Floor Statements

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I'm an appropriator, like a lot of the speakers here today; and every time we have to deal with the CR, we're embarrassed. That's not our work. Our work is in appropriations bills, which we spend all year putting together. And we've been doing that.

We were in the same situation last year, everything being the same. The Obama health care bill was in the law, Members of Congress had their insurance, and whatever issue was being brought up--we can't approve the CR because--those were the same issues last year. And guess what? We moved the CR without rancor and without partisan politics. So what's the difference here?

I feel very sorry for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to now have to defend appropriations by choice.

Ronald Reagan used to be fond of saying, Here we go again. And today, it's open choice. It's pick your government. We've got 10 items on the menu.

Mr. Speaker, I want the whole menu, not just the Tea Party special.

What an irony that we are bringing up the first of these menus, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Shut down the whole government, but we want to keep those emergency employees. I was a firefighter. I was a first responder. I was part of a team like the team that was lost in Arizona--the Hot Shot crew--when I was in college. They're not a part of FEMA. They're not a first responder. So firefighters are out.

All of the cleanup that has to be done from the Colorado fire and the Rim fire in California, those people aren't part of the first responders. They're not in this.

This bill is a process of just selection, of chaos, and of a menu-- pick off what you can support, take the popular things and pass those. But guess what? These first responders have children. They have no access to the school lunch program. These responders have spouses. There's all kinds of programs for families that they have no response for.

This first responder bill doesn't go to school cops, Centers for Disease Control, food safety officers, or any of the others.

Please defeat it.

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

I rise in opposition to this piecemeal approach of funding our government. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

The bill dealing with all of those issues is on the House floor. We did our job, as the chairman so eloquently spoke about. The committee fulfilled its commitment to review the whole budget. We passed H.R. 2410 out of committee and even adopted a rule to bring it to the floor in June, but we didn't move the bill because the timing with the now- expired farm bill wanted to hold everything off.

I'm just wondering, Madam Speaker, when is the House going to announce its conferees on the farm bill? The Senate has done it not once, but twice. If we had a conference, we could be bringing up the full bill and not just this piecemeal--let's take a little bit of this that we like and that that we like and do what I call this menu of choice, which, if you're not on that menu, everything is out.

Nobody can challenge my support on WIC. I mean, I am a returning Peace Corps volunteer. If there's anybody that got training on the need for feeding women, infants, and children in this Congress, it's my experience in living in a poor barrio in South America.

But this does nothing for the 48 million people who currently need food stamps, what we call the SNAP program. This does nothing for the rest of the kids and the family who may be hungry, going to school and can't get access to school lunch. This does nothing to open the door for Federal workers who help people in rural agriculture to produce the food. This bill does nothing to provide a remedy for rural areas like Colorado and California, who were just ravaged by floods and fires, to do the post-op cleanup and restoration to prevent floods from coming this winter. This does nothing for the farm service agency loan borrowers to help those that are needing loans to put their livestock or their grain or other commodities into the program that is going to be feeding the women, infants, and children. So just one little piece that they carve out and suggest that: Oh, Congress, do this.

I want you all to listen to this. Since I've been here since 1993, we've passed 111 CRs. Not one of them had this battle, had this conditionality, had this shutdown of government--none of them. Why now? What's different? You want to take away the President's health care bill. That was enacted 3\1/2\ years ago. You passed a CR the year it was adopted. You passed a CR after it was adopted. You passed a CR after that. What is it?

Let's stop being so mean and so broken about the ability to keep our government open.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Nita Lowey, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman from New York an additional 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the congressman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the Education & the Workforce Committee.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the former ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee and now the ranking member of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, we've passed 111 CRs without any of this rancor. There are no excuses. They have all been clean.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Berkley, California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great Rules Committee member.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished doctor from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott) of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, for 111 times we've voted for CRs to feed everybody, not just a few.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore.

(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Congresswoman from Florida, Kathy Castor.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Barber) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) a distinguished Member with a great deal of seniority and probably the most knowledgeable Member in the Congress about all the health care issues in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Many of us that have spoken here are appropriators. Our job is to bring 12 bills to this floor, 12 conference reports. We've done none. We've totally failed. We're not the first Congress to do that. We've had to pass 111 CRs in the 20 years that I've been here in Congress. None of them had these prerequisites that we've got to meet with the President, we've got to repeal something, we've got to defund something, we don't like this, we don't like that. In fact, as appropriators we know that the rules of this House don't allow us to legislate on appropriations bills.

So even these requests that everybody is making of what we ought to do have to take a waiver by the Rules Committee--waiver to our own House rules--to bring all this stuff up. And in the meantime, we've done nothing, and so the government shuts down because we haven't been responsible for that oath of office that we took here.

It didn't say just fund a part of government. Today, we have a choice out of 10 parts of government. It's your popular parts, your menu, your special. Well, I didn't come here for any Tea Party special. I came here for the whole government--the hundreds of thousands of parts that put together this incredible, wonderful government that we have the privilege of serving.

But I can't go and tell my colleagues to go vote for this, vote for that on conditionality of this and that. All those things violate our procedural rules, violate our history.

This institution is 113 sessions old. As I said, since I've been here, 111 times we've come to the point where we need to pass a CR. We've never done it like this.

Reject this piecemeal legislation, and let's get on with the business. Let's open up government.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, give us back our committee. Give us back our chairman.

Mr. Culberson worked, with all of us on both sides of the aisle, for about 6 months to do a veterans appropriations bill. This is not it.

This is a disastrous bill, because this cuts $6.2 billion out of the bill that we passed. This doesn't help veterans. This is game-playing.

Our Appropriations Committee is supposed to have 12 bills on this floor. We have none. We don't have a simple one just to pass to keep government open.

We've never done this before. Never. No preconditions ever in the history like this.

We have a good committee. We have a good chairman. Give us back the process. Give us back an ability to keep this government open.

Defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, give us back our government.

I am on the Appropriations Committee. We shouldn't be talking about CRs; we should be talking about passing appropriations bills. But those were stopped, and we are now down to the emergency tool that we have had to use over and over again to continue government operations.

I have been here 20 years. We have done CRs many times. We have never, ever had a pre-condition to a CR.

People are not entitled to make up facts here. The facts are that the Senate is negotiating and the House Democrats are negotiating. We came up with your numbers. We hate those numbers, but we swallowed them.

There is only one thing to do--reject this proposition. Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the ability to bring the rule up. We have a bill here. It is in the House right now. It is the Senate version. It is clean. Send it to the President and before tonight it is all over and people can come back to work tomorrow--tomorrow.

So stop this game playing, this selfishness, this poor loser and this whining and just get on with doing the business you were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59 and stop this silly game-playing, multiple- choice government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Big Sur Land Trust on the occasion of its thirty-fifth anniversary. I have a deep personal history with and love for Big Sur's land and people. So it is a true personal honor to share the tribute with the House.

In 1978, seven families came together to ensure that Big Sur, California's beauty and quality of life would be preserved for later generations. Around kitchen tables and over potluck dinners, they decided that a land trust would enable their vision, and so was born the Big Sur Land Trust. These visionaries included Zad and Laela Leavy, Sherna and Kipp Stewart, Roger and Beverly Newell, Nancy Hopkins, Lloyd and Pat Addleman, Martin and Suzanne Forster, and Peter Harding. The Land Trust's first president was Nancy Hopkins, and Zad Leavy later served as its first executive director, devoting 25 years to the cause of conservation.

They thought big from the start. The Trust's first acquisition encompassed over 3,000 acres now known as the Circle M Ranch on the southern Big Sur Coast. It was a pioneering example of how to connect a conservation buyer, in this case David Packard, with the principles of stewardship and community collaboration in order to protect natural resources. This transaction even attracted national attention.

For the last thirty-five years, the Big Sur Land Trust has continued in this tradition by working with private landowners and conservation partners to ensure the conservation of more than 40,000 acres in Monterey County. Thanks to many generous donors and members, an interconnected network of parks, natural landscapes, trails, ranch- and farmlands, wildlife corridors, and coastal rivers and streams has been set aside for community benefit. Some of the most notable of these projects include 9,980 acres of the Palo Corona Ranch, 1,312 acres of the Point Lobos Ranch, 89 acres at the Odello Fields, and the 316 acres Whisler-Wilson Ranch. The Land Trust has also supported several conservation projects in the Salinas Valley as part of its effort to expand its conservation mission county wide. Some of these projects include conservation easements the Violini Ranch, the Dorrance Ranch, and the Arroyo Seco Ranch.

In an effort to broaden its impact and be in greater service to communities across Monterey County and the Salinas Valley, in 2007 the Land Trust acquired the 816-acre Marks Ranch near Salinas where the Land Trust partners with ranchers, artists, biologists, youth groups, and others to give urban youth the opportunity to experience the natural world. It is also using Glen Deven above the Big Sur Coast for more sustained and intimate wilderness experiences.

The Land Trust's journey over the past thirty-five years built accomplishments and inspired dreams that its founders could not have imagined: more than 40,000 acres conserved; a membership of 1,200 active community leaders, and a permanent home in an historic Monterey adobe. Its new strategic plan lays

out the Land Trust's vision: To inspire love of the land and conservation of our treasured landscapes.

Mr. Speaker, Big Sur is truly one of our national treasures and the Big Sur Land Trust has played an instrumental role in keeping it safe. I know I speak for the whole House in celebrating the Big Sur Land Trust's many achievements and wish it many more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, bring us some leadership.

There is only one issue before the United States Congress, and that's the issue to keep government open. The bill to do that is in this House. The bill to keep the government open is in this House. If it were on the floor, we would pass it in 1 minute. It would go to the President and he would have it signed before he went to bed. That's all we have to do.

But this rule brings all kinds of other baggage and says, no, we don't want to keep government open; we want to get into other issues. Well, aren't all the other issues what we are about for all the other part of the year? This is the only day and the only moment when we can keep government open. It's the last chance.

They say: Oh, do you know what? Well, you know, this is a partisan thing. I heard the chairman say: You know, it was a mistake to pass, the President made a mistake. That's what you said.

Well, we thought President Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq. In fact, the majority of Democrats fought against it, argued against it, and voted against it. But when we went to Iraq, we didn't try to stop the whole Congress to block the budget. No. In fact, on the appropriations to pay for it, the Democrats voted for it. We admit it-- we lost.

You lost on the ObamaCare, or whatever else you want to call it. It's the law. Some reports declared it. If you want to deal with other issues, put it in other bills, but don't attach it to this bill.

Reject this rule that brings the baggage. Bring the clean bill. Let's pass it in the next hour and, Mr. President, have it signed by midnight, and let's keep this government open. It does so much damage otherwise. So many kids, so many women, so many poor people really get hurt.

This is not leadership. This is meanness.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Lowey, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for those that may not understand what we're trying to do, all we have to do is pass one simple bill that was here in the House--the Senate gave it to us--and let's keep the government up for a number of days and continue to argue the other issues. But no, that's not what we're doing. We're taking that bill and just loading it up with a bunch of stuff that's been rejected time and time again. The consequence of that is you're not going to have a bill to the President tonight and the government will have to shut down.

It's a huge mistake. And it's not something we do. We've never done it. In fact, in the time I've been here, we've had big partisan disputes. Our party fought vehemently against President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. We thought it was without evidence and certainly was going to cost the government a lot of money and probably not have a great outcome. We didn't shut down the government after we lost that debate. Instead, we tried to make it work.

We fought against welfare reform. We thought that that reform of making everybody go to work even though they didn't know how to read and write--and mothers should be taking care of their children--we fought vehemently against it. And we lost. We didn't shut down government. We made it work.

We fought again when Wall Street came in and said, Tomorrow, we fail. We thought, Well, it's the Republican watch. They're responsible for this. Wall Street is their business. They like that. But when we were told that this was going to bring down the economy of the Nation and the world, we helped get it passed. In fact, there were more Democratic votes than Republican votes. We didn't shut down government. We made it work.

Tonight, we're on the verge of shutting down government. It's going to hurt a lot of people. It's going to hurt farmers who want to export food. It's going to hurt 8.7 million mothers in this country who want to feed their children on the WIC program. It's going to hurt 13 million children who go to school and will lose access to a school breakfast. It's going to hurt 31 million children who will lose their school meals. It will hurt 47 million low-income people who will not have food stamps.

It's a mean, reckless, ill-conceived idea to shut down the government.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again.

Last week, we averted an attack on the country of Syria. This week, we again attack the country of the United States of America. We attack the working poor.

What is it about the GOP-led institution? They can find nothing wrong with Wall Street criminals who have driven the American families into ruin, but we can spend several days attacking the victims of the recession.

I'm talking about people who need food stamps, which is the SNAP program. It's a debit card. They need help to buy food. Our farmers help them by growing the food, our grocery stores help them by selling the food, and our charity organizations help them when they fall through the cracks. And guess what? The helpers get paid. That's the money that supports the food stamps. Those are jobs. But that's about to go away. It's about to hurt those who need the help.

The bill on the floor today is H.R. 3102. It's the Republican Take Away Nutrition Reform and Take Away Work Opportunity Act. I added the ``takeaways'' because that's what it does. Sensible people ought to vote ``no'' on this bill.

You will hear that there are a lot of cheats out there. But guess what? The program has enforcement officers. They're in place. And when cheats are caught, they're fined or they go to jail. This is in contrast to the misguided Wall Street investors and the banking foreclosure mess, where no one seems to get caught or go to jail. But we here in Congress can pass a bad bill that takes food away from working mothers.

Who are these people on food stamps? Who receives this aid? You know them. They're parents, sisters, brothers, moms and dads, and, as you've heard from previous speakers, they're veterans and people on Active Duty service. They're people in need of extra money to buy food.

Yesterday, I met one of those persons here in the United States Capitol. She's a working mom. She dropped out of high school at the age of 16 but eventually got a GED degree. With her GED degree, now that she had a baby, she was urged that she needed to go on. But she didn't have a job. She needed help. She got it through food stamps. She decided now that she could care for her baby, she could go to community college to further her skill development and later go on to a California college. She's 21 years old. She's a senior in college this year and now the mother of a 5-year-old son.

I met her here in the United States Capitol because she works here. Her name is Lisa Russell. She won a Leon Panetta Hill internship. She is one of our best and brightest and needs food

stamps to make it work. I met her because she thanked me for opposing this bill. As she told me, There are a million Lisas out there, millions of people who need assistance. Don't deny them a chance to get out of poverty and to have help when they need it.

H.R. 3102 is a dream killer. It's un-American.

A few minutes ago, we pledged to this flag behind me. Now it's time to live up to the responsibilities in that pledge of justice for all, not just for a few.

H.R. 3102 is a bad bill. It needs defeating.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the United States Congress to celebrate and honor our local television station--it started 60 years ago--KSBW, an NBC affiliate for the central coast of California. SBW stands for ``Salad Bowl Capital of the World,'' which is what the Salinas area is known for.

In September 1953, the station opened, and it proudly represented the whole feeling of the central coast to have its first television station. I was 12 years old, and I remember sitting there with my father as he was being interviewed on that television station. It went through decades of being the area's first station to provide local news. It was the first station to broadcast in color. It was the first to broadcast news reports from the field. It was the first to broadcast in high definition.

For the past 15 years, the station has been owned by the 126-year-old Hearst Corporation and led locally by Joseph W. Heston as president and general manager. Hearst continues to operate a full-time Washington, D.C., news bureau, making KSBW the only local station on the central coast to provide direct reports from Washington to local constituents.

Congratulations, KSBW, for 60 years of firsts. I wish them another 60 years of great success on the central coast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the Fiftieth Anniversary of Temple Beth El in Salinas, California. On behalf of the entire House, I am privileged to extend the gratitude of Congress and the American people for the past and future service of the Beth El congregation.

The First Hebrew Congregation and Community Center of Salinas was established in 1935. During World War II, and for a few years thereafter, Chaplain Hertz of Fort Ord served the congregation as its first religious leader. In 1949, Rabbi Seymour Stern joined the congregation as the synagogue's first Rabbi. Rabbi Abraham Haseklorn took over the rabbinic duties in 1953, and served until his retirement in 1973. He and his wife Alda made an invaluable contribution to the Salinas

community. In 1963, the name of Temple Beth El was adopted for the new synagogue building designed by Temple member Jerome Kasavan, and is the home of the current congregation and Rabbi Marcy Delbick.

For several years, Temple Beth El has served members throughout Salinas, Monterey, Prunedale, Gilroy and San Benito County. Their goal has been to provide both a spiritual and social center for members and guest. Its membership has spanned the entire spectrum of Jewish thought and tradition, along with diverse age levels and religious backgrounds. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox as well as unaffiliated members have added a unique variety to their gatherings. Throughout the years they have adapted to the changing needs of the times, while maintaining the respect for the traditions of their ancestors.

The objective of Temple Beth El has been both religious and cultural, providing Sunday and Hebrew school for children as well as education programs for adults. At the start, the religious school began with ten students, though soon outgrew the available space and often spilled into congregants' homes. Today, Temple Beth El offers education programs for children throughout the school year. A vast array of adult education classes are provided, from an introduction to Judiasm to the Lunch and Learn program.

Tikkun Olam, ``repairing the world", is a major part of the Temple Beth El congregation community outreach. Members often prepare meals at the homeless shelter for the less fortunate, and are principle bell ringers for the Salvation Army's Red Kettle Drive on Christmas Eve. For over 50 years the yearly Kosher Luncheon is a much heralded community event where corned beef and pastrami sandwiches are served, providing Jewish outreach of the most delicious kind.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I say Mazel Tov to the Temple Beth El congregation for their years of service devoted to the advancement of religious, cultural, and educational opportunities. I know I speak for the House in saluting their dedication, in making the community a better place and congratulating them on the celebration of their Golden Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Aptos High School Robotics Club--winners of the 2013 International Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) Underwater Robotics Competition. The club, which independently designed, built, operated, and competed with their remote operated vehicle (ROV) in this year's competition, has won the MATE competition for the second time in three years. This year's original design, ``The Kracken", is a deep-water ROV engineered to maintain ocean observing systems. This fully functional submersible, a collaborative effort by fourteen bright and young scientific minds, demonstrates that people of all ages have much to contribute to the science and technology necessary to better understand our treasured oceans.

The MATE competition challenges K-12, community college, and university students from all over the world to design and build ROVs to tackle missions modeled after real world modern science scenarios. The competition requires students to think of themselves

as ``entrepreneurs'' and transform their teams into companies that manufacture, market and sell ``products.''

In addition to engineering their ROVs, the students are required to prepare technical reports, poster displays and engineering presentations that are delivered to working professionals. This structure allows competitors to experience the ``real world'' aspects of bringing such products to the marketplace; not only highlighting the importance of ocean observation and exploration, but also the intrapersonal and professional skills needed to effectively contribute in a professional environment.

Mr. Speaker, I am immensely proud of these talented and hardworking young oceans leaders from my congressional district and congratulate them on their remarkable achievement. These students have proven, on an international level, that the innovative mind and entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in all generations of Americans. Constituents in my district have long recognized the value of our oceans and coasts and the Aptos High Robotics Team has developed an important prototype that will help scientists gather more ocean observing data. I commend the team for their efforts and encourage them to continue to pursue their passion for ocean science and exploration.

Mr. Chair, the base bill contains divisive policy riders that would pointlessly prohibit federal investment in high-speed rail in California.

Rail has a long history in CA going back to 1869. Prior to ``the last spike'' joining Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, CA was isolated from the rest of the country.

Once the transcontinental railroad was completed, CA started to develop into! the urbanized, industrialized economic and political powerhouse that it is today--the 12th largest economy in the world.

What we're talking about here is jobs. Connecting LA and San Francisco will generate 66,000 jobs annually for 15 years and 2,900 permanent operations jobs for Phase 1. In the Central Valley, initial construction will produce 20,000 jobs annually for five years.

If you want to talk about Return on Investment, the initial state investment of $2.6 billion from state bond funds will produce a net economic impact of $8.3 to $8.8 billion--a 3 to 1 return.

Every year, auto congestion drains $18.7 billion in lost time and wasteful fuel from the state's economy.

Our auto congestion is not something we can build ourselves out of . . . travel on CA's interstate system is increasing at a rate 5 times faster than capacity is added.

Now is the time to invest in High Speed Rail in CA. This bill prohibits federal investment in high-speed rail in California, and fails to make other critically needed investments in our nation's failing infrastructure: a 37% cut in Amtrak capital funds which will result in deferred maintenance; and a $139 million cut to Federal Trust Transit Administration capital investment grants that will cancel scheduled projects in California and other states.

American's sense of itself as an exceptional nation was true when we were investing in our national infrastructure, whether it was: electrification of our rural communities, building our interstate highway system, or connecting the East Coast to the West Coast by rail.

We need to dream big again and not be afraid to make those same kinds of investments in our national infrastructure, like high speed rail, and NextGen for a 21st century air traffic control system.

The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued their report card for our nation's infrastructure and the United States got a grade of D+.

This bill should be increasing our grade from a D+ to an A+.

We just need the political will.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Clint G. Quilter on the occasion of his retirement, with just shy of twenty-four years of service to the residents of Hollister. Since he first began his service in 1989, he held multiple posts with the city. Clint began as Public Works Inspector, where he was responsible for the upkeep of water, sewer, grading, storm drains and all city roads. In 1992 he was promoted to Assistant Engineer and the following year to Associate Engineer. In 1997, Clint assumed the Acting Director of Public Works position and within a matter of months was promoted to Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer. Because of his fine work, the following summer he became the Public Works Director/City Engineer position where he was responsible for the overall operation and maintenance for the city's entire infrastructure. He became Interim City Manager on May 10, 2004 and finally served as City Manager from May 17, 2005 through July 19, 2013.

During his tenor as City Manager Clint dealt with a number of challenges in governing the city but was dedicated to working with people to find solutions. When Clint took the City Manager position, the city was operating at a $4 million deficit, but with time he was able to balance the budget. Clint also helped steer the city to a solution for its sewer treatment capacity and out of the building moratorium.

I had the pleasure of working with Clint on a number of federal projects and community events. In 2005, Clint assisted my office with the plans for my annual ``Proud to be An American'' Citizenship Ceremony held at the Veteran's Memorial Building in downtown Hollister. We had over 250 new citizens from twenty-five different countries sworn-in as American citizens from the tri-county area. In the summer of 2009, Clint again facilitated the use of the Veteran's Memorial Building for my Hollister Health Care Town Hall meeting,

where we had over 450 people, a record turnout of San Benito County residents.

It has also been a pleasure to work with Clint on issues pertaining to the Hollister Airport. Clint's expertise and knowledge was extremely important to my office, when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was leaning to deny the Hollister Airport's through-the-fence access. With his help, the FAA issued a no objection letter to the through-the- fence access at the airport business park. This was a great accomplishment involving many but Clint's work was noteworthy and has opened up other business opportunities as well as federal funding to do upgrades including the airport taxiways. It was great having him on my San Benito County team.

Mr. Speaker, Clint has had a long and successful career with the City of Hollister and has gained the respect of his fellow workers and members of the community as well as the business community. I extend my most sincere thanks and warmest wishes for her success and much success and happiness in his retirement.

Madam Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and the gentleman from Indiana on an issue regarding timeliness, accuracy, and the review of security clearance processing.

As the chairman is aware, security clearances are necessary to protect our national security and are required for thousands of jobs. However, the length of time it takes to conduct the investigations, the quality of the investigations, and the continuous review of approved security clearances are three areas that could be improved. I believe that there is a solution to all three of these concerns, and it involves the leveraging of automated investigation tools already in existence.

The Defense Department has within its subordinate activities the Defense Personnel Security Research Center, known as PERSEREC. It has researched and developed a number of automated toolsets that can reduce the time it takes to adjudicate investigations, to grade the quality of the investigations, to measure human error, and to provide a way to monitor and reaffirm granted clearances based on an analysis of human behavior.

These computer programs could dramatically increase the quality of the investigations while at the same time saving money and shortening the time it takes to both approve and reinvestigate security clearances. These tools are already available today, but they have not been leveraged. Instead, the majority of security clearances is being investigated by an antiquated analog adjudication process that just doesn't reflect the best research and development readily available to the Department of Defense by PERSEREC.

I greatly appreciate that the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee have included report language encouraging the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management to use these automated tools and systems readily available for the security clearance process.

Would my colleagues agree that the security clearance process should incorporate proven tools that ensure increased efficiency and quality?

I thank the gentleman for his response.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank both of you for your friendship, your leadership, and your cooperation.