Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Academic Competition Resolution of 2013. The resolution, which will establish a yearly academic competition in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics each year in each congressional district, will be much like the longstanding art competition, one in which individuals in the STEM areas--science, mathematics, and engineering-- will compete for their best accomplishments.

Art is important; English is important. But today, our greatest shortfalls are in the areas in which these young men and women need to go, need to be interested. Nothing will more promote STEM degrees, the type we need for sciences, for our accomplishments in Silicon Valley and throughout America, than saying it's important enough by an annual competition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the military service of Major General (MajGen) Melvin Spiese on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Marine Corps. I commend MajGen Spiese's career and offer my sincerest thanks for his more than 36 years of dedicated service in protecting our nation.

In 1976, MajGen Spiese was commissioned via the NROTC program at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and he began his long and successful career in the United States Marine Corps as a rifle platoon commander with 3d Battalion, 4th Marines.

Nearly four decades later, MajGen Spiese retires now from his post as both Deputy Commanding General of I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) and Commanding General (CG) of 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade (1st

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the exceptional work of Donald McKinney over the course of his 11 year service as a District Representative in my Vista, California office. In that role, Don was my principal representative to the communities of Oceanside, Fallbrook, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and military and veterans throughout the greater San Diego area.

Don's work was exceptional throughout his tenure, and he distinguished himself as a dedicated advocate for the Marines and their family members aboard Camp Pendleton. From housing and medical care, to transportation and infrastructure, Don took up any cause he believed would improve the quality of life for our Marines and dependents.

Shortly after I took office in 2001, we became aware of appalling conditions many Marine families were living in on base. The housing stock at Pendleton was worn out, some of it dated back as far as World War II, and many dwellings had mold contamination and other unsafe conditions. Don met repeatedly with base officials and over the course of many visits, carefully documented the housing conditions and assembled a binder of facts and photos. He walked miles and miles in the Pentagon halls meeting with any military or civilian leader who had a role in building or maintaining Marine housing. Don made sure that decision makers 2,000 miles away saw the pictures and understood the urgency so that it wouldn't get lost as just another line on a spreadsheet or item in a report. Marines and their families were living in these conditions, and that was unacceptable.

Today, Camp Pendleton provides some of the finest housing available to servicemembers and their dependents. Much of the older family housing has been torn down and replaced and the rest fully renovated. The base now has 29 new Bachelor Enlisted Quarters buildings. Don's advocacy raised awareness within the chain of command and contributed significantly to the improvement of housing quality aboard Camp Pendleton.

Don's work earned him the good-will of the Marine Commanders at Pendleton and he worked to ensure they had strong relationships with local leaders in adjacent communities. This paid dividends most recently when local, state and base officials work collaboratively to improve the flow of traffic at the Fallbrook Gate, reducing wait times to enter the base from 30 minutes to less than one minute. This small project provides a notable improvement in the quality of life for civilian and military personnel who commute to jobs on base each day.

Don facilitated more than 500 hours of negotiations between the Fallbrook Public Utilities District and Camp Pendleton to bring the sides to agreement to settle water rights litigation that has been pending for more than 50 years. A final draft settlement is now awaiting final approval at Marine Corps Headquarters in Washington, DC.

Finally, Don was an advocate for improved medical care for autistic military children, working to make sure they have access to the most effective treatments and to raise awareness so they can gain access to the care they need and deserve.

In a last email to his colleagues, Don shared the experiences that were most meaningful over the years. Helping an injured Marine navigate a civilian bureaucracy to get a contractors license and a single mother clear an error by the Justice Department that allowed her to run a daycare center meant the most throughout his years.

Along with these notable achievements, Don did all of the things our aides do on our behalf when Congress is in session and we are away from our districts--countless meetings, appearances at the local Rotary or Chamber of Commerce luncheon, awards presentations and other public appearances.

I extend heartfelt thanks to Donald McKinney for his good work and exceptional service on behalf of the House of Representatives and the constituents of the 49th District.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up the bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 273 and to include extraneous material thereon.

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

Good-paying, full-time jobs should not be limited to those fortunate enough to work for the Federal Government.

At a time when hardworking American taxpayers are struggling to find work and keep their heads above water, the Federal Government offers its workforce sufficient and generous pay and job security. This is not to imply that they're overpaid. This is not to imply that they're overcompensated. That's a discussion for another day.

But certainly, at a time in which the American people saw their household income drop by $4,000, that has not happened in the Federal workforce. Year after year, the Federal workforce has received step increases and other pay increases. And with the exception of a relatively limited pay freeze done under President Obama's executive order, they, in fact, have received consistent pay increases and their benefits have been maintained.

At this time, we are faced with sequestration. Sequestration for our men and women in uniform means aircraft do not fly, ships do not get maintained, and, yes, furloughs may very well happen. To avoid furloughs, to avoid arbitrarily cutting the most junior individuals or stripping away our military's ability to protect us, it is a small price to pay to, consistent with the President's previous pay freeze, to hold pay increases of Federal employees for one more year.

It is my sincere hope that, working together, we will both resolve the budget shortfalls and get America working again over the next year. But at a time when most--a great many--of the average Federal workers make more than their private sector counterparts, when a great many make more than $100,000 a year, at a time in which Members of Congress, appropriately, have frozen their own pay year after year, it is a price that we have the authority--and we ask the Federal workforce to agree with us that in fact this is a year not to raise the pay of Federal workers. Last year, we spent $11 billion on non-merit pay increases for Federal workers. It's the right time to say no increases other than those specifically deemed by specific merits under statute are important.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not agree with this, I have no doubt. But let me say one thing. I know that Mr. Cummings and I do agree that we have to find viable alternatives to stripping away the capability of our military to maintain our safety. We have to find viable alternatives to cutting the important work on medicines and other lifesaving Federal programs that in fact our seniors and all of our citizens rely on. We could do this today, or we could cut the National Institutes of Health. We could do this today, or we could park two or three of our aircraft carriers and lay off the crews. I don't think the other side has any question that a viable alternative to those kinds of across-the-board cuts are clearly important.

So I ask the minority to join with me today in realizing that this is not what we want to do. This is what we need to do if we're going to prevent arbitrary cuts that in fact will touch Americans, in many cases, in all the wrong ways.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The loyal opposition is entitled to their opinion but they're not entitled to their facts. Let's go through some facts.

The ranking member may not remember January 1. I know it was a long time ago--over a month. On January 1, with the President's blessing and insistence, we raised the taxes on the highest income producers and on family businesses by 5 percent on their ordinary income and by 5 percent on their capital gains. Capital gains would be a 33 percent increase, from 15 to 20 percent.

These were not small increases. These were huge. I didn't vote for them. My ranking member did. I didn't vote for them because in fact the President deliberately said, Oh, no, we're not going to touch anything else in taxes, except to stick it to the rich. And he did. And this body did. That was a decision. But I hope my ranking member will remember that a month ago and a few days we had a huge tax increase--of the President's choosing.

It had been offered up by Republicans to work together to find loopholes, but that was rejected in favor of a stick-it-to-the-rich tax increase that he chose.

There was $500 billion worth of revenue that would have been generated per year--$5 trillion over 10 years--if the President had been willing to go back to Bill Clinton-level taxes on all. He was not. So it is the height of hypocrisy to come in 30 days--actually, in about 1 day--and begin talking about the next round of tax increases on a relatively limited group of our population, the 1 percent or 3 percent, and in fact start reducing their ability to have working capital for new oil exploration, for new natural gas exploration, the things that the President, just a few days ago, standing in front of where you are today, lauded as great. We're becoming oil self-sufficient. We are natural gas self-sufficient. We are, in fact, able to move to cleaner fuels for our energy.

But let's break something else down. My opponent--and I keep saying opponent, he's my ranking member, but he is the loyal opposition here-- he talks about $100 billion. I think we need to break it down. That's $100 billion over 10 years. It's not even $10 billion in the first year. His $100 billion of sacrifices, many of those sacrifices won't even occur because people aren't going to necessarily be here for all 10 years, because next year or the year after, this Congress might be able to increase pay to make up for what we have to hold back this year. We may have that good time and good employment and good ability to do that, and I would join with the Member to try to find that way.

But the fact is what actually is being asked to be given up by the typical Federal worker--the one that the President is calling such a huge sacrifice--is $274 per employee per year.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), who has been a leader on this issue and who understands the hardworking men and women of the Federal workforce and why this is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the committee and a newcomer, but not someone who hasn't watched this play out time and time again as people call $274 a catastrophe for the Federal workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, and now I have to repeat it, the other side is entitled to their opinion but not their facts.

Mr. Speaker, that's the number. Almost half a million out of 2 million of our Federal workforce receive over $100,000, but the gentleman from Massachusetts chose to pick a GS-3. Okay, fine. This is an entry-level, unskilled position. But let's understand something. It still pays better than the minimum wage job that you're hoping to get in some cases, and it pays more than an awful lot of jobs out there. As a matter of fact, it pays about the average for somebody who has no special skills coming in. But we won't even debate that. We won't debate any of that.

Let's have the facts, the truth. That woman receives a step increase every year. She has gotten a pay increase every year, like the rest of most of the workforce. As a 3 level, she's getting a step increase. So to say that she didn't get a pay raise is just not true. If my colleague from Massachusetts were better informed, he would have said that himself rather than leaving that fact out of the pay raise that was achieved, because step increases occur even during pay freezes.

With that, I will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

I'll wait.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again the facts speak louder than the rhetoric. The .4 percent is less than a quarter of the exit rate in the Federal workforce of the private sector, one of the reasons people in the private sector are fighting to figure out how to get a job that pays better. This is our exit in the public sector.

They're not leaving because they weren't paid enough. There's no draconian cuts.

Not any more than your Member did.

The fact is this is the truth, and the facts speak louder. Only 22 percent of the Federal workforce believes that their pay is linked to performance. Of course the Federal workforce doesn't like not getting $274 more for the remainder of this year. Neither do I.

You'll have your time.

The fact is we have a problem, and the problem is everyone wants to call a total of about $1 billion of not increases as somehow draconian.

The .4 percent, they're not leaving the workforce. That's the important thing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.

It is the minority's job to find facts that, in fact, we may not have said. I appreciate them doing that rather than flinging opinions and statements about people's intent.

Mr. Ross stood here, though, and he told us facts. And he has a bill, a Simpson-Bowles-type bill that is comprehensive. He isn't just here picking facts. He picked apart Simpson-Bowles and put together a comprehensive savings bill that, in fact, was modeled after Simpson- Bowles. If he were here, I would have given him time to say just that, because he's a leader in our Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself just 1 minute.

I know the gentleman didn't mean to when he was talking about Maya, but he did say that her pay has been frozen for 10 years. I'm sure he meant 2 years and, if we enact this, a third year. Mr. Wolf is a dedicated servant of this country, but he did say a couple of things that I'd like to touch on.

First of all, when we talk about the men and women of Congress and when they say they do it for the right reasons--they do it because they care--we're doing it with 11.5 percent less money in the House on both sides of the aisle. So, in fact, in many cases, we're paying the same or less than we were paying before. We've made those cuts. The Federal workforce has not seen an 11.5 percent reduction in actual dollars spent, but our offices have made those cuts under the Speaker's leadership.

Lastly, I certainly believe when we talk about Walter Reed that we should include what the commander of Walter Reed told me on Monday of this week, and that was that he is now in the process of planning whom to let go.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

He, in fact, is in a situation--a commander there, a two-star--of dealing with the possibility of furloughing for a 20 percent reduction. With the number he has been given, he cannot possibly maintain the same level of care for those men and women--those wounded warriors and those veterans. It will be devastating if we do not find ways to deal with alternatives.

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.

I was at Walter Reed. Walter Reed has a problem, and this is a small part of the solution. Every man and woman at Walter Reed would rather have a pay freeze than, in fact, see people disappear from their rolls and not be able to service the needs of those people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from New Jersey is right. He is right when he said that we, in fact, have to make these tough decisions. This isn't freezing the pay of our men and women in uniform, and perhaps we should scrutinize in detail as to the station chiefs and the others in harm's way their combat pay, their special hazard pay and so on. We held a hearing on Benghazi, and we were very aware that, in fact, they weren't paid enough to die for their country needlessly because we didn't do the right thing. I have no doubt about it.

I represent Camp Pendleton. The marines of Camp Pendleton--the First Marine Expeditionary Force--have deployed more than anybody. They have been in Iraq, they have been in Afghanistan, and they have been on those FOBs. In fact, we need to make sure we support them. That's the reason we're looking for alternatives to sequestration every day, and we would love to have people on the other side of the aisle.

So, when we talk about the men and women in harm's way, it's not, in fact, those in the towers helping to get our planes safely landed, and it's not the people inspecting our food. We have to make tough choices, and I join with anyone who wants to make tough choices on behalf of those in harm's way. Let's remember that we are talking here of the vast majority. These are Federal civil servants who, in fact, are paid pretty darned well, who are not leaving, and we are asking for a small sacrifice.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Earlier there was a statement made about a nurse making $27,000. After checking, we discovered that's a nurse's assistant. I think it is important to understand that a nurse at the Veterans Administration would make a lot more. A nursing assistant is paid a modest salary, $27,000, plus probably another 10 or $11,000 in direct benefits. It's still more than the national average for somebody with that skill level. It is still a steady job, and it still would have had a step increase.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, a person very knowledgeable of how this law that the President signed came to be passed.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas was right. The President signed sequestration; the President asked for sequestration; the President negotiated sequestration; and the President has had from this body alternatives to sequestration repeatedly. The minority in this body has not offered viable alternatives to sequestration. The Democratic majority in the Senate has done nothing to block sequestration.

I yield to the gentleman.

I'm not aware of that, but this is not a new bill. You've had alternatives in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that I was closing, and I do believe the other side is completely out of time; is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I close, I think it is important that we take Mr. Hoyer's very words.

First of all, he said ``Mr. President'' before ``Mr. Speaker,'' which got me to remind myself that the President is responsible for sequestration, something we're trying to avoid. The President has offered no viable alternative to sequestration. The President avoided $5 trillion worth of new revenue because he wanted to say he was only sticking it to the rich or, as Mr. Hoyer would say, those people who earn more money in 10 minutes than this amount.

The thing that I want everyone to understand that the gentleman from Maryland said that is so right, this is only a quarter of a percent. He's right, this is a very small amount. It's $1 billion total over the Federal workforce for the remainder of this fiscal year. And over the last 2 years, this is how much the increase has been: $3,328 or about $1,500, $1,600 a year is how much the Federal workforce has got in a pay increase while they were under a freeze.

The reason it's only a quarter of a percent when you see about a 5 percent increase in the last 2 years in actual compensation is the Federal workforce system, Mr. Speaker, includes basically automatic step increases for the vast majority of employees, meaning so many people who talked about how this was being devastating are forgetting the fact that while the American worker got little or no pay increase, the American family saw a reduction in their actual revenue, the Federal workforce enjoyed 2\1/2\ percent increases while under a freeze. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, they will get another 2\1/2\ percent increase this year even though we forego this one-quarter percent automatic pay increase.

That's the amazing thing that can only happen here in Washington is people can come and talk about devastation, great sacrifice, a willingness to sacrifice, but not so much. Well, in fact, every year that dedicated employee, the GS-3 there as a nurse assistant, she got this kind of an increase year after year after year, even during a pay freeze.

We're not here to talk today about the dedicated men and women both in and out of uniform, but we have. And I want to commend all of those men and women who serve our country. But I want to commend them while saying that this is a small sacrifice. As Mr. Hoyer said, as the whip, the Democratic whip, a representative of the party of the President, this third-year pay freeze called for initially by the President, in fact, is not an absence of increases--the increases are significant to anyone listening in America. These are real increases they're getting while we're foregoing in this bill a quarter of a percent.

So I want to thank the Democratic whip. He made it very, very clear that, in fact, this is miniscule. To him, $1 billion, $11 billion over 10 years, is not enough to even spend 2 days of the Congress on. And perhaps he's right; perhaps we should have done much more. Perhaps this small amount, this incredibly small amount, $274 on an average employee for the remainder of this fiscal year, is too little to pick up.

But if it's too little to bother with, isn't it also too little to have so much opposition to? The fact is, and the facts are stubborn, this is a small reduction in what would otherwise be a significant increase that they're going to get anyway.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I urge my colleagues to vote for this, I remind them that we have asked for this time and time again, that the President has not seen fit to keep up his own request, the President has not, in fact, been aware or willing to deal with the rest of the increases. He takes credit for what you would call a small quarter percent reduction and calls it a freeze.

Well, the Federal workforce received a good compensation. The fact is when you go from $69,000 for a typical or median income of Federal workers, to $72,000 during the period of a pay freeze, it reminds me of a can of soda--that when you freeze it, it doesn't

change, but the can ruptures because it has swelled.

We have increased the actual compensation, of payroll compensation, to the Federal workforce by an average of $3,300 during a time in which the American people are told there's a freeze. And we will increase their pay an average of about $1,600 during this freeze if it becomes law.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is small, as the whip said. It is so small that I call on the members of the loyal opposition to be the kind of Democratic Party that understands that this is so small that they certainly should vote for it. It is not a great sacrifice; it is a very small sacrifice. Every Federal worker eligible for step increases will see compensation increases, an average of $1,600 this year, when we're only foregoing $274.

At a time like this the President and Congress must face reality.

We cannot keep spending money that we do not have.

H.R. 273 stops an $11 billion expense for non-merit based raises that has no business moving forward.

The economy is struggling, hard-working taxpayers are suffering--it is fundamentally wrong to reward government workers while everyone else is trying to make ends meet.

The idea of giving raises to government workers at a time like this highlights how out-of-touch Washington has become with the rest of the country.

The truth is government pay and classification systems, many designed in the 1940s, lack the flexibility needed to keep pace with the current work environment and demands.

That is why the President's top pay advisors continue to point to the need for reform.

The numbers don't lie. Once people get a government job, they rarely leave it.

The private sector quit rate is 4\1/2\ times higher than that of the federal sector.

Moving fully to a merit-based pay system would give agencies needed flexibility to use appropriated funds to better compensate our hardest working federal employees and attract those with critical skills.

The responsible conversation we should be having is about pay reform, not across-the-board raises with no measure of performance.

Simpson Bowles recommended a three year pay freeze.

Anyone who claims to be serious about reducing the debt and reigning in Washington's out-of-control spending could not in good conscience support this $11 billion spending measure.

With that, I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this short-sighted, unnecessary, and ill-conceived bill. H.R. 273 imposes yet another pay freeze on federal employees, many of whom have not seen a cost of living adjustment in over two years. The men and women who have dedicated their careers to public service--the majority of whom earn middle-class wages--have already made sacrifices in pay and benefits totaling more than $100 billion to help reduce our Nation's debt.

Federal employees in several sectors already earn less than their private-sector counterparts. These are the men and women who care for our veterans, keep our airplanes flying and ensure our food is safe to eat. They work in every Congressional district, from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Providence. In fact, 85 percent of federal employees live outside of the Washington, DC, area, with 18,000 located in my home state of Rhode Island.

Not only does this bill prevent hard-working federal employees from receiving a modest pay adjustment in an attempt to keep pace with the rising cost of living, it sends the unfortunate message to bright young people that they will not be valued if they choose a career in public service. At this time of national crisis, when we are facing so many challenges, we should be encouraging the brightest minds in the country to help solve these problems.

I support and have cosponsored the bill introduced by Mr. Cummings and Mr. Connolly to extend the pay freeze for members of Congress. But just because I do not believe this body deserves a pay raise does not mean we must also punish the talented men and women who have dedicated their careers to supporting the United States of America.

It's time to get serious about moving this country forward. We only have five legislative days left until automatic budget cuts go into effect, costing us a projected 750,000 jobs this year alone and threatening to plunge our economy back into a recession. Instead of dealing with the looming sequester, House Republicans have us voting on a bill that has no chance of passing the Senate, and then sending us home for a week-long recess.

I have already co-signed a letter urging Speaker Boehner to keep members in Washington until we have averted the impending across-the- board spending cuts and put our budget on a fiscally sustainable path. I repeat that message again today: Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop with these phony messaging bills and get to work.

I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this unnecessary bill and bringing up legislation that will actually address our immediate fiscal problems. Our constituents are counting on us to act, and we must not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Rule XI, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform adopted its rules for the 113th Congress on January 22, 2013, and I submit them now for publication in the Congressional Record.

Rule 1--Application of Rules

Except where the terms ``full committee'' and

``subcommittee'' are specifically referred to, the following

rules shall apply to the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform and its subcommittees as well as to the

respective chairs and ranking minority members.

Rule 2--Meetings

The regular meetings of the full committee shall be held on

the second Thursday of each month at 10 a.m., when the House

is in session. The chairman is authorized to dispense with a

regular meeting or to change the date thereof, and to call

and convene additional meetings, when circumstances warrant.

A special meeting of the committee may be requested by

members of the committee pursuant to the provisions of House

Rule XI, clause 2(c)(2). Subcommittees shall meet at the call

of the subcommittee chairs. Every member of the committee,

unless prevented by unusual circumstances, shall be provided

with a memorandum at least three calendar days before each

meeting or hearing explaining: (1) the purpose of the meeting

or hearing; and (2) the names, titles, background and reasons

for appearance of any witnesses. The ranking minority member

shall be responsible for providing the same information on

witnesses whom the minority may request.

Rule 3--Quorums

(a) A majority of the members of the committee shall form a

quorum, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for

taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one third of the

members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than

for which the presence of a majority of the committee is

otherwise required. If the chairman is not present at any

meeting of the committee or subcommittee, the ranking member

of the majority party on the committee who is present shall

preside at that meeting.

(b) The chairman of the full committee may, at the request

of a subcommittee chair, make a temporary assignment of any

member of the full committee to such subcommittee for the

purpose of constituting a quorum at and participating in any

public hearing by such subcommittee to be held outside of

Washington, DC. Members appointed to such temporary positions

shall not be voting members. The chairman shall give

reasonable notice of such temporary assignment to the ranking

minority members of the committee.

Rule 4--Committee Reports

(a) Bills and resolutions approved by the full committee

shall be reported by the chairman pursuant to House Rule

XIII, clauses 2-4.

(b) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall not

be considered in the committee unless the proposed report has

been available to the members of the committee for at least

three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

holidays, unless the House is in session on such days) before

consideration of such proposed report in the committee. If

hearings have been held on the matter reported upon, every

reasonable effort shall be made to have such hearings printed

and available to the members of the committee before the

consideration of the proposed report in the committee.

(c) Every investigative or oversight report shall be

approved by a majority vote of the committee at a meeting at

which a quorum is present. If at the time of approval of such

a report a member of the committee gives notice of intent to

file supplemental, minority, or additional views that

member shall be entitled to file such views following

House Rule XI, clause 2(l) and Rule XIII, clause 3(a)(1).

(d) Only those investigative or oversight reports approved

by a majority vote of the committee may be ordered printed,

unless otherwise required by the Rules of the House of

Representatives.

Rule 5--Record Votes

(a) A record vote of the members may be had upon the

request of any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote of

the members present.

(b) Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(h)(4), the chairman

is authorized to postpone further proceedings when a record

vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or

matter or on adopting an amendment and to resume proceedings

on a postponed question at any time after reasonable notice.

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. After consultation with the ranking

minority member, the chairman shall take reasonable steps to

notify members on the resumption of proceedings on any

postponed record vote.

Rule 6--Subcommittees; Referrals

(a) There shall be five standing subcommittees with

appropriate party ratios. The chairman shall assign members

to the subcommittees. Minority party assignments shall be

made only with the concurrence of the ranking minority

member. The subcommittees shall have the following fixed

jurisdictions:

(1) The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal

Service and the Census--Legislative jurisdiction over the

federal civil service, the U.S. Postal Service, and the

Census Bureau;

(2) The Subcommittee on Government Operations--Legislative

jurisdiction over government management and accounting

measures, the economy, efficiency, and management of

government operations and activities, procurement, federal

property, public information, including the Freedom of

Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act, federal

records (including the National Archives and Records

Administration and the Presidential Records Act) federal

information technology and data standards, grant reform, the

relationship between the federal government and states and

municipalities, including unfunded mandates;

(3) The Subcommittee on National Security--Oversight

jurisdiction over national security, homeland security,

foreign operations, immigration, emergency management, and

criminal justice. The Subcommittee also has legislative

jurisdiction over drug policy;

(4) The Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and

Regulatory Affairs--Oversight jurisdiction over regulatory

affairs, impediments to economic growth and job creation,

monetary policy, banking, infrastructure, and tax policy. The

Subcommittee also has legislative jurisdiction over federal

paperwork reduction, data quality, and the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs; and

(5) The Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and

Entitlements--Oversight jurisdiction over federal health care

policy, food and drug safety, energy policy, solvency of

federal entitlement programs.

(b) Bills, resolutions, and other matters shall be

expeditiously referred by the chairman to subcommittees for

consideration or investigation in accordance with their fixed

jurisdictions. Where the subject matter of the referral

involves the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or

does not fall within any previously assigned jurisdiction,

the chairman shall refer the matter as he may deem advisable.

Bills, resolutions, and other matters referred to

subcommittees may be re-referred or discharged by the

chairman when, in his judgment, the subcommittee is not able

to complete its work or cannot reach agreement therein.

(c) The chairman and the ranking minority member of the

full committee shall be ex officio members of all

subcommittees. They are authorized to vote on subcommittee

matters; but, unless they are regular members of the

subcommittee, they shall not be counted in determining a

subcommittee quorum other than a quorum for taking testimony.

Rule 7--Subcommittee Scheduling

(a) Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the

full committee on any measure or matter referred to it.

(b) No subcommittee may meet or hold a hearing at the same

time as a meeting or hearing of the full committee.

(c) The chair of each subcommittee shall set hearing and

meeting dates only with the approval of the full committee

chairman with a view toward assuring the availability of

meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous scheduling of

committee meetings or hearings.

(d) Each subcommittee chair shall notify the chairman of

any hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of

commencement of the hearings, including the date, place,

subject matter, and the names of witnesses, willing and

unwilling, who would be called to testify, including, to the

extent the chair is advised thereof, witnesses whom the

minority members may request.

Rule 8--Staff

(a) Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses

6, 7 and 9, the chairman of the full committee shall have the

authority to hire and discharge employees of the professional

and clerical staff of the committee.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses

6, 7 and 9, the staff of the committee shall be subject to

the direction of the chairman of the full committee and shall

perform such duties as he or she may assign.

Rule 9--Hearings

(a) A committee member may question witnesses only when

recognized by the chairman for that purpose. In accordance

with House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(2), the five-minute rule

shall apply during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing.

The chairman shall, so far as practicable, recognize

alternately based on seniority of those majority and minority

members present at the time the hearing was called to order

and others based on their arrival at the hearing. After that,

additional time may be extended at the direction of the

chairman.

(b) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking

minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit an

equal number of majority and minority members to question a

witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each

side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side.

(c) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking

minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit

committee staff of the majority and minority to question a

witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each

side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side.

(d) Nothing in paragraph (b) or (c) affects the rights of a

member (other than a member designated under paragraph (b))

to question a witness for 5 minutes in accordance with

paragraph (a) after the questioning permitted under paragraph

(b) or (c). In any extended questioning permitted under

paragraph (b) or (c), the chairman shall determine how to

allocate the time permitted for extended questioning by

majority members or majority committee staff, and the ranking

minority member shall determine how to allocate the time

permitted for extended questioning by minority members or

minority committee staff The chairman or the ranking minority

member, as applicable, may allocate the time for any extended

questioning permitted to staff under paragraph (c) to

members.

(e) Hearings shall be conducted according to the procedures

in House Rule XI, clause 2(k). All questions put to witnesses

before the committee shall be relevant to the subject matter

before the Committee for consideration, and the chairman

shall rule on the relevance of any questions put to the

witnesses.

(f) Witnesses appearing before the committee shall so far

as practicable, submit written statements at least 24 hours

before their appearance. Witnesses appearing in a non-

governmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae and a

disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program)

of each federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or

subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year

or either of the two previous fiscal years, by the witness or

by an entity represented by the witness.

(g) The chairman or any member designated by the chairman

may administer oaths to any witness before the committee. All

witnesses appearing in hearings may be administered the

following oath by the Chairman or his designee prior to

receiving the testimony: ``Do you solemnly swear or affirm

that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth,

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you

God?''.

Rule 10--Committee Records, Open Meetings, Transparency

(a) The committee staff shall maintain in the committee

offices a complete record of committee actions from the

current Congress including a record of the roll call votes

taken at committee business meetings. The original records,

or true copies thereof, as appropriate, shall be available

for public inspection whenever the committee offices are open

for public business. The staff shall assure that such

original records are preserved with no unauthorized

alteration, additions, or defacement.

(b) A stenographic record of all testimony shall be kept of

public hearings and shall be made available on such

conditions as the chairman may prescribe.

(c) Meetings for the transaction of business and hearings

of the committee shall be open to the public or closed in

accordance with the Rules of the House of Representatives.

(d) The chairman of the full committee 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. To the greatest extent practicable,

the chairman shall ensure that committee records are made

available on the committee's official website in

appropriate formats.

(e) The ranking minority member of the full committee 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.

Rule 11--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings

(a) An open meeting or hearing of the committee may be

covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio

broadcast, internet broadcast, and still photography, unless

closed subject to the provisions of House Rules. Any such

coverage shall conform to the provisions of House Rule XI,

clause 4.

(b) Use of the Committee Broadcast System shall be fair and

nonpartisan, and in accordance with House Rule XI, clause

4(b), and all other applicable rules of the House of

Representatives and the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform. Members of the committee shall have prompt access to

a copy of coverage by the Committee Broadcast System, to the

extent that such coverage is maintained.

(c) Personnel providing coverage of an open meeting or

hearing of the committee by internet broadcast, other than

through the Committee Broadcast System shall be currently

accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents'

Galleries. If the Committee Broadcast System is not

available, the chairman may, with the concurrence of the

ranking minority member, direct staff to provide coverage in

a manner that is fair and nonpartisan and in accordance with

House Rule XI, clause 4.

Rule 12--Additional Duties of Chairman

The chairman of the full committee shall:

(a) Make available to other committees the findings and

recommendations resulting from the investigations of the

committee as required by House Rule X, clause 4(c)(2);

(b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or

probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects within the

committee's jurisdiction as required by House Rule X, clause

2(c);

(c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and

estimates required by House Rule X, clause 4(f), and to file

reports with the House as required by the Congressional

Budget Act;

(d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House Rule

XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or

activity or series of investigations or activities within the

jurisdiction of the Committee;

(e) Prepare, after consultation with the ranking minority

member, a budget for the Committee;

(f) Make any necessary technical and conforming changes to

legislation reported by the committee upon unanimous consent;

and

(g) Offer motions under clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules

of the House (motion to request or agree to a conference)

whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.

Rule 13--Consideration of Certain Bills and Resolutions

(a) The determination of the subject matter of

commemorative stamps and new semi-postal issues is properly

for consideration by the Postmaster General and the committee

will not give consideration to legislative proposals

specifying the subject matter of commemorative stamps and new

semi-postal issues. It is suggested that recommendations for

the subject matter of stamps be submitted to the Postmaster

General.

(b) The consideration of bills designating facilities of

the United States Postal Service shall be conducted so as to

minimize the time spent on such matters by the committee and

the House of Representatives.

(c) The Chairman shall not request to have scheduled any

resolution for consideration under suspension of the Rules,

which expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates,

celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates

the anniversary of an entity, event, group, individual,

institution, team or government program; or acknowledges or

recognizes a period of time for such purposes.

Rule 14--Panels and Task Forces

(a) The chairman of the full committee is authorized to

appoint panels or task forces to carry out the duties and

functions of the committee.

(b) The chairman and ranking minority member of the full

committee may serve as ex-officio members of each panel or

task force.

(c) The chairman of any panel or task force shall be

appointed by the chairman of the full committee. The ranking

minority member of the full committee shall select a ranking

minority member for each panel or task force.

(d) The House and committee rules applicable to

subcommittee meetings, hearings, recommendations, and reports

shall apply to the meetings, hearings, recommendations, and

reports of panels and task forces.

(e) No panel or task force so appointed shall continue in

existence for more than six months. A panel or task force so

appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be

reappointed by the chairman.

Rule 15--Deposition Authority

(a) The chairman of the full committee, upon consultation

with the ranking minority member of the full committee, may

order the taking of depositions, under oath and pursuant to

notice or subpoena.

(b) Notices for the taking of depositions shall specify the

date, time, and place of examination (if other than within

the committee offices). Depositions shall be taken under oath

administered by a member or a person otherwise authorized to

administer oaths.

(c) Consultation with the ranking minority member shall

include three business days notice before any deposition is

taken. All members shall also receive three business days

notice that a deposition has been scheduled.

(d) Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel

to advise them of their rights. No one may be present at

depositions except members, committee staff designated by the

chairman or ranking minority member of the full committee, an

official reporter, the witness, and the witness's counsel.

Observers or counsel for other persons, or for agencies under

investigation, may not attend.

(e) At least one member of the committee shall be present

at each deposition taken by the committee, unless the witness

to be deposed agrees in writing to waive this requirement.

(f) A deposition shall be conducted by any member or staff

attorney designated by the chairman or ranking minority

member. When depositions are conducted by committee staff

attorneys, there shall be no more than two committee staff

attorneys permitted to question a witness per round. One of

the committee staff attorneys shall be designated by the

chairman and the other by the ranking minority member. Other

committee staff members designated by the chairman or ranking

minority member may attend, but may not pose questions to the

witness.

(g) Questions in the deposition shall be propounded in

rounds, alternating between

the majority and minority. A single round shall not exceed 60

minutes per side, unless the members or staff attorneys

conducting the deposition agree to a different length of

questioning. In each round, a member or committee staff

attorney designated by the chairman shall ask questions

first, and the member or committee staff attorney designated

by the ranking minority member shall ask questions second.

(h) Any objection made during a deposition must be stated

concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive

manner. The witness may refuse to answer a question only to

preserve a privilege. When the witness has objected and

refused to answer a question to preserve a privilege, the

full committee chairman may rule on any such objection after

the deposition has adjourned. If the chairman overrules any

such objection and thereby orders a witness to answer any

question to which a privilege objection was lodged, such

ruling shall be filed with the clerk of the committee and

shall be provided to the members and the witness no less than

three days before the reconvened deposition. If a member of

the committee appeals in writing the ruling of the chairman,

the appeal shall be preserved for committee consideration. A

deponent who refuses to answer a question after being

directed to answer by the chairman in writing may be subject

to sanction, except that no sanctions may be imposed if the

ruling of the chairman is reversed on appeal.

(i) Committee staff shall ensure that the testimony is

either transcribed or electronically recorded or both. If a

witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the

witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review

a copy. No later than five days thereafter, the witness may

submit suggested changes to the chairman. Committee staff may

make any typographical and technical changes. Substantive

changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the

deposition transcript submitted by the witness must be

accompanied by a letter signed by the witness requesting the

changes and a statement of the witness's reasons for each

proposed change. Any substantive changes, modifications,

clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an

appendix to the transcript conditioned upon the witness

signing the transcript.

(j) The individual administering the oath, if other than a

member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was

duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript

is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall

be filed, together with any electronic recording, with the

clerk of the Committee in Washington, DC. Depositions shall

be considered to have been taken in Washington, DC, as well

as the location actually taken once filed there with the

clerk of the Committee for the Committee's use. The chairman

and the ranking minority member of the full committee shall

be provided with a copy of the transcripts of the deposition

at the same time.

(k) The chairman and ranking minority member of the full

committee shall consult regarding the release of depositions.

If either objects in writing to a proposed release of a

deposition or a portion thereof, the matter shall be promptly

referred to the full committee for resolution.

(l) A witness shall not be required to testify unless the

witness has been provided with a copy of the committee's

rules.

Madam Speaker, today we're doing the important thing, the critical thing. I wish today that this had been what we'd voted on in the previous session, to recharge the flood insurance that needs to be there so that men and women in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the like will not question whether or not their country can provide them with the resources that are expected to be there in the time of a natural disaster like that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say that January 15 is critical; and as the previous speaker said, we do need to prenegotiate with the Senate. We need to get the pork out. None of that pork we're talking about is in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. In fact, it's as far away as Alaska. The pork that we will not vote on today is, in fact, the pork that was in this bill from the Senate. My hope is that we will see on January 15 a negotiated and clean bill that only deals with the men and women and families on the eastern seaboard that need to be taken care of.

I think that it's the President's responsibility and our responsibility and the Senate's responsibility when we do emergency supplementals to make them only about the emergency. I believe today we are buying a little bit of

time; but I think for people on the eastern seaboard who are suffering, that time is running out and all of our leaders need to make sure that the next vote, the vote on January 15, as the previous speaker said, will be a vote that will be prenegotiated, that will run through the Senate, and will deal only with the people suffering on the eastern seaboard.

I yield to the gentleman.

I reclaim my time to say the gentleman is absolutely right.

Had we been able to pass what we intended to be the House bill and send it back to the Senate and the Senate would have then taken that up, although they had left town, we could have done this in the previous Congress.

The gentleman from New York has been a champion to make sure that's clearly understood. I want to be an equal champion that, in fact, whether it's Louisiana or California, when the next earthquake occurs or now our friends and colleagues from the eastern seaboard actually as far south as where we stand, we do need to make sure--we owe them that. And I want to thank the gentleman from New York for, in fact, working so hard to make sure that we do get to a clean bill.

With that, I thank the gentleman.

I wish I could say that this was a proud moment, a moment in which we started the year off right, in which the 1st of January was the first of a great many good things. It isn't. We're kicking the can down the road. Worse than that, when faced with a mountain of debt that we were heading for, like an airplane, did we climb over it? No. What we're going to do in the present plan is put another nearly trillion dollars' worth of debt on the American people.

Time is running out to change the direction because that trillion dollars isn't just a problem for the next generation. It's a problem for corporate America, and it's a problem for every American. The trillion dollars we spend and waste this year is $1 trillion that we will have to bear for the rest of our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I may vote for what comes on the floor. I certainly will vote for a bill, which I'm going to manage in a few minutes, to hold down the growth of spending in the government; but I'll tell you, I won't do it thinking we've accomplished anything here today other than the smallest finger in a dike that, in fact, has hundreds of holes in it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6726) to prevent the 2013 pay adjustment for Members of Congress and persons holding other offices or positions in the Federal Government from being made.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years, Oversight has worked diligently. Our professionals have worked, to a certain extent, against their own best interest. They've found excesses in pay and compensation within the Federal system and moved with careful detail to try to reduce those amounts, make them more commensurate with the private sector. Currently, Federal workers receive typically over $100,000 and are about 16 percent higher compensated than their private sector counterparts.

Today we will consider something on the fiscal cliff, but before we do it, I felt it was important to deal first with this bill. And so I'm happy, in a few

moments, to recognize Mr. Fitzpatrick, the author of this bill, which is very narrow, but simply says that the President cannot and should not add about $11 billion to the deficit by the stroke of a pen, by an executive order at a time in which he's negotiating to try to raise taxes to earn maybe another $60 billion or $70 billion, at most, for the Federal Treasury.

So this will stop the Federal workers from receiving a pay increase. It will not stop their step increases. It will not stop their merit increases. It will not stop a great many other increases in their pay and compensation. But it will say that, at this time, when the American people are not getting automatic cost-of-living increases, neither should the Federal workforce.

And oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, neither should you, neither should the ranking member, neither should I. And this bill stops us from giving ourselves a pay increase that the President has asked for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I would trust that the gentleman was unaware that Mr. Fitzpatrick also does have a bill that only freezes our pay, and it does not bear the gentleman's name as a cosponsor. Perhaps he can correct that today.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

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

The ranking member made a good point, and in this body you should always go along with that which is true and oppose that which is false. The gentleman made an excellent point: we do have hundreds of thousands of hardworking Federal employees. They deliver to the American people a good product. The vast majority of them, if you ask them, do not feel they're overcompensated. They've worked hard; they're highly educated; in fact, they're not overpaid in many ways. They do, in fact, have a very generous defined benefit plan, something the American people usually don't have, something that would guarantee them a pension over and above their 401(k). And automatically it increases with inflation; automatically it is funded. That's true whether you're a postal worker, a Member of this body, or the executive branch.

We're not arguing whether or not the Federal worker is dedicated at all. We're arguing whether this is the right time to add $11 billion to a $10 trillion deficit that we're not dealing with. We have a $10 trillion deficit after today's action on ``ending the cliff'' that is still going to be projected. It hasn't been scored exactly, but it will still be over $1 trillion this year--and if history repeats itself, for every remaining year of the Obama administration.

Now, the gentleman from Maryland did say one thing that perhaps was not accurate--and he didn't mean to. He said, well, if you ask people around here. Well, perhaps he forgot that here in the House of Representatives, this entire body--except for congressional salaries, which are stipulated under the Constitution--we have, in fact, had to deal with a 5 percent reduction year over year in actual money available to run the House, and in the next year, 6.4 percent; meaning, we have dropped more than 11 percent in the dollars spent--not in some hypothetical base plus, but in the dollars spent we have dropped more than 11 percent under Speaker Boehner.

That kind of a cut has not been duplicated by the executive branch. Had it been duplicated by the postal workers, we wouldn't have a $12 billion loss there. Had it been duplicated by the executive branch, to be honest, Mr. Speaker, we would be talking today about how can we cut anymore and both sides would be agreeing. We haven't made an 11 percent drop in actual spending in 2 years. Had we done that, we wouldn't be looking at a hundred percent growth in the last 12 years in the cost of government.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Virginia means well, but, once again, he talks about a lack of accomplishment. Apparently, he hasn't looked at the work that the clerks have done here on the floor. He hasn't looked at the work that CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has done, or the Government Accountability Office. Those are all funded, and yet we had an 11 percent reduction in spending.

So, in fact, when we're talking about the hardworking men and women of the government, this branch has found a way to reduce spending by over 11

percent in spite of the hardworking men, not just here on the floor and in our offices, but the Governmental Accountability Office, the CBO and others.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I might note for the gentleman, it was posted last night, which means it was actually posted before the cliff bill. The technical dropping is a different rule. But it was posted, so it was available to all Members last night. And, of course, as you know, it's very simple. We simply freeze, and that's not hard for people to understand. I hope the gentleman understands a half percent freeze is all this bill does.

I would be delighted to yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I note, once again, that this is a half a percent that will not be increased by this action--half a percent--so on $100,000 it's $500 of a pay raise that will not occur for Federal workers, and, in fact, the sky is not falling if we choose not to have that happen this year.

With that, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Not at this time, so I would simply reserve the right to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill is going to pass, and it's going to pass likely on a bipartisan basis because it would be the ultimate in inappropriate behavior by this body to allow our pay to be raised. This is something I think that both sides have said fairly straightforward that this is not a time in which Members of Congress should take their $174,000 salary and increase it. I don't believe we've earned it this year. By the way, I believe the President's salary will not go up and the Vice President's salary will not go up, and that is also appropriate.

But as we look at the hardworking men and women of the Federal workforce and look at my colleagues from Virginia who spoke and my colleague from Maryland who spoke, the point that the Federal workforce should be listening to today is that, in fact, it's not how hard they work; it's what can the American people afford. We cannot afford to continue these deficits. It's not how hard they work. It is the inefficiency and waste not just in their office, but in the way government is organized.

Mr. Speaker, everyone had a New Year's resolution, I trust, last night. For all of us, I'm sure it was to lose a little weight, do a few other things that we haven't been doing; but for me particularly, it's to go after the duplication in government, to go after the organizational flaws in government that would allow us to be less critical, perhaps, of what we can afford from our Federal workforce and more proud of the fact that it is organized for efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the President called for reorganization authority and then did nothing in his first term. It is my goal to give him reorganization and a reorganizational plan. It is my committee's obligation to do that.

As I vote today to freeze our pay and to freeze all of the Federal workers' pay, I do so recognizing that the best way for Federal workers to get a pay raise without it being on the backs of the American people is for us to reorganize government, whether it's in information technology or any other goods and services that Federal Government delivers. We can do better. We can take waste out of Medicare, and we can take waste out of all aspects of the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I know this bill will pass on a bipartisan basis because it's appropriate to do here today. I urge its support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3662) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Nichols Street in Westminster, Massachusetts, as the ``Lieutenant Ryan Patrick Jones Post Office Building''.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this second-to-last day of this Congress, the Senate has sent us a naming. Although my committee has stopped doing namings, except in the case of Medal of Honor recipients, this one is coming over, and I believe it is meritorious. The Senate has asked us to pass it, and I will do so today.

It was introduced by Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts and would designate a facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Nichols Street in Westminster, Massachusetts, as the Lieutenant Ryan Patrick Jones Post Office Building.

Lieutenant Jones earned his engineering degree at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. When he earned his degree, he was also awarded an ROTC scholarship in the Reserve Officer Training Corps. Lieutenant Jones led his fellow soldiers as a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division while deployed in Iraq in 2007. And I

guess as a member of the Big Red One, I would note that I also served with that unit many years ago.

Tragically, on May 2, 2007, Lieutenant Jones was killed in action by an improvised explosive device set by our enemy. He leaves behind his parents, Kevin and Elaine Jones, of Westminster, Massachusetts.

He was awarded several awards for his heroism, including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Iraqi Freedom Medal, the Combat Action Badge, and the War on Terrorism Badge.

I am grateful for Lieutenant Jones' service and for his bravery on the battlefield. And I regret that the naming of this post office is so appropriate because yet another one of our finest has paid such a high price by an enemy who uses hidden explosives rather than confront us in any direct way.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I also urge support and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3630) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

S. 3630, introduced by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, to designate a facility of the United States Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office, is again another exception to the no-postal rule.

Captain Schiller graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 2003 and was deployed to serve in Iraq in 2006. Tragically, on November 16, 2006, the captain was killed by enemy fire. At the time of the attack, Captain Schiller was leading a team of six paratroopers and six Iraqi Army soldiers.

The captain leaves behind his parents, William and Karla. He was awarded several medals for his heroism, including the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.

We are grateful for his service. We make an exception to the ``no postal naming'' rule established because we don't have postal reform, and we do so on behalf of the request of the Senate, and we do so for a good reason. This, in fact, was a gentleman who served his country, whom we want to remember, and we want to remember him here today and in Wisconsin for years to come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for S. 3630, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be speaking for this bill, but I can't. In the 12 years, almost to the day, that I've served in this body, I've voted for every tax cut, every tax cut. And I remember many of my colleagues, many of them friends to my right here, who, each time we voted for them said, where is the PAYGO? Where is the pay-for?

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's $4 trillion of new debt and deficit and there's no pay-for, and there's no anticipation of a pay-for.

In the last night, or the last 2 days, of a Congress, to say that 2 months from now a new Congress is going to do what we're not doing here today is not something I can bring myself to do.

I would like to vote for this because I do vote for lower taxes. I want Americans to have lower taxes. But the other day, in conference, one of my colleagues pointed out that if, in fact, you're spending the money, you're taxing our future generation.

We are taxing $1.2 trillion next year. We are taxing $1.2 trillion. We won't collect it, but we are taxing $1.2 trillion of deficit.

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, rightfully so said we're also not simplifying the Tax Code. We're not making it better or fairer. We're not getting rid of the NASCAR loophole. We're not getting rid of the electric motor scooter low-speed loophole. We're not getting rid of a whole lot of tax things that are here.

But most importantly, we're not taking things that the President himself said he would be for, like getting the calculation of chained CPI, of the consumer price index for Social Security and the Federal workforce and pensions right, which, would, in fact, reduce the deficit going forward.

So because of what we're not doing, I cannot believe that this tax cut will, in fact, be followed with a spending cut to offset any part of the $4 trillion we're putting on the backs of future generations.

So I thank all of you who will vote for it. I cannot bring myself to vote for it tonight.

Mr. Speaker, shame on this body. We have a $10 trillion hole in the difference between our spending and our revenue, and we can't find a way to compromise?

The gentleman from Maryland said that it didn't receive a single Democratic vote. This is the most humble and minimal proposal I could imagine. The chairman of the Budget Committee, himself, would recognize that we're not getting close to a balanced budget with this. We're simply making a down payment on it.

My committee marked up one of the largest portions of these improvements, which aligns the Federal workforce's compensation, including Members of Congress and their staffs, a little closer to the rest of the workforce, a little closer to the rest of hardworking Americans, and yet we can't get a single Democratic vote.

I say to the Democrats, quite frankly, shame on you for not being able to make a down payment on a $10 trillion shortfall. And to my colleagues on the Republican side, this isn't enough. This isn't nearly enough, but at least we're showing that we don't have a partner in the White House and we don't have a partner in this body that will work with us to begin a down payment on $10 trillion worth of shortfall.

In closing, even if, in fact, the President got his original wish, that we were going to go over the cliff and raise $538 billion in new revenue, we would still have $500 billion worth of excess spending that has built up since Bill Clinton left office.

I hope the American people are watching. I hope they'll demand that we do more than just make a small down payment and then argue about it; that, in fact, we need to address $10 trillion over 10 years--$1 trillion a year--and we're not even beginning to do that.

I hope that this will pass, because, in fact, we need the Democrats to realize this is only the beginning of what will be a much tougher, tougher effort on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly my friend, Mr. Clay.

It is not often that we get to come here as a committee and talk about something that, in fact, affects perceived government cronyism and misconduct, a law that protects the American people against politics getting into your government, and then say, but we need to reduce it a little. We need to make it a little tighter.

This is an example where, as many of my colleagues have said, unintended consequences have made a good bill into a bill that stifles the opportunity and legitimate political activity that occurs by people serving in State and local office.

So I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with my good friend from the District of Columbia, and say this is the time in which we're making small technical changes that make a big difference to our political landscape around the country, and in a good way.

We want to make sure that we have the opportunity to have everyone participate, and I want to thank Members of both parties for bringing this bill. And I want to particularly thank my colleague, Mr. Cummings, for his effort throughout the entire Congress to get us where we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 821, I call up the bill (H.R. 6429) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, 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. 6429, as amended, under current consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to STEM fields, this is long overdue. This is not the first time we have considered it, but as we go into the lame duck session, I'd like the American people to understand why this is so important. For more than 2 years, the national campaigns have talked in terms of jobs. STEM means jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Many years ago, Thomas Friedman wrote about an experience of being a speaker at a commencement, and he watched one after another individuals cross receiving their masters and doctorate degrees in science, in math, and in engineering. The amazing thing is, one after another had names that were almost impossible to pronounce in some cases, and, clearly, the majority of these engineers and scientists came from other countries and were being told they must return to them. He made the statement in his op-ed that, in fact, at the end, rather than just a diploma, they should be given a diploma and a green card. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Thomas Friedman on this subject.

For each person we welcome to America with one of these high degrees, we create jobs, net jobs. We create opportunity for expansion of the kinds of businesses that, in fact, Americans are prepared to work in, but often we do not have enough engineers, scientists, or math professionals. This shortage, particularly at the masters and doctorate level, is well documented.

This is not something in which Republicans and Democrats are on different sides; this is something we agree on. There is some controversy, as you might imagine; there always is. Some would cling to a lottery that allows 55,000 immigrants to come for no reason other than they asked and they got

a lottery. Those 55,000 are, in fact, an example of a great many of our immigrants. Only 5 percent of immigration visas today are based on skills of education and other capacities--only 5 percent.

I support other categories of immigration, including those fleeing the tyranny of their own countries, those in fact who would be killed if they remained, or tortured; and I certainly agree that family reunification continues to be an important part of our immigration system. But today what we're dealing with is the ability to make a profound difference of 55,000 opportunity jobs.

We often hear about opportunity scholarships, Mr. Speaker. Opportunity jobs is what we're talking about today--jobs that are in great demand. In this high unemployment era, STEM jobs can be not just below 4, but in some cases below 2, percent. The truth is if you're qualified and you have these kinds of advanced degrees, the jobs are far greater than the qualified applicants.

Three-quarters of likely voters support strongly this type of legislation, and, I believe, properly understood, that for each STEM immigration visa, the fact is that you would gain net jobs, that by bringing in these 55,000, we could drop hundreds of thousands of people from the unemployment rolls because they could become employed. The benefit to our economy is undeniable. The controversy here today will simply be, are we willing to act and act now. Many say that little good happens in a lame-duck session. In this case, I believe both in the House and hopefully in the Senate we can in fact say, not true.

Some of the groups that have strongly come out in support of this legislation include: the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an area of shortage; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an area of commerce; Compete America; the Information Technology Industry Council; and the Society for Human Resource Management. And, I might say, the industry I came from, the Consumer Electronics Association, has long supported these kinds of investments in America.

This bill has the support of the large majority of the House of Representatives, and on a bipartisan basis. Last September, by an overwhelming vote, more than 100 votes to spare, the STEM Jobs Act passed under suspension.

To protect American jobs, employers who hire STEM graduates must advertise for the position before they can ask for them, and they must in fact make their jobs available to all existing American workers. In fact, these protections have long meant that after all that advertising, employers often enter the H-1B, attempt to get a temporary worker; but in fact for permanent opportunities and permanent growth, we should have more permanent jobs than simply a guest technology worker.

More importantly, I think it's universally recognized by both my colleagues on the other side and by my colleagues that if you have somebody who's going to benefit America, having them benefit America for a short time and then go home and in fact compete against America is not in America's best interests.

In fact, an Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services has testified that the diversity fraud in the system that we are attempting to take these slots from is so huge as to in fact make it effectively worthless. In those hearings and many others, we've determined that we do have an opportunity, on a net basis, no net-new immigrants but in fact a selection of the ones that Americans want would be the best.

There are many other provisions in this bill, but I want to touch on one, which is family reunification. Under this bill, we're going to set aside what has been a bad idea for a long time: people who just because of our bureaucracy often wait for family reunification. Americans, with green cards or fully naturalized citizens, often wait for many years to be reunited. Under this bill, I believe broadly supported, we're going to change that. We're going to make it to where after 1 year, if there are no other impediments to their coming, they may wait with their families here for final status. We believe that this is the best solution to a problem where we have had pervasive slowness in the process and it's to the detriment of families being together.

So although there will be additional comments, and I intend to make additional comments, I want to close simply by saying one thing: I was an employer. I knew that in fact technology and people who could apply it allowed my company to compete globally. I knew that in fact there were never enough of those people. I always had an open mind to hire if I found a smart engineer or a smart scientist.

Mr. Speaker, we can only gain by asking as many people who are smart and who create opportunities far beyond just their own to be part of our society. It's smart in business. It's smart in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Michigan, 1990 is a longstanding part of our 236-year history. 1990 is a long part of 236 years. And 55,000 out of 1 million immigrant visas is a large part. I think on this side of the aisle we know better. We know that in fact this is a relatively recent provision, the 55,000 Diversity Visa. And clearly, America continues to be the most generous Nation on Earth when it comes to welcoming people to our country.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and classmate coming to Congress, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be placing in the Record information from the U.K.'s U.S. Embassy, as current enough actually to include, ``Condolences for Deaths in Benghazi'' on the same page as it says, ``Diversity Visa Fraud'' warning. I also will be including a press release from the Embassy of the United States in Dublin, Ireland, that starts off by saying, ``U.S. Embassy Dublin Issues Caution About Diversity Visa Email Scams,'' and other information, to show the pervasiveness of this fraud.

Condolences for Deaths in Benghazi

14 September 2012--If you would like to send us an

electronic condolence message that we can forward to

Washington to be shared with the victims' families, please

use this form.

Press Release, Embassy of the United States, Dublin, Ireland

U.S. Embassy Dublin Issues Caution About Diversity Visa Email Scams

The U.S. Embassy in Dublin advises residents of Ireland

about a widespread Diversity Visa (DV lottery) scam and to

use caution when working with private entities to apply for

visas to the United States. Reports of fraudulent emails,

websites, and print advertisements offering visa services are

on the rise. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should anyone send any

money to any address for participation in the DV Lottery.

One widespread DV lottery scam email instructs recipients

to send money via Western Union to a fictitious person at the

U.S. Embassy in London. If you have received this email, you

have been targeted by con artists. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES

should anyone send any money to any address for participation

in the DV Lottery. The Department of State's Kentucky

Consular Center (KCC) does not/not send email notifications

to DV entrants informing them of their winning entries.

Successful DV-2011 applicants already have been notified by

KCC by letter, not by email.

DV-2011 entrants also can check the status of their entries

at http://www.dvlottery.state.gov until June 30, 2012.

Entrants will not be asked to send money to the KCC or any

U.S. embassy or consulate.

Entrants who completed the online DV-2012 entries will not

receive notification letters from KCC. Rather, they must

check the status of their entries themselves through the

Entrant Status Check available at http:// www.dvlottery.state.gov between May 1, 2011, and June 30,

2012.

Many private websites offer legitimate services to assist

individuals in applying for visas, but some illegitimate

entities claim to provide ``visa services'' as a cover for

scams or identity theft. Some of these websites may attempt

to charge a fee for providing forms and information about

immigration procedures that are available to the public at no

charge on the Department of State (www.state.gov) and

travel.state.gov websites, or through the U.S. Embassy

website at dublin.usembassy.gov/.

The only official way to register for the DV program is

directly through the official U.S. Department of State

website during the specified, limited-time registration

period.

The DV program offers up to 55,000 visa slots annually for

people who wish to apply for immigration to the United

States. Applicants selected in the random drawing are

notified by the U.S. Department of State and are provided

with instructions on how to proceed to the next step in the

process. No other organization or private company is

authorized by the U.S. Department of State to notify DV

program applicants of their winning entries or the next steps

in the process of applying for their immigrant visas. Anyone

who wishes to apply for a U.S. visa should use caution before

sending via email any personal information such as credit

card and bank account numbers.

Images of U.S. emblems such as flags, eagles, monuments, or

official seals do not necessarily indicate a U.S. Government

website. A domain name of ``.gov'' ensures that a website is

a legitimate U.S. Government site where the information is

free and up-to-date. Complaints about unwanted emails that

may be scams can be sent to the U.S. Department of Justice at

www.usdoj.gov/spam.htm.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished incoming chairman of the full Committee on Foreign Affairs and a long-time expert on this subject, Mr. Royce.

Mr. Speaker, correcting the record appears to be important here. So I want to note that earlier, the minority said that there was no GAO study. Well, I beg to differ. A September 2012 report to Congress entitled ``Border Security,'' on its request, on page 19:

Because the program does not require a U.S.-based

petitioner, it is particularly susceptible to fraud.

Diversity Visa fraud is rampant in parts of South Asia,

Africa, and Eastern Europe, and is particularly acute in

areas where few individuals have independent access to the

Internet.

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters, September 2012

Border Security

state could enhance visa fraud prevention by strategically using

resources and training

Diversity Visas: The Diversity Visa Program was established

through the Immigration Act of 1990 and provides up to 55,000

immigrant visas annually to aliens from countries with low

rates of immigration to the United States. Aliens register

for the diversity visa lottery for free online and applicants

are randomly selected for interviews through a lottery

process. Upon being selected, a winner must apply for a visa,

be interviewed, and be found eligible for the diversity visa.

All countries are eligible for the Diversity Visa Program

except those from which more than 50,000 immigrants have come

to the United States over the preceding 5 years. In 2011,

approximately 16.5 million people applied for the program and

about 107,000 (7 percent) were selected for further

processing. Of those selected, 75,000 were interviewed at

posts for a diversity visa, and approximately 50,000 received

visas. Because the program does not require a U.S.-based

petitioner, it is particularly susceptible to fraud.

Diversity visa fraud is rampant in parts of South Asia,

Africa, and Eastern Europe, and is particularly acute in

areas where few individuals have independent access to the

Internet. A typical scenario includes visa facilitators,

travel agents, or Internet cafe operators who help would-be

applicants submit an entry for a fee. Many of these

facilitators withhold the confirmation information that the

entrant must use to retrieve his or her selection status. To

access the lottery notification, the facilitators may require

winning applicants to either pay an additional exorbitant fee

or agree to enter into a marriage with another of the

facilitator's paying clients solely for the purpose of

extending immigration benefits.

The gentlelady from Houston mentioned in depth the question of diversity. Mr. Speaker, 55,000--and perhaps more in the future--STEM graduates will bring diversity of employment. The highest levels of unemployment in America are in the African American community and other minority communities. That's the diversity we need to work on. The diversity of unemployment needs to be turned around. That's what the STEM bill is about, helping employ Americans.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), one of the hardest working and most distinguished Members when it comes to immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I might note for the gentleman that, in fact, there are more than 12,000 African students studying in STEM fields here in the United States at the advanced level, and almost 1,500 Nigerian-specific students alone getting graduate-level degrees in STEM fields in America at this time.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, a member of the Immigration Subcommittee, Mr. King.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from the State of Virginia, the majority leader of the House, and a strong advocate for this and other immigration reform, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman's statement about the ugly head of racism was in reference to those of us who authored this bill.

I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.

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

As I previously said, more than 12,000 African citizens will be eligible under this today, and more than 1,500 Nigerian citizens will be eligible under this today. Out of 1 million people who get to come to this country today, it's amazing that a program so fraught with fraud and recognized for fraud would somehow not be the logical place to expand the merit-based opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, as a point of personal privilege, I must tell you that I went to college with a lot of people from around the world. They were very diverse, and the grad students were very diverse. I am personally insulted that anyone would use even loosely the term of ``racism'' as part of a statement related to merit-based advanced degrees.

I've been at university graduations. The people graduating and walking across the aisle are extremely diverse, and I believe the gentleman needs to go to a few college graduations and see master's and Ph.D. candidates if he is going to refer to this in any way as racist.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is persistent. According to DHS, where they study student tracking, this is their source, not mine, I will read verbatim once again for the gentlelady from California: There are more than 12,000 African students studying in STEM fields in the United States.

Of course, some currently could be undergraduate.

Almost 1,500 Nigerian students alone are getting a graduate-level education in STEM fields.

Yes, this bill will encourage those able to go on and get graduate degrees in STEM fields to do so because, yes, that's going to give them an opportunity. But don't we want the best and the brightest? Isn't that the goal? Isn't job creation the goal?

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

There we go again, looking at the numbers rather than the merit.

Mr. Speaker, the merit of this piece of legislation is to get America working, to use the opportunity that is being squandered to get America working again. For each advance degreed STEM immigrant, we, in fact, create three jobs. That's not being disputed by the minority. It's not being disputed certainly by the 30 or so members of the minority that voted for this bill previously.

When we bring up, under this legislation, the opportunity to more quickly reunify families of legal immigrants, what we get told is, you're not doing it immediately. Now, of course, if we did it immediately, without any sort of process and opportunity to make sure that they're eligible for reunification, we'd be criticized for that.

You're moving up the speed with which families can be reunited, you get no credit. You're giving an opportunity for hundreds of thousands of American jobs for existing Americans to be created by recruiting people that could help create jobs, you're being criticized. If one country wins and other one loses a few thousand slots, you're being criticized.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a million or so people come to this country every year. This is a small part of it. And this is a part of it that history is quite clear on.

Senator Kennedy, and a few others, created this particular item for their own purposes because they looked at the outcome of Irish, basically, to a certain extent getting to come here under this visa. And now everyone's wanted to use the Diversity Visa lottery for years, and I've seen it gamed all over the world, in Lebanon, in Bangladesh, and in other places. There's no questions it has a lot of fraud. But that's not really the discussion today.

The real discussion is American jobs, the diversity of employment. And as the gentlelady from California, my colleague on the committee, knows, this also is a piece of legislation that will encourage men and women from around the world, brilliant men and women, to choose American universities to get their degrees from, to choose America to be the place in which they invest, not just their God-given talents, but their American-acquired talents in.

And yes, it will encourage people from countries like Africa and other places who are smart to come here to get their advanced degrees in greater numbers. What part of a good idea can't we accept?

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I just can't stop finding it hard to understand. We roll over these slots specifically because we understand in the first year, bureaucracy in our government often makes things not happen. But we preserve for 4 years these slots.

The gentlelady from California is quite right about one thing: we certainly should look together at additional areas of skills and degrees that, if they came to America, would add to America, and put them at the front of the line.

And I'm going to say, I guess lastly, lastly, to the immigrant population, to the people who are new Americans, you came here with a belief in America, and you came here wanting to add to America. And we want the next people that come behind you to add to what you're adding, not to undermine a job that you currently have, but in fact, to help create more jobs.

I believe in the immigrant history of America and immigrant future of America or I wouldn't be supporting this and other bills. In just a few weeks, I hope that in the new Congress we'll be taking up additional comprehensive legislation. But if you can't take yes for an answer on a significant portion, then I suspect we will have a very difficult time taking yes for an answer on the harder decisions to come on immigration reform.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so are we. I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to have a discussion on outcome, my distinguished colleague from Detroit, Michigan, and I could endlessly quote figures. I'm going to quote a few because I think they're germane to the last speaker's close.

In 2009, the numbers of the top three Diversity visas were as follows: Ethiopia, 3,829; Nigeria, 3,720; and Egypt, a country I visited many, many times, 3,336. No question at all they're all on the continent of Africa. But as recently as 1994, earlier on in this longstanding 30-year piece of set-aside, it went more like this: Poland, 17,396; Ireland, 15,659; the United Kingdom--Great Britain-- 3,174.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the Diversity Visa is, in fact, it's a question of whether you've put in all the names in the phone book or not. It's a question of who's gaming the system. It doesn't have any sort of, if you will, set-aside to ensure an outcome. And within the outcome, whether you're taking from Poland, Ireland, United Kingdom, or, in 1999, a few years later, it switched to Bulgaria, Nigeria, and Albania.

These top names that occur have a lot to do with how many people throw their name in a hat and nothing to do with whether or not they really want to be Americans, whether they really have the qualifications, whether they have any connection to America that would allow them to get a job.

Not long ago, The Wall Street Journal, I believe, put a whole page into this, taking one after another of anecdotal examples of people who came, having won the lottery, with the American Dream and found out that they couldn't find a job--maybe a taxi driver, maybe not. They weren't making it, and they were thinking about going back. This is all too common in those visas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to use my closing time to address a couple of points because they're important for the American people to understand. Because what you heard here just a few seconds ago was a statement that we just had a referendum. Well, I remember all the election talk and very little of it was on immigration--sadly, much more of it should have been. We had a referendum on each of us individually. So each of us returning men and women to Congress, we've had a referendum in our district.

My district was asking me for jobs. I have Calcom in my district. I have a lot of high-tech companies, particularly in telecommunications and biotechnology; and they were asking me for, believe it or not, more H-1B temporary visas. If they could get permanent immigrants, they could use them all up.

There was a statement made about the numbers--and we could argue over 29,000 or some other number--as though this bill only pertained to next year's college graduates. It doesn't. There is a backlog of tens and hundreds of thousands of people in the STEM field who have already received degrees who would love to come here. They graduated a year ago, 2 years ago. They're here on an H-1B--they're not here, but

they would come back here. There is a wealth of people that fit this category so that that first 4 years, that first 220,000 number, in fact, will be well filled. I'm confident it will be filled and overfilled.

I'm confident that Ms. Lofgren's desire to deal with some of the other areas in which we have critical shortages of skilled people-- computer sciences being certainly a possibility--that those will be clamored, once this is passed, to be added. As a matter of fact, I'm confident that my colleague from California will probably be somebody wanting to add them very quickly, and I suspect I will strongly support her.

Now, we've had a discussion, mostly from the minority, about winners and losers. The last, the closing side on the minority side said things like: you only want smart people. You only want people that will add to our economy. You don't want the people who come without skills, just with hope. Well, we do take a lot of those people, but my colleague was right in a sense. We want to put to the head of the line the people that on every single one of them that comes, net creates jobs. So that we know that the immigrant coming, at least in the case of 55,000 a year, for each one that comes, three great jobs are created in America. And for each of those that come, even if they bring their family, they're not likely to be a burden on our society, just the opposite: they're going to be a net positive to our economy. They're going to send their children to our colleges and universities, of course, and the world is better because America is better.

I also heard a lot of discussion--and I've spent 12 years on Judiciary. I love what we deal with on that committee--the Constitution, immigration, intellectual property; that's why I came to that committee. But when you say what you're doing, like if you take from this particular category, that somehow you're being bad, let's think about some of the other categories.

What if we took from family reunification? What would be the cry? It would be, My goodness, these are people just trying to be with the rest of their family. Be compassionate. And they would be right. Maybe if we took from E-B5, a program that I'm personally supportive of and want to make better, a program where people invest in America, create net jobs, and get a visa as a result, we can take from that, but that wouldn't be good for jobs. We certainly could, theoretically, take from people who are the victims of terrorism, of persecution; but America would never do that.

So when you look at this vast number, more than half of all immigrants going anywhere in the world come to America. In other words, we produce more new Americans by importation than the entire rest of the world combined. So if out of that vast number we choose a small amount, 5 percent, and say we can do better, we hear a human cry that we can't do better, that this isn't better.

Mr. Speaker, I will say, as someone who was listening to my constituents upon my reelection, you better believe this is better. We are bringing the best and the brightest. We are encouraging the front of the line be given to a small portion of immigration for people who will help create jobs. They will create jobs for people of all colors, all races. They will create jobs for people who just came to this country and can't find a job. We are trying to do the right thing for the American people, at least in a small way; and I believe this is a great start.

So as I vote for this piece of legislation, I'm voting for it because I know, as a former businessman, I know as someone who just had a referendum on my own returning to Congress that jobs and the economy are what people want us to work on. This is a good down-payment. These slots will be filled and oversubscribed. We will look at this as a beginning of a turn toward looking at immigrants as a positive part of our economy and making it happen.

So I believe that the minority, although well-intended, has basically misled the American people with some of their assumptions because their assumptions simply aren't right. We will fill these slots. We will bring in 55,000 job creators. We will have diversity from around the world in these individuals. We will encourage people from all over the world, if they want to get a master's or Ph.D. and they're already in London or they're in Poland or they're in Nigeria, that maybe when they finish their master's there, they get their Ph.D. here and become eligible.

With that, I urge support of the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the STEM Jobs Act (H.R.

6429). I have long been a proponent of visa reform and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

Our current visa system is inadequate. Many of the world's top students come to the United States to obtain advanced degrees from some of the best universities and colleges in the world to gain competitive science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) skills.

We desperately need to retain these skills to boost our economy. The high-tech and biotech companies in California would benefit from increased STEM visas by creating new, innovative jobs in our communities. However, instead of encouraging these highly skilled students to stay in America, current law forces these individuals to return home, or to third-party countries where they become innovators and entrepreneurs creating prosperity and capital for American competitors.

The STEM Act is an important step towards reforming our immigration system and getting our economy back into working order. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that we need the growth these highly trained individuals are creating elsewhere. Making STEM visas more readily available will foster innovation and job creation in our workforce.

I urge my colleagues to help generate jobs, boost the economy and increase American competitiveness by passing this bill.

Mr. Speaker: I submit the exchange of letters on S. 743.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2012.

Hon. Darrell Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Issa: I am writing regarding the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security

over provisions in S. 743, the Whistleblower Protection

Enhancement Act of 2012, which passed the Senate by unanimous

consent with amendments on May 8, 2012.

I understand the importance of advancing this legislation

to the House floor in an expeditious manner. Therefore, the

Committee on Homeland Security will waive further

consideration. This action is conditional on our mutual

understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way

diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Homeland Security over the subject matter included in this or

similar legislation. I request that you urge the Speaker to

appoint members of this Committee to any conference committee

for consideration of any provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security in the

House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.

I also request that this letter and your response be

included in the Congressional Record during consideration of

this measure on the House floor. Thank you for you

consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.