Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,342,898,467,069.07.

On January 6, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,471,720,775.27 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,342,909,569,328.74.

On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,484,223,034.94 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,342,954,633,916.80.

On January 6, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,694,528,887,622.61 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,342,965,850,128.20.

On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,540,103,834.40 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,342,977,065,892.73.

On January 6, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,551,319,598.93 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,343,021,848,987.23.

On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,596,102,693.43 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to renew a discussion of an ongoing situation which requires our attention.

The expropriation of the Half Moon Bay Resort in Antigua, owned and developed by a group of American citizens since 1971, was entered into the Congressional Record almost three years ago by my predecessor, the Hon. Thomas Tancredo (September 24, 2008--E1891).

I would remind this House that the expropriation of this internationally recognized Resort has been the subject of ongoing legal proceedings from 2000 to June 2007, when the Privy Council in London allowed the Government of Antigua to ``forcibly acquire'' the property under its sovereign right of eminent domain, provided the owners' rights to payment of compensation were equally upheld.

Since that date, four years ago, the dispossessed owners have had to initiate a number of legal actions against the Government of Antigua to move the process of arriving at compensation as prescribed by Antigua's own laws and Constitution.

At this point, three issues still remain before the Courts: two in the Eastern Caribbean High Court and one before the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. The subject matter of the cases have to do with the value of the property as established by a Government appointed Assessment Board, and with the owners' Constitutional Right to ``fair compensation within a reasonable time.''

By request of the Attorney General, representing the Government in each of these cases, the hearings scheduled for dates in the first half of this year have been adjourned without a return date being set.

The hearing before the Court of Appeal may occur during that court's next sitting in Antigua in September, but the Attorney General has already ignored a filing deadline ordered by that body, which may cause further postponement of that hearing.

Meanwhile, Antigua's Ministers have announced various agreements that are being signed with developers for the Half Moon Bay property. Even more outrageous is a statement released to the Antiguan press by the Attorney General (who is also Antigua's Minister of Justice and Minister of Legal Affairs) that such re-development can legally commence prior to any compensation being paid to the dispossessed American owners.

It is an established fact that expropriation of American-owned property and business is a breach of the Caribbean Economic Basin Recovery Act (CBERA) and by ignoring the rights of the owners to prompt and fair compensation, the Government of Antigua has also breached the WTO International Trade and Investment Rules.

I urge the President, as mandated by the terms of the CBERA, to suspend Antigua's benefits and rights accorded to preferred trading partners.

While the financial effect of such alienation may be negligible, the political aspect of recognizing the breach is essential to maintain respect for the treaty and its signatories. Our citizens deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is $14,343,033,186,678.55.

On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.

This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,607,440,384.75 since then.

This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and all future Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, war is not predictable. We have men and women today engaged in combat. And I am a combat veteran with the United States Marine Corps. I served in the first gulf war, and I served in the Iraq war. I wish that war was predictable. I wish we knew what the enemy was going to do and when they were going to do it, but we don't know that. This is a dedicated fund to the global war on terror. It provides flexibility that is necessary for our commanders in the field at this time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment and would hope that it would be voted down.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as we speak, our marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen are fighting for freedom in some of the toughest places imaginable. A vote for this resolution is a vote to pull the support out from under our troops and to leave a legacy of failure in Afghanistan. I urge against supporting this amendment.

Although I applaud the bravery and skill of the personnel who brought Osama bin Laden to justice, it is important to remember that this is not justification to abandon our efforts to increase the security in Afghanistan. The men and women of our military are working tirelessly to increase the proficiency of Afghan security forces, but to transition lead responsibility for security to them is irresponsible at this time. The Afghan security forces did not suddenly become more proficient because of the death of Osama bin Laden. I am strongly supportive of transitioning responsibility to the Afghan security forces, but only when they are fully prepared to assume that responsibility.

I agree that nation-building should not be a principal tool for achieving America's national security objectives. Such campaigns are too expensive in both blood and treasure, particularly given the circumstances our Nation currently faces. However, this is not an excuse to negate the sacrifices our troops have made or the progress they have won in Afghanistan.

I believe that establishing an arbitrary time line for withdrawal will actually hobble any efforts for a political reconciliation with the Taliban. If they are certain that our forces are leaving before the currently planned transition time line of 2014, they lose all incentive to work with us and the Afghan Government on a political solution.

What this amendment, in fact, does, though, is cuts off funding for the development of Afghan security forces. Our entire exit strategy is based on developing Afghan security forces so that they are strong enough to allow us to pull our forces out to complete a transition whereby they assume operational control by 2014.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

We have three security objectives in Afghanistan. The first is to make sure the Taliban don't take over the entire country. The second is to keep al Qaeda out of the country. And the third is to have a permissive environment from which we can strike targets in Pakistan at will, as we did with Osama bin Laden.

Cutting the legs under the current strategy of giving them the capability of standing up their own security forces completely undermines where we are right now and undermines the President's goals of being able to do that transfer of operational control by 2014.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the Pakistanis are a troubled ally. They are an unstable Islamic country with extremist tendencies and a country that has nuclear weapons. The funding that we are talking about right now is that which is for training them in counterinsurgency operations.

We have troops in combat at this time in Afghanistan. The Taliban, the Afghan Taliban who are fighting our forces in the field oftentimes have sanctuary in Pakistan. We are trying to stand up a Pakistani military that is not simply exclusively engaged or exclusively focused on a conventional war with India but is able to launch counterinsurgency operations, particularly in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I think this funding is critical so long as we have troops in the field in Afghanistan that we seek to maintain, or certainly increase the capability of the Pakistani military counterinsurgency operations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and would urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Facilitating American Security Through Energy Resources Act--The FASTER Act. This legislation will require the Department of the Interior to increase and accelerate the approval of high-potential onshore oil and gas permits located on Federal lands.

The current Administration has delayed, canceled, and reduced domestic energy production. The proof is in the numbers: in 2008 there were over 2,400 new oil and natural gas leases issued on Bureau of Land Management land and 2.6 million acres leased for production, but in 2010 the number of new leases issued dropped to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million. In exchange for this massive reduction, Administrative officials only offer distant hope for renewable resources. This is extremely troubling.

My bill would require Department of the Interior officials to identify, in consultation with industry, leases that have the highest energy potential and expeditiously move them through the permitting process.

The Bureau of Land Management claims that it takes, on average, 206 days to process a drilling permit application, but in reality the actual waiting time for many businesses is closer to two years. With the price of gas hovering around $4 per gallon in this fragile economic recovery, the economic damage caused by that wait time is completely unacceptable.

Just this week the President acknowledged the energy crisis we are facing, and moved to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But this is the shortest of short term solutions, and will do nothing to address the structural problems facing our need to secure our national energy supply.

The combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal resources of the United States are the largest in the world, and much of it is on Federal land. Our country's abundant natural resources represent not just tens of trillions of dollars, but also millions of high-paying jobs.

I served two combat tours of duty in the Middle East with the Marine Corps and saw firsthand how volatile this region was then. It's even less stable now. We cannot afford to be dependent on these increasingly unstable nations for so much of our energy, particularly when we have such vast resources here at home. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

In listening to the opposition, the statements against this legislation, it would make it sound like the EAC, the Election Assistance Commission, is a branch of the Justice Department, that it's there to enforce the right to vote. It doesn't do any of that at all.

The primary goal for the Election Assistance Commission was, after the Florida recount, the problems there in the 2000 election, that according to the Help America Vote Act, that the States such as Colorado that I was the Secretary of State in, were going to have to have a voter registration system that would be interactive, interactive database, to make sure that there wasn't fraud, that there wasn't duplicative registrations; and that the EAC would be the conduit for Federal resources grants to States to be able to facilitate that, and to make sure that that was carried out by the States. And that was for the 2008 Presidential election, long since done, long accomplished.

As to the EAC, which has no ability to mandate anything to States, but as an advisory tool, election officials across this country don't utilize it. There are associations that provide those best practices at every level of elections, from the county clerks to the Secretaries of State. And so this is an agency who's primary purpose is long since over with, and we can transfer the remaining function over to the Federal Elections Commission. And I rise in strong support for H.R. 672 and would urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 672.

Today our national debt is 14.344 trillion dollars. Any time we have the opportunity to save taxpayers $33 million over five years, while improving the efficiency of our federal government, we should take it.

Those against this bill have said that elections officials from across the country have called for the agency to be protected. Well, I happen to have been a Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, and I am calling for this Agency to be eliminated. In fact, the National Association of Secretaries of State has passed two resolutions calling for the EAC's termination.

The EAC's election research function is obsolete. It has completed 4 of the 5 federally mandated election studies, and the one outstanding study is six years overdue and mired in interagency controversy.

The agency spends over 50% of its budget on administrative costs. EAC's budget request for 2012 is for 5.4 million dollars to manage programs totaling 3.4 million dollars.

The EAC does not register voters, nor does it have any enforcement authority over laws governing voter registration.

This bill will transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its voting system testing and certification program, to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is better equipped to perform these functions more efficiently.

It is time to, as this bill does, terminate the EAC promptly and responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would help reestablish a competitive rare earth domestic supply chain as part of my ongoing effort to avert a rare earth supply crisis in the United States.

There are 17 rare earth minerals that are used in many advanced technologies, from computers to precision guided munitions to components necessary for the production of renewable energies. They are dispersed widely around the earth's crust but rarely in concentrations that are commercially viable.

With 97 percent of the world's supply of rare earth metals, China has proven to be an unreliable trading partner. Not only has their government ordered a reduction in exports of rare earth metals, but they have used their near monopoly status as leverage on unrelated issues.

My bill, the Rare Earth Policy Task Force and Materials Act, requires the Department of the Interior to establish a government-wide task force to review and report back on all U.S. laws, regulations or policies that discourage the reestablishment of a domestic rare earth industry.

It also calls for a comprehensive plan for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application to ensure the long-term, secure, and sustainable supply of rare earth materials for the United States. In addition, the plan includes proposals on how to promote recycling possibilities and alternative materials that could act as substitutes. The measures were also part of the RESTART Act of 2011, which I introduced earlier this year.

There is simply no reason to be almost 100 percent reliant on China for rare earth metals when we have such abundant resources here at home. I urge my colleagues to quickly move this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stand with the American people in wanting to make sure that our returning servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan are taken care of.

The signature wound in this war has emerged to be post-traumatic stress disorder. Since 2008, almost 100,000 claims for disability based on post-traumatic stress disorder have been awarded at a tremendous cost; but the concern is, again, that these veterans are taken care of. In July of last year, new rules were promulgated as to the eligibility criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. What they did was to no longer require the servicemembers to relate a specific combat occurrence or occurrences to their post-traumatic stress disorders.

It is my belief that these rules are too loosely written and that what we ought to have is more definition to say that someone who has never served in a combat zone should not be eligible for post-traumatic stress disorder disability benefits--not treatment. Certainly, one would be eligible for treatment, but I understand that this amendment will require the Veterans Administration to create a definition and to make decisions on something they currently don't do, which is: service in a combat zone.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the chairman has raised a similar issue. I certainly agree with him and understand about the issue of expanding the definition in this amendment to reflect terrorist activity that would be beyond a combat zone. Again, certainly, treatment would be available. We're not talking about that. We're merely talking about disability compensation. I probably disagree with you, as a combat veteran myself, on the ground side of your UAV example.

I realize that the amendment is out of order because of the fact that it really impedes on authorizing versus appropriating. Certainly, it is my intent--and I'd be happy to work with the gentleman from Georgia as well as with the gentleman from Texas--to come up with a definition that makes sure that we take care of those veterans who are most in need.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 1380.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McGovern amendment. I would certainly agree that we have gone beyond our security objectives in Afghanistan by building the economy that they never had at U.S. taxpayers' expense, by trying to restructure their society, and giving them a government that doesn't reflect the political culture of the country. But at the same time, we have legitimate security objectives in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban out, to keep it from taking over the country, to keep al Qaeda out, and to have a permissive environment in which to conduct strikes into Pakistan at targets such as Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda and Taliban leaders as they present themselves.

But this amendment speaks to an expeditious withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan at a time when we are very far down the path of a current strategy for which the President says that we will already reduce our footprint in Afghanistan this summer, as well as shift operational control to Afghan security forces by 2014. This would pull the rug out under that entire strategy. I would urge a ``no'' vote from my colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this committee and in particular their support for the issues I have been pursuing.

Including in this en bloc package are two amendments of mine, which I wanted to speak on briefly.

Amendment 48 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congress on the feasibility of recycling rare earth elements used by the Department. This amendment, along with a provision in the chairman's mark requiring a Rare Earth Inventory Plan, are important steps in reconstituting the Nation's ability to access secure, reliable, and competitive market for rare earth products used to support our national security.

I have been particularly troubled by reports from the Department of Defense indicating that they are not concerned about our Nation's near total reliance on China for access to these critical materials. Last September's rare earth embargo of Japan by the Chinese should serve as an important reminder that this dependence leaves our military vulnerable to supply disruptions should a foreign nation choose to take advantage of its dominance in the market.

Our nation does not need to accept this dependence. With ample reserves in the United States, including Alaska, Colorado and California, we have the potential to meet our own demand for these materials, but steps must be taken in Congress to level the playing field in this market.

This amendment will require the Department of Defense to examine the feasibility of recycling rare earth materials that are currently disposed of. This is not only good stewardship, it is an important part of a complete plan to reconstitute our domestic rare earth industry and to meet our national security needs.

I have also introduced an amendment that will pave the way for meaningful reform of the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance program. This is an excellent program that provides educational opportunities to our servicemembers. When I was a young enlisted infantryman in the Army, I took advantage of this program.

When I was a young enlisted infantryman in the Army, I took advantage of this program to begin my own college education, but it has room to be perfected.

A change in cost sharing has caused funding for the Tuition Assistance program to increase from $157 million in FY 2001 to $531 million in FY 2010. Cost per credit hour of distance education, for instance, has risen dramatically since 2001. The services have had to deny tuition assistance benefits to some servicemembers because of the growing cost of this program.

My amendment calls for a study by the Department of Defense on ways to reform this program, including reinstating the 25/75 percent cost share. I believe that with ``skin in the game'' servicemembers will have incentives for high academic performance and that more servicemembers will be eligible for tuition assistance benefits.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1540.