Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member, for not only yielding me this time, but also for the great work that he has done, and also the great work that Chairman Rogers has done. They have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish something very, very important to accomplish in terms of fighting cyber terrorism, cyber crime, and making sure that we are safe in this country from cyber attacks to which we are very vulnerable today.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California for his amendment. I support efforts to make it absolutely clear that this legislation does not in any way authorize the surveillance of American citizens.

I also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for working with me to enhance the liability provisions in the legislation, for working with me to address some jurisdictional issues in the bill that affected the Department of Justice and the House Judiciary Committee.

I would also like to note that the President's statement in opposition to this bill insists on exposing our best technology providers to even more lawsuits when they are simply helping to defend our Nation against cyber attacks. The President's opposition statement expresses a deep distrust of private industry that America has rejected since its founding.

The bill before us today instead welcomes the private sector and acknowledges that we need the best minds in the country to help protect our citizens from ever-evolving cyber attacks by the likes of China and Iran. And the work done by the chairman and the ranking member to improve the provision of this bill, working with my committee and my staff to make it clear that we have a definite definition of what constitutes good faith and what constitutes circumstances under which a business that does not act in good faith would be exposed to lawsuits and liability, is one that helps protect the privacy of American citizens, because those citizens will be assured they will know under what circumstances a business has exceeded its authority under the law and be protected and have a clear right to bring an action under those circumstances. And the businesses themselves will be protected because they will not share information if they know they are not acting in good faith, because they know what the definition of good faith is in the bill.

So the gentleman from Michigan, the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman and ranking member, have done a great job with this legislation. I support their efforts and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chair, again, thank you to my colleagues. The ranking member from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), I really appreciate your kind words and your strong support. To my colleague from Virginia, thank you for your kind words on the amendment as well. And to my colleague, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers from Michigan, thank you for letting me offer this amendment here.

It does strike the balance I think we need with cybersecurity. The great threat to many of our institutions in this Nation is something that we do have to act upon, but also finding that balance with personal privacy that is so key to the elements of the founding of our Nation. I'm proud to be able to carry this amendment. I ask for your support, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have long been a critic of the renewable fuel standard and we must act now to fix this broken policy.

While the livestock industry has been witnessing the effects of the RFS mandate for several years, the drought last year highlighted for many the extreme reach of the RFS throughout our economy. But even before the drought, by diverting feed stocks to fuel there have been diminished corn supplies for livestock and food producers. Tightening supplies have driven up the price of corn. The higher cost for corn is passed on to livestock and food producers. In turn, consumers see that price reflected in the price of food on the grocery store shelves and restaurants.

This year, the U.S. is expected to hit the blend wall--where the ethanol mandate will require more ethanol be produced than can be safely blended into gasoline. In order to address the blend wall by reducing the RFS mandate, EPA is working to push E15. EPA has granted a partial waiver to allow E15 blends for model cars 2001 and newer, despite the fact that a study from the Coordinating Research Council, commissioned by U.S. automakers and oil companies, found that 25 percent of cars approved by the EPA to run on E15 experienced engine damage--and even failure. The EPA should not be promoting fuel that is unsafe on the roadways just to meet a mandate.

EPA administrators from both parties have constantly refused to use the flexibility granted to them by law to alter the RFS, so Congress must act. That is why I am introducing two bills that would alter this artificially created government market.

The first bill, the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act is simple; it would eliminate the RFS and make ethanol compete in a free market. The government should not be creating a market to sustain an entire industry. While, I believe that we should completely eliminate the RFS, I recognize that there may not yet be the political will in Congress to completely eliminate this mandate. And while there may not yet be the political will to eliminate this mandate we have to address the reality that we are being confronted and reform the broken RFS policy.

That is why I have joined with several colleagues in introducing legislation to reform the RFS. The Renewable Fuel Standard Reform Act eliminates the corn based ethanol requirements and caps the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10 percent--a level that is safe for all vehicle models. And this legislation will require the EPA to set cellulosic biofuels levels at production levels--oil and gas refiners should not be fined for not being able to blend products that do not exist.

More than 40 diverse organizations are joining us to call for action to address the problems created by the RFS mandate. This is no longer just a debate about fuel or food. It is also a debate about jobs, small business, and economic growth. This mandate has wide reaching and negative impacts on a broad swath of industries. Congress created this artificial market that is distorting the food and feed market, and we must provide relief of its unintended consequences. I urge the Congress to pass this legislation.

I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for his outstanding work on this.

I want to say to all of us that we should be sure that the people who are needing job training in this country are being trained and prepared for the jobs of the future, the jobs of opportunity, the jobs that are being created in the communities; and whether people are teenagers or women who have been the victims of domestic violence or anyone else, they can be sure that, with the kind of flexibility and creativity in this legislation, they will have the best opportunity to be trained for those jobs.

As we stand here today, there are approximately 12 million Americans without jobs. The numbers get worse the closer you look at them. Over 40 percent of these Americans have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and the percentage of Americans participating in the workforce has recently fallen to under 64 percent, which is the lowest number since 1981. The situation is even bleaker for America's youth, who should be at the dawn of their careers. For people between the ages of 18 and 29, the unemployment rate is a shocking 12.5 percent. This is simply unconscionable.

It is time for Congress and the President to take steps to address both the high unemployment and unsustainable debt that is shackling this country. The SKILLS Act is an important first step. This bill streamlines duplicative Federal programs related to job training, and it reduces bureaucracy so that more funds and support can go to the people who need it--and not to Washington bureaucrats.

Specifically, the bill requires increased coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to ensure that money is well spent, including on the Federal reentry programs that are focused on helping prisoners reintegrate back into society. Also, within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, the bill ensures that employment and training services for refugees are provided through the streamlined system set up in the Workforce Investment Act as opposed to through several different systems.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota again for working with the Judiciary Committee on these provisions; and I support this commonsense legislation that seeks to solve a serious problem by making better use of the limited resources that we have, an approach that I hope can be applied more broadly.

I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) as well as Chairman Kline for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 338) to amend title 18, United States Code, to include certain territories and possessions of the United States in the definition of State for the purposes of chapter 114, relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

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. 338, currently under consideration.

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

Cigarette trafficking is a very lucrative crime both here in the United States and abroad. It is estimated that illicit cigarettes account for over 10 percent of the more than 5.7 trillion cigarettes sold globally each year. Here in the United States alone, approximately 4 billion of the cigarettes sold each year are illicit.

Cigarette smuggling is generally carried out by large criminal organizations that take advantage of the significant disparity between the taxes levied on cigarettes across the States. These differences create a highly lucrative market for individuals to evade State and local sales taxes by purchasing cigarettes in one locality and transporting them to another for resale below market value. It is estimated that criminals can make a profit of as much as $1 million on just a single truckload of illicit cigarettes.

Cigarette smuggling is not just profitable for criminal networks; this crime also harms State and Federal revenues. According to the Justice Department, this illicit activity costs the States and the Federal Government an estimated $5 billion each year. This is money that could and should be put to better use.

In 2009, Congress took steps to curb contraband cigarettes with the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, or PACT, Act. The PACT Act prohibits the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products over the Internet and made changes to the criminal anticigarette smuggling statutes.

H.R. 338, the Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013, provides a technical correction to ensure that the criminal prohibitions against cigarette smuggling apply to the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands just as they do in the rest of the country. Without this fix, cigarettes sold in these territories without evidence that taxes were paid do not fall within the definition of ``contraband cigarettes.'' This is a modest but important change that will help to discourage crime and increase tax revenues in these United States territories.

I want to thank Mr. Faleomavaega for his work on this issue, as well as the ranking member on the full committee and the subcommittee for their support of this effort, and the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, as well, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I will close simply by saying cigarette smuggling is a serious problem and revenues lost to the territories that Mr. Faleomavaega and others represent are lost revenues that they can use to meet legitimate obligations, and we want to help them combat that. So I strongly support the legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank Chairwoman Miller for bringing this legislation forward and for the hard work of both herself and Congressman Brady on this issue, and I rise in support of the Academic Competition Resolution of 2013.

This resolution establishes an academic competition in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, which shall be held each year among students in each congressional district, and allows the Committee on House Administration to prescribe the regulations that will govern this competition.

This resolution will allow the Congressional Internet Caucus the ability to create the first Congressional App Challenge. Modeled after the Congressional Art Competition, the Congressional App Challenge promotes STEM learning and innovation by recognizing and incentivizing America's young programming talent.

In the 17 years since the formation of the Congressional Internet Caucus, technology policy issues ranging from cybersecurity and intellectual property have gained more prominence with each passing Congress. This challenge allows Members to experience the technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that take place on a daily basis in their own districts. This firsthand knowledge will be able to serve as a resource to Members as they consider legislation dealing with technology issues.

This competition will motivate our young people to further pursue programming and other technology-related educational opportunities. It will also enable them to showcase their programming skills on a national stage while at the same time promoting the value of STEM education and careers.

I want to thank the chair of the Committee on House Administration, Congresswoman Miller, and Ranking Member Brady for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I look forward to working with them to craft regulations that will make the congressional app contest a huge success to both Members and our constituents. I also look forward to working with my Congressional Internet Caucus cochair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), in bringing this competition to fruition.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his hard work on this legislation and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for introducing it and leading this bipartisan effort to address what I think is a serious problem.

I rise today in support of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013.

Churches, synagogues, and also houses of worship are essential to the fabric of communities throughout this great Nation. In times of need, it seems that faith and the charitable acts that faith inspire are essential to rebuilding and healing our communities. When disasters occur, like Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast, it's often houses of worship whose faith calls them to spring into action to help their fellow man, to feed the hungry and house the homeless. Faith inspires hope that communities can become whole again.

Every Member of Congress has seen the good works and deeds that houses of worship and nonprofit organizations do in our communities. There is no reason that the Federal Government should treat churches, synagogues, and houses of worship differently than other nonprofits in times of disaster.

I want to note that the so-called ``pervasively sectarian doctrine,'' which absolutely prohibited any aid to pervasively sectarian organizations such as churches, is no longer supported by Supreme Court precedent. While that doctrine was a central part of Supreme Court jurisprudence during the 1970s when the Supreme Court handed down decisions cited by opponents of this bill, including Tilton v. Richardson in 1971, Hunt v. McNair in 1973, and Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, also 1973, it is no longer controlling, as the pervasively sectarian doctrine was subsequently rejected by a majority of the Supreme Court in the 1999 case of Mitchell v. Helms. Indeed, as the Congressional Research Service concluded in its December 27, 2000, report to Congress:

In its most recent decisions, the Supreme Court appears to

have abandoned the presumption that some religious

institutions are so pervasively sectarian that they are

constitutionally ineligible to participate in direct public

aid programs. It also seems clear that the question of

whether a recipient institution is pervasively sectarian is

no longer a constitutionally determinative factor.

Today's legislation is important because it will ensure that houses of worship are treated equitably to other private nonprofit facilities, and that they are eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief and emergency assistance. I am glad that we are acting today to clarify that FEMA should treat churches, synagogues, and all houses of worship the same as other nonprofit organizations that are working to rebuild affected communities.

I thank Congressman Smith for introducing this legislation, and I urge all Members to join with me to support this important clarification of existing law.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation watched as we recently ended another battle over our Nation's tax-and-spend policies. While many Americans are now left trying to decipher how their taxes will be changing for the coming year, all Americans are, yet again, forced to comply with a tax code that is no longer working in a fair manner for our Nation's citizens. While almost every Member would acknowledge that our tax code is no longer working in a fair manner for Americans, nothing has been done to create a more equitable tax code. So today I rise to reintroduce the Tax Code Termination Act.

The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform. This bi-partisan legislation is simple. It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2017, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year.

As recently shown, Congress will not reach a consensus on a contentious issue, such as tax reform, unless it is forced to do so. My bill will do exactly that: force Congress to finally address fundamental tax reform.

Though many questions and ideas remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today.

Whichever tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be: a low rate for all Americans; tax relief for working people; protection of the rights of taxpayers and reduction in tax collection abuses; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth and job creation. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated.

Once the Tax Code Termination Act becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only 4 more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. This legislation will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda.

America cannot continue down this path of irresponsible tax-and-spend policies. There is widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. The American people deserve a certainty, fairness, and assurance that our current tax code cannot provide them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and end the broken tax system that exists today and provide a tax code that the American people deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for publication the attached copy of the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary for the U.S. House of Representatives for the 113th Congress, as adopted by the Committee on January 23, 2013:

Rule I. The Rules of the House of Representatives are the

rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittees

with the following specific additions thereto.

Rule II. Committee Meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the

Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on

Wednesday of each week while the House is in session.

(b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a

regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when,

in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor.

(c) The Chairman shall furnish each Member of the Committee

or Subcommittee with the date, place, and a list of bills and

subjects to be considered at a Committee or Subcommittee

meeting, which may not commence earlier than the third day on

which Members have notice thereof (excluding Saturdays,

Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session).

(d) At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of a

meeting for the markup of legislation, the text of such

legislation shall be made publicly available in electronic

form.

(e) In an emergency that does not reasonably allow for the

notice requirements in (c) and (d), the Chairman may waive

the notice requirements with the concurrence of the Ranking

Minority Member.

(f) To the maximum extent practicable, amendments to a

measure or matter shall be submitted in writing or

electronically to the designee of both the Chairman and

Ranking Member at least 24 hours prior to the consideration

of the measure or matter. The Chairman may use his discretion

to give priority to amendments submitted in advance.

(g) Committee and Subcommittee meetings for the transaction

of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the

purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public

except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by

majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of

matters to be considered would endanger national security,

would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or

would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or

otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House.

(h) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by

the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any

Member, and a copy made available to each Member present.

(i) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the

full Committee or any Subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be

constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the

Members of the Committee or Subcommittee, except that a full

majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee

shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure

or recommendation from the Committee or Subcommittee, closing

a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a

subpoena.

(j)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairman may

postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on

the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting

an amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a

postponed request at any time.

(2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph

(1), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary

to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any

postponed record vote.

(3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question,

notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to

further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the

question was postponed.

(k) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be

published in the same manner as hearings before the

Committee.

(l) Without further action of the Committee, the Chairman

is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of

the Rules of the House of Representatives whenever the

Chairman considers it appropriate.

Rule III. Hearings

(a) The Committee Chairman or any Subcommittee Chairman

shall make public announcement of the date, place, and

subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any

measure or matter at least one week before the commencement

of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or

Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority

Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing

sooner, or if the Committee or Subcommittee so determines by

majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of

business, the Chairman or Subcommittee Chairman shall make

the announcement at the earliest possible date.

(b) Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to

the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee

determines by majority vote to close the meeting because

disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger

national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate

any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the

House.

(c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence

before the Committee or any Subcommittee, a quorum shall be

constituted by the presence of two Members.

(d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be

allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until

such time as each Member who so desires has had an

opportunity to question the witness.

(e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the

Committee which are decided to be printed shall be published

in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record

inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the

record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of

Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a

Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify

the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication.

Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct

any errors other than errors in the transcription, or

disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the

record, and the appropriate place where the change is

requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the

Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another

congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall

be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the

publication of the verbatim transcript.

Rule IV. Broadcasting

Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or

any Subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings

shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still

photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed

pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure.

Rule V. Standing Subcommittees

(a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over such

matters as determined by the Chairman.

(b) There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the

Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows:

The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters:

constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, Federal

civil rights, ethics in government, tort liability, including

medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform

generally, other appropriate matters as referred by the

Chairman, and relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the

Internet shall have jurisdiction over the following subject

matters: Administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of

Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics,

copyright, patent, trademark law, information technology,

other appropriate matters as referred to by the Chairman, and

relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,

and Investigations shall have jurisdiction over the following

subject matters: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement,

sentencing, parole and pardons, internal and homeland

security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons,

criminal law enforcement, and other appropriate matters as

referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security shall

have jurisdiction over the following subject matters:

immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of

refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements,

claims against the United States, Federal charters of

incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, non-

border immigration enforcement, other appropriate matters as

referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and

Antitrust Law shall have jurisdiction over the following

subject matters: bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy

judgeships, administrative law, independent counsel, state

taxation affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts,

antitrust matters, other appropriate matters as referred by

the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

(c) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority

Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting

Members, of each Subcommittee to which such Chairman or

Ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution

of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as

present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing

or meeting of such Subcommittee.

Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees

Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all

matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction.

Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and

meetings of their respective Subcommittees after consultation

with the Chairman and other Subcommittee chairmen with a view

toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and

Subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible.

Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports

No report of the Committee or Subcommittee which does not

accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House

shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or

Subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of

such report and given the opportunity to give notice of

intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting

views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in

which to file such views be less than three calendar days

(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the

House is not in session).

Rule VIII. Committee Records

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall

notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision to

withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall

be presented to the Committee for a determination on the

written request of any Member of the Committee.

Rule IX. Official Committee Website

(a) The Chairman shall maintain an official website on

behalf of the Committee for the purpose of furthering the

Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities,

including communicating information about the Committee's

activities to Committee Members and other Members of the

House.

(b) The Chairman shall make the record of the votes on any

question on which a record vote is demanded in the full

Committee available on the Committee's official website not

later than 48 hours after such vote is taken. Such record

shall identify or describe the amendment, motion, order, or

other proposition, the name of each Member voting for and

each Member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or

proposition, and the names of the Members voting present.

(c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any

amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee

or its Subcommittees, the Chairman shall make the text of

each such amendment publicly available in electronic form.

(d) Not later than 3 days after the conclusion of a

Committee meeting, the transcript of such meeting and the

text of all amendments offered shall be made available on the

Committee website.

(e) The Ranking Member is authorized to maintain a similar

official website on behalf of the Committee Minority for the

same purpose, including communicating information about the

activities of the Minority to Committee Members and other

Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, for only the second time in the history of the House of Representatives, we will read aloud the full text of the Constitution of the United States.

We hope this reading will inspire many more Americans to read the Constitution. We also hope that this reading will help demonstrate to the American people that the House of Representatives is dedicated to the Constitution and the system it establishes for limited government and the protection of individual liberty.

The text we are reading today reflects the changes to the document made by the 27 amendments to it. Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read.

In order to ensure fairness to all those interested in participating, we have asked Members to line up to be recognized on a first-come, first-served basis. I will recognize Members based on this guidance. Each Member will approach the podium and read the passage laid out for him or her.

In order to ensure relative parity and fairness, I may recognize Members out of order to ensure bipartisanship and balance. Additionally, because of his long-term leadership on civil rights issues, I will recognize Congressman John Lewis of Georgia out of order to read the Thirteenth Amendment.

I thank the Members of both parties in advance for their participation in this historic event, and I will begin this historic reading by reading the preamble to the Constitution:

``We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. La Malfa).

Mr. La MALFA. ``No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

``The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.''

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Barber).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

I now yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

I now yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera)

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

I now yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

I yield to the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

It's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

It's now my pleasure to yield to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

That concludes the reading of the United States Constitution.

I want to thank the gentlemen who arrived and were available, but we ran out of Constitution before we ran out of readers.

I want to thank the Speaker and all the Members who participated in this important reading.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 627 & 628, I was unavoidably detained.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6671) to amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.

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. 6671, currently under consideration.

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

Today I am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

The VPPA was passed by Congress in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination battle, during which a local Washington, D.C., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood videotape rental store. This disclosure caused bipartisan outrage, which resulted in the enactment of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. Back then, the primary consumer consumption of commercial video content occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes. This required users to travel to their local video rental store to pick a movie. Afterward, consumers had to travel back to the store to return the rented movie. Movies that consumers rented and enjoyed were recommended to friends, primarily through face-to-face conversations. With today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes.

This bill is extremely similar to H.R. 2471, which passed the House overwhelmingly a year ago. This newer version incorporates provisions suggested by the Senate that allows greater consumer flexibility in their video sharing habits. I support these enhancements to the bill.

This bill updates the Video Privacy Protection Act to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. Specifically, it is narrowly crafted to preserve the VPPA's protections for consumers' privacy, while modernizing the law to empower consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simpler way. However, it protects the consumer's control over the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or TV shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented.

It also makes clear that written affirmative consent can be provided through the Internet and can be withdrawn at any time. The bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations. Companies must provide consumers with the clear and conspicuous option to withdraw their consent to share at any time. Finally, a consumer's consent to share expires after 24 months unless the consumer chooses to opt in again.

This bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. In fact, the cochairs of the Future of Privacy Forum correctly pointed out, in an opinion piece in Roll Call on November 29, 2011, that ``the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers.''

This legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the VPPA or the definition of ``personally identifiable information.'' In addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative, written consent.

It's time that Congress updates the VPPA to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. This bill does just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank both the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his longtime support, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who I'm sure will have a word to say about this as well, and also the work that the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of the subcommittee that I chair--and he has done a good job as the ranking member on--for working with us to find ground here that we could reach agreement upon.

I will also say that I have a great interest in looking at the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other privacy issues that need to be reviewed and modernized, and I hope that, in my new capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, we'll have the opportunity to work together on issues of that nature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleagues for coming together on this legislation. I believe that it is very good legislation that modernizes the use of the Internet and the use of information that people want to share with each other. It makes it feasible to do that now in ways that newer users of the Internet have become used to with music and other things they share, and now they'll be able to do that with video, television, and movies and other things like that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the committee, for his fine work on this legislation, and I rise in support of it.

You know, this House has twice passed through the entire House legislation eliminating the visa lottery program--55,000 visas, not given based upon family reunification needs, not given based upon job shortages in the United States, but based upon pure luck. And it's unfair to people from more than a dozen countries around the world that stand in long lines, on waiting lists, and then watch somebody have their name drawn out of a computer at random, with no particular job skills, no ties in this country, and they get to go right past them into a green card in the United States.

So, if you're from Mexico, you're not eligible for the visa lottery program. If you're from Canada, you're not eligible for the visa lottery program. If you're from China or India or the Philippines or from more than a dozen countries, you are not eligible for this program at all.

Let me just say that far more people with far greater contributions to make to our economy, to our system, will benefit from using those visas for STEM--for science, for technology, for engineering, and math. In fact, most African immigrants to the U.S. do not come through the diversity program, and many will benefit from a STEM visa program. There are more than 3,000 students from Nigeria alone who are studying in STEM fields in the United States. They will be able to stay in the U.S. because of the STEM Jobs Act.

This is a good proposal that is fair to people who want to come to this country to better their lives for themselves but to also help the United States in these difficult economic times find people who are needed here or who have legitimate family reunification needs, not simply based on pure luck. Our immigration system is in need of more reform than this, but this is great reform, and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 583 and 584, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion to Recommit and ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 6213.

I thank Chairman Lucas for his leadership on this issue and Ranking Member Peterson for his support of this effort to take action to help livestock producers who are being devastated by the drought. Livestock farmers in the Sixth District of Virginia have been hit hard by the heat and the derecho that swept through the Shenandoah Valley last month.

This disaster relief was included in the 2008 farm bill but, unfortunately, did not last the full length of the farm bill. I am pleased that the Congress has found a way to provide relief for these livestock farmers; and not only do we provide the relief, but we pay for it. And not only do we pay for it, but we also achieve additional savings that are applied to the deficit. If every bill passed by the Congress reduced spending overall, we would be in much better fiscal condition in the Federal Government.

While the Congress is taking an important first step in providing relief for drought-stricken livestock farmers, the administration has at hand a tool that they should use right now to provide drought relief as well.

The Obama administration has at its disposal an easy relief valve that would provide drought relief, if only temporarily--a reduction in the government-mandated Renewable Fuel Standard. I have long been a critic of the RFS that has increased food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, leading to diminished supplies for livestock and food producers. In fact, last year, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production. There is no doubt that this policy has driven up the price of corn, which today is hovering around $8 a bushel. This, in turn, drives up the cost of food.

Unfortunately, because of the drought, we no longer have the luxury of being just worried about the price. This drought is so devastating that we have to be increasingly worried we do not have a large enough corn supply to meet all of our competing demands.

As we confront the reality of the tightening corn supplies, there are real concerns about having enough to satisfy the RFS and the needs of our food producers. We should not be in a position where we are choosing between fuel and food. In fact, the government has chosen: they've chosen fuel over food with a policy that mandates a certain amount of corn production going to ethanol production each year.

As the drought further shrinks the corn supply, we are unfortunately also going to see livestock herds shrink. This shrinking herd will affect consumers' grocery bills, resulting in consumers having to spend more in the grocery store. Rural communities that depend on livestock will be hit hard as producers affected by both the availability and high price of corn are being forced to limit their production or are being squeezed out of business.

The law allows the Administrator of the EPA to reduce the required volume of renewable fuels in any year based on severe harm to the economy or environment of a state, a region or the United States, or in the event of inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. This drought and the shrinking corn crop are causing severe economic harm in the countryside and on grocery store shelves.

The Administrator of the EPA has already received a petition to waive the RFS for a year. Today, over 150 bipartisan members, from coast to coast, joined in calling for Administrator Jackson to waive the RFS. The Congress is acting today to help drought stricken livestock farmers, but now the Obama Administration must act to use their authority to help these same farmers. This relief is not only desperately needed, but I believe is required by the law.

I urge all members to join today in supporting this bill to help provide much needed drought relief, and I urge the Administration to join the Congress in acting to provide drought relief by waiving the