Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, according to the Secretary of Homeland Security, our southern border is secure.

Well, not so fast with that pronouncement.

According to the General Accounting Office--those are the people that we pay to actually give us the true facts on such matters--half of the southern border is not under the operational control of the Border Patrol. Forty-four percent is secure; the rest is not. So who operates the other 56 percent? And, further, a mere 15 percent of the border is considered airtight.

Texas is the least secure border of all the Southern States. Our Border Patrol does a fine job but they need some help. The border sheriffs are superior lawmen, but they are overwhelmed with cross- border crime. With 37 percent of the people in Texas border jails being foreign nationals, those sheriffs, like the Border Patrol, are out- manned, out-gunned, and out-financed.

There is a border war going on, and it's time to send the National Guard to the southern border to protect the homeland.

Homeland Security should deal in reality, not myth and propaganda, and realize that over half of the border is the wide open spaces and that it remains porous to the drug bandits.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my fellow Texans, Mr. Barton and Mr. Carter, for cosponsoring and introducing amendment No. 466 in their commitment to block funding for new EPA greenhouse gas mandates.

This amendment will eliminate funding for the EPA to be used to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to the emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. This amendment will put an end to any backdoor attempt made by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases to go around Congress and circumvent the will of the people. Americans have rejected this policy. Despite being rejected by Congress, the administration has ignored the will of the people and the law to further some political agenda.

It's absolutely necessary that Congress take immediate action to ensure that the EPA does not continue to destroy industry across the board in our country. We're in the midst of a massive economic downturn, and the last thing we need to do is to shoot ourselves in the foot with unnecessary, expensive new regulations that are on business and industry, not to mention Americans will be left holding the bag.

Past attempts to regulate greenhouse gases would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes up about 15 percent, or cost each American household an extra $1,700.

This amendment, section 1746 of the CR, says that none of the funds made available to the EPA are to be used to enforce or promulgate any regulation relating to State limitation plan or permits. Further, amendment No. 466 takes the CR a step further, prohibiting the EPA from enforcing national regulation of greenhouse gases similar to the cap- and-trade regulation.

This amendment basically prohibits the EPA from overregulating not only the State of Texas but the rest of the States regarding greenhouse gases. Probably no Member of Congress represents more refineries than I do in southeast Texas; and the regulatory process, the overregulation of the EPA coming in and trying to now regulate the State of Texas regarding greenhouse gases is a detriment to the industry. The State of Texas regulates greenhouse gases. The State of Texas regulates the industry. It has done a good job. This is overreaching on the part of the EPA. And it's time for the EPA not to put industry out of business and put the refinery industry out of business.

This amendment will rein them in and prohibit them from implementing the so-called cap-and-trade philosophy on States such as Texas and other States.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2011]

The EPA's War on Texas

The Environmental Protection Agency's carbon regulation

putsch continues, but apparently abusing the clean-air laws

of the 1970s to achieve goals Congress rejected isn't enough.

Late last week, the EPA made an unprecedented move to punish

Texas for being the one state with the temerity to challenge

its methods.

To wit, the EPA violated every tenet of administrative

procedure to strip Texas of its authority to issue the air

permits that are necessary for large power and industrial

projects. This is the first time in the history of the Clean

Air Act that the EPA has abrogated state control, and the

decision will create gale-force headwinds for growth in a

state that is the U.S. energy capital. Anyone who claims that

carbon regulation is no big deal and that the EPA is merely

following the law will need to defend this takeover.

Since December 2009, the EPA has issued four major

greenhouse gas rule-makings, and 13 states have tried to

resist the rush. The Clean Air Act stipulates that pollution

control is ``the primary responsibility of states and local

government,'' and while the national office sets overall

priorities, states have considerable leeway in their

``implementation plans.'' When EPA's instructions change,

states typically have three years to revise these plans

before sending them to Washington for approval.

This summer, the 13 states requested the full three years

for the costly and time-consuming revision process, until the

EPA threatened economic retaliation with a de facto

construction moratorium. If these states didn't immediately

submit new implementation plans to specification, the agency

warned, starting in 2011 projects ``will be unable to receive

a federally approved permit authorizing construction or

modification.'' All states but Texas stood down, even as

Texas continued to file lawsuits challenging the carbon power

grab.

Two weeks ago, EPA air regulation chief Gina McCarthy sent

the Texas environmental department a letter asserting that

the agency had ``no choice'' but to seize control of

permitting. She noted ``statements in the media'' by Texas

officials and their ``legal challenges to EPA's greenhouse

gas rules,'' but she cited no legal basis.

And no wonder. The best the EPA could offer up as a legal

excuse for voiding Texas's permitting authority last Thursday

was that EPA had erred in originally approving the state's

implementation plan--in 1992, or three Presidents ago.

The error that escaped EPA's notice for 18 years was that

the Texas plan did not address ``all pollutants newly subject

to regulation . . . among them GHGs [greenhouse gases].'' In

other words, back then Texas hadn't complied with regulations

that didn't exist and wouldn't be promulgated for another 18

years.

The takeover was sufficiently egregious that the D.C.

circuit court of appeals issued an emergency stay on Thursday

suspending the rules pending judicial review. One particular

item in need of legal scrutiny is that the permitting

takeover is an ``interim final rule'' that is not open to the

normal--and Clean Air Act-mandated--process of public notice

and comment. So much for transparency in government.

The EPA claims its takeover is a matter of great urgency,

but Texas is being pre-emptively punished for not obeying

rules that don't exist today because the EPA hasn't finalized

them. ``Now, at this early stage, there's no specifics to

tell you about the rules in terms of what we're announcing

today, other than they will be done and we'll move--take

steps moving forward in 2011,'' Mrs. McCarthy told reporters

on a conference call last week about the agency's

``performance standards'' for oil refineries, power plants,

cement manufacturers and other such CO2-heavy

facilities.

``It's way too early in the game right now to be talking

about what we think the standards are going to look like,''

she added helpfully. ``Today's announcement is just the fact

we're going to move to those standards.''

This and other permitting uncertainties have brought major

projects in the U.S. to a standstill. The Texas takeover in

particular is pure political revenge and an effort to

intimidate other states from joining the Texan lawsuits. The

reason states are supposed to run the clean-air process is

that local regulators have the staff, capacity and expertise

that Washington lacks. When the carbon rules eventually are

issued, that means the takeover will extend the current

moratorium even longer in Texas.

The EPA concedes that some 167 current projects will be

affected, and many more in the future. Our guess is that all

of them will be delayed for years and many will simply die.

This is precisely the goal of a politically driven

bureaucracy that wants to impose by illegal diktat the

anticarbon, anti-fossil fuel agenda that the Obama

Administration has been unable to pass by democratic consent.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Contrary to what the gentleman says, in the State of Texas, the power plants, the refineries are already being regulated. They're being regulated by the State of Texas. And unless this amendment passes, the refineries, those that I represent probably more than any person in the United States--this new added burden by the EPA coming in will make those at the refineries lose their jobs. The administration has already done a good job of trying to close down the oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico by not lifting the permitting process. Now the

administration with this requirement, contrary to the law of Congress, since Congress has not passed a cap-and-trade philosophy, will put those refineries and workers at harm, and they will lose their jobs because of the new EPA regulatory process that is not necessary.

With that, I yield as much time as he wishes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who knows as much about the Clean Air Act as anybody.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is my understanding that the committee is going to move a standalone bill in the next few months on the very issue of

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the aftershocks of the Egyptian revolution are being felt throughout the Middle East. The hunger for freedom has gone viral and reenergized the movement for freedom in the country of Iran. No country in that region presents more of a threat to the national security of the United States, Israel, and the world than the ``tyrant from the desert'' and his regime in Iran, Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad says that his first nuclear missile will be sent to Tel Aviv, Israel. He hates the United States; he hates Israel, and he has been determined to destroy the both of us. We must believe his words are more than just rhetoric. For decades, the regime has managed to quash but not eliminate a vibrant opposition movement.

In 2009, that frustration erupted for the whole world to see. Thousands of people, mainly young people, marched defiantly in the streets, protesting the fraudulent election of Ahmadinejad. The ``little tyrant'' is a rogue President and an illegitimate President, and the response from the regime was brutal. Police on motorbikes ran over protestors, fired tear gas, beat them with batons, tortured them, shot them, and over a hundred protestors were murdered in the 2 weeks that followed the election. But to the surprise of the world and the little tyrant from the desert, the flame of freedom was not quashed in Iran.

During that fight for self-determination, our administration was somewhat passive, believing we could work with that tyrant. But Ahmadinejad does not want peace. He's already declared war on his own people and wants war with the West. In Iran there's no freedom of expression and association, no freedom from arrest, detention or torture, and women are denied basic human rights. But there's a remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker, about repression: The more a tyrant tries to hold on to power by cracking down on the people, the faster he loses grip on that society.

So, inspired by the events in Egypt, tens of thousands of young people once again took to the streets in Iran on Monday to protest the rogue government. But the dictator is fighting back, and he will continue to do so. But the protestors want freedom in their country. Communication has been cut. However, we are seeing communication from Iran through videos and YouTube and tweets from those Iranian people. The judiciary in Iran has already arrested 1,500 people. Two nonviolent protestors have been murdered, and the rogue parliament, along with the henchman Ahmadinejad has called for the hanging of corrupt opposition leaders. But the people of Iran still continue to protest.

The Iranian people--the Iranian resistance movement--is here to stay, whether Ahmadinejad likes it or not, and they deserve the same chance as every other freedom-loving people to rule their own country. The Iranians are freedom-loving people, and they deserve that basic human right that all peoples have of self-determination.

Today, we support--I support--the Iranians in Iran to take over their own country and to remove the dictator that is oppressing them. This fight will be difficult, but we hear the cries of the Iranian people. And those of us in Congress that support them, we are not going away any more than the Iranian people are going away, because they have the basic right of self-determination in their country.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, David Hartley, Lesley Enriquez, Arthur Redelfs, Nancy Davis, Carlos Mario Gonzalez Bermudez, Juan Carlos Echeverri, and now ICE agent Jaime Zapata. These are all American victims of the border war, the third front, all murdered in Mexico.

Yesterday, ICE agent Jaime Zapata was ambushed and murdered and another agent was wounded when they were gunned down at a fake ``checkpoint'' between Mexico City and Monterrey. None of the assassins or perpetrators of any of these homicides have ever been captured. I suspect, based upon Mexico's lax enforcement of the rule of law, no one will ever be held accountable.

Agent Zapata's murder will be news for a few days, then the country will move on to other matters. But the border war continues against the vicious drug cartels and it is time we acknowledge that this war is not going away. The drug bandits have operational control of portions of the southern border. Drugs and people are smuggled north. Money and guns are smuggled south.

We should help our neighbors restore the rule of law in Mexico and hold the lawless accountable for murdering Mexicans and Americans. Otherwise, there will be more murders like the one against Agent Zapata.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the war on our

third front, the southern border with Mexico.

Last Saturday, two American teenagers were brutally shot and killed in Mexico in the Mexican border town of Juarez, Mexico. That is right across the Rio Grande River from El Paso, Texas. On Thursday, drug cartels gunned down eight people at a bar in Juarez. On Sunday, Homero Salcido, the head of security and intelligence for the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico, was shot in the head and his car was set ablaze. Nuevo Leon is close to the U.S. border and once was considered one of the safest towns in all of Mexico. These murders are evidence that the narcoterrorists are continuing to expand their control with our neighbors to the south in Mexico.

There are portions of Mexico that are under the control of the drug bandits, and honest law enforcement is nonexistent. However, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has said that the situation on the border has been ``mischaracterized'' by lawmakers for political reasons.

Well, the same can be said of Homeland Security Director Napolitano. She mischaracterizes the border region, claiming it is safe. This is either for political reasons or because she refuses to admit the Federal Government is unwilling or incapable of securing the border.

More than 34,000 people have been murdered in our neighboring country of Mexico since the drug cartels began their reign of terror in 2006. In my opinion, neither the United States nor Mexico has operational control of some border regions. Drugs and people are smuggled into the U.S. and guns and money are smuggled to the south into Mexico.

And this is just not a Mexican problem. For example, 27 percent of the inmates in United States prisons are not U.S. citizens: 17.5 percent are from the nation of Mexico, and a whopping 37 percent of Texas border jails contain foreign nationals. If the border is so secure, Ms. Napolitano, how come so many thousands of illegals are pouring into our country committing serious crimes and filling up our prisons? How can any reasonable person say our borders are secure when 27 percent of America's prisons are the home to foreign nationals? They wouldn't be in prison if they didn't cross the border in the first place.

There is more. Jose Oswaldo Reyes Alfaro, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, went on a killing rampage in Manassas on Wednesday. He shot and killed three people and injured another. Alfaro had been ordered to be deported in 2002, but he just never left the country. These murders could have been prevented if our border security plan, Ms. Napolitano, was working.

An 8-year-old girl in Fairfax, Virginia, was raped by an illegal in her own home. Her rapist was Salvador Portillo-Saravia, a known criminal who was living in the United States illegally.

In 2003, Portillo-Saravia, an MS-13 gang member, was arrested and deported to El Salvador. But since we have open borders, the child rapist was able to sneak back into the United States unnoticed and under the radar. He was even arrested in November of 2010, but rather than be held in jail for deportation, he was released back on the streets because no one was able to check his illegal status. And 1 month later, Salvador Portillo-Saravia raped an innocent 8-year-old girl in her own home.

This disgusting crime could have been prevented if we secured our borders, deported illegals that were in this country, and kept them from returning. Tell the parents of this 8-year-old girl, Madam Secretary, that our border crisis is just ``mischaracterized.'' Our system is flawed and Homeland Security better understand that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the people of this Nation and quit making excuses.

It's way past time to put more National Guard troops on the border. I have introduced legislation to put 10,000 National Guard troops on the southern border to be paid for by the Federal Government but supervised by the four State Governors. We protect the borders of other nations. It's about time we protect our own.

Meanwhile, it appears Homeland Security is living in never-never land or blissfully unaware of the real world on the southern border--or mischaracterizes the situation for political reasons.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 465: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be appropriated to any agency for the implementation,

enforcement, or administration of section 1501 of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made

by such section, as amended.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 466: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, the EPA is now going after the farms and ranches that feed the American people. They say ranching and farming cause dust. Well, no kidding. So out with the dust, and in with more regulations and fines.

Dust has been around since man first tilled the soil with primitive plows and herded sheep and cattle in the wide open spaces. The EPA also doesn't like the dirt roads used by pickups and tractors that crisscross the cattle ranches and farms that are in Texas and in the heartland of America, so the Environmental Police Agency is going to regulate the dust created by farming and ranching by imposing expensive fines on the breadbasket of America. The dust police rule would make it more expensive to feed America.

First it was punishing the domestic energy industry. Now they're going after the agriculture industry. Does the EPA wish that we import all of our food like we do crude oil? This sounds a little bit un- American to me. Maybe the EPA needs to just hit the road.

And that's just the way it is.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 128: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 129: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 169: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 198: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 199: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 403: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be appropriated to any agency for any activities in

anticipation of, or related to implementing, administering,

or enforcing the individual mandate to purchase health

insurance pursuant to section 1501 of the Patient Protection

and Affordable Care, and the amendments made by such section,

as amended.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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