Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, as I am the most junior member of this subcommittee.

But I would be remiss not to echo the praise of my colleagues, both for the chairman and the ranking member. They have worked together extraordinarily well in a way that makes us all proud. Frankly, Mr. Dicks, I am going to miss you greatly from this committee. You have been a mentor and a friend. Thank goodness Mr. Young will be here, and I will have somebody's knee to learn at.

This is a good bill. It does, as has been mentioned earlier, add roughly a billion dollars from roughly $519 billion in the base defense bill. What hasn't been mentioned, though, is that our overseas contingency fund, 8, $8.5 billion, is actually down $27 billion, so we are actually spending less overall on defense this year.

We reduced the number of personnel by over 21,000. We ought to recognize, for those of our friends who think we're spending too much, we are actually at the beginning of a long drawdown. If you look over the next 5 years, sadly, we're going to reduce defense spending by $500 billion. That means less capability. That means 70,000 fewer soldiers, 20,000 fewer marines. That means 25 fewer combat vessels--288 instead of 313. Seven fewer aircraft fighter wings. Real reduction in capability.

A lot of our friends think we spend too much on defense. The reality is we spend less and less as a percentage of our Federal budget and our overall wealth every year. In the 1970s we were spending 40 percent plus of the Federal budget. This year, it's less than 20. We were spending 9 percent of GDP at the height of the Cold War, this year barely 4.

For those of us that think that this investment hasn't made a difference, I would just recommend in closing, please read Robert Kagen's splendid book, ``The World America Made,'' and think how much freedom and security we have enjoyed for a relatively small price and think about the risk we have run as we go forward if we reduce too far too fast.

I want to thank again the chairman, the ranking member, for making sure that didn't happen. I look forward to working with him to make sure sequestration does not occur. As he rightly points out, it would be devastating.

We should pass this bill, and we then should get about the longer term challenge of making sure sequestration does not occur.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is unpopular, unworkable, and unaffordable. It's unpopular because it limits individual freedom and personal choice. It's unworkable because it relies on thousands of regulations, dozens of boards and commissions, and an unelected group of bureaucrats to distribute and ration care. We have the opportunity today to end a bill that's also unaffordable. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxes, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of raids on the Medicare fund.

We can only take the first step here today. But in November, the American people can take the next step by electing a President and a Senate that will work with this House instead of against them to repeal what is a legislative monstrosity that should have never passed in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for their help in moving this legislation and also the staff of the Natural Resources Committee who have been very supportive and helpful.

I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 3263, the Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2011. Lake Thunderbird is a Bureau of Reclamation project which provides municipal water to Norman, Del City, and Midwest City, all major municipalities in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.

In recent years, the watershed that feeds Lake Thunderbird has not been able to keep that lake full. The water that remains is of poor quality and ill-suited for drinking water and recreation. Lake Thunderbird was built to provide water to a water-starved region, and this legislation would help the Bureau of Reclamation meet the original goals of this project.

The bill allows the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District to acquire and store water from outside of the Bureau of Reclamation system in Lake Thunderbird. Any cost associated with this action would be paid for by the conservancy district. This legislation costs Federal taxpayers nothing.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, in my view, this is the type of action that we should be able to take administratively; however, under current law, it requires congressional consent.

Mr. Speaker, I first initiated this legislation in the 110th Congress when central Oklahoma was in the midst of a significant drought. In July of 2011, Oklahoma recorded the driest month ever recorded by any of the 50 States since records have been kept. Central Oklahoma remains in a drought that is forecast to continue and worsen this summer.

H.R. 3263 is important to the economic growth of central Oklahoma. The Oklahoma City metropolitan area has seen tremendous growth over the past decade and has been a positive economic force at a time of great challenges to the national economy. Water must be available to support the continued growth of this region. This straightforward and commonsense legislation is an important tool to support further growth in central Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5883) to make a technical correction in Public Law 112 108, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4970. The bill, as reported out of the Judiciary Committee, lacked provisions protecting tribal women. But Chairman Smith and his staff, along with Leader Cantor and Congresswoman Adams, worked with me to ensure that the protections for tribal women were added and included in this bill.

This bill does not change any existing authority that tribal courts possess but adds an additional tool in Federal court to combat violence against tribal women. The bill includes a mechanism for tribes to petition a Federal court on the victim's behalf, which is important to victims of limited means living in remote locations.

I support the tribal provisions of the Senate-passed VAWA and the provisions found in the SAVE Native Women Act, H.R. 4154, of which I'm a cosponsor. I believe that those provisions are, indeed, constitutional. But the protections found in this bill will have a positive effect in Indian country. These provisions aren't perfect, but they improve current law considerably. I support the progress made in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4970. We cannot improve a bill and strengthen tribal sovereignty if we can't get a bill to conference.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for those exceptionally generous comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act, by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich). I want to commend him for bringing forward and working so hard to secure the passage of this genuinely important piece of legislation.

Increased opportunity for economic development in Indian Country is the best way to raise the standards of living for tribal members. This legislation will help break down the barriers to economic development by making needed reforms to tribal leasing regulations.

H.R. 205 will streamline the existing bureaucratic process for leasing tribal trust lands by providing Indian tribes with the option to develop and manage their own surface leasing regimes.

Existing law requires that each lease of tribal surface lands be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The secretarial approval process is costly, time consuming, often results in lost business and economic opportunities for tribal communities, and is far too cumbersome to be helpful to those it's designed to protect. These lease reforms come from a pilot program which implemented this same regime on the Navajo reservation over a decade ago. Based on the success of that pilot, it's only natural that these reforms be available to all tribes.

Under H.R. 205, once a tribe's own surface leasing regime is approved by the Department of the Interior, the tribe can proceed to negotiate, approve, and administer leases of tribal trust lands under its control. Passage of H.R. 205 will enable tribal governments to assume responsibility for the management of their lands, reduce Federal costs and government liability, and encourage more housing and economic development on Indian lands, resulting ultimately in job creation.

This bill has strong bipartisan support, is a priority for Indian Country, and is strongly supported by the administration. It empowers tribes, encourages tribal self-government, decreases the dependency of tribes on the Federal Government, and speeds up economic development in Indian Country.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico for his hard work on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know in their gut that they're not taxed too little, and they also know that the Federal Government spends too much.

This bill is an important first step in restraining spending and bringing our out-of-control deficit under control. I'm very proud of our chairman, Mr. Ryan, on our committee for bringing it to the floor. I'm even prouder of the six authorizing committees that systematically did their job of reviewing nondiscretionary spending and finding real savings that we can use to reduce the deficit and protect important investments in defense.

Taming the deficit will require that we take these steps each and every year going forward. We haven't done it since 2005. It's time to do it today. Let's take a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 4004.

Madam Chair, I rise to support the Republican budget, and, frankly, I do so with a great deal of pride.

It's the only serious plan that either party has put forward that deals with the looming debt crisis that we face. It cuts $5.35 trillion out of projected spending over the next decade. It reforms Medicare and Medicaid, something everybody in this House knows needs to happen. It actually lays out the blueprint for tax reform. It deals with the sequester in a responsible way. It forces the authorizing committees to finally begin to deal with the entitlement crisis that we face. And it adds $200 billion back to defense spending over the next decade, something, as my colleague, Mr. Calvert, pointed out, that is very much in our national interest.

This budget is politically viable. It passed the House last year; it will pass the House this year; and, frankly, it got more votes in the United States Senate last year--42--than any budget presented by anybody. Let's contrast that with our friends on the other side.

The President's budget last year got zero votes in the United States Senate, a body that his party controls. Our Democratic friends in the Senate haven't produced a budget in 3 consecutive years, and our friends on the other side didn't do so when they were in the majority, didn't do so last year. I'm delighted, actually, that they will do so this year. I think that's a step in the right direction. But that budget is largely silent on entitlement reform.

My main criticism of all the Democratic budgets is not that they can't pass; it is that they're simply not serious. They don't deal with the problems that the country is facing.

In my experience, Madam Chairman, a plan beats no plan. Our friends on the other side have no plan. We do. It's a plan we should embrace enthusiastically to avert the crisis that faces our country, so I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall 44, the question of agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 540) which provides for the consideration of H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of people have asked whether or not this bill is constitutional. Frankly, I think it is. I don't think there's much doubt about it. A lot of people have raised the point that it enhances the power of the Presidency. I don't think there is much question that it does do that.

A lot of people have argued it's substantive, and there I have to respectfully disagree. There's nothing substantive about this legislation at all. We already have gotten rid of earmarks, don't use them anymore, and the Appropriations Committee has already shown that on its own it can cut spending. It's done it in 2 budget years in a single calendar year.

The sad thing here is we had a chance to do something substantive. We had amendments offered by Ms. McCollum and myself that actually would have made tax expenditures in order to be reviewed, that actually would have looked at direct spending. Those amendments, unfortunately, were ruled out of order.

Pursuing bipartisanship and providing Members with political cover at the expense of substantive policy, frankly, is unworthy of the Congress, in my view, and certainly of this majority. Our budget problems are serious. They deserve serious solutions. The Ryan budget is a serious solution. The 2006 legislative line-item veto bill, which included provisions to cover the very items that this bill does not, was a serious solution. This legislation, sadly, is not serious and ought to be rejected. We ought to be serious about the budget deficit we face.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall number 36, (the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act which provides for the General Services Administration (GSA) to override the congressionally-approved recommendations of the Commission and allow property to be given at no cost to create open space) had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation by my good friend, Mr. Woodall of Georgia. This legislation makes really significant reforms to the way the CBO develops baseline calculations for discretionary spending. Under current laws, we all know the CBO automatically budgets for inflation of discretionary spending in our baseline projects.

This process runs completely counter to what every American does with their own budget. No family sits down and assumes that they will automatically have an inflationary increase in their budget next year. No small business sits down and says, my sales or my revenue will automatically move up. As a matter of fact, using that approach actually is counterproductive because it actually discourages the search for savings and efficiencies.

I am an appropriator, and I can tell you this is the road to deficit spending. Getting rid of this will help us bring our fiscal house back in order. We should have done it a long time ago. The last time the Republicans were in the majority--and I'm very proud that Mr. Woodall, Mr. Ryan, and other Members, and particularly this new freshman class, are pushing to do this. This will allow us to reduce the size of government, it will increase transparency, and we'll be able to put our house where we ought to put it.

Of course, the legislation is just one piece of a broader set of reforms. As Chairman Ryan indicated, we need to bring those up systematically. But this is the first step and the right step in the direction of getting our fiscal house in order. I commend my friend for bringing it to the floor. I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1022, the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act, which will allow the Department of the Interior to study the role of Buffalo Soldiers and how they defended our first national parks. This is a key step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first African American infantry and cavalry units and the contributions they made to our Nation.

Although history has often overlooked the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers, all Americans from all walks of life would benefit from learning about this often overlooked chapter in our history. The legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers dates back to post Civil War days. Although African Americans have fought with distinction in all of our country's military engagements, their future in the Army was in doubt after the Civil War. In July 1866, however, Congress passed legislation establishing two cavalry regiments and four regiments of infantrymen, later merging two, whose composition was made up entirely of black soldiers. The troopers of the 9th and 10th Cavalries developed into two of the most distinguished fighting units in the Army and who were stationed at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma in the late 1870s. While they constructed key buildings on the post that still stand today, the Buffalo Soldiers' biggest contribution was to preserve the integrity of the land-runs which are such an integral part of Oklahoma, the Sooner state's, history and identity. Their bravery and fierce fighting techniques on the battlefield inspired Native Americans to call them ``Buffalo Soldiers.''

The Buffalo Soldiers served the United States in the harshest environments and under the most difficult conditions, and preserving their legacy will ensure that the Buffalo Soldiers' service will be appropriately memorialized. The Buffalo Soldiers' story is ultimately about the triumph not just of African American troops over prejudice and injustice, but about the movement of our nation westward, and toward a more tolerant and courageous society.

As such, I support the effort to evaluate the feasibility of a great National Historic Trail along the Buffalo Soldiers' route from their historic military post at the San Francisco Presidio to Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. Identifying properties that could be listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designations as National Historic Landmarks will help keep the Buffalo Soldiers' story alive and bring to light, for future generations, their story of courage while serving their country.

We must all continue to work, together and as individuals, each day to make sure that our country truly is a community of all people and recognize those that came before us to make this nation strong, prosperous and free. We should never forget the challenges our predecessors faced in the creation and preservation of this great nation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to congratulate Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for an exceptionally hard job which yielded, frankly, a very good product.

This bill spends less--$70 billion less--than the President requested and $6 billion less than we spent last year. It's the second year in a row we've actually cut discretionary spending.

The bill cuts by 5 percent the funding for EPA regulatory programs which have passed some wildly unpopular and costly rules. The bill eliminates 23 programs totaling more than $240 million. And while this bill cuts wasteful spending, it actually focuses additional funds on things that count--defending our country, helping some of our most vulnerable and challenged citizens, and providing funds to educate some of our most disadvantaged young people.

The bill provides a 1.6 percent pay increase for the military, as requested by the President, and funds the Defense Health and Military Family programs at $1.1 billion above FY2011 and $283 million above the President's request.

Along with supporting our Armed Forces, this bill exceeds FY2011 levels for our veterans. With $58 billion in discretionary spending, this bill fully funds $2.1 billion above last year's level for those who have served our country.

In addition, the Indian Health Service is funded at $4.3 billion, an increase of nearly 6 percent. I particularly want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran for their hard efforts. The original House bill was actually even higher; it's our friends in the Senate who actually reduced funding here. The House really did a great job in this area.

Finally, I want to note TRIO funding was increased in a difficult environment by $15 million.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It reprioritizes our spending away from wasteful programs that don't work toward things that are truly important

for the American people. I urge its passage. I thank my friends for their hard work.

I yield to my friend from Washington.

I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate that.

I urge passage of the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The legislation before us actually does three important things: First, it eliminates an antiquated, outdated system of public financing; second, it terminates an obsolete commission; and then finally, and not incidentally, it actually saves money, something that we talk a lot about around here but we very seldom actually do.

When the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was actually created in 1973, it was during the time before things like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. The widespread use of the Internet did not exist. That's no longer the case today. Today, it's pretty easy to actually contribute money to a Presidential candidate if you want to do it. I would advise anybody, regardless of their political persuasion, to simply type the name of the candidate that they like into the Internet and wait and see what pops up, and they're going to have an immediate opportunity to donate to that individual.

There is no need to take public money at a time that we're running $1.5 trillion deficits and divert it to what's essentially political welfare for Presidential candidates--absolute waste of money. It's so much a waste that our President, who defends the system but chose not to participate in the system--in 2008, he did not participate, did not raise money this way, did not do it during the public campaign, actually broke precedent and, frankly, the commitment he had made earlier in the campaign and just chose not to do it. And that's fine. That was his right. He was certainly more than adequately funded. His opponent, Senator Clinton, now Secretary Clinton, was also adequately funded. She did not use the public financing system. The one person who did, John McCain, was heavily outspent, although I don't think that had much to do with his defeat.

I think, honestly, Americans know how to contribute to Presidential candidates. They don't need the Federal Government letting them check off a portion of their taxes and divert it for that purpose.

In addition, public participation in this system has declined radically. It's never reached even one-third of American taxpayers that are willing to do this--peaked at 28 percent, and in 2009 was down to 7 percent of American taxpayers who chose to do it.

So we're not denying anybody the ability to participate. We are giving very expensive welfare to Presidential candidates and to political parties at a cost to the taxpayer when that cost can't be afforded.

Two weeks ago, we had something that occurred that honestly ought to concern everybody on this floor. And I don't fault either party for it, but the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both received $17 million for their conventions from the Federal Treasury of the United States; $17 million for two political parties--actually, 34 in total-- to actually run their conventions from the American taxpayer. Who really believes that's a needed expenditure? Each one of those parties--and I can tell you because I used to be the chief of staff of one of them--will spend over $100 million on its convention. They don't require additional Federal help. It's simply a waste of time and a waste of money.

As for the Election Assistance Commission--and I say this as a former secretary of State--this is a commission whose time has come and gone. Whatever good it did, it currently spends over 50 percent of its budget on administration, not on direct assistance to the States. And the idea that State governments and States who have been running elections for 200 years suddenly need the Federal Government to tell them how to do it and spend this kind of money I think is just absurd.

Frankly, the National Association of Secretaries of State, which is the oldest public association of elected officials and appointed officials in the United States, has twice called for the

elimination of this. They don't feel the need for it. They certainly don't see that they're getting any assistance from it.

So whatever good it played in the immediate aftermath of the 2000 election I think is now concluded.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Without putting too fine a point on it, this is a system and this is a commission that simply exists to solve problems that aren't problems. We have no problem funding Presidential campaigns in the United States. There's plenty of money--probably too much money--around. There doesn't need to be taxpayer money. Nor do political parties have a problem funding their conventions. They can do it themselves. Nor do we need a commission whose purpose has now passed into history and whose entities it's supposed to serve, the Secretaries of State around the country, have actually asked us to abolish it.

So let's just finally prove we can get rid of outmoded programs, end the expenditures, and actually save the taxpayers some money. And in doing so, I can assure everybody on the floor that our democracy will remain healthy, our elections will be fair, and the American people, in their wisdom, will figure out which candidate to contribute to if they choose to contribute to any candidate at all.