Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. Res. 316? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.

The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 1249 would impose both intergovernmental and private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act on certain patent applications and other entities and would also be preempted from the authority of State courts to hear certain patent cases.

However, based upon information from the Patent and Trademark Office, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the costs of complying with those mandates to State, local, and tribal governments would fall far below the annual threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Because the costs of complying with the mandates fall below the annual threshold, the waiver is prophylactic in nature.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what's amazing about this is that we're going to stop the debate on the House floor about very important legislation that needs to move forward, both of those pieces of legislation. And so we need to have open debate on the House floor with opposing viewpoints, with the ability to have amendments added on the floor, which we have allowed in this rule.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 316 provides a structured rule for consideration of both H.R. 1249 and H.R. 2021. The rule provides for ample debate on both of these bills and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 316. As I said before, this rule provides for consideration of two different bills: H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, and H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. Although these bills share one rule, the House will have opportunity to consider these pieces of legislation separately, and the rule ensures that we'll have full, transparent debate on both of these bills.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution delegates Congress the exclusive authority over U.S. patent law. However, Congress has not enacted a comprehensive patent reform for nearly 60 years, since the Patent Act of 1952.

The America Invents Act makes significant substantive, procedural, and technical changes to current U.S. patent law that is designed to put American inventors on a level playing field with their global competitors.

I've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about concerns they have with the America Invents Act. In fact, I have some of those same concerns myself. As colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and some on this side of the aisle, are going to point out, this rule waives CutGo.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hate that we have to waive CutGo to bring this legislation to the House floor. However, I need to stress to Members on both sides of the aisle that even though this rule may waive CutGo, it does not increase the budget or its deficit.

The Judiciary Committee wrote a bill that violated the House rule by appropriating when it moved patent fees from discretionary spending to mandatory spending. The manager's amendment fixes the Judiciary Committee's violation of those House rules. The manager's amendment does this at the insistence of the Rules Committee and the leadership.

This is the right thing to do. The Constitution makes it clear that the power of the purse must stay in Congress, and I believe abdicating agency funding to PTO would have clearly violated the Constitution.

However, by moving money back to discretionary spending, Chairman Smith's manager's amendment does, through a technicality, violate CutGo. Again, let me remind my colleagues that while the manager's amendment does require a technical waiver of CutGo, this does not increase the deficit. Let me say it again. This does not increase the deficit.

In fact, Budget Committee Chairman Ryan supports this solution because, one, the manager's amendment ensures that the funding for PTO stays on the discretionary side where it is subject to appropriation, budget enforcement, and oversight. Two, this is the only technical waiver of the CutGo rule because the provisions of the manager's amendment were not included in the reported bill.

As I said before, I don't like it that we need to waive CutGo. However, it is the right thing to do so we can ensure, institutionally, that the power of the purse continues to lie with Congress, where our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

Additionally, I'm proud to say this is the first time ever, the first time ever this rule actually specifically designates 20 minutes for debate devoted exclusively to the constitutionality concerning H.R. 1249.

We opened the 112th Congress by reading the U.S. Constitution. As a member of the Constitution Caucus, I believe we can't let the conversation end there. Therefore, I'm proud of this rule, which continues to reflect Congress' commitment to our Nation's foundation, the Constitution.

But this rule isn't just for H.R. 1249; it's also for H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas contain 27.9 billion--that's with a ``b''--barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These resources, if developed, could produce up to 1 million barrels of oil per day for domestic energy consumption.

However, while companies may have drilling leases to these lands, they continue to be mired in redtape and bureaucratic delays related to the Clean Air Act. This bill helps cut through these delays.

H.R. 2021 eliminates the permitting back-and-forth that occurs between the Environmental Protection Agency and its Environmental Appeals Board. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and then rescinded by the EPA and its review board, under H.R. 2021, the EPA will be required to take final action, either granting or denying the permit, within 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the EPA keeping us from taking advantage of our own natural resources. We're the only country in the world that does that.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has put their green agenda and EPA bureaucracy over American jobs and the ability for our energy security. H.R. 2021 helps bring an end to those irresponsible policies.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Colorado. We want to make sure that innovators like him don't have to wait 5 years to get something to market.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing when you hear the arguments in regards to CutGo that our friends are raising today; but in the 111th Congress, PAYGO was the flavor of the week, and that was violated eight times. And of those eight times, it actually increased, increased spending, and added to our deficit, each and every one of those.

This waiver of CutGo does neither. It merely is a technical ability for us to hear those two underlying pieces of legislation so we can have open debate on the House floor and have the amendment process be intact.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just as a response, the letter that we have from the Congressional Budget Office of May 26 talks about ``CBO estimates enacting the bill would reduce net direct spending by $725 million.'' So I am not sure if we have the same letter. But this is the letter that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest those on the other side of the aisle may look at the same letter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment fixes a rules violation. It requires a technical waiver of CutGo to move the patent fees back to the discretionary side. Those fees were going to be put into mandatory spending. Now it is back to discretionary.

Of course the discretionary spending went up, but think about this: the fees that are utilized to pay for this come from those that actually apply for patents. The money is going to be utilized to make sure that folks like Mr. Polis don't have to wait 5 years. These are dollars collected for specific reasons. The reason is to allow us to become innovators again, to allow us to compete with China.

We need to do things in America to make us stronger; and while people might rail against the CutGo waiver, let's talk about the real issues that face America, and that is energy, in regards to finding more energy, bringing it to market, whether it is oil or natural gas. Those are the issues that are up. And it is about invention. It is about allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to actually get back to work and do the right things and have some ability to look forward in regards to what they can do in regards to moving forward the process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments. The key to this is allowing this bill to go forward. The key to this is allowing amendments to come to the floor and have open debate. Even Mr. Rohrabacher has some amendments that are going to be coming to this floor to have debate in regards to the merits; debate in regards to what is the will of the House. That's the reason we have the time set aside on each of these bills, so those that are opposed to it can be heard and those that have amendments that want to modify what the underlying legislation is can be heard. And issues about constitutionality. That's why this rule sets aside specific time to talk about the constitutionality of the America Invents Act. That's the beauty of this building that we're in and the organization and the institution that we represent, is the ability to have open debate, both sides of the aisle. It doesn't matter. It's about open debate and about changing and allowing us to hear differing opinions and different views.

So I respect those on the other side of the aisle. I respect those Members within the Republican side of the aisle. I respect the difference of opinion. That's what families are all about, so we can have an open discussion and exchange. That's what this rule does. It allows us to hear on both of these bills an open and frank discussion about the merits of each, the merits of any amendments as to how we want to change or modify.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, just as a clarification, the Rules Committee has the obligation to make sure that they move this through the House so it can come up, so these bills can come up. It's not about combining two bills; it's about a rule that allows two bills to be heard separately. That's all this does.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

I don't like the idea that we have to waive CutGo any more than anyone else in this Chamber; however, if we want to maintain Congress's constitutional ability to appropriate funds, it is necessary.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 441 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Gibson

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 448, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I reclaim my time, and yield to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time, and yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I reclaim my time, if you would allow me to speak just for a second.

States and counties and cities have figured out that they don't have the money to spend. America has got to figure out, the Federal Government has to figure out that we in fact have to cut spending. I hear this across the aisle all the time, that we all agree that America has a debt of over $14 trillion and a deficit of over $1.4 trillion.

We hear the same arguments, but we never hear how are we going to do it, other than one gentleman that was up here earlier that said we just need to raise taxes. That is the answer to all of our problems. That is not the answer. The answer to our problems is really about using the dollars that we have, spending them efficiently and looking at ways to maybe work harder with less.

I will tell you, as a sheriff, we had to cut our budget and we worked harder with less. And, do you know what? The Federal Government doesn't believe in that. The Federal Government believes that how we solve a problem is to throw more people at it, to spend more money. And I think what the American people were telling us, what the American people told us back in November, was that we have got to get our house in order. We have got to get our spending under control. It is not about taxing us to death. It is not about overregulating us. It is about bringing common sense back into the Federal Government that has been sorely lacking.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, every night millions of families sit down to meals where ingredients are produced here in the United States. The Agricultural Research Service is a vital part of our Federal Government's continued efforts to help farmers, producers and, ultimately, consumers.

I firmly believe that the Federal Government has a terrible spending problem and that tough decisions must be made.

I have the utmost respect for Chairman Kingston and all of the members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. They have done a great job of crafting this piece of legislation.

My amendment would reduce $2.5 million from the Foreign Agricultural Service and transfer $2 million of that money to the Agricultural Research Service. By adding these funds back to ARS's budget, we will be helping guarantee that our farmers remain competitive with farmers from other nations. We should be supporting increased food production here in America and maintain our domestic independence in this area of our economy and not increasing our usage and demand for foreign agricultural imports. There is still important work to be done by ARS, and that must be continued. There have been significant cuts made to the budget of ARS that jeopardize research already in progress.

During my 5 months in Congress, I have had the great pleasure to meet and interact with many farmers and ranchers in my district. These men and women are some of the hardest workers that I know. They are the first up and the last to go to bed. Research must continue to be funded in order to guarantee that America's agriculture community is independent, that it remains the most productive and the greatest agricultural producer in the world.

ARS's work has resulted in an oat-based cholesterol fighter, a replacement for blood plasma, a biofungicide to help prevent apple and pear rot--and I'm sure on grapes from California--and is a method to increase production of penicillin and other antibiotics.

As you can see, ARS's research successes are not just limited to the agricultural community, but they help all Americans. So my goal is to make sure that America remains strong as an agricultural producer, that we don't outsource agricultural production to other nations to provide our food, and maintain a safe food source for Americans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We have withdrawn any other amendment. There is no other amendment.

Sir, there is no other amendment. We withdraw that amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

Our goal with regards to strengthening ARS is to make sure that we strengthen the American ability to produce goods within this country. It is simple and focused. It's about keeping American agriculture strong. While we may be asking to reduce what we send overseas, I think it's more important that we have a strong agricultural base here.

I will tell you, just in my home State, that agriculture accounts for over a third of the income to the State of Florida. It is one of the three legs that support Florida. One is tourism, the other one is industry, but the third one that has been there for Florida in this downturn economy has been agriculture. So our goal is to make sure that Americans can depend upon American sources of food that are safe for Americans.

I thank the gentleman.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 33: Page 9, line 5, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 17: Page 48, line 11, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $17,500,000)''.

Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $17,500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

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

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 19: Page 9, line 5, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

I would like to thank my friend and Rules Committee member, Mr. Scott, for the opportunity to speak in support of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, we are already fighting a war on two fronts--Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops and resources are already spread very thin.

On March 19, the President announced that U.S. military forces had joined with our NATO allies to commence operations in Libya. The President did this not only without congressional authorization but without even consulting Congress on the matter. For the first 10 days of this operation, it was under U.S. command before shifting control of all ongoing operations to NATO on March 30. To this day, the President still hasn't come to Congress to ask for formal approval. When the President first committed our military to operations in Libya, he said we were talking about days, not months. Today, we are talking about months, not days.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has put us in a trick bag with our NATO allies. He knew he was committing our military forces and assets to a mission that would be unpopular, unjustifiable and unconstitutional. So, in an attempt to avoid Congress and Article I of the U.S. Constitution, President Obama transferred operations over to NATO. Although we may not be in control of the mission, there is no doubt that NATO could not move forward without U.S. assets. As my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will point out, 93 percent of the cruise missiles, 66 percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships, and 50 percent of the planes are estimated to have cost this Nation over $700 million to date.

I will support our troops wherever the President sends them. However, I cannot support President Obama's decision to commit our military forces to operations without the constitutionally required congressional authorization.

I thank my friend, my fellow Floridian and Rules member, Mr. Webster, for the opportunity to speak in support of this rule and also in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2055, which appropriates funds for military construction and for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, Florida's Fifth Congressional District, which I represent, is home to over 116,000 veterans, one of the highest veteran populations of any district in America. The funds we're talking about here today have a direct effect on the lives of the men and women who have proudly served our Nation in uniform. This bill provides full funding for VA and health and educational benefits. It also funds vocational rehabilitation training for those troops who come home from war with service-connected disabilities.

Thanks to programs like VetSuccess, these veterans can work with job counselors to develop the skills necessary to find meaningful civilian employment. These programs also help connect veterans who are unable to work and give them additional training to allow them to be independent living in America.

Given the number of veterans living in my district, I'm lucky enough to have visited a large number of VA health and benefits facilities throughout my district. During these trips, I have had the opportunity to see and visit with a number of physicians, nurses, and staff which these funds help keep on the mission of protecting and taking care of our veterans on a daily basis. I've also had the opportunity to speak with the true American heroes, those who answered the call of duty and put their lives on the line to protect our country, our way of life, and our freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation owe our veterans a debt that can never be repaid. However, as Members of Congress, we can ensure that we keep our promises to our troops. H.R. 2055 fully funds the benefits that give our veterans back a small measure of what they truly deserve.

As a member of the Rules Committee, I am proud of this rule. We are continuing to make the 112th Congress the most open, transparent Congress the American people have seen in years. In fact, this may be the first rule that I've seen that was a voice vote unanimously approving the rule. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this underlying legislation that this rule will bring to the House floor.

I spoke about visiting hospitals within my district. At Haley Hospital, the VA hospital in Tampa, I've had the opportunity to meet a number of those who have had serious traumatic brain injuries, amputees, those that have the ability to try to get their lives back on track after giving so much to this Nation.

I had them point to the stars on my chest here that indicate that I have three sons serving, and they were more concerned about me as a dad than their own physical infirmities that they're fighting to try to overcome. As the father of three sons who are currently serving in the United States Army, we've been blessed as a family and as a Nation, and as my oldest son came back from 15 months in Afghanistan in combat, but for the grace of God he came back whole, not like so many others who have served this country and given so much.

H.R. 2055 is a good bill, and this rule is a good rule. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them both.

I would like to thank my friend from New York (Mr. Reed), also a Rules Committee member that I serve with, for the opportunity to support this rule and support the underlying legislation, H.R. 2017, which appropriates funds for our Nation's Homeland Security operations for 2012.

Just a comment: I thought that's what we are here to talk about, and so we are going to go back on track in regards to where we should be. As a member of the Rules Committee, I am proud of this rule. It is the first open rule in 4 years, Mr. Speaker, and that's because of you.

It's a continuation of our promise to the American people that we are committed to bringing openness and free-flowing debate to this Chamber as a service to the American public. And just like the rule keeps our promises to the American people, so does the underlying legislation.

It keeps our promise to reduce spending, to narrow the size and scope of the Federal Government. It also keeps our promise to provide those men and women who work day in and day out to keep our Nation safe with the tools and the resources they need.

I have heard a lot about local first responders in connection with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I spent my entire career in law enforcement. I spent the last 40 years as a cop, and the last 10 of those years I served as a sheriff of a county in Florida.

You don't need to tell me about what our local first responders need. I know it firsthand, I have lived it. And I can tell you this: We need to follow the local example that those folks in Florida and across this Nation and States have shown us. Our local police and firefighters know how to do more with less, one thing the Federal Government has never quite grasped.

Would you like to have more money? Sure we would. But they understand our Nation is in a dire fiscal situation, and what they want more than anything else is for America to be here for their future and their children and grandchildren's future.

When I was sheriff, I was faced with budget shortages, and I made tough cuts. I eliminated programs I'm sure that I would have loved to have kept in place, but they didn't meet the core mission that I was elected to do. That's how local government works, Mr. Speaker, and Washington needs to learn from local governments in regards to how to get their act together as it relates to spending.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2017 is a good bill, and I applaud the Appropriations Committee for their commitment to our homeland security. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and support the open rule.

Mr. Chair, in keeping with the spirit of the Warrior Ethos, on May 2, 2005, the Department of the Army authorized the creation of the Combat Action Badge. The Combat Action Badge provides special recognition to Soldiers who personally engaged the enemy, or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations.

The bayonet and grenade on the badge are associated with active combat. The oak wreath on the badge signifies strength and loyalty.

Unfortunately, current Army policy limits eligibility to those individuals who meet the criteria of the Combat Action Badge after September 18, 2001. In doing so, it overlooks the thousands of veterans who made similar sacrifices in previous wars.

This legislation would expand the eligibility for the Combat Action Badge to include those who served honorably from December 7, 1941 to September 18, 2001.

Additionally, in accordance with the wishes of those veterans who first pursued this legislation, the costs of the Combat Action Badge would be borne by these individuals, not the military. Therefore, this measure costs American taxpayers nothing.

In closing, it is important to mention that our nation's veterans have made tremendous sacrifices in defense of our freedom. As a nation, we owe our veterans a debt that can never fully be repaid.

Mr. Speaker:

Whereas, May is National Elder American Month; and

Whereas, the longer, healthier lives older Americans are living have allowed them to be more engaged in our society and contribute even further to the country for which they have already given so much; and

Whereas, older Americans continue to play a significant role in supporting and enriching our communities; and

Whereas, an appreciation for seniors and the sacrifices they have made for our Nation must be reflected through our efforts to meet their needs and goals; and

Whereas, this month citizens and leaders gather to acknowledge the many ways seniors have improved the lives of Americans; and

Whereas, the Partners Club at Oak Hill Hospital is holding a special event to recognize the occasion;

Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Fifth Congressional District of Florida, do hereby express my support for efforts to recognize elder Americans in Florida and across this Nation.

I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions), with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, H. Res. 264, and the underlying legislation, H.R. 754.

About a week and a half ago, we all learned that justice had been served: justice for our civil servants working in the Kenya and Tanzania Embassies in 1998, justice for our troops serving on the USS Cole in 2000 and justice for the innocent victims of September 11, 2001.

After many years of hard, stealthy intelligence work, we found Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan. Based upon this information, a highly trained team of Navy SEALs came in, performed its mission and rid the world of one of history's most evil and notorious terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, this would not have been possible without the work of our hardworking intelligence community. It was President Bush who laid the groundwork for this intelligence that ultimately made all of this possible, and it was President Obama who put this information together and made the gutsy call that only a Commander in Chief can make. Both of these men deserve our thanks for the work they did to make this possible.

It is our duty as Members of Congress to ensure that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to continue to keep our Nation safe. That is what H.R. 754 does. As a prior law enforcement officer, I can attest to the value of good Intel in apprehending those who would do dastardly things to our country.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule, to support the underlying bill, and to support the intelligence community, which is keeping this Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to get something off my chest.

Last night, the President hosted a poetry event at the White House. The invitation of one of his guests has sparked a lot of anger, and let me explain why.

The musician wrote a song in which he vocally supports a convicted cop killer and her escape from jail. Oh, by the way, she's still at large, living in Cuba, living the good life. It may not mean much to some, but I've got a serious problem with this.

Before coming to Congress, I spent 37 years as a cop. I lost friends in the line of duty, and I'm not the only one. As we speak here right now, police officers--thousands of them--are coming to Washington, D.C., to go to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Tomorrow night, those men and women will attend a candlelight vigil to honor those law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This is the 23rd Annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. This year, it will also include a 36-year-old father of three, who was struck down last Tuesday night.

The White House press secretary said the President opposes the lyrics in question but that they do not represent the sum total of the artist's work.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure I don't care. It's not the point.

The point is that you've got thousands of men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day for this great Nation, just like our troops, and the President invited to the White House someone who supports and glorifies a convicted killer of a police officer--an officer who volunteered to protect his community. He was a husband and a father. The loss was not only to that community but to America.

Our law enforcement officers are the first line of defense for America. Mr. President, can you not see what this means to the people who put their lives on the line every day? It's a slap in the face--sum total or not.