July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5515 

Especially during periods of national 

budgetary constraints affecting the 

bottom lines of States and local governments, the Byrne JAG grants are 

particularly important. Across our Nation, many jurisdictions, to shore up 

their budgets, are actually laying off 

police officers. When many of our citizens are experiencing economic hardship, we must not add to their burden 

by allowing public safety to suffer. 

H.R. 6062 reaffirms the Federal Government’s commitment to assisting 

State and local governments in their 

effort to prevent and fight crime. But 

reauthorization of the Byrne JAG 

grant program is obviously just a first 

step. We must also follow through with 

actually appropriating sufficient funds 

for the program. 

In addition, we should encourage allocation of grant funds to the full 

range of programs that State and local 

governments are allowed to fund. 

Under current law, State and local governments may use Byrne JAG funding 

for programs or projects that improve 

law enforcement efforts; prosecution 

and court programs; prevention and 

education programs; corrections and 

community corrections; drug treatment programs; planning, evaluation, 

and technology projects; and crime victim and witness programs. 

Each of these are essential to a comprehensive effort to protect us from 

crime, and, therefore, all of them 

should receive significant funding 

under the Byrne JAG grant program. 

An imbalance in justice assistance 

funding creates an imbalance in 

anticrime efforts. Specifically, an appropriate amount of funding should be 

allocated to prevent crime, which will 

help reduce the amount of money needed to fund the after-crime cost of investigation, prosecution, incarceration, 

and victim assistance. 

We must also assist State and local 

governments to fund public defender 

programs in recognition of the fact 

that the public is also protected from 

injustice when we safeguard the Sixth 

Amendment rights of our citizens. 

Finally, it is essential that the full 

range of other programs that assist 

State and local public safety initiatives, including the COPS program, are 

adequately funded. The COPS program 

has funded the hiring of more than 

123,000 State and local police officers 

and sheriff’s deputies in communities 

across our Nation, and it has been 

proven to be extremely effective in reducing crime. 

b 2040 

I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 

6062, and I commend the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania (Mr. MARINO) for 

his work on the bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 

6062 so that we can reaffirm our commitment to funding public safety programs, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

reserve the balance of my time as well. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield such time as he may consume to 

the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 

PALLONE). 

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my 

colleague from Virginia for yielding me 

the time. 

I just want to reiterate what Mr. 

SCOTT just said. I have to say I have 

never had more requests and concern 

about programs from mayors and elected officials in my municipalities than I 

get for programs like this Byrne JAG 

program, like the COPS program, like 

the SAFER program that deals with 

fire prevention. 

I think a lot of it has to do with the 

fact that many of my towns—and I’m 

sure this is true across the country— 

because of the recession, because of 

budgetary constraints are laying off 

police, laying off firemen, don’t have 

the resources, if you will, to deal with 

a lot of the crime prevention problems, 

so these programs are crucial to them. 

I want to reiterate what Mr. SCOTT

said about the fact that right now it’s 

not only a question of reauthorizing, 

but also making sure that there’s adequate funding for it. If I could just use 

an example in my own district, and 

that is that last week I was able to announce that several towns in my district, the Sixth District, have been 

awarded grants under the Byrne JAG 

program to support a broad range of 

activities to prevent and control crime. 

One grant is administered by Neptune 

and is benefiting both Asbury Park and 

Long Branch—Long Branch being my 

home town. Another grant is administered by New Brunswick, and it’s helping Perth Amboy, Edison, and 

Woodbridge. 

The funding is used to purchase law 

enforcement equipment and supplies. 

In New Brunswick, it’s being used for a 

police vehicle, which will have mobile 

video and data equipment. This is really all about community safety, which 

is of utmost importance. At a time 

when our local law enforcement has to 

cope with difficult funding levels, these 

Federal grants make it possible for 

towns to support critical crime-prevention activities that protect New Jersey 

families and their residents. I can’t 

stress enough how important this is. 

So I’m just very pleased today that 

on a bipartisan basis we are reauthorizing this, I think, for 5 years. And as 

Mr. SCOTT said, the next step is to 

make sure that there’s adequate funding because this is a crucial program. 

That’s why I came down here tonight 

to speak about it. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 6062. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

H.R. 6169, PATHWAY TO JOB CREATION THROUGH A SIMPLER, 

FAIRER TAX CODE ACT OF 2012; 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 8, JOB PROTECTION AND 

RECESSION PREVENTION ACT OF 

2012; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS FROM AUGUST 3, 2012, 

THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2012; 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 

RULES; AND WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE 

XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS 

Ms. FOXX, from the Committee on 

Rules, submitted a privileged report 

(Rept. No. 112–641) on the resolution (H. 

Res. 747) providing for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 6169) to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing 

for comprehensive tax reform; providing for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 8) to extend certain tax relief 

provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and 

for other purposes; providing for proceedings during the period from August 

3, 2012, through September 7, 2012; providing for consideration of motions to 

suspend the rules; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

with respect to consideration of certain 

resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, which was referred to 

the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed. 

f 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES 

ALLOCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT 

OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 1550) to establish programs in 

the Department of Justice and in the 

Department of Homeland Security to 

help States that have high rates of 

homicide and other violent crime, and 

for other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 1550 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Law 

Enforcement Personnel and Resources Allocation Improvement Act of 2012’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

SEC. 2. PRIORITY FOR ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL 

LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL 

AND RESOURCES. 

(a) REQUIREMENT.—In the allocation of 

Federal law enforcement personnel and resources, the Attorney General shall give priority to placing and retaining those personnel and resources in States and local jurisdictions that have a high incidence of 

homicide or other violent crime, based on 

records of crime acquired under section 534 

of title 28, United States Code, including reports of crime under the system known as 

the National Uniform Crime Reports, or on 

the best and most current information otherwise available to the Attorney General. 

(b) DESIGNATION OF EXISTING FEDERAL OFFICIAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall designate an existing official within the Department of Justice— 

(1) to develop practices and procedures to 

carry out the requirement established in 

subsection (a); and 

(2) to monitor compliance with those practices and procedures by the bureaus, agencies, and other subdivisions of the Department. 

SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORT. 

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 

the Attorney General shall submit to the 

Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives a report on the 

implementation of the requirement established in section 2. The report shall, for the 

year it covers— 

(1) specify which States and local jurisdictions have a high incidence of homicide or 

other violent crime; 

(2) identify the specific steps taken by the 

Attorney General to implement the requirement with respect to each of those States 

and local jurisdictions; and 

(3) provide a description of the methodology (including any changes made in that 

methodology) that the Attorney General has 

used to determine the total number of authorized Federal law enforcement positions, 

to allocate those authorized positions among 

States and local jurisdictions, and to assign 

personnel to fill those authorized positions. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.—The term ‘‘Federal law enforcement personnel’’ means law enforcement 

personnel employed by the Department of 

Justice, including law enforcement personnel in any of the following agencies of the 

Department: 

(A) The Drug Enforcement Administration. 

(B) The Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

(C) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

(D) The United States Marshals Service. 

(2) LOCAL JURISDICTION.—The term ‘‘local 

jurisdiction’’ has the meaning given the 

term ‘‘unit of local government’’ in section 

901(3) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3791(3)). 

(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means any 

State of the United States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States 

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or 

the Northern Mariana Islands. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) each will 

control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within 

which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1550, as amended, currently under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1550, the Federal 

Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention Act of 2012, was introduced by 

my friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. PIERLUISI of Puerto Rico. It helps focus the Justice Department’s law enforcement efforts on 

the areas of the country that need 

them the most. 

Crime in the United States began to 

rise sharply in the 1960s and continued 

up to its peak in the early 1990s. In response, Congress and the States reformed their criminal laws to include 

tougher penalties and truth-in-sentencing laws, and they dedicated additional resources to target the rising 

crime rate. 

To a great extent, our national focus 

on crime has been successful. The national violent crime rate in 2010 was almost half of what it was in 1991, and 

crime in the United States has continued to fall in spite of difficult economic times. The violent crime rate 

fell 5 percent from 2008 to 2009, and another 5 percent from 2009 to 2010. 

Despite this good news, we are far 

from a solution to the problem of violent crime in all areas of the country. 

There are still areas where violent 

crime remains a very serious issue and 

is even on the rise. For example, in my 

district, the number of murders in the 

city of Austin nearly doubled in 1 year, 

going from 22 homicides in 2009 to 38 

homicides in 2010. Puerto Rico, home 

to the sponsor of this bill, has experienced an increase in drug-related violent crime. With more than 1,100 deaths 

in 2011, the homicide rate in Puerto 

Rico last year was more than five 

times the national average. The majority of this violence is attributed to the 

area’s growing drug trafficking trade, 

which has implications, of course, for 

mainland U.S. 

The problem with high-crime areas 

may increase if there are not sufficient 

Federal law enforcement officers in 

these communities. To address this situation, the Justice Department started 

to dispatch surges of Federal law enforcement officers to prevent and investigate crime in high-crime cities 

like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and 

Oakland, California. H.R. 1550 continues this momentum. It directs the 

Department of Justice to consider, in 

coordination with State and local governments, the need to recruit, assign, 

and retain Federal law enforcement 

personnel in areas of the country with 

high rates of homicides and other violent crimes, which of course should include Puerto Rico. 

H.R. 1550 has bipartisan support and 

has been endorsed by the law enforcement community. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee 

on a voice vote, and once again I want 

to thank Mr. PIERLUISI for sponsoring 

this legislation. 

H.R. 1550 improves the safety of the 

many Americans who live in fear of 

violent crime in their neighborhoods. 

So I urge my colleagues to support the 

bill, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 

1550, the Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention Act. This bill 

would require the Department of Justice to prioritize the placement and retention of personnel in those States 

and local jurisdictions that have high 

incidences of homicide and other violent crimes. 

The recruitment and retention of law 

enforcement officers has become increasingly difficult in recent years. 

These challenges are faced not only by 

State and local police agencies, but 

also by Federal law enforcement agencies. Difficulty in recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers is particularly acute in jurisdictions that experience high rates of violent crime. 

b 2050 

In fact, the high incidence of crime in 

a jurisdiction can deter a Federal law 

enforcement officer from seeking assignment in that jurisdiction and can 

frequently lead to high turnover. The 

failure to retain a law enforcement officer has been estimated to result in 

approximately $100,000 in additional 

costs for the Department of Justice. 

H.R. 1550, as amended, aims to address this problem by directing the Attorney General to give priority in placing and retaining agents in jurisdictions with particularly high crime 

rates. This bill also requires the Department of Justice to annually provide Congress with a detailed report on 

how it is implementing this directive. 

H.R. 1550 is a modest, but necessary, 

measure to focus our crime-fighting efforts on the areas most in need. 

I, too, want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Puerto 

Rico (Mr. PIERLUISI), for his work in 

developing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1550. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

continue to reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield such time as he may consume to 

the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. 

PIERLUISI), the sponsor of the legislation. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Ranking 

Member SCOTT. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the chairman 

of the Judiciary Committee, LAMAR

SMITH, for supporting H.R. 1550 and for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5517 

working with House leadership to 

schedule the bill for floor consideration. 

I also want to thank the ranking 

member of the Judiciary Committee, 

Congressman CONYERS, the chairman of 

the Crime Subcommittee, Congressman 

SENSENBRENNER, and the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Congressman SCOTT, for their support. 

H.R. 1550 was unanimously approved 

by the Judiciary Committee and has 

been endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which 

represents over 25,000 Federal law enforcement officers employed by 65 

agencies. 

The short title of this bill, as modified, is the Federal Law Enforcement 

Personnel and Resources Allocation 

Improvement Act of 2012. The bill 

would direct the Department of Justice, when allocating law enforcement 

personnel and resources among U.S. jurisdictions, to give priority to those 

areas of the country that have high 

rates of homicide and other violent 

crime, including forcible rape, robbery 

and aggravated assault. 

The bill would require the Attorney 

General to designate an existing official within the Department of Justice 

who will be responsible for developing 

practices and procedures to implement 

this directive and for monitoring compliance with the directive by the Department’s component agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and 

the United States Marshals Service. 

Finally, the bill would require the 

Attorney General to submit an annual 

report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. The report would specify 

which jurisdictions have a high incidence of homicide or other violent 

crime and would identify the steps that 

the Department of Justice is taking to 

prioritize the allocation of law enforcement personnel and resources to those 

high-crime areas. 

In addition, the report would describe 

the methodology the Department is 

using to determine the total number of 

authorized Federal law enforcement 

positions nationwide, to allocate those 

authorized positions among different 

jurisdictions, and to assign personnel 

to fill those authorized positions. 

The basis for H.R. 1550 is as follows: 

in recent years, the number of murders 

and other violent crimes nationwide 

has decreased substantially. Between 

2007 and 2011, for example, the total 

number of murders in the United 

States decreased by over 20 percent, 

and the total number of violent crimes 

decreased by nearly 18 percent. 

Most U.S. jurisdictions, whether 

urban, suburban or rural, have experienced a meaningful reduction in murders and other violent crimes. From 

the macro-perspective, the progress we 

have witnessed has been real and, in 

many cases, remarkable. Much of the 

credit is due to law enforcement officers on the Federal and local levels. 

Enhanced and effective policing can 

make, and has made, a tremendous difference in our communities. 

Unfortunately, certain jurisdictions, 

sometimes referred to as ‘‘hot spots,’’ 

have been exceptions to this steady 

downward trend in violent crime. My 

own district, Puerto Rico, is a case in 

point. Today, the number of annual 

murders in Puerto Rico is nearly 90 

percent higher than it was in 1990. Between 2007 and 2011 alone, homicides 

rose by 55 percent, with most of the violence linked to the drug trade. Yet 

the Federal law enforcement footprint 

in the U.S. Territory has not evolved in 

light of these changed circumstances. 

Instead, it has remained stagnant. 

Puerto Rico may be the most dramatic example of a U.S. jurisdiction 

where violent crime has increased rather than decreased, but it’s by no means 

alone. For example, Flint, Michigan, 

experienced a 73 percent increase in 

homicides between 2007 and 2011, while 

a major metropolitan area in the Central Valley of California witnessed a 

100 percent increase in murders. 

Moreover, there are numerous other 

areas where there has been some 

progress in reducing crime, but where 

violence remains far too high. Examples of such areas include Detroit, St. 

Louis, Memphis, Oakland, Little Rock, 

Birmingham, Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Philadelphia, Chicago, Miami, and New 

Orleans. 

H.R. 1550 would promote and institutionalize steps that the Department of 

Justice, to its credit, has already 

begun to take. Recently, the Department developed a new initiative known 

as the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership to help target Federal resources to areas in need of additional 

law enforcement support. 

Pursuant to this initiative, for example, more than 50 officials from the 

FBI, DEA, ATF, the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, and DOJ’s criminal division 

have begun a 4-month surge of Federal 

law enforcement resources in order to 

prevent and combat violent crime in 

the Philadelphia metropolitan area. 

This is a positive step that should be 

encouraged and replicated in other 

high-crime jurisdictions, which is the 

precise result that H.R. 1550 seeks to 

bring about. 

To be clear, it is well understood that 

the methods that DOJ may successfully employ to reduce violent crime 

in, say, Philadelphia or Baltimore may 

need to be adjusted for use in San Juan 

or St. Louis, with the specific approach 

dependent upon the nature of the crime 

problem that each jurisdiction confronts and other relevant factors. 

For that reason, my bill does not in 

any way try to micromanage the Department or to promote a one-size-fitsall approach to fighting crime. H.R. 

1550 simply seeks to ensure, in this 

time of fiscal constraint on both the 

Federal and local levels, that DOJ has 

in place a carefully crafted and consistently applied policy of allocating limited law enforcement personnel and resources to those areas where they are 

needed the most. 

Again, I thank Chairman SMITH, 

Ranking Member SCOTT; and I hope my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

will support this bill. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

continue to reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield such time as she may consume 

to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN). 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the 

ranking member for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in very strong 

support of H.R. 1550, the Federal Law 

Enforcement Personnel and Resources 

Allocation Improvement Act of 2012, 

which would require the Attorney General, in the allocation of Federal law 

enforcement personnel and resources, 

to give priority to placing and retaining such personnel and resources in 

States and local jurisdictions that have 

a high incidence of homicide or other 

violent crime. 

I commend my friend, the Congressman from Puerto Rico (Mr. PIERLUISI) 

for its introduction, for his hard work, 

and for his leadership in getting it to 

the floor today. 

If this bill were to become law, my 

district, along with Congressman 

PIERLUISI’s, will be one of the local jurisdictions that would qualify for having that high incidence of homicide 

and violent crime. This is not a fact 

that we’re proud of, but it is a reality; 

and it’s the by-product of the USVI and 

Puerto Rico being a trans-shipment 

point for illegal drugs traveling from 

Central and South America to mainland United States. 

There are many other communities 

in our country that are facing the same 

or similar incidence of violence; and 

the blame, in most cases, can be traced 

to drug trafficking. In the case of the 

Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, it 

stems from the fact that we have become the route of choice for drug shipments to the east coast of the United 

States. 

According to Department of Justice 

statistics, in 2011, 165,000 metric tons of 

illegal drugs were seized in the Caribbean, Bahamas and Gulf of Mexico, up 

36 percent over 4 years. And up to 80 

percent of cocaine trafficked through 

the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is 

directed to U.S. east coast cities. 

b 2100 

Congressman PIERLUISI and I were recently at the Coast Guard station in 

Puerto Rico, and we had the opportunity to meet with the commander of 

the ship that had recently captured 1.4 

kilos of cocaine off of St. Croix in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. That was the port’s 

largest capture in its history. These 

routes are also a threat to America’s 

national security. In addition to the 

guns, assault weapons and drugs, the 

Caribbean region is susceptible to 

smuggling nuclear and all other kinds 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

of materials that could easily be used 

as staging areas for violence against 

our country. 

The most tragic of all are the young 

people who had been killed or who are 

now in jail, many of whom I knew and 

took care of as a family physician. Unfortunately, we, too, have one of the 

highest murder rates per 100,000 in our 

country. Our community was shocked 

a few months ago when two of our 

young policemen, who were in a high 

crime area but who were on what 

seemed to be a routine patrol, were 

shot earlier this year. Both sustained 

injuries which go beyond the physical. 

One is paralyzed and will require lifelong care and support. 

Our community, though, is fighting 

back. Our law enforcement has been 

meeting with those from across the 

Caribbean region. We are working with 

the Federal law enforcement that does 

exist in the Territory. Both of us, 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are high-intensity drug trafficking areas. We have a well-integrated but still incomplete team led by 

Adjutant General Vicens from Puerto 

Rico and Executive Director Catherine 

Mills from the Virgin Islands, but we 

do need more Federal help in order to 

restore the safety of our communities 

and to protect the lives of our children. 

This is not only important to my constituents and me; it is critical to the 

well-being of the constituents of all of 

our colleagues but especially to those 

whose communities have high homicide and violent crime rates. 

In this legislation, which I am 

pleased to cosponsor, we are pleading 

for this critically important help in 

order to bring the vital Federal resources to save our communities—to 

save all of our communities—and to 

protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1550. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin 

Islands and the gentleman from Puerto 

Rico. 

I urge the passage of the bill, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 1550, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

SEQUESTRATION: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MILITARY 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas 

(Mr. CARTER) is recognized for 28 minutes as the designee of the majority 

leader. 

Mr. CARTER. I thank you, Mr. 

Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of 

hard work to do in about the next 3 

months around this place. I want to 

talk tonight about a process that we 

have brought upon ourselves so that 

now we are faced with what, I think, 

could be one of the greatest catastrophes in the modern history of the 

United States—and that is almost the 

complete destruction of our military 

through a process called ‘‘sequester.’’ 

We use a lot of big words around this 

House, and half of the people who sit in 

this room on a daily basis don’t even 

know what it means, to be honest with 

you, but they know what the process 

does: across-the-board cuts at every 

level of government. The reality of 

these cuts is that, at least in the current makeup of our government and 

with so many of our expenses in this 

government being mandatory spending 

and what we call ‘‘entitlements,’’ the 

lion’s share automatically falls upon 

the military, on the Defense Department. 

Even more critical to this particular 

agreement, which was made in the earlier part of this year when we had one 

of our many shutdown-the-government 

risks that have come upon this body in 

the last couple of years, the White 

House with the President, along with 

the majority leader of the Senate and 

the Speaker of the House, met to discuss how to keep from having a shutdown of the government and how to 

raise the debt ceiling so we could continue to operate this government. With 

everyone recognizing that there was a 

looming crisis from having spent more 

than we make for as long as we can remember, quite honestly, and, therefore, 

that we are now in a problem of debt 

which is drowning this Nation and the 

Members of this body wanting to address that, the discussion was about 

how we would do it. 

They came up with a concept of a 

supercommittee. Most of you who keep 

up with current events know that we 

formed a supercommittee, the purpose 

of which was to come up with the cuts 

from the appropriate parts of this government so that we would reduce the 

spending of over $1 trillion, thus starting ourselves down the road to fiscal 

responsibility. This is what we set out 

to do. It was an honest effort, let’s be 

frank. It was an honest effort. Everybody, whether elected to do it or not, 

recognized that this was the issue that 

was before us. The question was how to 

do this, and they came up with this 

supercommittee. 

They agreed that, if the supercommittee failed, then the process of sequester would replace the actions of 

the supercommittee. There will be a 

political debate that will go back and 

forth as to who killed the effort in the 

supercommittee; but wherever the 

fault may lie, the supercommittee 

failed. Those of us who were in this 

House asked about the sequester and 

looked at it and worried about it as the 

vote came up as to whether or not this 

was the right thing to do. We then 

asked the question of the leaders here, 

which I’m sure was asked on both sides 

of the aisle: So what happens if the 

supercommittee doesn’t perform? 

We were told sequester, which was 

the worst possible thing to happen to 

this House, and I think both sides of 

the aisle agreed with that. But don’t 

worry, it has never happened. It never 

will happen. We will do the right thing. 

The committee failed. 

It is almost August. Quite honestly, 

the number of legislative days left before the election can almost be counted 

on these two hands, and we haven’t addressed how we are going to do this; 

but the folks who may most be affected 

have no choice but to address it. 

The agreement that came out of the 

meeting between the President and the 

Congress was that roughly half the $1.1 

trillion number, I believe it is, would 

come out of the Defense Department 

and that the other half would come out 

of domestic spending. Well, the Defense 

Department being the Defense Department—and it cannot function without 

planning—is already planning what it 

would have to do in case this occurs. 

We talk in big ideas and issues 

around here, but the reality is this: 

this is about a bunch of people who 

chose the profession for their lives, 

that of defending our Nation. 

b 2110 

We should never forget that the ordinary soldier, sailor, airman, marine, 

and Coast Guardsman volunteered to 

join their branch of the service, most 

of them, as their profession. This is not 

the old drafted military of World War 

II or the Korean war or the Vietnam 

war or the Cold War. This is a volunteer military. This is a young man or 

woman saying: I choose the job of 

fighting for my country. This is what I 

choose to do with my life. I will earn 

my way. I will earn my promotions by 

being a good warrior. 

My wife and I, when we first learned 

that we were going to have the honor 

of representing what we call a great 

place, Fort Hood in Texas, we wanted 

to meet with soldiers, and the place we 

could find them to meet with us around 

Thanksgiving time was in Korea. We 

went and met with Fort Hood soldiers 

in Korea. Most of them were from 

Texas at our table where they were 

talking to us, and I asked a question. I 

was new to getting to talk to the ordinary soldier. These were just ordinary 

soldiers. There may have been a couple 

of sergeants there, but most of them 

were not highly ranked. 

I said, How long are you guys and 

gals going to be in Korea? They said, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE