Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is another necessary step in addressing the national imperative of reducing our debt while also keeping the government operating. Essential funds like homeland security are sustained under this bill and sustained in a fiscally responsible way.

Within the more than $6 billion of spending reductions contained in this bill is a rescission of $107 million to Customs and Border Protection, a rescission of unobligated balances requested by the administration for FY11, supported by a minority, passed by this body as part of H.R. 1, and also included in the Senate Appropriations Committee's recently reported bill.

But this bill also sends a very clear signal to the White House and to the Senate. As the Speaker and Chairman Rogers have clearly stated, no one wants a government shutdown. The only people that are talking about a shutdown of the government are those who are avoiding the tough decisions and seeking to shift blame from their own failure to act.

Instead of excuses, the American people want results: less spending and a leaner, more effective government. And that's exactly what this temporary stopgap bill delivers.

I couldn't agree more with what the chairman just stated just a couple of minutes ago. Congress didn't get its work done, and the Senate has yet to provide a viable alternative to the House-passed H.R. 1, a bill that stands as the only year-long spending measure for FY11 passed by either Chamber of Congress. So complaints about a short-term stopgap bill like this CR ring hollow when the House-passed solution has been on the negotiating table for almost a month.

The President's proposed spending level for FY11 is no longer a viable option, a fact acknowledged by not only the administration itself, but also by both parties in both Chambers of Congress. So the time to get to work and fulfill our duty to the American people is long overdue.

Congress needs to deliver what the American people have so resoundingly demanded. I can only hope that the administration and the Senate will also acknowledge the reality of our Nation's fiscal crisis, demonstrate the resolve to reduce spending significantly below the current FY10 level, and come to the table with a viable budget for the remainder of this year.

The American people demand no less.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding this time to me.

Madam Speaker, as has been pointed out, 2 weeks ago this Chamber voted emphatically to cut spending and to right-size our government. This CR that's before us today is a necessary stopgap that will keep the government operating until we can finalize an agreement on those spending cuts that was contained in H.R. 1.

The homeland security sections of the CR before us today strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's security and, at the same time, keeping our discretionary spending in check. This CR cuts over $264 million in earmarks from the Department of Homeland Security's budget, while at the same time sustaining the current staffing levels of our frontline operating agencies like Border Patrol, CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard, proof that we can cut spending and fund these functions of government that are truly vital.

As I said 2 weeks ago on this floor, the Department of Homeland Security is not immune from fiscal discipline, and no program or agency is beyond the belt-tightening that our government so desperately needs.

By implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland security and fiscal responsibility. Both are serious national security issues that must be dealt with immediately. Through a series of prudent choices, this CR achieves both.

Madam Speaker, this CR is a reasonable first step in addressing our government's fiscal crisis. There is absolutely no reason why the President or our colleagues in the Senate cannot support these overdue spending cuts. The American people are demanding no less.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest sorrow about a tragic attack on American law enforcement that happened earlier this week in Mexico.

On Tuesday afternoon, two agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were attacked by unknown individuals while driving between Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico. Today, I honor the incredible sacrifice of Special Agent Jaime J. Zapata, who lost his life in service of our country.

Special Agent Zapata joined ICE in 2006. He joined one of ICE's offices in Laredo, Texas, where he served on the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Unit, as well as the Border Enforcement Security Task Force. He was most recently detailed to ICE's Attache office in Mexico City. He began his federal law enforcement career with the Department of Homeland Security as a member of the U.S. Border Patrol in Yuma, Arizona. A native of Brownsville, Texas, Special Agent Zapata graduated from the University of Texas at Brownsville in 2005 with a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice.

A second agent who was injured in the attack remains in stable condition. My thoughts and prayers are with him.

These two brave agents gave their all to shield others from harm. They worked tirelessly against dangerous criminal elements. They bravely took dangerous assignments, ultimately making a profound sacrifice.

They were two of the hundreds of ICE personnel around the globe. Honorable agents like these two individuals collaborate with their counterparts in joint efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations. Agents like them give their all day in and day out on fighting money laundering, contraband smuggling, weapons proliferation, forced child labor, human rights violations, intellectual property violations, child exploitation, and human smuggling and trafficking.

An incident like this serves to remind us, as a Nation, how grateful we are for the sacrifices made by these brave men and women every day. The work they do serves to make the public safe and protect the Nation's security.

I know that law enforcement is working closely with the authorities in Mexico to ensure that the perpetrators of this horrible attack are brought to justice as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, I offer my deepest condolences to the family of Special Agent Zapata. He died for a just cause and will forever be remembered as a man of courage and honor.

And a message for the second injured agent: I think I speak for a Nation when I say that I hope, and pray, for your recovery. Words cannot express our thanks for your service.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, there is broad consensus that construction and eventual operation of this facility is crucial to our national security. This language that we have included in the CR will help ensure that we get this project done while existing firm oversight and risk costs are being considered.

We have included rigorous oversight language in the CR requiring the Science and Technology to revise its risk analysis once it has completed 50 percent of the design planning of the facility, at which time it will have fully incorporated the Department's planned biosafety security measures. The CR also provides for the National Academy of Sciences to review the revised analysis.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Madam Chair, let me just say again that there is broad consensus that the construction and eventual operation of this facility are crucial to our national security.

This amendment reflects a well-crafted, stringent oversight requirement that was developed on a bipartisan basis with the ranking member of this subcommittee, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CR that we are debating here, and have been for the last couple of days, strikes the right balance between sustaining programs that are crucial to our Nation's security and keeping our discretionary spending in check.

This CR doesn't make a choice between fiscal discipline and security. It supports both, and it does so in a responsible manner. In fact, the CR significantly reduces the funding available to the Department of Homeland Security by more than $1 billion, and it fully pays for FEMA's $1.6 billion disaster relief shortfall.

Madam Chair, this CR attempts to carefully cut the fat out of the Department of Homeland Security and does so in a way that does not harm vital security operations. The gentleman's amendment cuts everything across the Department, and that is both unnecessary and potentially harmful, especially at a time of heightened threats and terrorist activity.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, let me just reiterate again that the gentleman's proposed cuts just go too far. They would undoubtedly cut and harm border security, transportation security, maritime security, cargo security, cybersecurity, immigration enforcement, and disaster preparedness. The list of crucial programs that would be adversely impacted by this across-the-board amendment goes on and on.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would like to turn to my colleague, Chairman Mica of the Transportation Committee, with an amendment that he has.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say, Mr. Mica, that I completely understand your interest in pushing TSA to meet its mission in a most cost-effective manner.

Because of these concerns, we have placed a number of provisions within the CR, provisions which constrain TSA spending to include a firm cap on the number of airport screeners TSA may hire in FY11. Additionally, we have included a strong oversight provision requiring them to report on their efforts to incorporate more advanced integrated technology into the checkpoints.

Let me add that our subcommittee fully intends to review all of TSA's security and management practices as we prepare for the FY12 Homeland bill. I plan to carry forward and expand within the FY12 bill the oversight that we began with the CR. I would like to work closely with you and your committee in an effort, as we move forward, to try to address these concerns that you shared with us this morning.

Let me just say that we certainly in this country want to strike a balance between having security in this Nation and making sure that we have appropriate oversight.

I appreciate you calling attention to these issues that you mentioned this morning. I can assure you our committee will work with you in trying to work toward doing a better job in oversight for TSA and in making sure we do have the security we need for this country.

We have a cap of 46,000 in this bill.

That is correct.

We are looking at absolutely doing that, yes, sir.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me just clarify that the number of screeners is capped at 46,000 right now.

Let me assure you that we will continue to monitor that to make sure that your concerns from when you were chairman of this subcommittee-- and of course the chairman of the Transportation Committee's concerns-- will be addressed. I appreciate both of your input this morning, and we look forward to working with you both.

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

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to add $510 million to assistance to firefighter grants by devastating the Department of Homeland Security's developing science and technology programs.

It's only prudent that we use this money in a very responsible manner, by forcing the local communities to comply with the original intent of the SAFER programs, by sharing in the cost of hiring their personnel, by creating new jobs, and by committing to retain newly hired firefighters.

In today's lean economy, we cannot use precious taxpayer money to subsidize a local responsibility.

At this time I would like to yield to the past chairman of this subcommittee on Homeland Security and the new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Rogers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

We are prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, as many have said here today, our government has a spending problem, and the American people are demanding that we find a solution. This CR that is before the House today is a step towards finding a solution to that problem.

The homeland security title of this CR strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's security and at the same time keeping our discretionary spending in check. This CR provides a total of $41.5 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security. This funding level is $1 billion, or 2.4 percent, below FY 2010 and $2.1 billion, or 4.8 percent, below the President's FY 2011 request.

In contrast to previous annual spending bills, this CR provides funding for the annual costs of disasters from within the existing budget. So rather than relying upon emergency supplementals, the CR responsibly addresses the $1.6 billion shortfall in disaster relief costs that the President has failed to address in the 2011 budget request. Supporting the cost of security demands truth-in-budgeting, and we are delivering where the President and OMB have failed.

Having said that, the Department of Homeland Security is not immune from fiscal discipline. Underperforming programs have been significantly cut in this CR that we are debating today. Let me add, by implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland security and fiscal responsibility. Both are serious national security issues, and they must be dealt with immediately. And through a series of tough choices, this CR achieves both. That is precisely why this CR includes sufficient funding to sustain critical operations in the front-line agencies such as the CBP, Coast Guard, ICE, the TSA, and the Department's Intelligence Office.

Mr. Chair, homeland security is far too important to be subject to budget gimmicks and inadequate justifications. The homeland security title of this CR responsibly funds programs vital to our Nation's security, and it will help them get back on track from our Federal budget perspective.

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

Mr. Chairman, this CR strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's security and keeping our discretionary spending in check. Let me just say that $300 million is included in this CR for fire equipment, and this only applies to the SAFER grants. As has been stated, there are no funds in the bill for SAFER grants.

Just 5 years ago, this program was funded at $65 million, but last year it had ballooned to $420 million and included a waiver for the cost-share requirements with local governments. In 2009, Congress provided $210 million for the SAFER grants, supporting 1,236 jobs at the high cost of $170,000 per job.

In the just-released FY12 request, the Department of Homeland Security plans to create or retain 2,200 firefighters at a cost of $190,000 per job. This seems unrealistic at a time when our Nation faces serious fiscal constraints. While we all know local budgets are under fiscal pressures, the hiring of local firefighters at a cost of $190,000 per job should not be borne by the Federal Government. These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary to address our out-of-control Federal spending.

Beyond this, the proposed offset is not prudent and ignores the fact that this CR has already cut the Science and Technology Directorate funding. This enormous reduction to a budget that barely amounts to $1 billion would absolutely be devastating.

S&T is the single organization within the Department of Homeland Security that performs research and stimulates and funds related research initiatives within the private sector--to include work underway at the Transportation Security Laboratory in New Jersey and at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The projects that this funding supports are crucial to the homeland mission, and this cut will either significantly slow or end their progress.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I realize the importance that these grants do contribute, and the bottom line right now is we simply can't afford it in the position we're in right now. As we move forward for the FY12 budget, I'll be happy to work with the ranking member of the subcommittee and the gentleman from New Jersey as we move forward to try to work on this. But the bottom line is today we cannot afford this at this point, but I certainly would look forward to working with both of them as we move forward in FY12.

At the end of the day, on the amendment today, I do urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment that we have before us.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 263, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with so many of my colleagues, support H.R. 2, the repeal of President Obama's healthcare law. This legislation will further harm our economy at a time when we desperately need a robust recovery.

The healthcare law is a prime example of how the tax hikes, spending sprees, and government mandates are hurting our economy and making it harder for small businesses to create jobs. That's one reason why we must repeal and replace the law with a common-sense, responsible solution that tries to address the cost of healthcare and provide more coverage to Americans without killing jobs. Removing these barriers will provide the businesses that create new jobs with the certainty they need to hire new employees and get our economy back on track.

Instead of encouraging America's leading job creators, last year's Democrat government takeover of healthcare has and will continue to hurt small businesses with more mandates, new taxes and administrative burdens, as well as higher healthcare costs. For example, the healthcare law requires businesses with more than 50 employees to provide government-approved health care. Businesses that fail to do so will be forced to pay a $2,000 penalty per employee (after the first 30 employees). For a small business employing 50 workers without providing government-approved health insurance, adding one additional worker to the payroll will result in $42,000 in new government penalties.

Over the last 15 years roughly 65 percent of new private-sector jobs have been created by small businesses. A study by the nation's largest small business association, NFIB, estimates that the employer mandate in the healthcare law will destroy 1.6 million jobs. This healthcare law is not the way to help our small business job creators.

In addition, rather than adopting commonsense policies to lower the cost of healthcare, last year's law, will increase costs. The chief actuary for Medicare estimates total healthcare spending will increase by $311 billion over the next decade, more than it would have been without the healthcare law.

With federal spending at the highest level in American history, the economy in a severe recession, and unemployment remaining stubbornly high--another massive government program with more spending, more borrowing and higher taxes will only hurt already struggling American families--not help them. The American people deserve a better plan.

Also, this law doesn't protect the unborn because it doesn't include clear and direct provisions that would prohibit federal funding of abortions. We need statutory language in the law, not an easily changed Executive Order, to prevent abortions. We have already learned that the law will allow $11 billion in taxpayer funds to be used for abortions at Community Health Centers. We must repeal and replace this law so we can end government-funded elective abortion coverage under this massive new government funding stream.

Congress should start over and consider the common-sense bipartisan solutions that Republicans have to offer. It's time to repeal the health care law and it's time for a patient-focused health bill that will help the economy and get us back to smaller government.

First of all, I would like to join in with my colleagues in condemning this act of violence and to express my deepest condolences to all of the families who were killed in the attack on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona.

I join millions of others in praying for the recovery of all of those that were injured. Especially we pray for our colleague, the Honorable Representative Gabrielle Giffords. It has been my privilege and honor to work with her, especially on the well-being of this Nation's space program, and I pray for her full recovery and God's strength for her husband and her entire family.

In a Nation where there is freedom, some individuals will choose to do evil, and certainly no law can cure the human heart. I do pray for the individuals who are suffering from anger, like those of the accused, that they will find the counseling and healing that they need.

Actions like this, which include the tragic death of a 9-year-old child, are not normal.

But even in tragedy we see the great strength of this Nation. We see the heroic actions of individuals, private and professional, who helped subdue the attacker and who helped the wounded survive. And we see a nationwide outpouring of concern and prayer for Gabby Giffords and all of those that were injured. And of course that rises far above political differences.

May God bless the families and bless us in our work here this year in the 112th Congress.

Madam Speaker, one of the most somber and humbling duties of our jobs is when we attend the funerals of our fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. On October 7, 2010, I attended such a funeral for a fallen airman who not only was my constituent, but was a family I had grown up with.

I would like to pay tribute to this American Patriot from my hometown of Haleyville, Alabama, who was killed in action on September 29, 2010, in the Uruzgan Province of Afghanistan.

Air Force Senior Airman Mark Andrew Forester paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our great nation. Mark was assigned to the 21st Special Tactics Squadron at Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. He served as an Air Force Combat Controller and was embedded with a Special Forces Unit in Afghanistan.

When I think of a young man like Mark, I think of words like; honor and bravery. ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''--John 15:13. Mark died while protecting his friends and fellow service members.

In the fall of 1864, President Abraham Lincoln, wrote the following message to the mother of a fallen soldier. ``I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.'' President Lincoln's words ring more powerful today than ever before.

Mark earned numerous awards during his service including a Bronze Star with Valor and a Purple Heart.

It is an honor to be able to say that I was associated with Mark and his family over the years. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with Mark's family and all those who knew and loved him.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to voice my support for H. Res. 1761 and commend a young man on an outstanding season of college football.

Cameron Newton came to Auburn in January as a transfer student from Blinn Junior College. After going through a spirited competition to decide the starting quarterback position in spring training he was awarded the job.

Fans were wowed, including my 11-year-old daughter Mary Elliott, with his three passing touchdowns and two rushing touchdowns in Auburn's first game this season. From that point on Mr. Newton continued to lead Auburn through a magical, undefeated regular season and a victory in the SEC championship game over the University of South Carolina. Just as he had started the season Cam concluded it with six touchdowns, two rushing and four passing.

By winning the 2010 Heisman Trophy, Newton joins other Heisman winners from the State of Alabama--Mark Ingram of Alabama and Pat Sullivan and Bo Jackson from Auburn.

The State of Alabama has been blessed with great college football tradition and Cam Newton and Auburn University have continued that legacy with all of their accomplishments this season.

I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address the House on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, today and over the last several weeks, I think there has been a broad misunderstanding of the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, which led to the President's unfortunate veto of this legislation a few weeks ago. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 and the recent foreclosure documentation problems.

I first introduced this legislation back in April of 2005, and obviously there was no concern about weakening the foreclosure documentation process at that time. This is a bill that would help people, and I am disappointed that the legislation has been vetoed. This legislation that I introduced would improve interstate commerce by requiring that documents be recognized in any State or Federal court. It would help court reporters; it would help attorneys, businessowners, and consumers in general.

I have heard from many individuals who have been affected by this particular issue. For example, a construction company located in one State submits a contract for a job in another State and is turned down because the second State refuses to recognize the notarized contract.

This is not an isolated problem. This is interfering with interstate commerce, and it should be addressed.

H.R. 3808, this legislation, expressly requires lawful notarizations be recognized in other States and in no way validates improper notarizations. Let me stress that again. It in no way validates improper notarizations. Fraudulent notarizations are illegal. Enforcement of notarizations is a State responsibility, and I fully support each State Attorney General to vigorously prosecute all fraudulent notarizations.

Currently, each State is responsible for regulating its notaries. Typically, someone who wishes to become a notary pays a fee. They will submit an application. They will take an oath of office. Some States require applicants to enroll in an educational course, pass an exam, or obtain a notary bond. This legislation does not change how an individual State regulates notaries in any form or fashion.

This bill had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives each of the three times it passed the House of Representatives, and most recently, with unanimous support, as recently as April of this year. I hope the White House will work with the Congress so this legislation can eventually become law.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned the monument that is being debated has stood in the Mojave Desert for 75 years to honor our veterans. It stood there, that is, until the night of May 9th when vandals stole it. This memorial was a 7-foot cross that has endured much turmoil including a recent legal attempt to have the cross removed, which was turned away by the Supreme Court.

Those responsible for the disappearance of the cross have shown disrespect for both veterans and this Nation's legal process.

I would also like to commend the VFW for their determination in the face of this disrespectful act. They have vowed that the memorial will be rebuilt and are offering a $125,000 reward for information leading to an arrest.

President George Washington once said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were appreciated by their nation.''

I think President Washington would agree that this appreciation includes allowing our veterans' memorials to stand in honor of them.