Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6620) to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate certain limitations on the length of Secret Service Protection for former Presidents and for the children of former Presidents.

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. 6620, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6620, the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, amends Federal law to uniformly provide lifetime Secret Service protection to all of America's former Presidents.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

America has a responsibility to protect its Presidents and their families, and not simply while they serve in office. We also have a duty to ensure the ongoing safety of those who serve in America's highest elected office after they leave office.

In 1958, Congress first authorized Secret Service protection for former Presidents, which was limited to a reasonable period of time after a President leaves office. Congress expanded this to lifetime protection in 1965.

But in 1994, Congress once again limited Secret Service protection for former Presidents, this time to 10 years after a President leaves office. This 10-year restriction applied to Presidents who took office after January 1, 1997.

The role of a former President has changed throughout the years. Former Presidents now have a global presence, and they are often seen as de facto representatives of the United States.

Whether it's former President Carter's work in peace negotiations with other countries or President Clinton's global initiative, former Presidents have a valuable role in using their experience and knowledge to help the U.S. in both a public and private capacity.

The world has changed dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The threats to American personnel and interests continue as terrorists wage a war against the United States. Arbitrarily limiting Secret Service protection to 10 years may have made sense in 1994, after the Cold War had ended and before the war on terror had begun.

In a world where Americans who serve the public interest are considered targets, we must make sure that the safety and security of our former Chief Executives is not jeopardized. H.R. 6620 recognizes that those who serve as President are symbols of America and American freedoms and deserve to be protected.

There are only a handful of Americans who will be called upon to serve this country as President. These individuals represent America, not only while serving in office, but remain in the public consciousness long after they leave. H.R. 6620, simply recognizes that unique role and reinstates lifetime protection for all of our former Presidents.

I want to again thank Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Scott for their work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee himself for those generous comments and say I've certainly enjoyed our working relationship over the last 6 years, and I know that that will continue as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6602) to make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements.

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. 6602, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House entrust to the Judiciary Committee the responsibilities of revision and codification of the statutes of the United States.

This power does not give our committee substantive legislative jurisdiction over all areas of law; it merely confers the authority to organize duly enacted laws into an efficient codification system.

The nonpartisan Office of the Law Revision Counsel is responsible for properly codifying public laws into titles and sections of the United States Code. From time to time, that office provides the Judiciary Committee advice as to how to enact a more user-friendly and cohesive statutory system.

This spring, Republican and Democratic committee staff worked cooperatively with the Office of Law Revision Counsel to develop H.R. 6602. The bill makes technical changes to title 36 of the United States Code, the laws that govern patriotic and national observances.

Codification laws do not make any substantive changes to existing law. Industries, government agencies, and

interested parties commented on the draft of H.R. 6602 before its consideration today. I am confident this bill will improve our legislative codification system, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6605) to eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement for an unfunded DNA Identification grant program.

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. 6605, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, in cosponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan bill which eliminates an unnecessary reporting requirement on the States from an unfunded Federal grant program.

Earlier this year, I cosponsored, with Mr. Conyers, H.R. 6189, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act. In response to a specific request from the administration, H.R. 6189 eliminated two reports that the Department of Justice was required to prepare for grant programs that have not been funded by Congress for many years. One of these grant programs is the DNA Identification Act of 1994. On October 5, the President signed into law H.R. 6189.

H.R. 6605, the bill before the House today, does for the States what H.R. 6189 did for the Federal Government: It eliminates the statutory requirement for States to report to the Attorney General about grants from the DNA Identification Act of 1994. Because Congress has not funded this grant program in nearly a decade, this statutory reporting requirement is unnecessary.

I again thank Mr. Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for his initiative on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6223) to amend section 1059(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to clarify that a period of employment abroad by the Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a translator, interpreter, or in an executive level security position is to be counted as a period of residence and physical presence in the United States for purposes of qualifying for naturalization if at least a portion of such period was spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6223, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and thank Representative Dent for introducing it.

Many men and women put their lives at risk to serve our nation with the Department of State in U.S. Embassies abroad. They contribute directly to the security of our country.

As we have become aware, conflicts from across the globe affect these employees in countries such as Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Israel, and most recently, Libya. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flags have been burned. And our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans have been murdered.

Regrettably, service to the United States in our embassies abroad often occurs under dangerous conditions and in threatening environments.

The work of our foreign officers and agents assures us that we are kept safe each and every day. We are fortunate to have men and women willing to sacrifice and serve in the embassies. These individuals often accept posts on the front lines overseas as they serve to defend our freedoms. And for that we are grateful.

To ensure that our nation has the tools and resources it needs, such as linguistic expertise or knowledge of a specific geographic area, legal permanent residents serve the United States in critical capacities in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Unfortunately, their loyalty, dedication and success can come at a price if they intend on naturalizing and becoming a United States citizen.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an applicant for naturalization must be a lawfully admitted permanent resident for at least five years, have continuous residence in the U.S. during that time and be physically present in the U.S. for at least half of that five year period.

Continuous residence is the time that the applicant has maintained official residence within the United States. Physical presence is the time the applicant has been actually and physically located in the United States.

A permanent resident may become ineligible to naturalize because they have not been ``physically present and residing in the United States, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, for an uninterrupted period of at least one year.''

Any departure from the United States prevents the establishment of ``an uninterrupted period of one year'' after lawful admission for permanent residence.

This means that a legal permanent resident who is serving in our embassies overseas cannot qualify for naturalization.

This bill resolves this issue. It allows legal permanent residents' time in embassies abroad to count towards both the ``continuous residence'' requirement and the ``physical presence'' requirement for naturalization.

This is a common sense change that brings certain national security professionals in our embassies abroad in line with their military counterparts. Military service members' time overseas currently counts towards physical presence.

Like their military colleagues, senior and managerial legal permanent residents who serve in embassies, regardless of duration, are now regarded as being legally physically present in the U.S. during the period they serve the Department of State.

Additionally, under current law, a person who provides translator or interpreter services to the U.S. Armed Forces or the Chief of Mission in Iraq or Afghanistan can count that period of absence from the United States toward the ``continuous residence.'' However, that time does not count towards the one year continuous physical presence requirement for naturalization.

This bill allows people who work in a security-related position in an executive or managerial capacity for the Armed Forces and Chief of Mission to benefit in the same way as people who work as interpreters or translators.

It also permits interpreters and translators who serve the Armed forces or Chief of Mission in places other than Iraq or Afghanistan to receive this benefit.

I again thank Mr. Dent for his work on this bill as it honors the legal permanent residents who serve our nation abroad and facilitates their path to citizenship. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I, again, just want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) for sponsoring this bill, and I yield him the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3486) to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and the Patent Law Treaty.

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 S. 3486, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Senate ratified both The Hague Agreement on Industrial Designs and the Patent Law Treaty in December of 2007. Each treaty is noncontroversial and helps American inventors who need overseas patent protection.

However, the treaties cannot take effect until we amend our national patent law to cohere with our new obligations. Now that patent reform is behind us, we turn to implement both treaties through S. 3486. And I thank Ranking Member Conyers, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, and PTO Director Kappos for their work on this bill.

The Hague Agreement makes the process of registering industrial designs in other countries much easier for American applicants. Its signature provision allows a design owner to apply for protection in a number of African, Asian, and European nations through a single filing.

Currently, an American design applicant must file separate applications for design protection in each country or intergovernmental organization. The centralized registration procedure under the agreement will bring substantial cost savings to American industrial design owners.

In addition, the filing of a single application that is accepted by a centralized office will lead to fewer processing mistakes and delays by the applicant and foreign patent offices.

The Hague Agreement also specifies administrative procedures to be followed by design patent applicants seeking multinational registration under the act. This allows us to provide the United States with the administrative benefits of a multinational design protection system and still retain our own substantive system.

The Patent Law Treaty, or PLT, also simplifies the formal obligations imposed on inventors and reduces cost for patent applicants and owners. The PLT furthers our policy of strong and intellectual property protection. It simplifies national and international formal requirements associated with patent applications and patents. This makes it easier for American patent applicants and owners to obtain and maintain patents throughout the world, as well as in the United States.

The drafting of S. 3486 was a collaborative effort that included the bipartisan and bicameral participation of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the House legislative counsel. I again want to thank Ranking Member Conyers, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, and PTO Director Kappos for their contributions to the project.

S. 3486 saves American inventors money and expands their patent protection outside the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2367) to strike the word ``lunatic'' from Federal law, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2367, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 21st Century Language Act is a relatively simple bill. It strikes the word ``lunatic'' from the United States Code.

The term ``lunatic'' derives from the Latin word for ``moon.'' Before the modern era, it was used to describe a person who suffers from mental disease because of the belief that lunar cycles had an impact on brain function. But as science and medicine have progressed, society has come to understand mental illness with more clarity.

Senator Conrad and Senator Crapo introduced the legislation under consideration to strike the word ``lunatic'' from the United States Code. I thank them for their effort, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill to modernize our codified law to reflect a 21st-century understanding of mental illness.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that S. 285, Calendar No. 7, be passed over without prejudice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous materials for the Record on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of tonight's Special Order is to celebrate our friend and colleague Ralph Hall's distinguished service in Congress. If there were a congressional hall of fame, tonight would be Representative Hall's induction as the

oldest--some would say the most seasoned--voting Member in the House of Representatives.

As Members of Congress, we have the distinct honor of serving the American people. Each day as a Representative can be both challenging and rewarding; and though we sometimes make headlines, we do not always make history.

That is why today is especially important. Today is a day for the history books. After 32 years of service, Congressman Ralph Hall today became the eldest Member of Congress to cast a vote in the House of Representatives. And on Christmas Day of this year, Representative Hall will become the oldest Member of the House to have ever served in our Nation's history.

They say that with age comes wisdom. So Congressman Hall may also be the wisest man to have served in the House of Representatives. They also say that some things get better with age. In Representative Hall's case, his commitment to both his country and his constituents just continues to increase.

Since he was 19 years old, Ralph Hall has led a life of service for which we can all be grateful. As a lieutenant in the Navy during World War II, Chairman Hall served as a pilot, and since then he has never hesitated to accomplish a mission.

In fact, he recently was back up in the air. Following the lead of another great Texan, President George H.W. Bush, Ralph Hall parachuted out of an airplane this past August, proving that he's never afraid to jump right in.

That mentality has made him a distinguished Member of Congress and a very effective chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Congressman Hall represents the Fourth District of Texas, which has only elected three Members of Congress in the last 100 years. His constituents back in northeast Texas are accustomed to electing strong leaders and keeping them there.

It was 100 years ago this month that his district elected a young farmer turned State representative named Sam Rayburn, who went on to serve in the House for the next half century. Ralph Hall knew and worked with Sam Rayburn early in his career when Ralph Hall was a county judge. He was elected to that position while he was still in law school.

Earlier today, we had the privilege of unveiling a new portrait memorializing Representative Hall's tenure as chairman of the Science Committee. It was fitting that the ceremony took place in the Rayburn House Office Building.

Throughout his tenure, Ralph Hall has been a consistent advocate for advancement through scientific research and development. He has been an ally of small businesses, and as Science Committee chairman has worked to ensure that business owners are not unnecessarily burdened by excessive EPA regulations.

Ralph Hall has fostered programs to better understand extreme weather and to ensure that citizens are prepared for natural disasters. He also has worked to advance science education and programs that promote medical, energy, and technological breakthroughs to benefit future generations.

Throughout his time in Congress, Chairman Hall has served this institution with style and humor. Back home, you would be hard pressed to find a constituent who hasn't been given an ``All for Hall from Rockwall'' encased penny that is a fixture of his campaigns going back to his first race.

His constituent service is second to none--which is a large part of why he has had no difficulty in getting reelected back home no matter how his district lines have changed over the past three decades.

In Washington, to this day, he still gives his constituents more White House tours personally than any other Member of the House.

It is an honor to work with Ralph Hall as both a colleague and a friend. Ralph Hall has always said, ``I'd rather be respected at home than liked in Washington.'' Actually, he has achieved that rare combination of both.

We thank Ralph Hall for his service to the Congress and to our country.

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize other Members of Congress here tonight, I just want to remind us all that this Special Order is only an hour long, and given the number of people from whom we have had requests to speak, we are going to ask each person who does speak to limit themselves to 2 minutes or less so we'll have time not only for the Members who want to speak, but we'll also hear from Ralph Hall at the end of this Special Order.

Having said that, I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Joe Barton, who is the second-most-senior Member of the Texas delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Sam Johnson, a true Texas hero.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is the ranking member of the Science Committee of which Ralph Hall is the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Kay Granger.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Pete Sessions, the next chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, John Culberson.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas, Jeb Hensarling, the next chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Michael Burgess.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, John Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Randy Neugebauer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mike Conaway.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Ted Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Louie Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Pete Olson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Bill Posey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Quico Canseco.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Bill Flores.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Blake Farenthold.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Kenny Marchant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Randy Hultgren.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to recognize the man we have been honoring here tonight.

Earlier this evening, Congressman Hall broke the record for the eldest Member of Congress to have ever cast a vote in the United States House of Representatives. Actually, Mr. Speaker, every day Ralph Hall sets a record for his service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, the time of the Special Order is going to appear to expire in about 5 minutes, and I hope the Speaker might consider wielding a gentle gavel.

With that, I look forward to hearing from the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, himself, Ralph Hall.

Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas have an additional 5 minutes, or more?

I thank the chairman for yielding.

First of all, I do want to thank the chairman of the Space Subcommittee, Steve Palazzo of Mississippi, for bringing this must-pass legislation to the floor today. I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Texas, Ralph Hall, the chairman of the Science Committee, and the professional staff of the committee for shepherding this bill and getting us to the point where we are now.

Last June, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee heard testimony on why government indemnification for commercial rocket launches must be extended. At that hearing, Frank Slazer from the Aerospace Industries Association said it best about why this indemnification is needed:

Many foreign launch providers competing against U.S.

companies already benefit from generous indemnification

rules. For example, the European company Arianespace is

required to purchase insurance up to just 60 million Euros,

roughly $75 million. Any damages above this cap are the

guaranteed responsibility of the French Government.

We cannot afford to drive away highly skilled technical

jobs to foreign countries where the regulatory frameworks

provide better critical risk management tools.

Lastly, a non-renewal could impede new U.S. entrants to the

commercial launch market, discourage future space launch

innovation and entrepreneurial investment. Without a level

playing field for competition, new U.S. entrants could find

it highly undesirable to begin their business ventures in the

United States.

The FAA's launch indemnification authority has been in place for over 20 years, benefiting the American commercial space industry. The bill before us would extend indemnification for 2 more years, and I hope that we can address a longer-term legislative solution when addressing NASA reauthorization and commercial space legislation next year.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the chairman again for yielding me time.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. SMITH of Texas: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 511. A

bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the

importation of various injurious species of constrictor

snakes; with an amendment (Rept. 112-691, Pt. 1); Referred to

the Committee on Natural Resources for a period ending not

later than December 5, 2012, for consideration of such

provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the

jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(m), rule

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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 to include extraneous materials on H.R. 6429 currently under consideration.

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

When it comes to STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and math--American universities set the standard. Our STEM graduates create the innovations and new businesses that fuel our economic growth and create jobs.

Many of the world's top students come to the U.S. to obtain advanced STEM degrees. But what happens to these foreign students after they graduate? Under the current system, we educate scientists and engineers only to send them back home where they often work for our competitors.

We could boost economic growth and spur job creation by enabling American employers to hire some of the best and brightest graduates of U.S. universities. These students become entrepreneurs, patent holders, and job creators.

The STEM Jobs Act makes available 55,000 immigrant visas a year for foreign graduates of American universities with advanced degrees in STEM fields.

Three-quarters of likely voters strongly support such legislation, and a wide range of trade associations have endorsed this legislation as well. These include the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Compete America, the Information Technology Industry Council, and the Society for Human Resource Management.

To protect American workers, employers who hire STEM graduates must advertise the position; and if a qualified American worker is available, the STEM graduate will not be hired.

This bill makes our immigration system smarter by admitting those who have the education and skills America needs. STEM visas are substituted for Diversity Visas which invite fraud and pose a security risk.

The STEM Jobs Act generates jobs, increases economic growth, and benefits American businesses. What more do we want?

Let's put the interest of our country first and support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), I'm going to yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California said at least two things that are completely inaccurate. Let me correct those statements.

First, she said this bill is going to reduce immigration and that that was somehow the intent behind the bill. The gentlewoman from California practiced immigration law, and she knows better than to say this. Under this bill, and she knows this to be the case, individuals in other employment categories who are waiting for other types of employment visas can switch over and apply for these STEM visas if they are master's or Ph.D. holders in the STEM fields. There's no limit on those. I expect every year that the number of visas that are not used directly will be used by these individuals in other employment-based categories.

I want to make the point, too, that America is the most generous country in the world. We admit almost 1 million people legally every year. That's far more than any other nation, and it may well be as many as every other country combined.

The purpose of this bill is not to increase or decrease immigration, and I want to make that point, and also the fact that most Americans agree with this. Gallop recently reported that four out of five Americans do not want to increase the levels of immigration. Only 4 percent believe that the number of immigrants now entering the U.S. is too low. This bill reflects what the American people want.

Lastly, in regard to for-profit schools, the gentlewoman made light of that and seemed to think that this bill was going to be abused by those types of institutions.

First of all, any institution, even if they are profit-making--and why do so many Democrats oppose profits and free enterprise? I don't know--but any profit-making institution, if they otherwise qualify, which is to say if they grant doctorates or master's in STEM fields and if they are a research university as deemed by the Carnegie Institute of Higher Education, yes, they'll qualify. But I want to say to the gentlewoman from California, today, none of those for-profit institutions would qualify.

If they somehow meet the qualifications in the future, why wouldn't we want them to be eligible to have their graduates--master's and Ph.D. only--apply for these STEM visas?

I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, on the way to yielding to the majority leader of the House, I'd like to respond very quickly to what the gentleman from Maryland just said.

I want to make, again, the points that the Diversity Visa invites fraud, and absolutely means that we would have a security risk if we were to continue it.

I want to quote the assistant Secretary of State. The assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services has testified that Diversity Visa fraud includes:

Multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education or work

experience, pop-up spouses or family members, relatives added

after the application is submitted, and false claims for

employment or financial support in the United States.

The State Department's Inspector General has testified that the Diversity Visa program:

Contains significant risk to national security from hostile

intelligence officers, criminals and terrorists attempting to

use the program for entry into the United States as permanent

residents.

We've already had one individual who was admitted on a Diversity Visa try to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. He killed six people and injured hundreds of people. That's why this program is not good for this country.

I'm more than happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader for the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is the chairman of the Government Oversight Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Under this bill, the employers have to pay the prevailing wage. I don't know from where the gentleman got his information.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguished and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, no one is hurt more by the diversity visa program than unemployed Hispanics and black Americans. The unemployment rate for Hispanics with only a high school education is almost 14 percent. The unemployment rate for African Americans with only a high school education is almost 19 percent. The diversity visa program forces these unemployed Americans to compete for very scarce American jobs with those other individuals who don't have more than a high school education. Why do we want to do this to our own people?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), an original cosponsor of this legislation who is very active on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, let's put our own unemployed Hispanics and black Americans first. They should come first.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who is the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who has long been active on the subject of immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is also chairman of the Foreign Affairs Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), who is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), who is chairman of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the STEM Jobs Act spurs economic growth and spurs job creation by enabling American employers to hire some of the best and brightest foreign students who graduate from American universities. The American public, American employers, and the high-tech community all support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote for jobs, vote for innovation, and vote for economic growth. Let's put the interests of America first.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and Texas colleague, Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall, for taking the lead on

this bill and bringing it to the floor today. My hope is that after the House passes this bill the Senate will act quickly and send it to the President for his signature.

The problem this bill addresses is to confirm the ownership of mementoes the Apollo astronauts received from their journeys. I was first contacted one year ago about this problem by my constituent, Apollo 16 moonwalker Charlie Duke, who now lives in New Braunfels, Texas and also chairs the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation.

The Scholarship Foundation is one of the beneficiaries from the sale of such artifacts, and they have provided over $3 million in scholarships to college students studying science and engineering so they too can aspire to be astronauts.

At the end of the Apollo program, these mementoes were deemed to be of little value, and NASA was simply going to throw many of these items in the trash heap of history--checklists with scribbled equations and calculations in the margins, a camera and other personal effects the Apollo astronauts were offered to keep for themselves.

However, in the intervening 40 years, these mementoes took on a greater historical context, just like mementoes from past wars or famous people take on greater significance. Unfortunately, over-zealous NASA and the Justice Department lawyers recently started filing law suits against Apollo astronauts--our American heroes--and started questioning their integrity.

This is wrong. And this bill clarifies the ownership of these artifacts in the possession of our astronauts.

Chairman Hall, thank you for doing the right thing--once again--for our astronauts.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6368) to require the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, to provide a report to Congress on the Departments' ability to track, investigate and quantify cross-border violence along the Southwest Border and provide recommendations to Congress on how to accurately track, investigate, and quantify cross-border violence, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6368, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague and good friend, Congressman Francisco Canseco, for his work on the issue of cross- border violence and its impact on the United States.

Mr. Speaker, In recent years, drug trafficking-related violence has increased in Mexico. According to Mexican officials, over 40,000 people have been killed as the result of drug-related violence since 2006.

As the gentleman from Texas has pointed out, we should be very concerned that there are insufficient methods to track this violence and that it spills over into the United States.

When evaluating increased violence in Mexico and its effect on the United States, a central concern is the potential for what has been termed ``spillover violence''--an increase in drug trafficking-related violence in the United States.

The violence being committed by Mexican drug cartels within Mexico's own borders presents a national security challenge for Mexico. When that violence spills over into the United States, it presents a national security concern for America as well.

Cross-border violence is a challenge for both countries while criminals kill not only each other but government officials, law enforcement and military officers, innocent civilians and children.

Administration officials maintain that there has not yet been a significant spillover of violence from Mexico into the United States. But we should not wait for it to happen.

This bill requires the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to provide a joint report to Congress on the Departments' ability to track, investigate and measure cross-border violence along the Southwest border.

In addition, it directs the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to make recommendations to Congress on how best to accurately track, investigate and measure cross-border violence.

Cross-border violence is a complex problem which cannot be resolved overnight. This legislation is an important first step in developing an overall strategy to combat spillover violence.

I again thank Mr. Canseco for his work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I will now yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 12, 2012.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing in regards to the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security

over provisions in H.R. 6368, which requires the Department

of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Homeland

Security, to provide a report to Congress on the ability to

track, investigate, and quantify cross-border violence along

the Southwest Border and provide recommendations to Congress.

I understand the importance of advancing this legislation

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

Committee on Homeland Security will discharge H.R. 6368 from

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 response and your letter be

included in the Committee on the Judiciary report to H.R.

6368 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of

this measure on the House floor. Thank you for your

consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 5949) to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5949, as amended, and currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, America and its allies continue to face national security threats from foreign nations, spies, and terrorist organizations. Our national security agencies must be able to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and others so we can stop them before they disable our defenses, carry out a plot against our country, or kill innocent Americans.

In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide procedures for the domestic collection of foreign intelligence. To protect Americans' civil liberties, FISA created Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts comprised of sitting Federal court judges.

If the government needs to collect domestic information for national security purposes, it must first request permission from a FISA judge. This is limited to domestic information. FISA was never intended to apply to the collection of information from non-U.S. persons in foreign countries.

But advances in technology over the last 40 years have changed how overseas communications are transmitted. In 2006, then-Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, stated that the intelligence community was not collecting approximately two-thirds of the foreign intelligence information that it collected prior to legal interpretations that required the government to obtain individualized FISA court orders for overseas surveillance. To solve the problem, in 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to reaffirm our longstanding intent that a court order is not required when a non-U.S. person outside the U.S. is targeted. The act continues the authority to collect intelligence from foreign targets located outside the United States.

The FISA Amendments Act both strengthens our national security and expands civil liberties protections for all Americans. The act requires an individualized court order for the government to target an American anywhere in the world. Under the FISA Amendments Act, the government cannot conduct any surveillance overseas without authorization. The government cannot target individuals unless there is a reasonable belief they are not in the United States, which the government must try to ascertain.

The government cannot intentionally acquire communications when the sender and recipient are both in the United States without an individualized court order from a FISA judge. The government cannot reverse-target individuals overseas in order to monitor those in the United States. This means that the government cannot target a U.S. person simply by monitoring a non-U.S. person that the U.S. person is talking to. And for the first time in history, the government must obtain an individualized court order from the FISA court to target Americans outside the United States.

Foreign surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act is subject to extensive oversight by the administration and Congress. Every 60 days, Justice Department national security officials and the Director of National Intelligence conduct onsite reviews of surveillance conducted pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act. In addition, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence conduct detailed assessments of compliance with court-approved targeting and minimization procedures and provide these amendments to Congress twice a year.

The administration also is required to submit to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees a copy of any FISA court order opinion or decision. It must also submit the accompanying pleadings, briefs, and other memoranda of law from national security officials within the intelligence community that relate to a significant construction or interpretation of any provision of FISA.

This law will expire at the end of this year unless Congress reauthorizes it. President Obama has identified reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act as the top legislative priority of the intelligence community and requests Congress to extend the law for 5 years. H.R. 5949 is a bipartisan piece of legislation to do just that, extend the FISA Amendments Act to December 31, 2017.

Foreign terrorists continue to search for new ways to attack America. Foreign nations continue to spy on America, to plot cyberattacks, and attempt to steal sensitive information from our military and private sector industries. They are committed to the destruction of our country, and their methods of communication are constantly evolving.

We have a solemn responsibility to ensure that the intelligence community can gather the information it needs to protect our country and protect our citizens. This bipartisan bill ensures that our country will be able to identify and prevent threats to our national security without sacrificing the civil liberties of American citizens.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who is the chairman of the Administration Committee here in the House, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, and a former attorney general of California.

I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), who is a particularly active member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close on this side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the vote we cast on the FISA Amendments Act tonight will be one of the most important votes we cast in Congress, and it is appropriate we do so during the week of 9/11.

The FISA Amendments Act will continue to allow us to conduct surveillance of terrorists, spies and others who would do us harm. A FISA court order is required if the target is a U.S. citizen, but not if the individual is outside of the United States and not a U.S. citizen.

The FISA Amendments Act was first passed in 2008 overwhelmingly, and it expires at the end of December. This bill extends the law for 5 years. The FISA Amendments Act is a top priority of the intelligence community. It was supported by the Bush administration in 2008 and is strongly endorsed by the Obama administration now. This is a bipartisan bill that enables us to vote to both neutralize threats to our national security and protect the civil liberties of American citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4305, the Child and Elderly Missing Alert Program, was introduced by my Judiciary Committee colleague, Mr. Chabot. I thank him for his work on this issue.

A child goes missing in this country every 40 seconds. Almost 800,000 children are reported missing each year and 500,000 go missing without ever being reported.

In many cases of missing children, the AMBER Alert system is activated to help law enforcement and community search efforts.

However, in order to issue an AMBER Alert for a missing child, law enforcement officials must have a description of the child, the suspect, the vehicle if there is one and how the abduction took place. Additionally, they must be able to confirm that the child has in fact been abducted and did not simply wander off on their own.

Without evidence of an abduction, law enforcement officers cannot issue an AMBER Alert. This is where programs like the Child and Elderly Missing Alert Program step in.

Experience shows that time is of the essence when searching for missing persons--particularly young children and the elderly.

H.R. 4305 would allow funding under the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program to go toward rapid recovery phone call and alert systems that can be deployed when children and elderly persons are missing.

Such programs complement the AMBER Alert program by quickly disseminating information about missing persons within targeted geographic areas even when the information available is minimal.

Having a child, elderly or disabled loved one go missing is any family's worst nightmare. H.R. 4305 provides a critical tool in the efforts to find missing persons.

I again thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on this issue and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.