Floor Statements

Like the house built upon the rock, America was created upon the solid foundation of the Constitution. With the passage of ObamaCare, liberals have drilled holes in the rock and foundation of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill, H.R. 299, that restores our economic freedom. It repeals the bureaucratic boondoggle of ObamaCare and replaces it with commonsense solutions. By allowing individuals to shop for health care across State lines, the cost of health care is reduced through basic, free market solutions. Instead of adding massive new debts to fund an equally massive bureaucracy, my plan allows people to deduct 100 percent of their health care expenses.

My bill also creates high-risk pools and allows health care associations to form, empowering Americans to get the coverage that they need at a much lower cost.

Madam Speaker, residents of the 10th District of Georgia overwhelmingly oppose ObamaCare. I'm proud to fulfill my commitment to repeal it and replace it with some commonsense solutions.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am honored to introduce as my first bill in the 112th Congress H.R. 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, with the support of 54 original cosponsors. My bill will simply define human life as beginning with fertilization and guarantees the constitutional right to life in each human being.

The right to life is our most important fundamental right. Unfortunately, the judicial branch through court decisions has created a complex formula of when life can be taken. My bill makes clear that section two of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits any state from depriving any person of life without due process of law, affords the right to life of each human being at conception.

As a physician, I know on the basis of medical and scientific evidence, that human life begins with fertilization, and I hope other Members of Congress will join me in supporting the Sanctity of Human Life Act.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am honored to introduce H.J. Res. 11, an Amendment to the Constitution to balance the federal budget. This Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will require Congress and the President to balance the federal budget every fiscal year.

To prevent our national debt from increasing above the already unsustainable $14 trillion current level, my Amendment simply does what 49 other States have required--keep spending levels equal to tax revenues. Unlike other similar Amendments that require a simple majority or 3/5 majority vote in both Chambers of Congress to allow an excess of federal outlays over receipts or to raise the debt ceiling, my Amendment requires a 2/3 majority vote. Also, it limits spending growth of the entire budget to no more than population growth plus inflation and only allows for waivers of these strict requirements during actual Declarations of War by Congress. Additionally, it forces the next fiscal year to account for any imbalance in the previous fiscal year's estimates by placing such amount in the spending column for the following fiscal year. Lastly, my Amendment will return all excess revenue at the end of the fiscal year to the American taxpayer.

It is past time that the federal government put in place responsible budgeting measures. In order to restore the public trust that Congress can indeed budget their tax dollars wisely, we must pass a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116, the American COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

But before sharing my views on this COMPETES reauthorization, I want to take this opportunity to share my frustration and express the frustration of my constituents. I know that I'm not alone in the view that working on consequential pieces of legislation in a lame duck session, outside of the proper legislative process, is simply wrong.

In fact, it could be argued that it's unconstitutional.

The 20th amendment of the Constitution moved the start date of new Congresses from March to January to stop exactly what we're doing here today, passing important legislation in a lame duck session. In 1932, Democratic Representative Wilburn Cartwright of Oklahoma stated, ``This amendment will free Congress of the dead hand of the so-called lame duck.'' Sadly, he could not have been more wrong.

The Democrats are using this lame duck session to continue pursuing their rejected agenda. This is no different than a CEO being fired and continuing to make major decisions for the company that he was just fired from for another 2 months. We must stop this end-run around the electoral process and the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting further lame duck legislation.

Now, this COMPETES reauthorization is the perfect example of why we need to end lame duck legislation. It contains reckless spending and misguided policy initiatives. The closed-door process through which it was developed is irresponsible at a time when the Federal deficit has ballooned to $1.5 trillion, and our national debt will soon eclipse $14 trillion. These unprecedented figures are not deterring our Democratic colleagues from authorizing over $45 billion of spending, $7 billion of which is new spending in this bill.

Beyond the out-of-control spending, a clear shift in policy priorities away from those envisioned in the original COMPETES process now exists in this bill.

When the National Academy of Sciences unveiled the ``Gathering Storm'' report in 2005, it identified funding for long-term basic research as the top priority for science and technology. Today's reauthorization emphasizes late-stage technology commercialization activities and beyond to manufacturing and construction activities, priorities that should not be the responsibility of the Federal Government.

For example, title VI of this bill creates a loan guarantee program to stabilize innovative manufacturing, a loan guarantee program to subsidize construction and renovation of research parks, and a vaguely defined regional innovation program to support grants to create innovation clusters as well as construct and renovate research parks.

Finally, I want to note my disappointment associated with the process on this bill. Many Republican amendments that were incorporated in the House-passed bill were changed or deleted without any Member consultation. This was the case with an amendment I offered prohibiting any lobbying effort associated with the activities authorized in the bill.

This bill spends money that we don't have on things we don't need and, in some cases, on things the government simply should not be involved in. It is the product of backroom dealings that excluded House Republicans, and it simply should not pass at this late stage of 111th Congress.

I urge opposition to this bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 3987, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, which will remove a regulatory burden that our nation's small businesses are facing. I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for bringing this bill to the floor, and I thank the Committee staff for their hard work.

In November of 2007, the Federal Trade Commission issued a regulation, known as the ``Red Flags'' rule, as required by section 114 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003. Red Flags required financial regulatory agencies, including the FTC, to craft rules requiring financial institutions and creditors to implement programs to detect and respond to patterns, practices, or specific activities--in other words, ``Red Flags''--that could lead to potential identity theft.

The FTC broadly interpreted ``creditors'' to include any business that allows clients to establish a payment plan in exchange for their services rendered, sweeping in many businesses that do not operate as a creditor in the general understanding of the term, such as dentists, doctors, veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, and many other health care providers that offer their clients payment plans.

Congress did not intend to have the Red Flags rule cover these types of small businesses when it passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003. Because of the uncertainty as to the definition of a creditor and subsequent law suits filed against the FTC, the FTC delayed enforcement of the Red Flags Rule multiple times since its original implementation date of January 1, 2008. The Rule is now scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2011, and if it does, it could require small businesses to undertake costly and burdensome measures to prevent identity theft in industries that pose little threat. This legislation will eliminate the need to request another enforcement delay.

It also clarifies who must comply with the Red Flags Rule as those creditors that use consumer reports, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, and other creditors that loan money. Should it become apparent that there are industries that present a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft, the FTC will have the authority to issue a rule open for public comment that shows the industry should comply with the Reds Flag rule.

This legislation has broad bipartisan support. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent last week, and similar legislation I cosponsored passed the House last fall on the Suspension calendar with a 400-0 vote. It is supported by over 30 medical associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In its initial regulatory analysis, the FTC estimated that the proposed Red Flags regulation would cover approximately 11.1 million entities ``across almost every industry,'' ninety percent of which were expected to qualify as small businesses. At a time when we are experiencing record high unemployment, Congress needs to provide our nation's job creators relief from unnecessary regulations. This legislation will do just that.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we can ease the regulatory burden on those industries that were not supposed to be covered by the Red Flags rule.

I greatly appreciate you yielding, and I appreciate you doing this tonight so that we can inform the American public about how bad this bill is and what the Republicans are going to try to do in this next Congress.

We heard all during the discussion on ObamaCare as well as through the last two Congresses since I've been here--I'm finishing up my second term--that Republicans are the party of ``no.'' We are the party of k-n-o-w because we know how to lower the costs of health care. And we can do it in a bipartisan manner.

And in fact, during the discussions about ObamaCare, I challenged individual Democrats to introduce a bill, that I would give them the legislative language, all they had to do was write their name in a blank, introduce it, and it would be a Democratic bill. They could call it ObamaCare. And I was told by Democrats over and over again that this makes a whole lot more sense, Paul, what you're proposing here than this ObamaCare bill that we dealt with here in the House, the Pelosi original bill, and the one we finally passed that came from the Senate.

And in fact, two colleagues on our side, Republicans John Shadegg from Arizona and Congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, and I wrote an op-ed that was published in The Washington Times newspaper challenging Democrats to introduce the bill. And it would do four things, commonsense solutions, that I told the Democrats individually if they would introduce the bill, it could be their bill, a Democratic bill; they could take credit for it. I'm concerned about policy, not whose name's on the bill. And they could take credit for it.

Yes, I will.

If you would call attention to that poster because I think that our colleagues need to focus in on that.

Absolutely. In fact, I was going to do that. I appreciate my colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for reminding me.

I have a poster here with these four commonsense solutions. And actually I introduced the bill when my Democratic colleagues wouldn't take up my offer to introduce it after ObamaCare was actually passed into law.

I introduced the bill that does actually five things. It repeals ObamaCare and puts in place these four commonsense solutions. It's not a comprehensive bill because it doesn't really deal with Medicare and the problems that we have with that or Medicaid, and we'll mention that in a minute or two.

But the four things are to allow all individuals to deduct 100 percent of their health care costs--including the cost of the insurance--off the income taxes. This in itself would change the dynamics of health care for everybody in this country. In fact, this eventually would take care of the problems that we as physicians have with managed care because it would put patients in control of their health care decisions but allow everybody to deduct all their health care costs.

Second thing it would do is it would strengthen and expand new avenues for affordable health care for sick Americans through high-risk pools that are set up on a Statewide basis. There are several States like Colorado that have already done this very successfully. Multiple States have already done so. We would stimulate that.

The third thing it would do, as the chart right here says, it would expand choice and competition by allowing consumers to shop for health care insurance across State lines. Now, I'm an original intent Constitutionalist. The Commerce Clause is one of the clauses that's been perverted so much to allow the great expansion of the size and scope of government. The Commerce Clause is actually supposed to expand commerce, not to control it. And it is to allow people to shop for all goods and services across State lines.

So by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, we're just doing exactly the opposite. And when States lock up the insurance pools just within their State borders, they're actually doing an unconstitutional control of commerce.

And the fourth thing: Just create association pools so anybody in this country could join a huge pool. And this would allow people to buy insurance at a much lower cost than they have today. And it would actually allow people who not only cannot afford to buy health insurance but those

people who have preexisting conditions to be in association pools so that they actually could buy health insurance at an affordable rate.

And these four commonsense solutions have been introduced--I introduced the bill--to repeal ObamaCare and to do these four things. And I'll be introducing this same bill in the next Congress.

The bottom line is the Republicans are the party of k-n-o-w. We know how to lower the costs of health care. We, as physicians, have been dealing with all of these problems like our patients--particularly us, like Dr. Fleming and I in family medicine, we deal with the insurance company. We try to find our patients good, quality care at the lowest price, which includes trying to find them insurance, medicines, all health care products at the lowest prices--it's what we do as family doctors. And it's something I've been dealing with for almost four decades of practicing medicine. And it's something that the American people desperately need.

ObamaCare is going to--the experts tell us--is going to put 5\1/2\ million people out of work.

Dr. Fleming talked about the uncertainty it creates in employers. I hear that all the time. I've got a small businessman that wants to do a $31 million expansion of his business in my district, but he's scared to and he's not going to because, Dr. Fleming--he doesn't have the problem with the banks because he has $31 million in the bank right now, cash money. So he doesn't have to go to the bank to get the money. But he's scared of those taxes. He's scared of the energy tax, particularly. That scares the willies out of small businessmen and women in my district. He's very frightened about ObamaCare.

So we must repeal ObamaCare and replace it with some commonsense solutions.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey for yielding.

In fact, this first bullet about 100 percent deductibility will solve the problem with portability. Right now, 85 percent of America gets their health insurance through their employer. It is because employers can deduct the cost of their health insurance that they provide to their employees as a regular business expense, and the employee can get that money as a nontaxable benefit. But if we make it 100 percent deductible for everybody, then the employer can give that money in increased wages to the employee. It is still a deductible amount. It won't cost the employer any more money out of their bottom line, but they can give it to the employee, and then the employee can take those dollars and instead of having to be saddled with whatever insurance policy that the employer provides for them, the employee can go buy the insurance wherever they want with whatever kind of coverage that they want.

In fact, Dr. Gingrey brought up something about the mandates that the States have put on. My friend, Neal Boortz, who has a radio program that is syndicated all over this country, keeps talking about him and his wife, who are beyond the age of having any babies, have to buy maternity coverage. There are insurance policies that mandate that people have to pay for sex change operations or hair transplants and a whole lot of other things. Everybody in that pool has to pay, whether they want a sex change operation or hair transplant or maternity benefits, and that drives the cost up for everybody. The across-State- lines purchasing and the association pools will help stop that.

We have managed care today because the employers want to have some finite amount of money for their own budgeting process so they know what they are dealing with in their business so they go and buy managed care policies for their employees so they have some finite number, and it is not just a blank check.

That makes sense from a business perspective, but it doesn't make sense for a lot of the employees who want to be able to choose their doctor and they want to be able to go to the hospital that they desire. They don't want to be dictated to about what kind of coverage that they can have. And the first point where everybody has 100 percent deductibility of all expenses will take care of the portability problems. It will empower the patient and the doctor to be able to make the best decisions for their patient. Those things are just commonsense solutions.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.

Let's go ahead and jump into some of the key components and some of the things that we can do. What I would like to focus on is your No. 3 bullet point on your chart there: Medicaid expansion.

The Medicaid expansion of ObamaCare is going to break the budgets of States, which are already suffering, because it is going to drastically increase the people in this country who are going to qualify for Medicaid.

Again, the Republican Party is the party of ``know,'' K-N-O-W, because we know how to deal with this in a better manner.

In fact, as the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, knows, I've been trying to get on the Energy and Commerce Committee. One thing that I will do--and I know that there are others who are on the committee today who will--is push for dealing with Medicaid in a block grant to the States. Let's just send the Medicaid money, with no strings attached, to the States. Let the States, which is what our Founding Fathers believed to be the best laboratory of public policy, figure out the best way to deal with people who desperately need Medicaid or State Child Health Insurance Programs. Let's send those back to the States, as they should be. Even under the Constitution, those functions should be dealt with by the States, not by the Federal Government. Let's let the States have the money so that they can deal with this and find the best solution instead of our generating all the policy, the regulations and all the things that drive up the cost. The Medicaid expansion that ObamaCare has put in place is literally going to break the bank in State, after State, after State.

Well, you're exactly right, Dr. Gingrey. Thanks for bringing that up.

With ObamaCare, the States are going to have to cut more. In fact, we already see first responders--fire departments, police departments-- being cut in their funding. In State after State, there are educational funding cuts across the board. In our own home State of Georgia, they have had to markedly cut the educational budget because of all of these mandates that are put on them by the Federal Government and because of the requirement by the State constitutionally to have a balanced budget.

I introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution here in Congress; and, hopefully, we are going to do that, too. It has been part of our pledge to America, and I will continue to fight for a balanced budget. I think the Federal Government also needs to live within its own means.

Just on the Medicaid expansion, we should just do block grants back to the States and let them be the laboratory of public policy, as our Founding Fathers talked about and believed in very firmly--and I believe in those same things--for Medicaid as well as for SCHIP. In Georgia, we call it PeachCare. If we send those dollars back to the States, don't tie any strings to them and let the States utilize those funds in whatever way best suits their State budgets and their State needs, we will be a whole lot better off. The States will be better off. The Federal Government will be better off. The taxpayers will be better off. The Medicaid recipients will be better off. We will actually be able to cover more patients.

So, back again, the Republican Party is the party of K-N-O-W.

We know how to solve these problems and we're going to try to do that the next time.

I yield back.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.

I just wanted to mention the employer mandate. An employer is mandated to provide coverage for their employees. They have a lot of mandates. And those employer mandates are going to mean that people are going to lose their jobs.

Dr. Fleming and I talked a little bit ago about how employers are scared. I've got a lady who runs a small business. She has eight employees. She desperately needs to hire another one or two, but because of the employer mandates of ObamaCare, she's not going to hire anybody. She's just going to try to struggle along herself and is not going to expand her business. She could hire two new people, and the employer mandate is going to prevent these two people who need jobs today from going to work for this small business.

I already mentioned the guy who wants to do a $31 million expansion. He's not going to do that, not going to hire the 100 or so new employees that he would hire because he's afraid of ObamaCare and the employer mandates.

One other thing--and then I will yield back to Dr. Gingrey--is that, to kind of go along with these cuts to Medicare, in the stimulus bill a lot of Americans don't realize that they put in something called ``comparative effectiveness research.'' In medicine, we compare the effectiveness of one treatment versus another. Breast cancer, is it just taking a tumor out? Is it giving chemotherapy? Is it radiation therapy? Is it a combination of all this? That's not what this is all about. It's to compare the effectiveness of spending a dollar. And it's age related, which means that those people on Medicare, comparative effectiveness is just going to mean that they're just not going to get the care.

And I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm a medical doctor, and I have spent almost four decades of practicing medicine concerned about child nutrition and about the health of my patients. Doctors do that as family practitioners and pediatricians all over this country, all over the world.

But this act is not about child nutrition. It's not about healthy kids. It's really about an expansion of the Federal Government. And it's an interference in the school system, so much so that the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City Schools, and the National School Boards Association all oppose this act.

This is not about child nutrition. This is about more government control. This is not about healthy children. It's about borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. It's not about creating a better environment for children in the schools. It's about more and more control from Washington, DC.

And we have just got to stop that. The American people are acting very strongly against the agenda that this Congress and this President has shown them in the last 2 years. We saw that on November 2.

We have got to stop the spending. This is a $4.5 billion bill, and the pay-for that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have put into place is a farce. It's a lie, and it is borrowing more from our children. This kind of idiocy has to stop. It includes a lot of Federal mandates. It is going to be extremely costly.

And it does things such as create new programs like an organic food plot. Now, I eat organic food. I like the taste of free range chicken and free range beef and organic foods, but we don't need the Federal Government to promote this kind of stuff. It's crazy.

It also spends taxpayer dollars to federalize nutrition standards. I am one who believes in proper nutrition. I have talked to my patients for years and years about proper nutrition, eating properly, taking care of their diabetes and their hypertension and their hyperlipidemias and things like that through nutritional means above even prescribing medication. But the Federal Government has no business setting nutritional standards and telling families what they should and shouldn't eat.

This bill contains a lot of hidden costs, hidden costs that are going to wind up being billions of dollars of more Federal spending. And it contains mandates on the States.

It does give extra mandates on the States, and the States are already overburdened and suffering financially.

Republicans have an alternative to support child nutrition without growing government, but we are not able to bring those things to the floor. Hopefully in the next Congress, we will be able to. We are extremely concerned about the nutrition of our children, and of adults. I, as a physician, have been spending most of my adult life talking about nutrition and health, but this bill is not that. This bill is a nutrition bill for a bigger government, greater spending, and it must stop. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is disastrous.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the exceptional partnership that has thrived for 57 years between the community of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, and the Navy Supply Corps School (NSCS).

For more than half a century, America's Supply Corps officers have viewed Athens as the birthplace of their careers. Before the school cast anchor in the southern college town of Athens, the institution resided in numerous locations, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and Harvard University.

On June 4, 1953, the United States Navy purchased 58 acres of land in the Oglethorpe Historic District of Athens. The beautiful property held a rich history of education. Dating back to the 1860's, the property served as campus to Georgia University High School, the Confederate Military School, the School for Disabled Confederate Veterans, the University of Georgia's College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts, the State Normal School, and Coordinate College. Its legacy of education continued with the commissioning of the Navy Supply Corps School on January 15, 1954.

The Athens community had established a rapport with the U.S. Navy prior to the school's arrival. During World War II, Athens was home to one of only five naval preflight schools in the nation. For the past 57 years, the residents of Athens-Clarke County have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with NSCS. They have also benefitted from the quality of students who studied there and retired officers who have settled in the Athens area. Since 1954, NSCS has launched more than 89,000 officers into successful careers, and on October 29, 2010, approximately 81 more officers will graduate, the final class to complete their studies in Athens. This storied institution has remained in ``The Classic City'' longer than any other location, making Athens truly the ``Cradle of the Supply Corps.''

As the Navy Supply Corps School prepares to set sail for a new facility in Newport, Rhode Island, the Athens campus will continue in its heritage of higher learning by serving as home to the University of Georgia and Georgia Health Sciences University's new medical school.

Madam Speaker, I honor the Navy Supply Corps School for the tremendous service it has provided, not only to the community, but for the entire nation. I applaud the exceptional partnership that has existed over the last 57 years among the Navy school and Athens-Clarke County, Georgia.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3980 as amended by the Senate. This bill was passed by the House on December 2, 2009, by a vote of 414-0. On September 22, 2010, the bill passed the Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous consent.

H.R. 3980 requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to identify and eliminate any redundant requirements that place an undue burden on State and local governments to receive grant funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and other programs as determined by the FEMA administrator. This bill will help address the issue of grant recipients oftentimes having to report similar information under numerous grant programs.

In addition, H.R. 3980 builds on the requirements in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and the 9/11 Act of 2007 by requiring FEMA to develop and implement performance measures for these vital programs and to report to Congress every 2 years on the status of these efforts.

The Post-Katrina Reform Act and the 9/11 Act both required FEMA to develop metrics to identify and close gaps in preparedness. Unfortunately, several years later, FEMA continues to struggle with integrating these requirements to produce meaningful results.

This bill also calls on FEMA to conduct an overall assessment of the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiatives, and other grants specified by the administrator.

Together, these requirements will help ensure that Congress is kept informed of FEMA's progress in effectively administering these grants and addressing any deficiencies that may exist.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I congratulate my good friend and colleague from Texas for the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 553, as amended by the Senate. This bill was agreed to by voice vote in the House on February 3, 2009, and on September 27, 2010, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that security requirements nurtured overclassification and excessive compartmentalization of information among government agencies. This stovepiping, so-to-speak, interferes with accurate, accountable, and timely information sharing, not only among Federal agencies, but also with State and local law enforcement.

H.R. 553 focuses on reducing the overclassification of information at the Department of Homeland Security and enhances understanding of the classification system by State, local, tribal, and private-sector partners.

The bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, DHS, operating through the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, to identify and designate a classified information advisory officer. The advisory officer will assist State, local, tribal, and private-sector partners who have responsibility for the security of critical infrastructure in matters related to classified materials. Additionally, the office is charged with developing educational materials and training programs to assist these authorities in developing policies to respond to requests related to classified information.

The bill also requires the head of each Federal department or agency with classification authority to share intelligence products with interagency threat assessment and coordination groups and allows them in turn to recommend to the DHS Under Secretary For Intelligence and Analysis to disseminate that product to the appropriate State, local, or tribal entities. This will be critical in directing actionable intelligence into the hands of those who need it the most.

H.R. 553 also aims at strengthening the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence with respect to information sharing government-wide and reinforces the authority of DNI to have maximum access to all information within the intelligence community.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I congratulate Ms. Harman on this great bill that I wholeheartedly support, and I look forward to seeing it signed into law by the President, I hope very soon, just like Ms. Harman does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate Ms. Harman. She and I worked together. We both have a strong interest in having a strong intelligence community, and I think both of us will agree that our intelligence community needs some help. But we have seen this overclassification of documents that has gotten to be a tremendous problem.

Ms. Harman has brought forth this piece of legislation that is going to help simplify the process and help our Federal Government to share information with the State, local, and tribal entities, as well as the private sector, so that they can have this information that they desperately need to be able to ensure security.

As an original-intent Constitutionalist, I believe that the major function of the Federal Government should be national security, national defense. We in Congress I think have overlooked that duty in many regards. I applaud Ms. Harman, Mr. Speaker, for her diligence in the area of intelligence and national security, and I greatly applaud her for this much-needed bill.

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

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

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

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