September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6115 

Mr. Speaker, it may be a voluntary 

checkoff, but the money is not voluntary. It is part of the income tax you 

are required to pay. While we all do 

support government, I would wonder, if 

you made the income tax entirely voluntary, whether we could get anything 

close to what we do now. It is, in fact, 

the tax that you must pay. So that 

part is not voluntary. 

Secondly, I’m surprised that one 

would not want to attribute this to reducing the deficit even though it’s only 

$36 million, as suggested by the other 

side. If we can’t even do this here, what 

confidence can the American people 

have that we would deal with the 

tougher issues and larger amounts? If 

$36 million is too difficult for us to use 

to somehow reduce the deficit, what 

hope is there that we can do anything 

seriously in this Congress or Congresses in the future? 

I must respond to the repeated suggestion that we have done nothing in 

this Congress. 

The Obama administration would be 

surprised, since they said that the 

FISA amendments, which we passed on 

this floor with 301 positive votes, were 

the number one priority for the administration in the area of intelligence. In 

the aftermath of what happened just a 

couple of weeks ago, one would think 

that we would understand the seriousness of intelligence. And that which is 

the greatest tool, according to the DNI 

currently and previous DNIs, that tool, 

which got strong bipartisan support, 

was indeed an important thing for us 

to do here. 

We had three free trade agreements 

that we finally approved. They have 

been waiting around for a number of 

years. The consensus is they create 

jobs in this economy and give us a fair 

playing field in which our workers can 

compete. 

We had a transportation bill that we 

passed. We dealt with the interest paid 

on student loans. And I would just say, 

for 2 years in a row, we have, in fact, 

spent less on discretionary spending 

than we did the preceding year. I think 

that’s the first time we’ve done that in 

a generation. 

There are other things that I could 

talk about. It is a shame that the other 

body has not acted on the nearly 30 

bills we’ve sent over there that deal 

with jobs. 

Oh, yes, we also had my bill, H.R. 4, 

which repealed that section of the 

President’s health care bill that placed 

an inordinate paperwork burden on 

small business, and that was the number one priority of the small business 

community in the country. 

I wish we would do more. I wish we 

would have the cooperation of the 

other body. It’s very difficult to negotiate when the other party won’t come 

to the table or even articulate what 

their position is; but, nonetheless, I 

would suggest that those things I have 

spoken about are not unimportant. 

But, of course, that’s a digression because that’s not talking about the bill 

before us. 

The bill before us is a simple bill. All 

it does is say that the party’s over. The 

taxpayer will no longer pay with taxpayer dollars for the conventions of the 

two national parties. Doesn’t stop 

them from having their conventions, 

doesn’t denigrate their conventions, 

doesn’t take them off television; it just 

says the American taxpayer will not 

pay for it. We’re going to save $36 million. Fairly straight forward, fairly 

simple. 

I would hope that we would have a 

strong bipartisan vote for this, because 

it is truly a bipartisan problem and 

timely, because many of our constituents, at least when I was home in the 

district, said, Why are you in the Congress voting to put taxpayer dollars for 

these conventions? 

That was a tough question to answer. 

We can answer that question here in a 

very bipartisan way by passing this 

bill. 

With that, I would ask my colleagues 

to support H.R. 5912, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5912. This 

bill is flawed in substance and comes to the 

floor without serious deliberation or debate. 

I want to make clear, however, that my colleague from Oklahoma and I agree that paying 

for presidential nominating conventions is not 

a wise use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the 

main provisions of Mr. COLE’s bill are included 

nearly verbatim in my Presidential Funding Act 

H.R. 414. However, H.R. 5912 excludes a critical prohibition on the use of ‘‘soft money’’ to 

fund conventions, keeping the door open for 

unlimited soft money donations from corporations and high-dollar special interests. Allowing 

conventions to accept millions of dollars in 

these unregulated contributions could threaten 

the credibility of the nominating process and 

further erode the principle of one voice, one 

vote. 

I also take issue with the closed process 

under which this bill has been brought to the 

floor. H.R. 5912 is being considered under 

suspension of the rules, without amendments, 

committee markup, or serious deliberation. 

The Committee on House Administration has 

not even held hearings on this bill. But that 

should come as no surprise—the Majority has 

not held a single hearing on the issue of campaign finance in the 112th Congress, a period 

that has seen the House pass bills dismantling 

many of the common-sense campaign reforms 

of the post-Watergate era. I have opposed repeated floor votes that would repeal the presidential public financing system as a whole. 

This bill is merely the latest cynical attempt to 

attack the system with no effort to replace it. 

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s thoroughly misguided Citizens United decision, we 

should be working to strengthen—not to weaken—the rules that ensure our elections are 

free and fair. That is why Mr. VAN HOLLEN, 

other colleagues, and I will introduce a bill 

later this week which will be an important first 

step toward the comprehensive reform that 

our democratic elections need. 

Our bill, the Empowering Citizens Act, will 

incorporate and improve H.R. 414, reforming 

and strengthening the presidential public financing system. In addition, it will establish a 

voluntary small-donor public financing program 

for congressional campaigns. Finally, it will establish strong rules forbidding coordination 

among candidate-specific SuperPACs and political parties or campaigns, thereby lessening 

the outsize influence of special interests and 

outside spending groups in our elections. 

I believe that we are at a tipping point in the 

short history of campaign finance reform—we 

can either choose to stand by the commonsense reforms that have restored America’s 

faith in elections after the Watergate scandal, 

or we can choose to cede control of political 

campaigns entirely to wealthy corporations 

and interest groups. The responsible choice is 

clear. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 

this measure. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN) that the House 

suspend the rules and pass the bill, 

H.R. 5912, 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. 

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on that I 

demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

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

f 

DISASTER LOAN FAIRNESS ACT 

OF 2012 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I move 

to suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 6296) to amend the Small Business Act to provide the interest rate 

for certain disaster related loans, and 

for other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6296 

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 ‘‘Disaster 

Loan Fairness Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE FOR CERTAIN DISASTER 

RELATED LOANS. 

Section 7(d) of the Small Business Act is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8)(A) Upon application, the Administration shall grant an interest rate determined 

under this paragraph with respect to any 

qualifying disaster loan. 

‘‘(B) For the purposes of this paragraph a 

qualifying disaster loan is the Administration’s share of a loan— 

‘‘(i) for which the interest rate would be 

set pursuant to paragraph (5) but for the operation of this paragraph; 

‘‘(ii) which is or was made with respect to 

activity in an area when the President has 

declared a major disaster in that area under 

section 401 of the Stafford Act; and 

‘‘(iii) which is or was made during the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending on 

the date that is 4 years after the date of the 

enactment of the Disaster Loan Fairness Act 

of 2012. 

‘‘(C) The Administrator shall determine 

the interest rate for each calendar year to be 

the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) 4 percent; and 

‘‘(ii) a rate equivalent to 1⁄2 the rate prevailing in the private market for similar 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

loans for those unable to attain credit elsewhere and 3⁄4 of that prevailing rate for those 

able to attain credit elsewhere. 

‘‘(D) The Administrator shall refund excess 

interest payments to borrowers whose interest rate on already made loans is lowered by 

reason of the operation of the paragraph. 

‘‘(E) Not later than one year after the date 

of the enactment of the Disaster Loan Fairness Act of 2012, the Administrator shall report to Congress as part of the annual report 

under Section 10(a) on whether the interest 

rate provided by this paragraph has resulted 

in any or all of the following: 

‘‘(i) A greater number of applications for 

disaster related loans. 

‘‘(ii) A greater number of approvals of disaster related loans. 

‘‘(iii) A decreased default rate on disaster 

related loans.’’. 

SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS 

FOR POLITICAL PARTY NOMINATING 

CONVENTIONS. 

Section 9008 of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

following new subsection: 

‘‘(i) TERMINATION OF USE OF FUNDS FOR

CONVENTIONS.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, in the case of any 

presidential election held after 2012— 

‘‘(1) the Secretary shall not make any payments under subsection (b)(3) to any national committee of a major party or minor 

party; 

‘‘(2) on November 1 of the year prior to the 

year in which the election is held, the Secretary shall determine— 

‘‘(A) in the case of the first such election, 

the amount which is equal to the aggregate 

amount of the payments which were made 

under subsection (b)(3) to the national committees of a major party or minor party for 

the presidential election held in 2012, adjusted in the manner described in subsection 

(b)(5), or 

‘‘(B) in the case of any subsequent election, 

the amount which is equal to the amount determined under subparagraph (A), adjusted 

in the manner described in subsection (b)(5); 

and 

‘‘(3) at the time the Secretary makes the 

determination under paragraph (2), an 

amount equal to the amount determined 

under paragraph (2) shall be permanently rescinded from the fund and returned to the 

general fund.’’. 

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

Pennsylvania (Mr. BARLETTA) and the 

gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 

VELA ́ ZQUEZ) each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Just over a year ago, the people of 

the 11th Congressional District of 

Pennsylvania endured some of the 

worst flooding that we have ever experienced. In the aftermath of both a hurricane and a tropical storm, the Susquehanna River and streams flowing 

into it surged out of their banks, washing out homes and businesses and roads 

and bridges. 

I spent days traveling across my district consoling my constituents. I was 

with them as they had to throw out 

photo albums, their children’s toys, 

their clothing, their furniture, their 

lives’ possessions. I stood on muddy 

porches and cried with my constituents. 

Time after time they asked me how 

the Federal Government was going to 

help them recover. Time after time, 

business owners asked me if the Federal Government was able to provide 

low-interest loans so they could rebuild, reopen, and bring back their 

workers. Time after time, I would tell 

them the government of the United 

States was going to offer them loans at 

a 6 percent interest rate. That’s right, 

6 percent. 

b 1800 

A 6 percent loan isn’t going to help a 

business owner rebuild and reopen, and 

the hardworking people of northeastern Pennsylvania knew that. A 6 

percent loan isn’t going to help a family rebuild a flooded home. I was embarrassed to tell the mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers and business owners of my district that the Federal Government, 

through the Small Business Administration, was going to give them a 6 percent loan to help them get back on 

their feet. 

I was even more embarrassed—and 

even shocked—when I started looking 

at our budget for foreign disaster relief. This government gave $215 million 

of flood relief to Pakistan. And what 

rate do we charge foreign countries 

when we rebuild their infrastructure? 

Zero percent. We don’t charge foreign 

countries any interest. The taxpayer 

money they receive from the United 

States is a giveaway. But this government was going to charge American 

homeowners and American business 

owners 6 percent interest on loans they 

were going to use to rebuild. 

Now, the United States of America is 

one of the most generous, compassionate countries when it comes to providing global aid. When disaster strikes 

anywhere in the world, the United 

States is the first country to help them 

rebuild. But when disaster strikes right 

here in our own country, we need to 

start rebuilding here first. Let’s help 

Americans first. We must restore 

American lives, save American businesses, and protect American jobs. 

Now, I know hundreds of my colleagues have had similar conversations 

with their constituents after they experienced natural disasters in their districts. Since the start of the 112th Congress, communities in over 200 congressional districts in 46 States have been 

flooded by a tropical storm or a hurricane, burned by wildfire, crippled by a 

snowstorm, or destroyed by a tornado, 

resulting in a disaster declaration by 

the President. Constituents across the 

country have heard the same news—the 

Federal Government can provide help 

in the form of a high-interest loan. 

Fortunately, this is something that 

we can fix. I introduced the Disaster 

Loan Fairness Act of 2012, which would 

dramatically change the way the SBA 

provides disaster recovery loans. This 

bill would lower the interest rate for 

borrowers with no credit available elsewhere to one-half of the prevailing 

rate, and it would cap the interest rate 

at 4 percent. For those who can get 

credit elsewhere, this bill would lower 

the interest rate to three-quarters of 

the prevailing rate, again, capping the 

maximum interest rate at 4 percent. 

The Disaster Loan Fairness Act is 

retroactive to January 1, 2011. This 

means the SBA is required to refund 

excess interest payments for disaster 

loans made since this date. Homeowners and business owners who took 

out these loans will receive refunds for 

their excess interest payments. 

To offset the direct spending, this 

bill terminates the use of public taxpayer funds for political party conventions in the elections occurring after 

2012. Simply put, this bill prioritizes 

disaster victims over the subsidizing of 

political party conventions. We are literally putting the American people 

ahead of politics. 

This bill will provide serious, substantial, necessary help to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who 

have endured horrible loss during natural disasters. It will provide relief to 

the millions of Americans who will suffer loss in future disasters. 

I ask my colleagues to support the 

Disaster Loan Fairness Act of 2012, 

H.R. 6296, and provide relief for so 

many Americans that need that help. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

(Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ asked and was 

given permission to revise and extend 

her remarks.) 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, natural disasters profoundly impacted our 

Nation this year. From wildfires out 

west to drought in the Plains to violent storms in the Northeast, millions 

of households were affected. These unanticipated events leave families and 

small businesses facing significant 

costs when rebuilding. 

Typically, insurance covers monetary losses, but that is not always the 

case. To complement insurance coverage, Congress authorized the SBA to 

provide disaster loans to affected families and small businesses. Since its inception in 1953, the SBA has approved 

roughly 1.9 million disaster loans, 

amounting to approximately $47 billion. 

Over the years, the program has 

evolved to better assist victims. As 

chairwoman of the Small Business 

Committee, I worked to incorporate bipartisan reforms in the 2008 farm bill 

to help disaster victims get back on 

their feet. These included new disaster 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6117 

bridge loans, greater loan amounts, extending deferment periods, and enabling more private sector involvement. 

The current program makes the government the lender of last resort by 

subsidizing reduced interest rates only 

for those who cannot get credit elsewhere. The goal is to assist as many 

victims as possible and ensure risksharing remains a public-private partnership. This bill, however, would 

eliminate the ‘‘credit elsewhere’’ test, 

offering taxpayer-subsidized, low-interest loans to all applicants. At a time 

when government resources are scarce, 

we should not be shifting more borrowers and additional risk into this 

initiative. 

This is not my only concern. The bill 

also arbitrarily limits interest rates— 

with no empirical data to show why 

these levels are appropriate. Capping 

interest rates could greatly increase 

the taxpayers’ burden in the future as 

costs rise and revenue remains flat. 

The SBA is also directed to issue refunds on previously approved loans. 

The bill is silent on how to carry that 

out, creating an administrative nightmare for the SBA. 

Continuing to improve the program 

is important, but in doing so, we 

should not create unintended consequences. If the regular committee 

hearing and markup process had been 

followed, Members could have addressed this bill’s shortcomings. Placing it on suspension has further limited 

Members’ participation. 

I would like to direct the attention of 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

to the fact that this bill creates $50 

million in direct spending. To offset 

the cost, it will eliminate public funding of political conventions, undoing 

years of campaign finance reform in 

the process. 

Today, Federal election rules seek to 

keep soft money and undue influence 

out of the Presidential race. Since the 

Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, it’s become clear that powerful 

stakeholders will spend millions to 

help a candidate win. If public funding 

were terminated, special interests will 

once again compete to curry favor with 

Presidential candidates by bankrolling 

nominating conventions. 

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly appropriate to provide relief to homeowners 

and businesses affected by a disaster; 

however, it is inconsistent with the intent of the program to ask taxpayers 

to subsidize loans for those who can get 

credit elsewhere. Is this the best use of 

government resources? I don’t know. 

But I’m confident we could have investigated this and other concerns if the 

committee process were not bypassed 

in favor of today’s suspension vote. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MARINO). 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in strong support of H.R. 6296, 

the Disaster Loan Fairness Act of 2012, 

introduced by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative BARLETTA. 

Our districts cross each other in several counties, so we both have experienced the disaster that took place in 

the 10th and 11th District. 

b 1810 

At the end of August 2011, Hurricane 

Irene caused severe flooding and widespread power outages in eastern Pennsylvania. With the ground saturated 

and waterways at a very high level, 

Tropical Storm Lee arrived about one 

week later, causing historic widespread 

flooding in most of central and eastern 

Pennsylvania. The 10th Congressional 

District that I represent was particularly hit hard. 

Ten of the 14 counties in the district 

were impacted by the flood. The storm 

knew no boundaries. It hit homes and 

businesses, government offices and 

schools, farms, cemeteries, and churches. I visited with families and individuals who had lost everything. 

I traveled to many businesses, both 

large and small, that were affected, 

like the Knoebels Amusement Park in 

Northumberland County, where I 

watched workers and owner clean up 

four inches of mud that covered the 

ground across the entire park. 

While the people of my district have 

made heroic efforts to rebuild, they 

have faced many obstacles. One of 

these is finding loan opportunities 

which they need to finance the rebuilding of their homes and businesses. 

Unless you have lived through a disaster and visited with families that 

have been through the experience, it is 

hard to imagine the hopelessness and 

desperation that people experience 

when the rebuilding process begins. 

H.R. 6296 will provide critical relief 

to disaster victims in my district and 

across the country by lowering the interest rate on SBA disaster loans. This 

legislation, which will, on average, 

lower rates on SBA disaster loans by 

11⁄2 to 2 percent, will give Americans 

impacted by disaster the ability to 

begin the process of rebuilding their 

lives and livelihoods. 

I had the occasion to hear a little of 

the argument prior to this concerning 

the conventions getting money, and 

there was an issue raised about it’s 

only $36 million. Well, there’s nobody 

in this room that doesn’t think $1 million is a lot of money, and I certainly 

think $36 million is a whole heck of a 

lot of money. 

Now, we can send money to conventions. That should be the responsibility 

of each party, regardless of what side 

of the aisle you’re on. 

But we also send taxpayer money to 

countries that hate us, so I think it’s 

about time we start helping the American people with their own tax dollars. 

I urge all of my colleagues to join 

with me and Representative BARLETTA

in support of this important legislation. 

I had one experience that just stuck 

in my mind. During the flood, I visited 

a family who wasn’t in their house. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute. 

Mr. MARINO. I want to share an experience I had touring the same areas 

that Lou did. And it was a family of 

six; they weren’t able to be in their 

house. It was a blue collar family. It 

was half a double. 

They wouldn’t even be able to sit on 

their porch or stand in their front yard. 

That’s how bad the flood was. Most of 

their furniture and belongings were out 

on the front yard, just totally lost. 

They sat on the back of a pickup 

truck. A 6-year-old little girl, 6 or 8 

years old, said to me, Are you here to 

help, because we don’t have a bed to 

sleep in and we don’t have a room to 

sleep in. What are we going to do tonight? 

That is what we’re faced with. We’re 

supposed to be helping our people in 

our district, and I urge my colleagues 

to support this legislation. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

New York (Mr. OWENS). 

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I was a cosponsor of the original version of this 

bipartisan bill and rise to support the 

modified legislation we are considering 

today. I want to thank Mr. BARLETTA

for his work on this important legislation in the aftermath of Hurricane 

Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. 

These two disasters caused millions 

in damage in northern New York. One 

year later, small businesses and homeowners are still recovering. 

As I walked around my district immediately after, I saw people shoveling 

out mud, throwing out heirlooms, and 

struggling to understand what had happened to them. Many of the businesses 

were ruined, along with homes. 

But I also saw something else. I saw 

people helping people. What we’re 

doing here today is having the government help people. We’re following the 

example of our constituents. 

Currently, the Small Business Administration offers disaster recovery 

loans to small businesses and homeowners for as low as 4 percent and up to 

8 percent if credit is available elsewhere. To date, nearly 100 small businesses and homeowners in my congressional district have been approved for 

more than $5.8 million in disaster 

loans. But I have heard from many constituents that the interest rates are 

simply too high to take advantage of 

these loans. 

This bipartisan bill would lower the 

interest rate on disaster loans. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I have 

no more speakers and I am prepared to 

close. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of my time. 

When disaster strikes around the 

world, America is always the first to 

help, and I’m proud of that. I’m proud 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

of our country. I’m proud that when 

countries need help, we’re there. 

But when disasters strike right here 

at home, I do believe that we should 

help Americans first, and we don’t 

know when or where the next disaster 

will occur. It could be tonight, could be 

tomorrow, could be next week. But 

let’s make sure, before we leave here 

today, that we tell our neighbors and 

friends back home and around this 

great Nation that, in their greatest 

time of need, their country will be 

there for them. 

With all the devastation and destruction that happened from last year’s 

flood, I saw the greatness of America. I 

saw neighbors helping neighbors. I saw 

strangers helping people. I saw students helping the elderly. I saw what 

makes this country great, and I saw 

the American people come together. 

It’s time that this Congress comes 

together. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 

BARLETTA) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6296, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

BORDER SECURITY INFORMATION 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6368) to require the Department of Justice, in consultation with 

the Department of Homeland Security, 

to provide a report to Congress on the 

Departments’ ability to track, investigate and quantify cross-border violence along the Southwest Border and 

provide recommendations to Congress 

on how to accurately track, investigate, and quantify cross-border violence, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6368 

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 ‘‘Border Security Information Improvement Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. STUDY. 

(a) REPORT ON CROSS-BORDER VIOLENCE ON

THE SOUTHWEST BORDER.—Not later than 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary 

of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to 

the congressional committees set forth in 

subsection (b) a report on cross-border violence on the Southwest Border of the United 

States. Such study shall include— 

(1) the definition of cross-border violence 

used by law enforcement components within 

the Departments of Justice and Homeland 

Security; 

(2) the ability of the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and their law 

enforcement components to track, investigate, quantify, and report on the level of 

cross-border violence occurring along the 

Southwest Border of the United States; 

(3) the extent to which the Departments of 

Justice and Homeland Security define and 

track cross-border violence and steps being 

taken to address the effects of cross-border 

violence along the Southwest Border of the 

United States; 

(4) the information and data on cross-border violence collected and made available 

through inter-agency taskforces on the 

Southwest Border of the United States, including the Southwest Border High Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Area, Arizona’s Alliance to 

Combat Transnational Threats, the El Paso 

Intelligence Center, the Border Enforcement 

and Security Task Force, and State and 

Local Fusion Centers; and 

(5) the additional resources needed to 

track, investigate, quantify and report on 

the level of cross-border violence occurring 

along the United States-Mexico border. 

(b) CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The congressional committees set forth in this subsection are— 

(1) the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; 

(2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

Senate; 

(3) the Committee on Homeland Security 

of the House of Representatives; and 

(4) the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

House of Representatives. 

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. 6368, 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, I’d like to thank my 

colleague and good friend, Congressman FRANCISCO CANSECO, for his work 

on the issue of cross-border violence 

and its impact on the United States. 

Mr. Speaker, In recent years, drug trafficking-related violence has increased in Mexico. According to Mexican officials, over 

40,000 people have been killed as the result 

of drug-related violence since 2006. 

As the gentleman from Texas has pointed 

out, we should be very concerned that there 

are insufficient methods to track this violence 

and that it spills over into the United States. 

When evaluating increased violence in Mexico and its effect on the United States, a central concern is the potential for what has been 

termed ‘‘spillover violence’’—an increase in 

drug trafficking-related violence in the United 

States. 

The violence being committed by Mexican 

drug cartels within Mexico’s own borders presents a national security challenge for Mexico. 

When that violence spills over into the United 

States, it presents a national security concern 

for America as well. 

Cross-border violence is a challenge for 

both countries while criminals kill not only 

each other but government officials, law enforcement and military officers, innocent civilians and children. 

Administration officials maintain that there 

has not yet been a significant spillover of violence from Mexico into the United States. But 

we should not wait for it to happen. 

This bill requires the Department of Justice 

and the Department of Homeland Security to 

provide a joint report to Congress on the Departments’ ability to track, investigate and 

measure cross-border violence along the 

Southwest border. 

In addition, it directs the Departments of 

Justice and Homeland Security to make recommendations to Congress on how best to 

accurately track, investigate and measure 

cross-border violence. 

Cross-border violence is a complex problem 

which cannot be resolved overnight. This legislation is an important first step in developing 

an overall strategy to combat spillover violence. 

I again thank Mr. CANSECO for his work on 

this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 

I will now yield as much time as he 

might consume to the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. CANSECO). 

b 1820 

Mr. CANSECO. I want to thank my 

friend and colleague and fellow San 

Antonian—the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. SMITH—as well as 

his diligent and hardworking staff, for 

their help on this very important matter. 

I come to the floor today, Madam 

Speaker, in support of my legislation, 

H.R. 6368, the Border Security Information Improvement Act. 

As the Representative of a district 

with nearly 800 miles of U.S.-Mexico 

border, I know firsthand how important the security of our citizens along 

our shared border with Mexico is. As I 

visit with the people of the 23rd District of Texas, I hear time and time 

again from Americans living along the 

border that they do not feel safe or secure. They talk of living in fear. They 

tell me that Washington is not paying 

attention as drugs, weapons, and humans are smuggled through their communities. Washington is not listening 

as they ask for help as violence from 

Mexican drug cartels spills into their 

communities and cities and towns. 

Many of the statistics and information used to make claims about the security of our southwest border are 

based on information from sources, 

such as the Uniform Crime Report, 

that are not intended to measure security along our border. 

Administration officials have 

claimed that the border is safe and secure. Yet, while attending a Homeland 

Security Committee hearing last May, 

I learned that the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Department of Justice do not have a working, 

uniform definition of ‘‘spillover violence.’’ Yet witnesses at the hearing— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE