Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and if we're going to be able to address the important matters that our assistant leader has suggested, it's going to depend on our ability to get the budget under control.

When we talk about the budget, we need to put the budget in perspective. I was first elected in 1992, and in 1993 we considered a budget that put an end to fiscal recklessness. We passed a budget that, by the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, had not only eliminated the deficit, but had created enough surplus to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public by 2 years ago. That would mean that we'd owe no money to Japan, no money to China, no money to Saudi Arabia. That budget also created a record number of jobs and record economic activity, as noted by the record increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. So we had a good budget. We had fiscal responsibility, but unfortunately, in 2001, that came to an end when we reverted to fiscal irresponsibility.

Under the Bush administration, we passed two tax cuts without paying for them, a prescriptive drug benefit without paying for it, fought two wars in the middle of cutting taxes, and a $700 billion bailout, all of which put us in the economic ditch.

Now, in order to get these large deficits we now have under control, we're going to have to make some tough choices. Unfortunately, last year we started off in the wrong direction. We considered a huge tax cut bill last year that went in the wrong direction at a total cost, 2- year cost, of $800 billion. And to put that in perspective, $800 billion is more than we spent on the TARP program, about the same as the stimulus, about the same as what the health care bill spends in 10 years, that tax cut bill spent in two.

In case people don't really appreciate how big a bill that was, we checked with the National Conference of State Legislatures and ascertained that the total general fund budget, add them up, for 50 states, general fund budget of 50 states was $650 billion. We, in one vote, cut taxes by $800 billion.

And before that bill was passed, we asked, well, how are you going to pay for it? One of the ways is that we jeopardize Social Security in the bill, cutting the payroll tax, so money coming into Social Security will have to be subsidized by the general fund. That puts the Social Security program in competition with everything else in the budget. And so we put Social Security in jeopardy.

And we also had tax cuts for dead multimillionaires. I say dead multimillionaires because everybody expected us to have an exemption of $3.5 million, $7 million per couple, where you pay no taxes and begin paying taxes after that. Well, we increased that exemption, the amount you can get without paying any estate tax, to $5 million, and reduced the rate.

That additional assistance to dead multimillionaires cost $24 billion. Again, how are we going to pay for it?

You can look at the continuing resolution in next year's budget, a budget that the Republicans have already attacked for not cutting enough, and look what it does to the safety net:

LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, for those that can't pay their energy bills and risk freezing to death, we cut that by one-half billion dollars to help fund the multimillionaire tax cut;

Women Infants and Children, the WIC program, so that babies can be born healthy and start off on the right track, we cut that program;

Job training and employment services, for those who have lost their jobs and may never return, trying to get a job that will be there, we cut that program;

Community health centers, public housing, at a time of record foreclosures, we're cutting those programs to partially fund that tax cut.

Opportunities:

Head Start, we only address the needs in Head Start for half the eligible children. We are going to cut Head Start to deprive millions of children of that important opportunity of starting off on the right track. We have found that Head Start will increase graduation rates, reduce delinquency, reduce the need for welfare, save more money than it costs. We're cutting that program;

TRIO and GEAR UP, programs that encourage young people to go to college, we're cutting those programs;

Assistance to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-serving institutions by significant amounts. Those deal with a lot of first-generation children;

Funds for improvement of postsecondary education, cut.

Our investments in America's future:

NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Advanced Research Project, all cut. These are investments in our future;

The National Infrastructure Innovation Fund, and rescinding billions in high-speed rail. Other countries are investing in high-speed rail. We're cutting high-speed rail.

Now, we should be more responsible when it comes to balancing the budget, and we can do it. But you can't do it by beginning the discussion with an $800 billion tax cut without telling people how you are going to pay for it. Cutting critical safety net programs, initiatives to give opportunities for our youth, and initiatives that will invest in our future, these are the things that are being cut to fund that tax cut bill from last year.

We cannot disassociate ourselves from the connection of cuts that we are making today from the tax cut bills that we passed before. People are saying, well, we can't afford it. Well, we could have afforded it had we not passed that tax cut. We need to rescind what we did last year so we do not have to make these draconian cuts this year.

We should have been honest with the people last year. I don't think the people want cuts in Social Security, the safety net, and investments in our future. We can do better, and that's why we are going to be fighting against these draconian cuts that are so important to so many people and make sure that we go off and continue on the right track, as we did in 1993, where we can pass a responsible budget, address the needs of the people, create jobs, economic activity, and we were on course to paying off the national debt.

Madam Speaker, last year we passed a 2-year $850 billion tax cut bill with the benefits skewed toward millionaires; $24 billion of that was a bonus reduction in taxes on estates of multimillionaires over and above the generous reduction that most had expected. When the bill passed, many of us asked how we were going to pay for it. Well, now we know.

This week, the Republican majority released a list of spending cuts, and look how we are going to pay for it: cuts in heating assistance for low income families, job training programs, National Institute for Health, NASA research, community health centers, and women, infant and children's nutrition programs.

Madam Speaker, the worst part is that the savings from the 70 programs slated to be cut only total $23 billion, less than the cost of the bonus estate tax changes for dead multimillionaires, a long way from the $100 billion demanded by the tea party, nowhere close to paying the $850 billion tax cut bill, and it doesn't fix the long-term structural imbalance in the Federal budget. Madam Speaker, that's not right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, which would extend for 1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our lives and privacy that were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2004 Intelligence Act. Without meaningful oversight demonstrating that these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these provisions for one full year, or for any period of time, for that matter; and I therefore oppose the bill.

I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that in order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the formation of our Nation that ``they who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the Patriot Act that gives the government power to secretly invade our private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, but without having to show that the seized material is in connection with any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. There is no requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore there is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is in fact necessary.

Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act, which is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It gives the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without having to show which phone will be used or even who will be using it and without requiring a court order for the specific roving tap.

The third provision is section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the ``lone wolf'' provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those targeted have any interaction with an American citizen, then that U.S. citizen is spied upon as well.

We already allow spying on such non-citizens outside of the United States or even in the United States where there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign government or members of a terrorist organization, but this is an extension of that power which could envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting with a targeted person even while we are in the United States.

The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy even when there is no probable cause nor even reasonable suspicion or credible evidence of any wrongdoing and without allowing the kind of detached oversight such as a court warrant which is generally called upon when such power over individuals is extended.

Absent these oversight protections, even after the fact in the case of emergencies, all three provisions should be allowed to expire, unless we demonstrate in hearings and oversight hearings that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. The freedoms and protections these provisions take away are the very core of our values and liberties, so these protections should not be legislated away without rigorous oversight to protect against abuse.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we focus attention on the substance of the debate on health care. Some think that just calling repealing health care reform ObamaCare or calling it a job killer when it will actually create jobs, or even calling it a government takeover when it doesn't even include a public option constitutes the discussion.

But we need to talk about what is actually in the bill and what is actually going to be repealed, because we need to talk about what's going to happen to those under 26 that are now able to stay on their parents' policies. Repeal will kick them off of those policies.

We need to talk about what's going to happen to those with preexisting conditions. We need to talk about what is happening to those who can now get checkups, annual checkups and preventive care with no copays and deductibles.

We need to talk about the fact that we are digging senior citizens out of the doughnut hole and that repeal will keep them in the doughnut hole.

Insurance reform: No rescissions, no cutting off insurance in the middle of a treatment.

We need to talk about what we are doing as to unreasonable increases. That's what you're going to be repealing if you repeal health care reform.

Affordability: All Americans under health care reform in 2014 will be able to afford health care. We will be giving tax credits to businesses to encourage them to provide health care.

This bill will create jobs. You will be destroying jobs. And you say nothing about the deficits. The CBO has already calculated that you will significantly increase the deficit if this bill passes.

Mr. Speaker, health care reform is a matter of life and death. If Republicans want to repeal health care, they ought to be clear and tell the public what will actually happen to young adults, those with preexisting conditions, seniors, what is going to happen to the doughnut hole or insurance abuses or the future of the affordability of health care.

We should not just be resorting to labels and slogans. We have to be clear as to what we are doing to the public.

Madam Speaker, those who want to repeal health care reform should be clear and candid about what they are doing. You just can't expect the people to understand the effect of repeal just because you put a label on it like ``ObamaCare'' or misrepresent job- creating legislation as a ``job killer'' or misrepresent legislation that doesn't even have a public option in it as a ``government takeover.''

Health care reform will close the doughnut hole. It allows young adults to stay on their parents' policies. It means that those with preexisting conditions can get insurance. It provides tax credits to small businesses to help them cover their employees. It creates community health centers and additional health professionals. It prohibits insurance company abuses, like cutting off coverage in the middle of illnesses or unreasonable increases in rates. It means that, in 2014, all Americans will have the security of knowing that they can have health care insurance.

You just don't call or put a label on it or recite a poll-tested slogan. Tell the public what will happen to the doughnut hole, to young adults, to those with preexisting conditions, to small businesses. Tell the public what is going to happen if we repeal health care reform.

``To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.''

Thank you, and I appreciate your hard work. Thank you for organizing this Special Order so we can discuss the problems with repealing health care.

You have gone all through the need for health care during your life and how the bill provides assistance for those with preexisting conditions. It limits insurance company abuses, like what's called a ``recision,'' when you have paid your premiums all these years and then finally get sick, and they want to cancel your policy right when you need it. There are lifetime and annual limits on benefits where they pay a certain amount, and once they get to that, you can be in the middle of a treatment, and they're not going to pay another dime for the rest of your life or at least for the rest of that year. There are many people with chronic diseases who hit up upon these limits very frequently.

You have talked about young people on their parents' policies, who are working, who finally get jobs. They don't cover benefits. Up to 26 years old, they can stay on their parents' policies.

We have talked about prevention, the importance of prevention. A lot of people, because of copayments and deductibles, can't afford their annual checkups. This bill provides for annual checkups without copayments and deductibles.

For those senior citizens in the doughnut hole, where they get no benefits, adding insult to injury, they have to continue paying their premiums, and get no benefit. We have assistance for them.

It is outrageous that they would elect to try to repeal this. No hearings. No nothing. Just put a label on it and call it ``ObamaCare'' and then expect people to go along with the repeal. You just can't label things and expect people, by virtue of the label, to take action. They call it ``government-run health care.'' No. Government-run health care was the single-payer plan. That was defeated.

The option of a public option would have been nice. People talk about choice. Well, in the plan that's on the books today, they have the choice of all the plans of anybody who wants to sell insurance in their States. They have a choice of all of them. It would be nice to have an additional choice--a choice of a public option where you have the choice of a policy that is not run by a for-profit corporation with a financial interest in denying you coverage or canceling your policy. It would be nice to have that option. You don't have to pick it, but it's just nice to have that option.

One of the things that we want to make sure is that we have as many options as possible, including a public option if we can ever get there; but when we talk about repeal and replace, there is no replace tomorrow in the rule that they are suggesting. They just want it repealed. We want to know what they're going to replace it with and what they're going to leave out.

Are they going to leave out the part where people with preexisting conditions can get covered? Are they going to say, ``No, you can't get covered''? Does the insurance company get to decide who has the privilege? Are health insurance companies going to tell young people under 26 to get off their parents' policies? Are they going to tell those in the doughnut hole to get back in the doughnut hole where they belong? Are they going to talk about those who can't afford prevention to get prevention? Are they going to tell those who are going to run out of coverage because of the limits, ``No, that's enough. You've had enough, and you can't get any more coverage''?

What are they going to tell all of these people?

We need to make sure that we keep this policy, all of these provisions, intact. I have no idea what they want to replace it with, but I think, if they went step by step and if the people looked at the provisions of the bill, they would elect to keep everything that's in the bill today.

Now, there are some things that people don't like. When you have a good plan, you have to pay for it. Unfortunately, they're not paying for it. We were fiscally responsible. When we passed it, we were under PAYGO. They've repealed a lot of that so that they can go trillions of dollars in the ditch without paying for it. We paid for it. In fact, the CBO originally said that the first 10 years of the program would reduce the deficit by $140 billion. Now the estimate is $200-some billion in the next 10 years. So it is fiscally responsible.

There are things we can do better together than everybody out for their own. We need to oppose the repeal of this health care to make sure that people have the protections and the Patients' Bill of Rights that they have under this legislation.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate your hard work and leadership on this. You've talked about the problems in health care with government. It's just not a government problem. If you ask any human resources executive about the major problems they have and benefits package, it's the ability to afford health care. Health care costs are going out of control. If you have an employee with a preexisting condition and he's in the group, then they do the actuarial study, you start getting bills that you can't pay. You ask any human resources what's happened to their insurance costs over the years. It's just going through the sky. And if you look at the employee portion of health care, it goes from zero participation to a little bit more copays, more deductibles, more cost for the family, on and on and on. Everyone has a great deal of insecurity about their ability to do health care.

And then you look at the idea, what happens if you lose a job? If you have a preexisting condition, you will not be able to get health care until this bill passed.

With all this insecurity, your ability to get health care, your ability to be able to afford it in the future, all of these problems, all of these problems in the future, what is the response from the other side about what to do about that kind of insecurity?

They say, well, just be strong and go without insurance like me. Well, that is not a particularly attractive solution for those that don't have an alternative, don't have a spouse where you can just jump, you know, you can say I'm not going to take government policy, I'm going to use my spouse's policy; we have an alternative. Or if they're so wealthy, they don't need the insurance.

Most Americans aren't in that situation. They need health insurance. And

this is what is provided. You have access to it, and it is affordable.

Everyone in America will be able to afford health insurance in 2014 because those that can't afford it will have subsidies to make sure that they can. So everybody will be able to get it.

If you make less than $88,000, you can get health care for less than 10 percent of your salary. That is not the case now. If you are in the $20,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year bracket, if you can get insurance, it's going to be a lot more than that.

So with this bill people have the security of health insurance that they don't have now. And the bizarre suggestion, just go without insurance, is not particularly nice when you have children that may have a little ear infection. Rather than have them lose their hearing, you can deal with it when it is a little infection, these problems don't grow out of control. We need that security. This bill provides it.

And in terms of seniors, seniors are particularly helped under this legislation. Those that can't afford the copays and deductibles can get their annual checkups without any copays and deductibles. We are helping fill in the doughnut hole. It will take a little time, but eventually there will be no doughnut hole where they fall in and have to pay all of the drug costs. We provide more community health centers so they will have better access. We are training more doctors and nurses so they will have more professionals. You have a chart that extends Medicare. Medicare is extended. We know that Medicare will go broke if we don't do anything. It extends the solvency of Medicare. It lowers prescription drug costs. All of these things that seniors have a particular interest in, all of that will be lost if this bill is repealed.

You said that people were scared about what might happen. They also said things about small business, this would bankrupt small businesses.

First, small businesses are exempt from the requirements under the bill, so it can't possibly hurt them. But those small businesses that want to provide health care for their employees are given tax credits to help them do so. So it can't possibly be hurting small business. But for the senior citizens, they have all of the benefits that you have listed on the chart that will be lost if this bill is repealed.

Mr. Speaker, deficit reduction requires tough choices, and PAYGO helps us make those tough choices because, if you increase spending, you have to pay for it--either raise the money or cut spending somewhere else. If you cut taxes, you have to raise somebody else's taxes or cut some programs. You have to pay for it.

In 1993, under PAYGO and a tough Democratic budget, we eliminated the deficit and were on our way to paying off the national debt. We created millions of jobs. Unfortunately, 50 Democrats lost their seats in a budget that the Democrats voted for but that not a single Republican voted for. These are tough choices. Unfortunately, this package fails to make those tough choices because it exempts trillions of dollars from PAYGO.

Mr. Speaker, you are simply not having a serious discussion about deficit reduction when the discussion begins with massive tax cuts which will add trillions of dollars to the national debt without beginning to pay for them at all. We need to get serious about deficit reduction, and this package does not do it.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4748) to amend the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to require a northern border counternarcotics strategy, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4748 amends the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to require the Director of the National Drug Control Policy to submit to Congress a northern border counternarcotics strategy.

The United States' northern border with Canada is the longest open border in the world, spanning 12 States and over 4,000 miles. The House initially passed this bill 5 months ago, recognizing the increased amount of drug trafficking and related criminal activity occurring near the Canadian border, including on Indian reservations in that area.

To combat this development, H.R. 4748 requires the creation of a northern border counternarcotics strategy similar to what has been in place for our southwest border for several years. This will promote more effective consultation and coordination between Federal law enforcement agencies so that we can bring new force to our efforts to curb the flow of illegal drugs across the northern border and the crime it brings in its wake. In addition, H.R. 4748 gives Indian tribes with reservations on or near the Canadian border a consulting role in implementing the strategy on their reservations.

This bill is the result of efforts by our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), whose district spans 250 miles of the border on land along the St. Lawrence River and on Lake Erie. The Homeland Security chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), helped to shape the bill and bring it to the floor last summer. The Senate has now returned the bill with some modest, but helpful, refinements; and I urge my colleagues to support this revised version so that we can send it to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr.

Owens), who has been working hard on this particular bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2925) to establish a grant program to benefit victims of sex trafficking, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the primary purpose of this bill is to provide, for the first time, specific programs to assist children who are victims of the brutal and devastating scourge of domestic child sex trafficking in this country.

S. 2925 authorizes grants to appropriate victims services entities to create comprehensive victim-centered approaches to address the sex trafficking of minors. In particular, this legislation allows funds under the Byrne and JAG Grant Programs to be used to provide education, training, deterrence, and prevention programs related to sex trafficking of minors. It also provides funding to implement the improvements in the National Crime Information Center. In addition, this legislation strengthens laws aimed at apprehending and punishing domestic traffickers, while also improving the ability of law enforcement and other entities to find, rescue, and assist child victims.

Importantly, S. 2925 also encourages States to treat minor victims of sex trafficking as crime victims rather than as criminal defendants or juvenile delinquents. We have made steady progress in recent years in addressing international sex trafficking of minors, as well as adults, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which passed Congress in 2000 on a strong bipartisan basis. It was most recently reauthorized by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which I was pleased to help develop and shepherd through the House.

We have worked for some time through legislation and other efforts, such as the Congressional Caucus on Sex Trafficking, which I cochair with the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger), to bring more attention to the need to better address the issue of domestic sex trafficking, particularly trafficking of minors. Unfortunately, we have encountered barriers to having it recognized that these children are victims in the domestic sex trade and not criminals.

Now, under the leadership of the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and House Members of the Congressional Caucus on Sex Trafficking, this is finally changing. We finally have legislation before us that not only recognizes that children caught up in domestic sex trafficking are victims, but also addresses the unique needs of these child victims in being rescued and helping them pursuing a productive life.

We are amending the Senate bill to remove certain nonessential elements of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been working hard on this bill and has been a leader in making sure this bill continues and has been very instrumental in making sure it saw the floor today.

I yield an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a very strong supporter of the legislation and one who represents a shelter in his district that he is a strong supporter of.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the young lady who has worked hard on this legislation, along with many others, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement; again, thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlelady from New York for their hard work on this bill. Many children in the future will benefit from the work of these two individuals and the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor veteran Richmond Times-Dispatch journalist Tyler Whitley. Mr. Whitley has been a newspaper reporter in Richmond, Virginia, for the last 50 years. He has spent 40 of those years covering the Virginia General Assembly, including the 15 years that I served there.

Mr. Whitley, a Virginia native, is a graduate of Hampden-Sydney College in Hampden-Sydney, Virginia. He started his career in 1960 as an obituary writer at the Richmond News Leader. He later became business editor at the News Leader. In 1992, he joined the Times- Dispatch when the News Leader and the Times-Dispatch merged into a single morning newspaper. He has covered nine governors, fourteen national political conventions, and four redistrictings. He has also traveled to ten countries on assignment.

Mr. Whitley is well-respected by journalists and politicians in Virginia. He is affectionately referred to as the dean of the Virginia capitol press corps. Last week, several journalists and editors, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and former Virginia Governors James Gilmore, L. Douglas Wilder, Gerald Baliles and Linwood Hilton gathered to honor Mr. Whitley. The presence of these Governors at Mr. Whitley's 50th anniversary celebration is a testament to the admirable professional legacy he has built in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

``If it's true that reporters write the first draft of history, then Tyler has written a lot of history,'' former Governor Baliles told the Washington Post.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Tyler Whitley for 50 years of exceptional journalism.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in opposition to the bill because its passage will make it impossible to ever balance the Federal budget.

This compromise will add about $900 billion to the national debt. That's more than TARP. That's more than the stimulus package. The 2- year cost of the bill is about the same as the 10-year cost of the health care reform bill. At least we paid for that.

We need to make tough, unpopular choices to balance the budget. Obviously, letting tax cuts expire would be unpopular. But when we ever decide to get serious about the deficit, we will find that the alternatives are even more unpopular because, after today's vote, the choices will necessarily include cuts in Social Security, Medicare, education, and other popular programs.

If we don't have the political will to end the disastrous Bush-era tax cuts now, we certainly won't have that political will during the middle of a Presidential election. The job creation in this bill is paltry--$400,000 a job. We can do better than that.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to make the tough choice and defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1540) supporting the goal of eradicating illicit marijuana cultivation on Federal lands and calling on the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a coordinated strategy to permanently dismantle Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating on Federal lands, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1540 supports the goal of eliminating illegal marijuana cultivation on Federal lands, and calls on the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a coordinated strategy to defeat Mexican drug trafficking organizations and other criminal groups.

Marijuana growers have begun to use public lands because of their remoteness and difficulty in seizing or tracing the drugs to any specific owner. These large-scale plantations are being operated by well-armed and well-financed Mexican drug trafficking organizations and other criminal groups. Law enforcement officials report that the criminal groups that grow marijuana on Federal forest lands will shoot at police or at any other unwelcome visitors in order to protect their crops.

The National Drug Intelligence Center in the Department of Justice issued a national drug threat assessment in February in which it reported that the number of marijuana plants removed from public lands had increased by more than 300 percent from just 2004 to 2008. This increase was spurred primarily by marijuana crops overseen by Mexican drug cartels.

In 2008, a separate National Drug Intelligence Center report on cartel-related drug trafficking organizations found that the federation and other undetermined cartels were active in Oregon. In addition, a recent Drug Enforcement Agency investigation uncovered evidence of growers cultivating marijuana on public lands in Oregon and California.

The goal of this resolution is to bring attention to this illicit cartel activity and to encourage officials to develop an interagency strategy to stop drug cartels from using Federal lands for large-scale illegal drug crop operations.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my colleagues from California, Mr. Herger and Mr. Lungren, for their advocacy on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3998) to extend the Child Safety Pilot Program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3998, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2010, will extend the national child safety pilot program for an additional 12 months.

Many Americans across the country graciously give their time and energy to volunteer and mentor children. While most of these volunteers act with good intentions, it is important that we are able to identify those who may misuse these opportunities to harm children.

The national child safety pilot program was passed in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act. This program assists organizations in checking the criminal records of volunteers before placing them as mentors with children.

Since 2003, the national child safety pilot project has enabled State governments to work with youth-serving organizations to access FBI's national fingerprint-based background checks system. The pilot program has helped prevent child predators and sex offenders from getting access to children through legitimate mentoring programs by providing access to the more comprehensive data in the FBI's database. We have authorized this noncontroversial fee-based program on three other occasions in anticipation of creating a permanent program. This pilot program has provided extremely important information to mentoring organizations--at no cost to taxpayers. We hope that this 12-month extension will give us more time to work with the Senate and the Department of Justice to permanently authorize this program.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership in this legislation and his commitment to keeping children safe. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3353) to provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3353 will allow the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa to be treated as two separate entities for the purposes of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. Currently, these two areas are treated as one State for the distribution of Federal Byrne grants.

The Byrne Justice Assistance grants are a leading source of Federal justice funding to State and local jurisdictions. The program provides States, tribes, and local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas, including law enforcement, prosecution, courts, prevention, education, corrections, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Although this bill does not change the Byrne grant formula, particularly the statutory minimum amount of the 0.25 percent that each State or territory is entitled to, it does change how the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa will be given funding under the grant program. The statutory minimum is granted to a State regardless of its population or crime rates. However, the Byrne grant funding increases if States have larger populations and higher crime rates. The three other territories--Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands--are presently entitled to the minimum funding, as are all 50 States. The objective of this legislation is to provide the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa with the same statutory minimum to which every other State and territory is entitled.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.