight this problem. The airport received $800,000 from the stimulus package to upgrade its alternative runway. Whether or not that is a wise use of money is not the question this amendment is intended to address. Rather, the problem is that the perception of the American people is that this little airport is getting special treatment because it is named after Congressman Murtha.

This perception feeds the belief that Members of Congress are arrogant and out of touch with the American people that we represent. This is a problem that exists in other areas of the Federal Government as well. There are courthouses, such as the ones named after Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and then there is the Charlie Rangel Center for Public Service. There are also various roads and bridges across the country named after Members of Congress and everything from schools to clinics to prisons in West Virginia named for Senator Byrd.

Unlike the bill I have introduced to end this practice, this amendment is limited only to the scope of projects authorized by the underlying bill. But with this first step, we can start to correct this and hopefully begin anew to restore some of the standing that this great institution has lost with the people that it serves.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Will the gentleman yield?

This amendment is not intended to be applied retroactively. It would only apply to then Members--

That's correct.

Mr. Chairman, I share in the same spirit with Chairman Oberstar. I think it's the height of arrogance for us to name, at taxpayer expense, buildings after sitting Members of Congress, people in the Congress, currently serving, and that's what the American people resent about this institution. And I appreciate the bipartisanship you bring to this.

I would also say that President Reagan was not in office at the time of the naming, and I thought it was very fitting to have named it after President Reagan, as it would be if a Member of Congress retires from this institution and the Congress decides to name a building after a retired Member of Congress.

But it is entirely inappropriate for a Member of Congress to use taxpayer dollars to name a building after himself or herself to glorify themselves.

So, with that, I thank the chairman for his bipartisanship on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee for his dedication and strong bipartisan leadership on this committee, which is so important, and for allowing my bill to go out of committee once again and come to the House floor. As the gentleman mentioned, it passed unanimously last Congress out of the House. I hope it does the same this Congress, and I hope the Senate will act on it this time.

Like many other Members of Congress, I am concerned about America's dependence on foreign sources of energy, and the National Academy's ``Rising above the Gathering Storm'' report has echoed the calls of many in the academic and business communities for a greater need to recruit and develop scientific and engineering talent to work on solving these problems. Increasing energy independence and decreasing the harmful effects of energy production and use are clearly areas of long-term national need. Our reliance on imported energy only serves to increase our vulnerability to external events and to the actions of regimes that are, in many cases, openly hostile to the United States.

One of the ways that we can reduce the need for energy imports is to use our energy more efficiently. Buildings consume more energy than any other sector of the economy, including industry and transportation. According to the United States Department of Energy, American buildings consume 39 percent of our Nation's primary energy and 70 percent of our electricity. However, energy-efficient building practices are still at the fringes of the building sector, in part, because of a lack of awareness about energy-efficient technologies and design practices among building professionals.

That is why I introduced the Green Energy Education Act. This legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to partner with the National Science Foundation to support graduate education and curriculum development to advance DOE's broad energy-technology development mission. Working through NSF, DOE will help develop the next generation of engineers and architects to produce buildings, incorporating the latest energy-efficient buildings and technologies.

In order to reduce the likelihood of duplicative and wasteful programs, this bill allows for the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to combine their efforts to find workable solutions to the issues surrounding building efficiency that can be transferred to the marketplace. Specifically, H.R. 957 will authorize DOE's Office of Science and Applied Energy Technology Programs to contribute funds to NSF's successful graduate education and research program.

This bill also authorizes the DOE to contribute to NSF's curriculum development activities in order to improve the ability of engineers and architects to design and to construct more efficient and durable buildings.

So let me, once again, thank the chairman for allowing this to come forward to the House floor, and I urge my colleagues to support this important step towards increasing America's energy independence.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the budget resolution that the majority is forcing on this House and the American people. This budget is an irresponsible and unwise increase in Federal taxes with borrowing and spending that will double the national debt and place a $50,000 burden on each American.

The budget proposes to spend nearly $4 trillion over the next year that America simply doesn't have. It also lays the groundwork for radical changes that will further prolong this recession by increasing government control of health care and increasing taxes on small businesses and anyone who uses electricity or gasoline.

This budget maxes out America's credit card and buries future generations in a mountain of debt. This budget and its massive increase in borrowing and spending will lead to higher taxes and return us to big government.

Simply put, Republicans want more freedom for Americans. Democrats want more government control over our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 730, the Nuclear Forensic and Attribution Act. This act deals with the process of determining the source of confiscated nuclear material. It is a necessary component of our defense as it could deter states from aiding terrorists' efforts to carry out nuclear terrorism.

One need only look to the A.Q. Khan network and its proliferation to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, to know how important this bill and this provision is.

In the last Congress we held hearings on this bill in the Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology Subcommittee, which I was the ranking member. I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Schiff, for working in a bipartisan manner to incorporate some of our suggestions, including a provision that I requested to provide scholarships and fellowships for those pursuing careers in technical nuclear forensics. As we all know, America needs to incentivize more young people to go into highly technical professions such as these. The workforce involved in nuclear forensics, in particular, has been evaporating for the past 30 years. Without a qualified workforce, we cannot attain the level of preparedness we need.

This bill will reinvigorate the workforce pipeline to guarantee the Nation a resource of technical experts in this critical field, and strengthen America's attribution capabilities. To ensure a worthwhile return on public investment, the bill mandates a 2-year commitment of service within the Federal technical nuclear forensics workforce after graduation for fellows of the scholarship program.

Again, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Schiff, for introducing this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention a Trojan horse for billions of dollars in pork spending under the guise of a stimulus. This $1 trillion bill is designed to spend taxpayer money on programs that have nothing to do with creating jobs. It takes a step toward government-controlled health care and takes limits off of welfare spending to create endless handouts.

This should be about creating jobs, not about making work. We can do this with long-term, meaningful tax cuts. The President's own economic advisers say the Republican plan will create twice the jobs for half the cost.

We cannot spend our way out of debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that long-term, this bill will cause more harm than good. Yet Democrats intend to spend the equivalent of $1 million a day for the next 3,000 years. The hardworking people in my district are also hurting from this economy. But under this bill, their tax dollars will only dig a deeper hole for us to climb out of.