Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 744) to provide effective criminal prosecutions for certain identity thefts, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 744, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Identity theft is a crime that leaves its victims feeling exposed and vulnerable while simultaneously inflicting serious financial damage upon them and the financial institutions and government agencies they do business with.

Unfortunately, identity theft is an expanding problem that has recently shifted its target to include the tax refund dollars owed to many hardworking Americans.

The Federal Trade Commission routinely issues statistics listing identify theft as the number one consumer complaint, with American adults having a roughly 1 in 5 chance of being victimized. Fraud related to government benefits and documents regularly comprises the large majority of identity theft reports.

The IRS has recognized the problem and begun shifting assets in response to this expanding threat. In a typical example from earlier this year in Norfolk, Virginia, two hospital workers were sentenced following their convictions for tax-related aggravated identity theft. Their scheme included stealing the personal information of hospital patients and using that information to apply for Federal tax refunds. All told, nearly 80 fraudulent returns were filed, seeking more than $400,000 in illegitimate refunds.

For the victims of this type of fraud, the original notice is often a rejection by the IRS of their legitimate tax returns. Not surprisingly, this initial rejection is often only the beginning of a long and continuing road to financial recovery. In addition to the delays inherent in resolving their tax return dispute and receiving their refund, the months following the discovery of the identity theft are typically spent trying to restore their credit through an endless stream of paperwork, including police reports, affidavits to credit bureaus, and complaints to various consumer protection agencies.

Unfortunately, in Virginia and nationwide, this is a problem that is only growing in magnitude, partly due to the expanding methods used by criminals to gain access to personal information. From highly sophisticated cyber criminal organizations engaged in activities designed to gain access to personal data on a grand scale to individual cases involving a lost wallet or purse, the ways in which someone with

criminal intent can obtain our personal information are too numerous to list.

The legislation before us today, the STOP Identity Theft Act of 2014, is designed to strengthen the penalties associated with tax-related identity theft. Additionally, H.R. 744 expands who can be a victim of tax-related identity theft to include businesses and organizations, directs the Justice Department to allocate additional resources towards enforcement in this area, and encourages cooperation with State and local authorities through the establishment of task forces and otherwise.

I commend the sponsors, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Chairman Smith, for their dedication to this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5230.

There is a crisis at our southern border, and it is a disaster of President Obama's own making. The Obama administration's lax immigration enforcement policies have given confidence to parents who are in the U.S. illegally that they can stay, and now they are finding ways to bring their children who are still in Central America and beyond to the United States unlawfully. Although President Obama has many tools at his disposal to stop this surge at the border, he refuses to use them and instead proposes to make the situation worse by taking more unilateral actions to stop the enforcement of our immigration laws.

It is ultimately up to President Obama to end this crisis by reversing his policies that created it. However, since he refuses to do so, we have to act to the extent we can to provide narrow and targeted funding to meet the immediate needs of our law enforcement agencies at the southern border. We have to enable them to do their job to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws.

And we need to tweak the 2008 law regarding the removal of unaccompanied alien minors. We need to treat apprehended minors from Central America in the same expedited but humane fashion that we treat apprehended minors from Mexico and Canada. In fact, the administration has called for such a change.

On July 14, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said that the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 needed to be amended. He said:

In terms of changing the law, we are asking for the ability

to treat unaccompanied

kids from a Central American country in the same way as from

a contiguous country.

That is what this bill does, based on language written by Representative Carter, and it makes the important clarification that all minors from any country who do not have a credible fear of persecution and have not been trafficked shall be expeditiously returned home.

Because of the President's inaction, we are taking the responsible step today of passing these narrow fixes that will help the American people avoid billions of dollars in additional costs due to the President not trying to solve this problem but asking for more money to continue to resettle tens of thousands of people into the interior of our country.

While the bill is not perfect, it does give law enforcement many tools they have requested. For example, while I was in the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month, Border Patrol agents cited administration- created restrictions that bar them access to Federal lands as a significant stumbling block to securing the border. One of the more important provisions of this bill gives Border Patrol agents access to Federal lands so that they can stop drug traffickers, human smugglers, and unlawful immigrants from exploiting these gaps along the border.

Since the President isn't taking the serious action needed to address the crisis at the border, the House is doing so today. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 710, I call up the bill (H.R. 5272) to prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 5272.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5272 prohibits Federal funding or resources from being used to adjudicate any application for the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program; and it prohibits the President from issuing employment authorization documents to unlawful immigrants in the United States.

This bill differs from the bill the House was set to consider yesterday in that it prohibits funds from being used for adjudication. The prior version of this bill was a simple prohibition on the President's actions.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez, the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has already allowed over 714,000 unlawful immigrants, who claimed to have arrived as minors, to remain in the United States and seek employment. DACA is a major reason for the unprecedented influx of minors and family units along our southern borders.

This deferred action program was announced by the President and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.

It is a usurpation of the plenary authority over immigration law that article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution confers on the legislative branch.

And the President knows that it is a usurpation of congressional authority. In fact, in March of 2011, he stated: ``With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore these congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.''

Despite this admission, just over a year later, the President implemented the DACA program. And today it stands as a beacon for any unlawful immigrant to simply cross into the United States illegally because word has gotten out that they will be given permission to stay. I heard this again and again from unlawful immigrants in Border Patrol custody when I visited the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month.

So let's be clear: the President's administrative policies abandoning immigration enforcement and his promises about future administrative legalizations continue to encourage unlawful immigrant parents to smuggle their children into the United States. These policies and promises put money directly into the pockets of human smuggling and drug cartels and put children at risk of perilous, illicit journeys to the United States. And they undermine the fundamental constitutional principles that Congress creates the laws and the President is bound to enforce them.

H.R. 5272 sends the vitally important message that minors tempted to come here in the future will no longer be rewarded by a President who chooses to use his pen and cell phone to legislate. They will have absolutely no opportunity to receive DACA benefits.

I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for introducing the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for purposes of a colloquy. And I will begin by yielding to the gentleman from Texas.

That is correct.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that this bill does not deport anyone. This bill simply freezes a program that violates the United States Constitution.

So now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, its my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the brand-new majority whip of the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I know you said that is just the way it is, and I agree, but I just want to make an added point.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman if he will yield to me.

So 50,000 coming across the border, that is 50,000 unaccompanied minors coming to the border, and they are a small percentage of the total number of people. Eighty-five percent of the people coming to the border right now--and all categories are up. Children are up most, but all categories are up, and 85 percent are not unaccompanied minors.

So the gentleman makes a very valid point about the crisis at our border and the cause of that crisis. The President caused it. The President can solve it. The President should act now, and we need to send a strong message that America is not open to people who violate our laws.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I also only have one speaker remaining and am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that DACA is more than just abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It also creates benefits that are not provided for under the law.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5230. There is a crisis at our border. It is a crisis, a disaster of the President's own making.

The Obama administration's lax immigration enforcement policies have given confidence to parents who are in the U.S. illegally that they can stay, and now they are finding ways to bring their children, who are still in Central America and beyond, to the United States unlawfully.

Although President Obama has many tools at his disposal to stop this surge at the border, he refuses to use them, and instead proposes to make the situation worse by taking more unilateral actions to stop the enforcement of our immigration laws.

It is ultimately up to President Obama to end this crisis by reversing his policies that created it. However, since he refuses to do so, we have to act to the extent we can to provide narrow and targeted funding to meet the immediate needs of our law enforcement agencies at the southern border. We have to enable them to do their job, to secure our border, and enforce our immigration laws. And we should act to provide narrow tweaks to the 2008 law regarding the removal of unaccompanied alien minors.

Because of the President's inaction, we are taking the responsible step today of passing these narrow fixes that will help the American people avoid billions of dollars in additional costs due to the President not trying to solve this problem but asking for more money to continue to resettle thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of people into the interior of our country.

While the bill is not perfect, it does give law enforcement many tools they have requested. For example, while I was in the Rio Grande area earlier this month, Border Patrol agents cited administration- created restrictions that bar them access to Federal land as a significant stumbling block to securing the border. One of the most important provisions of this bill gives Border Patrol agents access to Federal lands so they can stop drug traffickers, human smugglers, and unlawful immigrants from exploiting these gaps along the border.

Since the President isn't taking serious action to address the crisis at the border, the House is doing so today, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his leadership on this issue.

Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under a law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy. We in the House of Representatives who face reelection every 2 years under the Constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means of which we can successfully avail ourselves.

When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President. But none of those powers can be exercised if a Senate controlled by the President's own political party refuses to exercise them. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.

And, of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is to vote out of office supporters of the President's abuses of power. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.

Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Gowdy to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to even consider it, so today we consider a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.

Although the case law on standing may be murky, one thing is absolutely clear: the Supreme Court has never closed the door to the standing of the House as an institution.

As President Lincoln said: ``Let reverence for the laws be . . . enforced in courts of justice.''

It is the courts' duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the Constitution have been breached.

A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute says or doesn't say would remain unaffected. But it would be the appropriate task of the Federal courts to determine whether or not, whatever a statute says, a President can ignore or alter it under the Constitution.

The stakes of inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the President's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the White House. What provisions of ObamaCare have been enforced have not proved popular, and

what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed until after the next Federal elections.

How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to accountability in our Republic.

Imagine the future if this new unconstitutional power of the President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. The current President has even created entirely new categories of businesses to apply his unilaterally imposed exemptions.

In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President's political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would Presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because their records could be edited at will.

Sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it in practice. Rinse and repeat until the accumulation of power in the Presidency is complete.

We should all support this resolution today, as it aims to unite two- thirds of the Federal Government in delivering a simple message: Congress writes the laws and the President enforces them. Our own constitutionally required oath to support the Constitution of the United States requires no less.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has lost a true public servant. Congressman Caldwell Butler, who represented the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia from 1972 to 1983, passed away last night. He will be remembered for many things, including his sharp legal mind and an integral role in the Watergate investigation and the Nixon impeachment proceedings.

A genuine family man, he treasured his wife, June, and their four sons. I am especially thankful to have served as a member of his staff many years ago and to serve the same Sixth District today. My thoughts and prayers are with the Butler family during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me and members of the Virginia delegation in a moment of silence in honor and in the memory of M. Caldwell Butler.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5135) to direct the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to identify strategies to prevent children from becoming victims of trafficking and review trafficking prevention efforts, to protect and assist in the recovery of victims of trafficking, and for other purposes.

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. 5135, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 5135, the Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Act of 2014, introduced by Representative Kristi Noem.

The crisis of human trafficking is ruinous to the lives of its victims, many of whom are drawn from the ranks of the most vulnerable in our society. This crisis has touched nearly every corner of the globe, and even exists here in the United States.

The Justice Department, and its many State and local partners, have made great strides to rescue children and other victims from the terrible crime of sex trafficking. Last month, the FBI announced a successful nationwide sting that led to the rescue of 168 children and the arrest of 281 pimps in more than 100 cities.

Also last month, the Justice Department seized a major Web site known for promoting illegal sex trafficking and indicted its owner. Both of these cases, and the many other trafficking cases that have been brought in recent years, show that law enforcement is making progress in the fight against child exploitation. But sadly, there remains more work to be done.

Studies suggest that over 290,000 youth are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation in the United States. To effectively combat human trafficking, we must cut it off at its root by trying to prevent the trafficking before it can occur.

H.R. 5135 requires the existing Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to survey and catalog the methods being employed by our Federal and State governments to deter individuals from committing trafficking offenses and children from being victimized.

The bill also directs the task force to identify best practices and what gaps might exist, if any, in research and data so that we can place new and valuable tools in the hands of law enforcement.

One challenge that victims of sex trafficking often face is a lack of financial independence that keeps them trapped in a life of prostitution. H.R. 5135 helps to address that by clarifying that existing Federal trafficking grants may be used for programs that provide housing for victims of sex trafficking.

As I have said before, sex traffickers, and the buyers who enable them to stay in business, dehumanize their victims, treating them as objects to be used for the profit and pleasure of others, instead of human beings creating in the image of God.

In May of this year, the House passed a number of antitrafficking bills that originated in the House Judiciary Committee, which are all awaiting consideration by the Senate. I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol Hill to move swiftly to pass those bills.

I am pleased that we can consider another set of bipartisan antitrafficking bills here today. It is important that we do everything that we can to bring an end to this illicit industry. H.R. 5135 will help us to do just that. I hope that this body will join with me and Congresswoman Noem in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), who has also been a leader on this issue of combating sex trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to all that, as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, I appreciate the bipartisan work that has been done on many of these sex trafficking bills.

I appreciate especially the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.

Scott), who is the ranking member on the Crime Subcommittee, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, as well. I commend the chairman of that subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, as well as Congresswoman Noem for their leadership on this issue.

Sex trafficking is a serious problem, and while we see it around the world, we should not overlook the fact that it is a serious problem right here in the United States.

This bill joins several others that we have already passed through the House of Representatives to address this serious problem, and it deserves the same bipartisan support that the others received, and it also deserves the consideration of the other side of the Capitol, by the other body which needs to take these bills up and pass them as well, so they can go to the President's desk and be signed into law.

This is truly a bipartisan effort to address a serious national problem, and we all need to join into the solution.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to transfer land from the United States to Rockingham County, Virginia. The County has long managed this land and associated buildings and has been responsible for all upkeep.

In 1989, the Department of the Interior deeded this land, which it no longer used, to Rockingham County for public good. The County approached then Rep. Jim Olin in the 101st Congress to allow the buildings on this land to be used for the particular use of a non- profit day care that serves the County. This resulted in PL 101-479. However, because of the narrow way this law was drafted, Rockingham County does not have true autonomy over the land and must check-in with the Department of the Interior when any repairs or upgrades of the facilities are needed. Given that the building is used for a child care facility, this added bureaucracy delays and impedes the ability of the day care to move efficiently to make any necessary upgrades.

For over 25 years Rockingham County, Virginia has managed this land as if it belonged to the County. Although this land was already transferred to the county, it was not done effectively. This legislation will finalize the efforts of a previous Congress and fully transfer this land to the county. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House is considering joint Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committee legislation to ensure that our rural constituents continue to have access to network channels on America's two satellite carriers.

Title II of the legislation extends the expiring section 119 copyright license for another 5 years, as this committee has done on previous occasions, most recently in 2010. This license ensures that when our constituents do not have access to a full complement of local network television stations, they can have access, through satellite television carriers, to distant network television stations. This helps ensure that consumers in rural areas, like my congressional district, have the same access to news and entertainment options that consumers in urban areas enjoy.

Without enactment of this legislation, many of our constituents would potentially lose access to certain networks altogether on December 31 when the current license expires. I would like to point out that, although numerous stakeholders interested in video issues have contacted the Judiciary Committee on a variety of issues, they all agree that this license should not expire at the end of this year.

Other issues of interest in this area will be the subject of further discussions as the Judiciary Committee continues its ongoing review of our Nation's copyright laws.

I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, and the chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Walden, for their efforts on this reauthorization as well, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on this issue that is important to all of our constituents.

Madam Speaker, the people of Virginia's Sixth District are hardworking, busy running small businesses, teaching, raising families, earning a living, and trying to make ends meet. It is Congress' duty to make

their lives as uncomplicated by government as possible. Time and time again, however, we have seen ObamaCare doing the very opposite.

Across my district, hourly employees are seeing cutbacks in their workweeks. Multiple employers are weighing the costs of offering health coverage to their employees. I have received countless complaints from folks whose insurance was canceled or whose premiums increased.

It is offensive that the White House dismisses these experiences as ``anecdotal.'' The people in my district do not consider their lives, their businesses, and their health care to be anecdotal. Delays and exemptions have proven that this law is flawed and unworkable.

ObamaCare has got to go and be replaced by patient-centered health care reform.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3086) to permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Madam 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. 3086, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The clock is ticking down on a key law that protects Internet freedom. On November 1, 2014, a temporary moratorium on State taxation of Internet access will expire.

In 1998, Congress temporarily banned State and local governments from newly taxing Internet access or placing multiple or discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce. With minor modifications, this ban was extended three times with enormous bipartisan support. The most recent extension passed in 2007.

If the moratorium is not renewed, the potential tax burden on consumers will be substantial. The average tax rate on communications services in 2007 was 13.5 percent, more than twice the average rate on all other goods and services. To make matters worse, this tax is regressive. Low-income households pay 10 times as much in communications taxes as high-income households as a share of income.

The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act converts the moratorium into a permanent ban on which consumers, innovators, and investors can permanently rely by simply striking the 2014

end date. This legislation prevents a surprise tax hike on Americans' critical services this fall. It also maintains unfettered access to one of the most unique gateways to knowledge and engines of self- improvement in all of human history.

This is not an exaggeration. During the 2007 renewal of the moratorium, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony that more than 75 percent of the remarkable productivity growth that increased jobs and income between 1995 and 2007 was due to investments in telecommunications networks technology and the information transported across them.

Everyone in Silicon Valley knows Max Levchin's story. He came to America from the Soviet Union at age 16. His family had $300 in its pocket, and he learned English by watching an old TV set he hauled out of a dumpster and repaired. Ten years later, he sold PayPal, the well known Internet payments platform he cofounded, for $1.5 billion.

That is the greatness of the Internet. It is a liberating technology that is a vast meritocracy. It does not care how you look or where you come from. It offers opportunity to anyone willing to invest time and effort. That is precisely why Congress has worked acidulously for 16 years to keep Internet access tax-free. Now we must act again once and for all.

The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act has 228 cosponsors. The Judiciary Committee reported it favorably by a vote of 30-4. Nevertheless, small pockets of resistance remain. They argue that the Internet is no longer a fledgling technology in need of protection. But it is precisely the ubiquity of the Internet that counsels for a permanent extension. It has become an indispensable gateway to scientific, educational, and economic opportunities. It is the platform that turned Max Levchin from an impoverished immigrant into a billionaire. The case for permanent tax-free access to this gateway technology is stronger today than it ever has been.

Opponents also claim that this legislation will lower State revenues. Seven States currently enjoy an exemption from the moratorium. This legislation lets these grandfather clauses expire. But these grandfathered States had no reasonable expectation of maintaining their special status. The original moratorium included a grandfather clause to give States that were then taxing Internet access some time to transition to other sources of revenue. Some discontinued taxing Internet access in support of a national broadband policy. For those that still haven't, it has been 16 years, time enough to change their tax codes. If the revenue grandfathered States now reap is truly essential, it should be straightforward for the State to recoup it through a different form of taxation.

It is important to note that the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act does not address the issue of State taxes on remote sales made over the Internet. It merely prevents Internet access taxes and unfair multiple or discriminatory taxes on e-commerce, whether inside the taxing State or without.

I would like to specifically thank Mr. Chabot, Ms. Eshoo, Subcommittee Chairman Bachus, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cohen for their work on and support of this legislation.

This bipartisan legislation is about giving every American unfettered access to the Internet, which is the modern gateway to the American Dream. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for their leadership on this issue.

Now I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon) for his statement and thank him for his leadership on this issue as well.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a leader on technology issues.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for her leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

First of all, I thank the gentleman for his question, and I and others have been clear that we think these grandfather clauses should expire. When they first were adopted 16 years ago, it was with the intention that they be phased out. Of course, they have had 16 years, and we would like to have them do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Our goal is to have a clean, permanent moratorium signed into law as promptly as possible. If the gentleman from Texas can engineer a phaseout consistent with that goal, I am certainly willing to work with him in that objective.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

As this measure is considered in the Senate and then in conference between the House and Senate, we would look forward to working with you.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who has been a steadfast proponent of Internet tax freedom.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, passing the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act would increase access all across America for millions of Americans, especially lower-income Americans, increase growth and increase opportunity, increase jobs in this country.

Now is the time to act. A permanent ban on taxation of Internet access is crucial for protecting the future of our digital economy. If the ban on Internet access taxes is not renewed by November 1, the potential tax burden on Americans will be substantial. It is estimated that Internet access tax rates could be more than twice the average rate of all other goods and services. Low-income households could pay ten times as much as high-income households as a share of income.

The last thing that Americans need is another bill on their doorsteps. A tax on Internet access would burden millions of Americans who rely on the Internet to conduct business, communicate, educate, and live.

Over the past 14 years, Congress has extended ban after ban on States taxing Internet access. The measures have been met with enormous bipartisan support. Only five ``no'' votes were cast in the history of these renewals in the House and the Senate.

As price rises, demand falls. If the ban lapses, State telecommunications taxes could take effect, and those rates are already too high. Former White House Chief Economist Austan Goolsbee estimated that a tax that increased the price of Internet access by 1 percent would reduce demand for Internet access by 2.75 percent.

The permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act merely prevents Internet access taxes and unfair multiple and discriminatory taxes on e- commerce. It does not tackle the issue of Internet sales taxes.

Madam Speaker, this is a great issue for the Congress to move forward on in a bipartisan fashion that will help to create jobs and economic growth and foster continued greater access of the Internet. After all, isn't that what we want? We want every American to have opportunity to access this in the most affordable way so that they can have the educational opportunities, the employment opportunities, the recreational opportunities, the social opportunities that are created by the Internet.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, energy is vital to every aspect of American life. Working families, retirees, and businesses--large and small--are all depending upon reliable and affordable energy. An unwelcome increase in the electric bill leaves many families no other option but to cut elsewhere.

For businesses, higher energy costs mean less money to invest in jobs or expansion. As business costs increase, so does the price of goods down the line, triggering a chain reaction felt throughout the economy.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's policies are contributing to

the rise in energy costs with policies that discourage exploration of domestic resources and attempt to bypass Congress to implement cap-and- trade. A major way to improve reliability and affordability is to produce more energy here at home.

I am pleased to join my colleagues as we debate energy solutions and advance an all-of-the-above energy policy to power economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the second vote series on June 18, 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Democrat Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3230--Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with House Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan and Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, would like to thank David Shahoulian for more than seven years of service to the House of Representatives. Throughout this time, David has served as a dedicated counsel to the Judiciary Committee under three Chairmen, including myself, John Conyers, Jr., and Lamar Smith of Texas. For the last three years, he has served as the Minority Chief Counsel to the Judiciary's Committee's Immigration Subcommittee.

A native of Miami, Florida, David initially pursued a career in the film industry after graduating summa cum laude from Florida State University. David eventually returned to school to earn a Master's Degree in creative writing from the University of Southern California before obtaining his law degree from the Yale Law School.

It was in law school that David developed a passion for immigration law. Through his work in the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, David spent hundreds of hours representing clients at the Asylum Office all the way up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After graduation, he worked for two years as a Chesterfield Smith Public Interest Fellow at the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP. Just two months into his fellowship, David looked out the window of his Miami apartment and saw dozens of Haitian refugees scrambling onto the Rickenbacker Causeway after their boat ran aground. David ultimately represented a number of these asylum seekers and worked to secure pro bono counsel for many more. As the child of refugee parents from Iran and Cuba, David is a tireless advocate for those who have fled persecution and torture in search of freedom and liberty.

After three additional years at the law firm, David joined the Judiciary Committee in March 2007 and took on an ever-expanding portfolio of issues. Over time, his ability to master questions of law, policy, politics, and House procedure earned him the respect of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. Throughout his tenure, David played a critical role in bipartisan negotiations over legislative topics large and small. He was the lead staff Democratic negotiator for the Judiciary Committee on the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which made major reforms to immigration law regarding the victims of trafficking and unaccompanied children, and the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, which established a program to provide health care to those injured during recovery and cleanup efforts at the September 11 terrorist-attack sites and by reopening the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for such injured persons.

David's affable demeanor and quick mind have frequently been on display and have earned him many friends on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress. David's absence will be felt for years to come on matters pertaining to immigration law and policy, but we know that he will continue to work in this area as Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, we applaud David's tireless, principled and loyal public service to the U.S. House of Representatives and the American people and wish his every success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, last month, the House passed H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. This amendment undoes the carefully crafted reforms that this body passed, with overwhelming support.

A similar amendment regarding section 702 was offered and rejected by the House Judiciary Committee during its markup of H.R. 3361.

The bipartisan legislation passed by the House last month was closely negotiated on a bipartisan basis with the House Intelligence Committee, House leadership, and the intelligence community--to create a product that provides real, meaningful reforms to intelligence-gathering programs, while ensuring that the operational capabilities of the intelligence community are protected.

H.R. 3361 explicitly codifies existing minimization procedures for section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act that requires the intelligence community to minimize the collection and prohibit the retention and dissemination of wholly domestic communications.

H.R. 3361 also prohibits the government from using communications to or from a United States person or a person who appears to be located in the United States, except where the communication relates to a target under section 702 or to protect against an immediate threat to human life.

The intelligence community is strictly prohibited from using section 702 of the FISA Amendments Acts to target a U.S. person. If a U.S. person is the target of intelligence gathering under FISA, this must, at all times, be carried out pursuant to an individualized court order based upon probable cause.

Mr. Chairman, the bill passed by this House honors the Fourth Amendment and protects the rights of American citizens. At the same time, Islamic radical terrorists are on the march in Iraq, and the leader has publicly threatened to attack America, Syria has become a vortex of jihadists from across the globe, and the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security have warned of the growing threat these jihadists pose to our own homeland. State control has collapsed in Libya, and rival gangs of radical terrorists have established safe havens that rival those in Afghanistan prior to 2001.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban, Haqqani Network, and al Qaeda continue to fight. Moreover, the administration has released the Taliban Five from Guantanamo, emboldening the terrorists. The terrorist danger is grave and growing. The terrorist threat is not contained overseas. The U.S. homeland remains a prime aspiration and target.

This amendment would create a blind spot for the intelligence community tracking terrorists with direct connections to the U.S. homeland. This amendment would impose greater restrictions on the intelligence community's ability to protect national security than constitutionally required and create an impediment to the government's ability to locate threat information already in its possession. Such an impediment would put American lives at risk of another terrorist attack

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and stand by the legislation passed. It is also being considered in the Senate and there will be further negotiations, but this--this--contradicts the intent of the House and endangers America's national security.