Joe Walsh

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, immigration enforcement--whether issuing or revoking a visa, deportation, and even providing citizenship--is a Federal responsibility and should remain so. However, our law enforcement in cities and States is sometimes the first line of defense in these Federal courts. In 1996, almost 20 years ago, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This bill not only required localities to communicate with Federal agencies when legal and illegal aliens may have been picked up for crimes but also provided money to help them do so. Since then, additional programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and Secure Communities have been implemented to ensure further that localities have the resources they need to meet their responsibilities. The Federal Government has stated time and again that participation in these programs is not optional. Yet despite that, some cities and even whole States blatantly ignore Federal requirements. What is even worse is that these sanctuary cities still receive money for their so- called ``immigration efforts'' under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. In fact, one city received $1.1 million at the same time it designated itself as a city and county of refuge. And one State has even passed laws that prohibit law enforcement agencies from detecting or apprehending those in violation of U.S. immigration laws. For this reason today, I am offering an amendment that would prohibit the Department of Justice from providing funds to these sanctuary cities for immigration enforcement efforts. This is a smart amendment that will require America's local law enforcement officers to do just that--enforce the laws we pass to receive the money we provide them to do so. I urge the House to vote in its favor. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. A big thank-you to the gentleman from Virginia for taking a lead--a very strong lead--on this issue. Mr. Speaker, like many of my fellow freshmen, I was sent here to Washington because we're broke. We have a government we can't afford. Like all of us, we were sent here, though, not just to cut spending. We were sent here, hopefully, to try to change the way this town does business so that we never get to this point again and so that our kids and our grandkids aren't stuck with a bill they'll never be able to pay off. As a freshman in Congress, the very first bill I introduced back in March was a balanced budget amendment, and it was a stronger balanced budget amendment than this. It included a spending limitation, and it made it more difficult for myself and my colleagues to raise taxes. I support this balanced budget amendment with everything I've got because, again, we have an opportunity to do something fairly historic, and this amendment will enable us to do that. I've learned in my year--almost a year--as a Congressman that there's plenty of hypocrisy in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. The hypocrisy today is regrettably, Mr. Speaker, with too many of our Democratic colleagues who really would like to vote for this but they simply can't because of political reasons. I would implore my Democratic colleagues to just think about, again, what our kids and our grandkids will say--and we throw their names around here often--what they will say to us 20, 30, 40 years down the road when they know we didn't exhibit the courage we need to exhibit right here and now. I stand with my colleague from Virginia in full support of this balanced budget amendment.

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 692, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Speaker, colleagues, good morning. It's great to be with you. As you may recall from our last report to Congress, the Association has put some energy and focus into the question of bipartisanship. Everything we do at the Former Members Association is done in a bipartisan manner. Our leadership is comprised equally of Republicans and Democrats. Our delegations are led by bipartisan teams of former Members of Congress, and our projects involve both Republicans and Democrats equally. We truly are a bipartisan organization where Members from across the political aisle come together for common purpose. We have found that, for a number of reasons, this type of bipartisan interaction has become more and more difficult for current Members. This development has many causes, many of which are beyond the control of today's Members. Our association, therefore, has created a new undertaking, the Common Ground Project, with the purpose of finding ways in which Democrats and Republicans can work together for the good of this country. The origin of the Common Ground Project can be found in our Conference on Bipartisanship which we hosted last year at the National Archives in partnership with the Bipartisan Policy Center. Three panels examined our current political discourse, how bipartisanship--or the lack thereof--has influenced our political decisionmaking process, and the way the media influences this Nation's political climate. The concluding panel looked at concrete steps we might take to foster a more civil relationship across the aisle. Following the conference, we invited our membership to cosign a letter to all candidates for congressional office in the 2010 midterm elections. In the letter, we asked for a focus on issue rather than divisive demagogy, and I am happy to report that over 150 former Members immediately signed the document. Next, we decided to put some thought and effort into a structured program that could serve to foster a more civil and productive political discourse in this country. Our idea is to create an outreach modeled on our very successful Congress to Campus program. Via a Congress to the Community Project, we hope to reconnect America's voters with their political process and encourage a respectful and productive debate on the many issues that we face. For example, a bipartisan team of former Members will have town-hall- like discussions focused on the budgetary process and deficit reduction. We will go into the community and bring different political points of view to the electorate, invite the voters to participate in this debate, and find some common ground. We will also find ways of bringing current Members into the conversation, and we will create opportunities for current Members to get to know their colleagues from across the aisle a little bit better. It is my hope that when we return to the House Chamber for our report next year, we will be able to describe the first successes of this new undertaking. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. President Obama, why aren't you serious about securing the border? Why do you consult with Latino celebrities like Eva Longoria to get their take on immigration reform? Why do you bring up immigration reform again and again when you know there will be no reform until you secure the border? You said the other day in Texas that Republicans wouldn't be satisfied unless you built a moat with alligators. You know what, Mr. President? A moat might not be a bad idea. And I wonder how many of these alligators it would take to secure the border? But what will satisfy most Americans is if you'd get serious about securing the border. What will satisfy most Americans is if you'd quit campaigning on this issue and finally govern on it. But, heck, if it will take introducing legislation calling for moats and these gators to get you to be serious about securing the borders, Mr. President, I'm game.

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, what are they afraid of? What are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, afraid of? Let me second my colleague from South Carolina, respectfully. It is about raw, gutter politics. Respectfully, my colleague from Maryland talks about standing up for every child, helping every child. What are they afraid of? Why won't they help every single child? And it is politics. My colleagues on the other side can dance around any rationale they want to dance around. The evidence on this issue, we're beyond it. We are beyond having to debate empowering parents. We're past that. So what, respectfully, on the other side of the aisle, is causing my colleagues to be against empowering--and I'll emphasize the word ``every''--every parent?

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Respectfully, no. My colleague from South Carolina respectfully said raw, gutter politics because my colleagues on the other side are scared to death of offending the teachers' unions. And ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker, the teachers' unions are scared to death of this scholarship program because, look out, if this scholarship program demonstrates success, and it has, it will be modeled all over the country, and that, respectfully, is what scares the teachers' unions, because they don't want kids to be able to escape. And my colleagues on the other side will answer to what they want. That's the politics that we're talking about. We're talking about power. The power should go to the parent, plain and simple, every parent. Charter school, public school, home school, private school, you name it. That's where the power should lie.

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. I rise today in support of amendment No. 104. You know, we have spent the past few days talking about billions here, billions there--real programs, real people. But the American people have got to be shaking their heads. We are broke. We are $14 trillion in debt, and we know it's more than that. By 2014, in interest on the debt alone, we will spend more than we will on all non-discretionary spending except for defense. By 2014, every citizen in the United States will spend $2,500 just to pay interest on the debt. I appreciate the leadership the Republican leadership has provided in being as bold as they can be on necessary, important spending cuts; but my colleagues, we've got to have faith in the American people. They are ahead of us on this. They are ready. This is one of those rare moments when the American people are asking us to be bold, when they are asking us to go one step further. I have a brother who has been in the financial services industry for 20 or 30 years. He sent me a text last night, which read: Keep the cuts coming, baby. The lack of leadership the White House is providing on this issue is stunning. You have to lead. The American people are ahead of us. To get back to real FY08 spending levels, to actually get $100 billion in cuts, my colleagues, don't be afraid of that. That's what the American people want.

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Act. I commend the Republican leadership for simplifying this process by drafting a two-page, stand-alone bill for repeal. It will be very clear, Madam Speaker, to the American people where we stand on repeal. During this past campaign, I, like a lot of candidates, spoke to small businesses every single day. There is a reason why 90 percent of small business men and women in this country support repeal. From the billions in taxes, to the needless paperwork, to the burdensome regulations, to the 1.6 million estimated job loss, small business men and women are adamant that we need to repeal. Finally, Madam Speaker, our opposition last year said that if you like your plan, you can keep it. To date, there are 222 organizations, including some of ObamaCare's biggest union supporters, who have received waivers. Why? Why, Madam Speaker, if the law was so worthy, would there be a need for waivers?

Mr. WALSH of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. I apologize. I snuck up on you there. I rise today to support H. Res. 22 in the House. We were elected this past fall to do what we said we were going to do: To lead by example when it comes to spending and tightening our own belts. Following through on this key pledge that we made in the Pledge to America I think is vital. We're taking the first step before we ask others to tighten their own belts, and it's important to understand this is a first step, hopefully, in an ongoing effort to continue to cut costs. This will impact each and every one of us, and I think it's very important to the American people that they see we are talking the talk and walking the walk.