Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 590 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

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

The question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. Res. 590?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that, while the two underlying bills contained in the rule would impose intergovernmental and private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the mandates would fall well below the threshold in that act.

That said, I know my friend is using this point of order to debate a very important issue that he cares passionately about. I am glad he has had the opportunity to bring it forward because we tend to agree on a lot of what he has said, and he knows that. We have talked on numerous occasions.

But in order to allow this House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge our Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, like I said before, I don't disagree with a lot of what my friend from Massachusetts said. As we voted last time, we are not going to have the opportunity to do that this time.

But I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 590?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. All of the relevant committees have included earmark statements in their reports filed with the House, so there is no violation of the House earmark rule.

That said, I know my friend is using this point of order to debate an important issue--and I have said this earlier--that he passionately cares about. So I am glad that he has had that opportunity.

But in order to allow this House to continue with the scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so much has been said. As I said earlier, I agree with a lot of what has been said.

I will be honest with you, I am disappointed. I have sons that have been sent off to war for this Nation: two of them in Iraq at the same time and one in Afghanistan. They didn't ask to go. They went because, long before I got here, a majority of the Members here voted for it.

Now, you can have disagreements about whether or not we should have been involved in Iraq. I have some serious reservations. Or about what our

continued involvement in Afghanistan should be. I actually voted for an amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) put up last year in regards to getting out of Afghanistan.

Listen, what I say is not hallowed words. I have had blood and flesh of my own in those countries. And I agree, there is nothing we can do to change where Afghanistan is going to go in the future. You can't change history, as has been brought up here.

But I will tell you that if you don't vote for the underlying rule, then we won't have the opportunity to support our troops. We won't have an opportunity to override what the President is doing in regards to cutting the COLA for our troops and adding additional costs to our troops that they have to bear out of their own pockets.

So you want to make a statement. Let's not forget about what the NDAA is all about. It is about supporting our troops and giving our warfighters the equipment and the training and the compensation that they and their families richly deserve for what that 1 percent gives to this Nation, the freedom to stand down here and have a difference of opinion.

But, Mr. Speaker, in order to allow this House to continue with its scheduled business for the day, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 590 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills, H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, will be considered for 1 hour under a closed rule. This legislation will prohibit the bulk collection of all tangible things, not just telephone records. It will end a practice that, in my sincere belief and in the belief of so many other Americans, violated our privacy and our constitutional rights. This isn't the end of the issue for me and, I suspect, for a lot of our Members as well.

And secondly, the reason I am proud to be here to sponsor this particular rule is because it provides further consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA passed for 52 consecutive years, and I am confident that this will be the 53rd consecutive year that it passes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the very definition of a bipartisan effort. This year's NDAA was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee with unanimous support, 61-0.

For all the infighting that exists in Congress, it is nice to know that we can unite around the common cause of supporting our troops and fulfilling our constitutional responsibility of providing for the common defense of our homeland.

Part of the reason this legislation received so much support is that so many Members have had input into the process, from the committee to the floor. The committee alone, this bill was amended 155 times in committee. And the rule will allow for the consideration of over 160 more amendments, with over 70 of those amendments coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Of course, no piece of legislation is perfect to each Member. Even as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I didn't get everything I wanted in this legislation. But I am extremely proud of the work that we have done and the product that we have put forward.

One of the things I would like to highlight in this bill is the 1.8 percent pay raise for our troops. It is definitely more modest than I had hoped, but it is still a good step. And I think we all know our brave men and women have earned it.

We have also rejected, for 4 years in a row now, the President's proposed benefit cuts to our warfighters and their families. In the President's FY12 budget request, he proposed cuts to TRICARE. In the NDAA that year, the committee fully restored those cuts. In the President's FY13 budget proposal, he proposed compensation cuts once again. And, once again, our NDAA restored much of the funding and required the President to find other sources for the remaining funds.

Fiscal year '14 was no different. This President proposed TRICARE cuts and actually reduced the military's pay raise from 1.8 to just 1 percent. Congress again rejected those TRICARE cuts and worked to restore the program with other resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to say the President's proposed cuts this year were the most sweeping to date. Those cuts would have included TRICARE, housing allowances, and commissary benefits. These cuts add costly out-of-pocket expenses to those military families, that 1 percent who protect our freedoms, and he was willing to cut that. Our warfighters deserve better, and the NDAA before us ensures that those damaging cuts will not happen.

This NDAA also rejects the administration's insistence on one or more rounds of base closure to conserve resources. It is our opinion that Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, is an ineffective way to produce true savings. Instead, they add large up-front costs. And so in this year's NDAA, we have prohibited another round of BRAC.

We have also expanded sexual assault prevention by reviewing the discharge status for victims who separate from the military. And this is so important to all of us. What we want to do is to ensure that no servicemembers were prosecuted for reporting a crime, and we want to make sure that we hold those responsible for the crime to the highest level that we can.

Finally, the underlying bill ensures the preservation of the National Guard. In every State and territory in this Union, guardsmen are exceptionally well trained and must retain equipment to respond to disasters in their States.

These brave men and women are critical to the operational Reserve of this country--ready to deploy to combat zones in defense of the entire Nation, as they have proudly done over the last 12 years. These are active members of our community who risk their own safety to come to our rescue when we are in need the most.

The Guard also provides for some of the most effective and efficient dollars spent, and that is why it is always frustrating to see proposals that could dramatically cut from their budget.

The NDAA recognizes the importance of the National Guard and the Reserves and preserves their capability to protect us here at home and abroad.

I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) whom I serve with on the Armed Services Committee, but he also serves on the Judiciary Committee.

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), whom I have the honor of serving not only on the Rules Committee with, but also in Armed Services.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, the rule today, before us today, continues the process of allowing Members to provide input on the NDAA. That process is important.

This rule makes in order 162 amendments to the NDAA. I know some of the other side don't think that is enough. Remember, in committee, we were there from 10 o'clock in the morning until after midnight, and we heard another 155 amendments from both sides of the aisle. And 155 amendments were considered in order and were voted on or added to the

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). We came in to this Congress together a couple of years back, and I have had the great opportunity to serve with him on the Rules Committee. And being placed on Armed Services last year was a great opportunity for me to be in the process of crafting how our military establishment moves forward.

Madam Speaker, in addition to providing an open rule for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H. Res. 585 provides for 1 hour of general debate on this year's National Defense Authorization Act. It also makes in order the first of many amendments that are going to be coming forward in the debate over the next couple of days.

Because the Rules Committee traditionally does two rules, one for the underlying legislation and the second for the amendments, which I am going to bring forward tomorrow--as we have heard, we have had over 300 amendments come forward on the NDAA this year. My understanding is that is a record. Typically, it is around 200-and-some. This year, it was over 300.

So we are going to have the opportunity to hear arguments on both sides as to why an amendment should pass or why an amendment should fail, and that is a good thing. That is what this body is designed to do, to have a dialogue and a discussion back and forth about the merits of a particular issue.

I have three sons who currently serve this Nation. One is in the National Guard, and two are in the Active Duty Army. So when we craft an NDAA, it is extremely important to me to make sure that our men and women have all the resources they need if they are called to go into harm's way. It is not their call to go. It is the President's call, the Commander in Chief's call in regards to whether or not our servicemen and -women go off to fight.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) mentioned earlier about all the partisanship in this place. The NDAA, when it passed through committee, had over 100 amendments within committee that passed and were attached to the NDAA, amendments from both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican alike, because there was great discussion within the committee about those amendments. Some didn't pass, but the vast majority, over 100, did pass, and you see it in the body of the National Defense Authorization Act today. That says an awful lot.

The National Defense Authorization Act has passed 52 times, 52 consecutive times, and we are hoping that this is the 53rd consecutive time that it passes in this body. Mr. Woodall was correct. It passed out of committee 61-0. I would suggest to you, I don't think I have heard that number before in other committees.

While there are disagreements on how things should work in the NDAA, disagreements about priorities and how things should be moved around and where our money should be spent, at the end of the day, we came together as Democrats and Republicans and put forward a piece of legislation that we can be proud of, that was actually named after the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Buck McKeon.

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to help craft the NDAA. I believe that it is a good step in the right direction. We have heard a lot of things

about sequestration in the coming year, and we need to be very cognizant of what that will do to our military, our readiness, and our ability to meet the demands that this country could call upon our military to meet.

This legislation takes care of that 1 percent of Americans who step forward and raise their hand and say: If you need me, I am there; if you need me to fight your fight, I am there. That is why this legislation is so important. It protects the members of our military, the 1 percent of America, Americans who stand up and say: I am there to protect you. That is why this legislation is so important.

The benefit of this is that we have a strong, well-run military, that we have a military that is trained and equipped for the battles to come. And I will suggest to you that we have not done a very good job of figuring out what our next battle will be. As a matter of fact, we have had members of the military, flag officers, high-ranking folks that have been involved in the military for 30-plus years say we have never gotten it right once; not one time have we gotten it right in regards to what our future conflicts are going to look like. So I would suggest to you that we need to make sure that we are on top of it now.

Well, I appreciate that. I don't know that I am expert, but I certainly have the heart. I have the heart to make sure that America is safe.

It is a constitutional responsibility that this body make sure that we have a strong defense for our homeland. It is a huge responsibility, and it is not one that is taken lightly. As you can see in the vote that was taken in the House Armed Services Committee--61-0--it is one that is shared by all Members.

We have seen the threats. Unfortunately, not everybody knows what the threats are. But if you look at and read the news, whether it is Russia today resurging its influence within Europe, whether it is China, or whether it is Iran or North Korea, there are so many players out there that have ill intentions to our people, to this Nation.

We have Africa, a continent that has seen a huge increase in violence that is associated with al Qaeda. We have threats around this world. To those who would say this world is safer than it was before, I would suggest to you it is not. So I will do anything that I can do to lend credence to our military fighting force to make sure we have the strongest, most-equipped, and best-trained force. It is what gave my wife and me solace when our older son was deployed to Afghanistan. It gave us solace when our two sons were deployed to Iraq, that we knew they were the best fighting force out there. That gave them the greatest opportunity to come home safe to us.

Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a young man, a double amputee, who is a proud, proud member of the 82nd Airborne's 4th Combat Brigade. Specialist Stefan LeRoy was in our midst last night as we talked about the NDAA in the Rules Committee. There is not a more powerful statement than that young man sitting right in front of me at the dais looking at us to make sure that we provide for them, for that 1 percent I talked about earlier. That is what makes this all worthwhile, in my estimation, that we do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 45 minutes

p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, H. Res. 568.

House Resolution 568 provides for consideration of two important resolutions. Both resolutions are critical to getting to the bottom of the IRS' targeting of conservative nonprofit groups, and they are critical to holding this government accountable.

The groups who are discriminated against deserve to know the full truth and so do the American people. To this day, Mr. Speaker, no one has been held accountable for the actions of the IRS.

I wish that the underlying resolutions weren't necessary; but, once again, the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history'' hasn't been helping much in providing the answers to the American people that they so rightly deserve.

For example, one of the underlying resolutions, H. Res. 565, calls for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting that took place.

Again, it is frustrating that this House even needs to take this step, Mr. Speaker; but as we have come to find out, the Justice Department chose a Democratic political supporter to lead their investigation into the IRS' actions. This attorney donated over $6,000 to President Obama's election campaigns, and if that is not a conflict of interest, I don't know what it is.

That is extremely disappointing to me because this administration had the opportunity to give Americans assurances that they wouldn't stand for the IRS' conduct, they wouldn't allow an agency to be a tool to punish people for their political beliefs and would work diligently to root out this behavior and hold the appropriate people accountable.

Instead, the administration severely undermined the credibility of the investigation at every turn. We need impartiality and objectiveness from this administration; and, Mr. Speaker, we just didn't get it.

We have hit a wall, Mr. Speaker. It is time we had a special counsel to look into the issue so we can fully understand the depths of the targeting.

What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that all signs point to Lois Lerner as a central figure in this scandal. Ms. Lerner has been unwilling to answer questions before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, despite giving testimony to two other bodies.

Her actions to this point beg the question: What is she trying to hide?

Ms. Lerner has roughly a year--she has had a year to work with the committee and ample time to comply with this subpoena. Unfortunately, she has refused to do so.

When called to testify before the committee, Lois Lerner simultaneously asserted her innocence, while depriving the American people of the opportunity to get their questions answered.

Ms. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her Fifth Amendment right--17, Mr. Speaker.

In the words of my colleague from South Carolina, that is a lot of talking for someone who wants to remain silent.

Some people believe--me being one of them--that you can't do that. You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mrs. Lerner's conduct shows contempt for this body. I certainly do. I truly believe that. But that is what we are here today for, to have a debate, to see what the majority of this body believes.

This rule allows for the debate to happen and a vote to happen. It allows Congress to do its job, providing oversight of the executive branch.

If the contempt vote passes, it will place the issue into Federal court. It will be up to them to decide if we are accurate or off base. Let the court decide that. That is the appropriate step, because that is where the dispute between these two branches is supposed to reside. The judicial branch is the arbitrator between the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to issues like this. That is how a three-branch system works. We should let the process take place.

I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that those on the other side of the aisle would say this is trivial. This impacted American citizens. And I won't disagree that it may have impacted those on the left; but, to a greater extent, it impacted those on the right. And to Americans, one of the most powerful organizations there is in America is the IRS. They can instill fear into your heart when you get that letter. So when you have one that does something that is so outrageous as what they have done, it is not trivial, at least not to the people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, it is just interesting to hear the argument on the other side. I have spent 37, 38 years protecting people's rights. That is what I did. As a sheriff, we did things and lived within the law. We answered questions truthfully. That is all we are asking.

This is terrible that we have to get to this point, but at the end of the day, we are not taking her rights away. We are going to the court and asking the court, Are we right in our assumption in regards to what the House counsel had told us? Are we right? If we are not, they are going to tell us we are not.

So, she has due process. This whole thing about we are taking her due process away is just ludicrous. It doesn't make sense.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not an attorney. That is what they say on commercials when somebody wants to give some legal advice: I am not an attorney.

What I will tell you from my past experience is that I can get attorneys' opinions on either side of an issue. That is what they get paid to do. Whether they are paid or unpaid, they all have an opinion. It doesn't mean their opinion is the right opinion. It just means that they have an opinion.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I do have to go back to the comments that my good friend from Massachusetts mentioned. Now, I wasn't here in 2008, but if you look back at the history, the Democrats controlled this body and the Rules Committee in 2008.

When Congress considered a contempt resolution in 2008, the rules opted to hereby the resolution, preventing Members from even debating it or holding a vote on the measure on the floor. They just said: here we are, we are bringing it to the floor for debate and a vote.

It is pretty open to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I love the comments about McCarthyism as it relates to this particular issue, but really, McCarthyism is the IRS. The IRS is targeting American citizens who have done nothing wrong, who merely wanted to express their freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the Constitution. That is all they wanted to do.

We hear that there is a bunch of liberal groups that were caught up. I don't believe so. The record will reflect that there was less than half a dozen, while there were conservative groups of over 200 that were targeted. I think that is pretty compelling, and those are the facts. It is not just my thought. It is the facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I do not have any additional speakers, but go right ahead.

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

We have heard a lot today. It should concern the American people of what we have heard in regards to the allegations and the operations within the IRS.

You know, I regret, I really do regret that somehow this turned into a partisan shouting match. Both sides--both sides--are involved in this. I regret it because we have lost sight of the real issue: The IRS constituted a serious violation of public trust.

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to when I was sheriff, and I would sit there and have parents come in and complain about schoolteachers and the police officers that arrested their son or daughter for a violation of law, and they were more concerned about what were perceived as issues--in regards to how they were handled--versus the actual conduct of their child. This is the same thing.

We are blowing smoke all over the place trying to obscure the fact that the IRS--under the direction, we believe, of Lois Lerner, the involvement of her--violated Americans' rights across the board. Talk about McCarthyism. They have done it. They have the power to do it. They have the power to come in. If you remember the questions asked, they asked people about what they believed and what were their conversations, who they talked with. Was it an invasion of privacy? I think so.

The American people--and you have heard this from other speakers today--really need to have their faith restored that this government operates in a very open way, that people can trust government again.

No one should have to worry. No one--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or otherwise--should ever have to worry about their political speech having them singled out by the IRS. No one should have to worry about that. No one group should have to worry about the government worrying about their speech and having the ability to counter it in a way that brings officialness to it. How do you do that?

This is true, though, whether you are Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, or anything else. The point is we should be alarmed. This is what we are talking about today. We should be alarmed about the conduct of the IRS under the direction of Lois Lerner. We should be worried about that in the future, because that is the biggest single threat to America today is how our own government treats its people, Mr. Speaker. A Federal Government agency used its weight to bully Americans. That is not what America is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Make no mistake, though, that is exactly what happened. The IRS bullied people. We had someone last night testify about constituents in their district that wanted to promote an organization and do something, and they were bullied by the IRS until they finally said: You know what, I give up. I can't take it. I worry about what is going to happen because I know the IRS has the ability to do other things on my personal tax return and call it into question.

This is an extreme disservice to the American public. They really do deserve better. If we are ever going to right this wrong, we have got to find out what happened. We have to understand all the facts. And so my friends across the aisle really don't want to hear the facts. They talk about everything else under the Sun, but they really don't want to talk about what happened.

You know, my good friend talked about this being trivial, doubling down on crazy. Well, I guess that you are talking about my constituents, because my constituents have that concern. They do have the concern because of what they have seen and what has been reported in the media by both the left and right media in regards to the overstepping of Federal investigation--the IRS--on groups.

I heard this called a circus. Well, that is what we are trying to get away from. We are trying to get away from this partisanship, and let's do what we are supposed to do. By appointing a special counsel, we are hoping to take politics out of it, because politics are on both sides of this issue. So to do that, you would appoint someone, a special counsel, to investigate. Let's take away the partisanship.

It is also important that people are held accountable for their actions. Ms. Lerner defied a lawfully issued subpoena, and there ought to be repercussions for that; otherwise, this is just for show. We really have no oversight ability if people just come and say: Oh, I am not going to tell you.

That is not how it works. That is not how it is supposed to work.

This rule brings this question to the floor, not like the Democrats did in 2008. This rule brings everybody to the floor where they can have an open debate and question and vote on what they think is right.

So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. We have the ability to get answers, because whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, the American people need to know that their government is going to be held accountable if they overreach. If they trample on my rights as a citizen, we should have the ability to know who is doing it and why, and there should be some redress.

Today it is really about we don't care. That is what we are hearing. There are all kinds of other issues, but we don't care about this. It doesn't matter that we sent numerous bills over to the Senate--we talk about job creation--that were passed bipartisanly here. The Senate has refused to take any action on that, has refused to bring it up, discuss it, debate it, amend it, and send it back. They have done nothing.

So we have the ability today to get politics out of it. Let a D.C. court make a decision. Let's do the right thing.

I urge all my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would end the practice of Members leasing vehicles on the taxpayers' dime. I am just not convinced that this is a necessary use of taxpayer money, and neither are the constituents that I represent.

We are asking agencies throughout the Federal Government to use their funding carefully and to cut out unnecessary, nice-to-have things. We ought to apply the same standard to ourselves, and in many ways we have done an excellent job of doing that.

Funding for the House of Representatives has been cut since the Republicans took the majority by over 14 percent. We have cut our own MRAs and committee funds. We have frozen our own pay.

Unfortunately, the vehicle lease program isn't consistent in that effort. That is not to say that some Members who lease vehicles aren't doing it responsibly. They are, and they have good reason. Unfortunately, I think the line of what is appropriate in terms of leasing vehicles has been blurred by others. Members of Congress driving around the Capitol in luxury vehicles financed by the taxpayers that they represent isn't exactly the image we want to portray to the American people, especially when many Americans are struggling just to get by.

The vehicle lease program in its current form is simply out of touch with the economic reality of what our American brothers and sisters face. Therefore, until we can ensure that all Members of Congress are using this program responsibly, I believe we ought to halt it entirely.

The Senate, to their credit, in one of the few times that I agree with the Senate--and I don't say that often--already has barred its Members from leasing vehicles with public money; and, frankly, I think it is time that we do the same.

To be clear, my amendment is straightforward. It says that the CAO may not make any payments from any Member's Representational Allowance for the leasing of a vehicle. My amendment excludes short-term vehicle rentals and mobile district offices, as those are often necessary resources used in serving our constituents. But having basically a personal car entirely paid for by taxpayers should no longer be allowed.

I urge adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I do appreciate the comments of more senior Members of this House. I, obviously, have been here 3 years, and I do appreciate their comments.

But I will go back to this. Think about this. The Senate, each Senator represents their whole State. They gave up that privilege a while back because it didn't make sense. But think about this. Today, Members of Congress can lease Lexuses, BMWs, Infinities, Acuras, Mercedes, which all fall within the guidelines, and not all do that. But does that send a message to our folks back home that this is the right way to do it? Because that MRA that was discussed, this also covers all of the wear and tear on the car, it covers the fuel. There is no expense that is spared with regards to covering that, versus the mileage reimbursement, if I used my own car, which I do.

That is not to try to diminish or hurt any Member. It really is, though, bringing us into compliance with the same thing that the Senate has done. It is about reasonable usage of the dollars the taxpayers give us.

Once again I will tell you that I agree with most of what my good friends have said, but I disagree on this one. I truly believe it is time for this House to move forward and limit itself in regards to these types of acquisitions and purchases.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Day of Prayer.

Since 1952, the first Thursday of May in this great Nation has been dedicated to prayer. As in years passed, on May 1, 2014, millions of people of all faiths across the United States will gather together and humbly bow their heads asking God to bless our country. With great pride I can say that many of my friends and neighbors across Florida's 11th Congressional District will be joining me in participating in this annual observance of prayer for our Nation.

This day of prayer is reflective of the faith our Founding Fathers had that the United States of America would one day be a great nation. These men with deep religious and spiritual convictions built our country from the ground up and our continued faith and prayer will keep it moving forward.

Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Eleventh District of Florida, do hereby recognize the district's observance of the 63rd National Day of Prayer.

Madam Speaker, one of the most important things that we do in this Congress--and it is a constitutional requirement--is we provide for the common defense of this Nation, to allow things like my good friends on the Democrat side are arguing for in regards to more entitlement programs, more helping our neighbors; but without a national defense, all of this is moot. It doesn't matter. It adds up to nothing if we can't defend the homeland and defend our friends when they need it.

Now, I will tell you that this budget does something that is needed. It increases the spending for our military. It actually takes something that the President, the Commander in Chief who has cut the military by $1 trillion in the last few years, is actually restoring money that he was holding hostage.

He said the military can have $26 billion more if you give us $27 billion more for domestic spending. It is about holding our safety hostage. When those that are in a position to talk to us and tell us that the world is changing, you don't have to look very far.

See what is going on in Russia and China and Iran and North Korea. This is not a safer world since this President has taken office. It has become a much more dangerous world, particularly from state actors.

It is not all his fault, I must say, Madam Speaker. This goes back to years of kicking the can down the road by this Congress.

Mr. Woodall and I came to Congress at the same time, 3 years ago, Madam

Speaker. We weren't part of the problem, but those who were here prior to that have been part of the problem. They continued to kick the can down the road.

Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee, and members of the Budget Committee actually took the bull by the horns. It is starting to turn this country.

This is actually talking about difficult questions we have to talk about.

This body loves, if the problem isn't immediate, we don't have to worry about it, don't worry about it because it will never happen; but we are being told by professionals: guess what, Medicare and Social Security are at risk if we do nothing.

If we don't challenge the status quo, if we don't start talking about how do we move forward to protect our seniors today from cuts in Medicare and Social Security, how we move forward for our younger folks as they get closer to retirement age, we have to do more, and I believe this budget is creating a dialogue for us to move forward and do more, not just put our heads in the sand and say we just need to spend more money because we can tax our way out of it. Everybody knows that is not true.

Madam Speaker, the first and most important job of our government is to provide for the defense of its citizens.

If the government can't protect the people's liberty then everything else we talk about today--every dime spent on every domestic program-- is all moot.

So when we're considering how taxpayer money should be spent, we ought to keep this at the forefront of our minds.

We ought to put forward a budget that recognizes this basic truth and most fundamental responsibility.

I'm glad to see that Chairman Ryan's budget embraces this fundamental priority because, Madam Speaker, not all the budgets we'll debate today share this perspective.

Not even the budget of the military's own Commander in Chief.

The House Armed Services Committee has analyzed the last several budget proposals from President Obama, and I want to share some of those findings with my colleagues in the larger House of Representatives today:

Since entering the White House, President Obama has proposed more than $1 trillion in cuts to the military.

Over the next 10 years, the President is proposing $345 billion less than the minimum amount the military says they need to perform the President's own defense strategy.

Less than 15 percent of our U.S. Army is deployment ready today.

Without regard for the command signals from Combatant Commanders, the President has produced a budget recommendation that neither complies with the statutory nor strategic requirements of the military.

Instead, the President cuts $26 billion from the military and holds it for ransom until this Congress is willing to give him $32 billion in domestic programs.

These budget gimmicks will not stand and I applaud the House Budget Committee for not engaging in the false narrative that this Congress must pay $58 billion in order to restore $26 billion to meet the minimum standard of national security.

In this tough fiscal environment, the budget brought to the Floor by this Rule provides the minimum dollars necessary to resource the President's strategy and sustain the World's premiere fighting force.

In fiscal year 2015, that means a commitment of this Congress to our military of more than $521 billion.

Translating that dollar amount into capability--this budget maintains a force structure well above the drastic reductions recommended by the President:

The Army has the flexibility to retain the 100,000 soldiers on the chopping block,

Navy can preserve the 11 aircraft carriers required by both strategy and law,

Modernization programs critical to maintaining our military's technological edge and our troops' safety will continue to give our warfighters an advantage on the battlefield next year and beyond.

I truly hope the Army will take the flexibility afforded them under this budget as an opportunity to establish the right balance between Active Component, Reserve Component and the National Guard.

By the time this budget goes into effect, our Army will be drawing down from 14 years of continuous war.

To effectively make that transition

To reduce the cost of a war-time standing Army while preserving capability

To ``right-size'' the forward deployed force and meet the domestic responsibilities to the individual states

Big Army must recognize and incorporate the National Guard's indispensable role in providing our national security at home and abroad.

If such a right-sizing cannot be found internally within the Army, this Congress will have to put Army decisions on hold until a commission can be established to study the correct balance of the Service moving forward.

Finally, I applaud this budget for sustaining compensation for all warfighters, retirees and their families.

Too many times over the past several years, Congress has had to defend the pay of service members--as if the reasons for adequately compensating our all-volunteer military were not self-evident.

I hope that this year, the paycheck of our troops will be spared the political games of the recent history.

We are certainly off to a good start with this budget that meets our compensation commitments to the military--including healthcare.

And so, Madam Speaker, I support this rule and the underlining resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Woodall. I certainly do appreciate it; and to my colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle, once again, it is always a pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can politicians pat themselves on the back for cutting spending while actually increasing spending. That is a novel idea.

Say, for example, we spent $100 on a program 1 year. The next year, we automatically assume that we are going to spend $103 on that same program, due to inflation. If we only end up spending $102 versus the $103, according to official government accounting, we have cut spending, but we increased spending by $2.

In the real world--at least back home--you can't simultaneously cut spending while increasing spending and then say you cut spending. You can't do both. It is one or the other.

Families don't budget this way. Businesses don't budget this way. It would have made my life a whole lot easier as sheriff if my budget automatically increased 3 percent because of inflation that may or may not exist within the program.

If you change the baseline every year by inflation, no one has to justify what their increase is; but then, again, we live in this fantasy world called Washington, D.C. This is where we live today.

The fantasy is that we can spend more money than you take in, and it will all work out in the end. We can be $17 trillion in debt today, but don't worry about it because it will get better on its own.

How does it work? It doesn't work that way. Mr. Speaker, our current budget process is broken. By assuming automatic increases in spending, our system favors more and more spending without any accountability.

Under this scenario, programs don't receive a real examination as to whether or not they deserve the increases. They just get it anyway. Just because they exist, they get more money; not that they need it, not that they can show folks that they absolutely have to have it, we just get it.

As Chairman Ryan pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, our current budget process has not been significantly reformed since the Budget Control Act of 1974. That is 40 years ago. We haven't done a thing. Given our fiscal situation, it is about time we do something to try to get this on the right track.

I appreciate the committee's work, and I particularly appreciate Mr. Woodall's bill today. These are important steps to refine and reform the budget process.

You hear folks from the other side of the aisle say that these are gimmicks. Well, I will tell you that, back home, it is not a gimmick when I stand there and have to justify why I need more money in my budget as sheriff.

I had to stand there with the appropriators and say: Here are the reasons why I need more money; and by the way, here is what we have done with the money.

So we show that we have actually earned it, and the taxpayers can see that there was a reward at the end of the day and that they got what they paid for.

There is none of that up here. I sit in committee meetings, day in and day out, in regards to seeing money being spent by government. Nobody is held accountable. We give people five-digit bonuses, Mr. Speaker, for doing a lousy job, but that is the way government works. We reward mediocrity.

This budget idea, if enacted, actually reins that in and makes people accountable for the dollars they are given from the American public so they can say: Listen, we are not talking about it; we are doing it.

So to Mr. Woodall and to Mr. Ryan, I do appreciate all their hard work and what they have done and where they are trying to move this process forward.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 511 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, H. Res. 511, which provides for a structured rule as relates to H.R. 4138, ENFORCE the Law Act, and H.R. 3973, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act. The rule gives the House an opportunity to debate a variety of amendments, all offered by Members from the other side of the aisle.

Both of the underlying bills, the ENFORCE the Law Act and the Faithful Execution of the Law Act, aim to halt an increasingly Imperial Presidency.

The Faithful Execution of the Law Act is straightforward legislation that expands reporting requirements, forcing increased disclosure and transparency when the executive branch employs a policy of nonenforcement of Federal laws.

Current law dictates that a report must be submitted to Congress when the nonenforcement policy is adopted on the grounds that a Federal law is unconstitutional. This bill would simply expand that report to include any instance in which a policy of not enforcing Federal law is established, regardless of the reason. For the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history,'' this really shouldn't be a problem.

The other piece of underlying legislation, the ENFORCE the Law Act, puts procedures in place to allow authorizations of lawsuits against the President for failure to faithfully execute the laws. It would also expedite judicial review, which is badly needed given the length of time it takes for these types of cases to be heard; mostly, they are never heard.

The fact of the matter is that we desperately need a way to ensure the executive branch is upholding its responsibility to enforce the law faithfully. Every day it seems the President is using more and more unilateral actions to achieve his agenda. I understand that Congress and the administration are going to have differences over time. Our Constitution basically guarantees there are going to be differences between the administration and the House and the Senate, but I would like to think that a President wouldn't just abandon our constitutional principles of governing because it is difficult to get what he wants.

I am sure some will argue that a legislative fix to the President's unilateral actions aren't needed. They will say the President has prosecutorial discretion and so that entitles him to make these changes in enforcement or delay certain provisions of the law.

But we are really not talking about individual cases, Mr. Speaker. We are not here today because we are concerned with the administration using discretion on a case-by-case basis. What we are concerned with is the President employing blanket policies of nonenforcement. In some instances, the President isn't just ignoring enforcement of the laws; he is effectively rewriting them.

Now, I understand the President isn't the first to expand executive power under his watch. He is not the first President to do that. In fact, Congress has failed to protect article I powers for decades. This House and the Senate have been in dereliction because they haven't actually protected article I powers.

The pace of expansion of power, though, should alarm every Member of this body. Take the President's recess appointments, for example. They have already been deemed unconstitutional by the D.C. circuit court in a unanimous--unanimous--decision.

The court rejected the administration's argument that the President has the discretion to determine when the Senate is in recess.

The court explained:

Allowing the President to define the scope of his own

appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's

separation of powers.

Mr. Speaker, the President's actions aren't in danger of disrupting the legislative process; they already are disrupting it.

What assurances do we have that the President won't just change the law once we have passed it? What guarantees do we have that the President won't suspend parts of the law that we believe are important?

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we don't have that assurance. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we can't trust the President to enforce any would-be law equally and faithfully, and that is a shame.

If anyone thinks the President's unilateral actions aren't a big deal because they happen to agree with him on the policy, well then, Mr. Speaker, they have badly missed the point.

All Presidents--all Presidents--have probably pushed the limit of their power, and it is our responsibility, this House, to check that power. We are a nation of laws. We ought to fight to keep it that way. We can no longer sit by and watch Congress' constitutional role in our government eroded.

This rule is to allow us to consider legislative addressing this growing problem. This rule ensures that ideas from Members on either side of the aisle are included in consideration of the underlying legislation.

I support this rule, and I hope all my colleagues will also.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I need to go back to when I first took the oath of office as a police officer outside of Chicago and then as a deputy sheriff in Florida and then a sheriff in Florida and then here in this body and also when I joined the military.

It was to support and defend the Constitution, not to ignore the Constitution, not to utilize it when we think it is okay or when it is necessary, not to just skip over article I and say: Do you know what? Forget about it because our Congresses have done that.

My good friend from Massachusetts pointed that out. They have done it for 30 years, but that doesn't make it right. At some point in time, we have got to set the record straight.

Somebody has got to step up and say: Do you know what? The Constitution matters, what we do here matters, and that all of us--the three branches of government--need to work, and they are coequal, not one above the other.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that I don't take it as a joke in our defending and protecting the Constitution, which gives us the ability to serve here today. The people gave us the ability to be here based upon what the Constitution laid out for us. That is the plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

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

I just want to make a couple of things clear.

In the Judiciary Committee, they did have two hearings on this. Now, they

took some action to bring forward one of these bills based upon the hearings and the testimony that they did have.

I truly believe in the open process. We want to see that, and I think we agree on that. My good friend from Massachusetts even read an article about George W. Bush and about that Presidency and that someone said that this Congress--or that Congress back then--should actually do something to allow it to go to court. I believe that was the statement. I am paraphrasing it. That is exactly what this does. I can't help it. I wasn't here when George W. Bush was President--I wasn't here 4 years ago--but I am here today, and I am here to defend and support this Constitution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a good friend of mine.

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

All I can say, again, is that as it relates to these bills, there was discussion in the hearings and testimony taken to the concept and the ideas behind these bills.

Mr. Speaker, we hear about, this is partisan. It doesn't say ``President Barack Obama.'' This says ``the President.'' It doesn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat, Mr. Speaker. It says ``the President.'' It has nothing to do

specifically with President Obama, but it has everything to do with protecting the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with much of what my colleague from Massachusetts said, particularly as it relates to our involvement in Afghanistan and the Karzai regime.

Let me read you some quotes, Mr. Speaker, and let's see who we thought said these quotes:

The power of what has begun to be termed the Imperial

Presidency grows, and the ability of our Democratic

institutions, especially the Federal legislative branch to

constrain it, seems more uncertain.

The next quote:

We are a coequal branch of government, and if our system of

checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative

that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or

ignoring the bills that are signed into law.

And:

We are talking about a systematic extra-constitutional mode

of conduct by the White House. The conduct threatens to

deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any

democracy, the right to elect Representatives who determine

what the law is, subject only to the President's veto. That

does not mean having a President sign those laws but then say

he is free to carry them out or not as only he sees fit.

Another quote:

I believe it is in all of our interests to work together to

rein in any excesses of the executive branch, whether it is

in Democratic, Republican, or even Libertarian hands.

Lastly, I will suggest to you that all those quotes I just read were from a highly respected Democrat, Mr. Conyers, talking about the George W. Bush Presidency.

What has changed? That is what we are talking about today.

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. Even Mr. Conyers said that that is a problem, that we are giving up what we are supposed to be doing here in the legislative branch, legislating.

The President has a right to veto, but when he signs it into law, he has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws that he signs, he signs into law.

Mr. Speaker, in an interview with The New York Times last July, the President was asked whether or not he had the legal constitutional authority to delay the employer mandates, and

the President's response was this, Mr. Speaker, speaking about Members of Congress: ``I am not concerned about their opinions. Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, he is right in one regard. Most of us aren't constitutional lawyers, and I am certainly glad the President is proud of his academic achievements.

It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that we have separation of powers in this country, and that is what makes us unique. It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that the President can't just pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones, don't worry about; we don't have to enforce it. Any eighth-grade civics student can tell you that.

Our Constitution explicitly states, the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is even in the oath of office. It doesn't say if I disagree with them that means I don't have to worry about that. It is in the oath of office that he is supposed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I take that oath to support and defend the Constitution very seriously. I did it when I raised my hand at 18 years old when I went into the Air Force. I did it when I was 21 years old when I became a police officer outside of Chicago. I did it again when I was a deputy sheriff. I did it again when I was sheriff, and I did it when I got elected to Congress, now, a second time. I take that oath personal.

I have three sons that serve this country today. They have all raised their hand to support and defend this Constitution, not when it is convenient, not when it meets what I need out of it. It says you do it.

That is the law. That is the Constitution, and we kind of forget that. We say it is just a document. It is a dusty document.

That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. It talks about how we conduct ourselves as a government of the people and by the people, not because of who we are.

I am concerned, on quite a few instances now, this President clearly hasn't faithfully executed those laws. Just recently, the President yet again announced a delay in the implementation of ObamaCare. The administration says they will continue to allow insurance companies to offer plans that don't meet ObamaCare's coverage requirements.

How many delays does that make, Mr. Speaker?

I have no idea. I have lost count. I haven't kept track. There have been a lot of them because they all hit the front page, most of them hit the front page of the papers.

Just because the President's health care law isn't working doesn't mean the President can just change it on the fly. I understand it is what he wants. It is the implementation of a law, but don't say you can just change it willy-nilly. The President is literally making it up as he goes along.

Delaying the consequences of ObamaCare, however, does not fix them. Perhaps our colleagues are facing frustrated constituents that just aren't quite ready to defend the law yet. Maybe that is the case.

Perhaps it is themselves that these delays are really meant for. I don't know.

Nevertheless, I don't object to delaying ObamaCare, just the President's desire not to have come to Congress to do it. Congress enacted it. Congress has a right, then, to modify it, not the President.

The fact is, a lot of these plans are good fits for consumers. Cancellations they face, the higher premiums and deductibles, are a real hardship. That doesn't change the fact that the means through which the President changed the policy is wrong, and we all know it.

It is time for this body to come together to prevent our constitutional role from disintegrating further. It matters not what has occurred in the last 40 years, it matters what occurs today. It matters to the people I represent that I faithfully support and defend the Constitution.

It is time this body pushed back against any Presidency that would assert itself, whether it was Mr. Conyers speaking of the prior Presidents or it is us speaking about this current President.

I am confident that the underlying legislation, the rule that it provides for, will start the process, and I urge my colleagues, if you care about protecting our three-branch system of government, support this rule and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather on December 10th, my flight was cancelled and I was unable to vote on H.R. 3521 Dept. of VA Major Medical Facility Lease and H.R. 1402 VA Expiring Authorities Extension. Had I been able to be present, I would have voted for both pieces of legislation. I applaud the passage of these resolutions which will positively benefit our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 429.

House Resolution 429 provides a structured rule for both H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, and H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act. The rule gives the House the opportunity to debate a variety of important amendments offered by Members on both sides of the aisle.

The Innovation Act seeks to address a growing problem of abusive patent litigation, commonly known as ``patent trolling.'' Patent trolls are nonpracticing entities. In other words, they don't make or sell products, and they don't supply services. Instead, they exist only to secure fees from businesses that use technologies covered by the patents they own. They do this by acquiring weak patents and then filing numerous patent infringement lawsuits or sending blanket demand letters to a business.

The victims of these frivolous lawsuits are all too often small businesses or start-ups that are ill-equipped to protect themselves. They simply don't have the resources available to mount an adequate defense. It is, by definition, a lose-lose scenario for them. Defendants pay millions in damages if they lose and millions in legal fees if they win. More often, defendants are forced to settle, despite the merits of a case, in order to avoid expensive legal costs.

Meanwhile, patent trolls are aided by law firms that operate on contingency fees. This means that, if nonpracticing entities lose their cases, there are no monetary consequences for them--none at all. They aren't on the hook for legal fees like their counterparts are.

As you can see, for small companies, this system is inherently unfair. Our small businesses are our most important innovators in this country. They are largely responsible for the new products and services we, as consumers, enjoy. They are also a critical factor in growing our economy and creating jobs. We ought to provide fairness to them by leveling the playing field in the patent litigation process. We ought to ensure that our patent system isn't stifling innovation but encouraging it. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case right now.

Patent trolling is a destructive practice that saps resources from small businesses and increases costs for consumers.

And its negative impact isn't limited to just the tech sector either. Patent trolling affects businesses and industries of all types, including the health industry and even grocers. It is absolutely a drag on our economy.

An issue like this undoubtedly deserves to be debated by the House. This rule will ensure that a deliberative process takes place. The rule also allows for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act.

This legislation would remove the requirement that small private equity firms register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC. However, it would retain the option of registering if they choose to.

Under current law, small private equity firms are being grouped by behemoths despite the fact that they played no contributing role in the financial crisis we just went through. Even the chairman of the SEC in a letter to Chairman Hensarling admitted that the private equity funds were not an underlying cause of the recent financial crisis.

Furthermore, private equity does not pose a systemic risk to the economy. So why are we taking limited resources at the SEC away from their mission and shifting them to oversee firms that pose no systemic risk at all? Why are we burdening these small companies with SEC registration costs that, according to the Private Equity Growth Council, can exceed over $1 million per year?

More money in unnecessary compliance costs means less money to invest in companies, particularly newer ones, which allow them to grow and create the jobs we desperately need.

In my own State of Florida, there are over 1,000 private equity- backed companies. Let me repeat that: there are over 1,000 private equity-backed companies in Florida alone. There are over 100 private equity firms within the State of Florida. These companies support more than 800,000 workers throughout the country.

In fact, in 2012, Florida ranked fifth in the Nation in attracting private equity investment. That investment is a vital tool for growing companies, and we are needlessly handcuffing their ability to do just that.

H.R. 1105 will help these smaller funds and increase the capital available for real companies so their businesses can thrive. Make no mistake, this is a jobs bill and it will help grow our economy.

I support this rule that will allow us to consider these bills, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the same.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado, but I will tell you this: the House is moving through the Judiciary Committee at a pace to make sure that we do this right in regards to immigration.

Where the Senate has rushed through a bill that is so comprehensive and so large, it will be similar to ObamaCare before we actually----

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to respond to my good friends from Colorado. I appreciate that he appreciates the approach that this House

is taking, particularly as it relates to both of the bills that are the underlying aspect of this rule. It is about moving in a deliberative manner to make sure that we get it right. I thank Mr. Polis for pointing that out.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

I do not.

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

I am speaking to some of the comments that were made, particularly as it relates to football. We talked about a field goal and 3 points, but here is the position that the majority has taken in the House as it relates to immigration. It is about first downs. It is about moving the ball forward in measured steps, about getting it right the first time, not going through what we have gone through with these huge bills.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Reclaiming my time, it takes time, as you know, to move meaningful legislation through and to get it right the first time.

You have to live with some things when you have these megabills with thousands of pages, such as a 1,000-page immigration bill or 2,500 pages for the Affordable Care Act. At the end of the day, let's do this in a reasonable approach, because we want immigration reform, because we know we have a broken immigration system. We absolutely know that. I think this House has taken the right approach in doing things in a measured way to get first downs until we get to the end zone where we all want to be.

As we notice on this bill, even though there is strong bipartisan support on both of these pieces of legislation, we still have some that aren't happy because sometimes bills never get to exactly where everybody wants them to be. I get that. In a perfect world, we would get everything we want. It is not a perfect world. We don't get everything we want. But it is about moving the ball forward, and I think that my good friend from Colorado has talked eloquently about the issues as relate to patent reform and private equity because I know he has been part of that world. He speaks from experience in those areas.

Is it everything that you want? Probably not. We have heard from the chairman of the committee that it is not everything he wants. But it is a step in the right direction. It is moving the ball forward. It is getting the first down. It is moving it so that we can win the game-- not a political party, but the American people. Consumers can win. The holders of patents can win. That is what this is all about.

With regard to demand letters, I lived through this as a sheriff. We used to get demand letters that we were going to get sued, and the whole idea behind it was the fact that they thought we would settle for $30,000 or $40,000 to make them go away. Here is what happened.

The sheriffs got smart, and they put together a consortium of sheriffs, 60 out of 67, in a sheriffs self-insurance fund. Guess what? We changed the tables and the dynamics in regard to it just as this bill will do. What we did was say, Guess what? We are no longer going to be blackmailed into giving money. On a legitimate case, you are going to settle; but on a case that is frivolous, we would say, No thanks. Let's go to trial. They never want to do that because it is expensive on their end, too, particularly when they could wind up paying for that.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said today, and I think a lot more is going to be said after we pass this rule. As we talk about what I think is fair, that abusive patent litigation is a growing problem--we have heard that from both sides today.

Under current patent systems, small businesses and startups simply don't have the resources to compete with the patent trolls. They are easy targets. They routinely settle, regardless of the merits of the case, to avoid hefty legal costs.

We understand that, therefore, it is important that we level the playing field for our innovators, our innovators that actually create something, an idea out of thin air, and create something that can be turned into jobs in the future.

Regardless of where the Members of this body fall on the underlying legislation, it seems that we are all in agreement that we need to combat this destructive practice.

We are also in agreement that we need jobs. The rule provides for consideration of a bill that will give small companies more access to capital, more opportunities to grow, more opportunities to create jobs. The rule makes in order important germane amendments addressing this.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a call to vote ``no'' on the rule for other reasons. Let's talk about creating jobs in America. Let's talk about protecting our innovators.

Let's not get caught up in the politics of the day. Let's do the right thing for the American people today, the thing that is going to be heard today in this House. Let's vote on a rule, and let's pass that rule. I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule as well.

Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today in recognition of the forthcoming retirement of Command Sergeant Major William Zito Jr. on January 31, 2014.

CSM William Zito Jr. has served the United States Army with honor and distinction for 22 years. A career of such longevity in support of our national security is, in itself, an accomplishment worthy of recognition. In the case of CSM Zito, his stoic demeanor masks the extraordinary achievements accumulated during an exceptional career that demands more than simply the recognition of a grateful nation. He has earned the respect of thousands of soldiers who have directly benefited from his leadership and the adulation of millions whom he has never met, but profited from his wisdom nonetheless.

William Zito's combat arms occupational specialty took him directly into harm's way numerous times, deploying to the most dangerous battlefields of his generation. As First Sergeant, he deployed first to Kuwait for Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002 and the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, then returned

again in 2005 to 2006. In 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery, 3rd Infantry Division, First Sergeant Zito's leadership guided the actions of 130 soldiers whose teamwork under his stewardship received the Presidential and Meritorious Unit awards.

After returning to complete the Sergeants Major Course in 2007, now CSM Zito once again met our nation's call and deployed the 2nd Battalion, 12th Field Artillery, 2nd Infantry Division to Operation Iraqi Freedom. During this time, CSM Zito was responsible for designing and implementing command policies and training for an 800 member Task Force. CSM Zito successfully managed all of the Task Force's Joint Security Stations as well as partnering with two Iraqi Army Brigades, an Iraqi Police Division and the Kadamiyah Shrine Police. The lives of thousands of American and Iraqi soldiers depended on the leadership of CSM Zito.

Upon his return from foreign battlefields, CSM Zito continued to dedicate himself to the betterment of our nation by graciously allowing Congress to glean what we could from his wisdom. A remarkably small portion of the military are assigned to the unenvious task of explaining the impact on end-users of our legislative ideas. CSM Zito was among the hand-selected cadre, first as Defense Fellow to Representative John Carter and then as Legislative Liaison of the Department of the Army. During these two positions, CSM Zito was responsible for providing guidance on matters relating to military legislation as well as serving as the primary point of contact for enlisted issues. As an effective spokesman, CSM Zito strengthened the Army's relationship with our nation's lawmakers.

Over the course of his 22 years of dedicated service, CSM Zito has repeatedly demonstrated honor and dedication indicative of a great American hero. His valiant efforts both across oceans in enemy territory as well as here domestically have helped to protect and shape our nation. On behalf of the United States Congress and the American people we represent, I extend my deep appreciation to Command Sergeant Major William Zito Jr. for his service to our country. My best wishes on a happy retirement and continued success.