Floor Statements

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

On May 2nd, 2013, hundreds of people across Florida's eleventh district will come together to observe the 62nd annual National Day of Prayer.

The call to prayer is a tradition as old as America itself. Our founding fathers were so firm in their belief in God that they frequently turned to prayer for blessing and in times of need. Thomas Jefferson believed that the God who gives us life also gives us liberty and that as Americans we must acknowledge his mercy and guidance.

In 1952, Congress passed a resolution establishing an annual day of prayer. This resolution was later amended and signed by President Reagan to permanently establish the first Thursday of May as the National Day of Prayer.

This day holds special meaning as it serves as an important reminder of the role faith has played, and continues to play, in our everyday lives.

Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the eleventh district of Florida, do hereby recognize the district's observance of the 62nd National Day of Prayer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor College of Central Florida men's basketball team for their heroic win in the NJCAA National Championship.

On March 23, 2013, the College of Central Florida Patriots faced Northwest Florida State in the NJCAA national championship game. Early on, the Patriots built a 15-point lead and managed to fend off a late charge by their opponents to bring back the school's first ever national championship in men's basketball.

During the game, Eugene McCrory scored 23 points and earned the Most Valuable Player award. Rasham Suarez also earned all-tournament honors for the school and Central Florida Coach Tim Ryan won the award for the tournament's best coach.

The win makes the Patriots the third team from Florida to win the national championship and it is the first such win for a Florida team in almost twenty years.

This historic win is a testament to what can be accomplished when sound leadership and hard work combine to pursue a specific goal. The win is a true credit to Coach Ryan and the entire CF community who rallied around these young men and helped them through till the final whistle.

The team has made our community very proud and I know that it is a sign of more good things to come in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment; the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read; the motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself as much 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 83 provides for a structured rule for consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The rule also provides for consideration of one substitute amendment to this underlying legislation. This process ensures there's ample discussion on both options presented to the House, to give Members, both the minority and the majority, the opportunity to participate in these debates.

I support the rule, and I hope my colleagues will support it as well because, by supporting and passing this resolution, we'll be able to move on to debating the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

As a former law enforcement officer who spent 38 years fighting against all types of violence, I have seen the evils and cruelty of domestic violence issues firsthand. That's why I also volunteered with and even served on the board of directors for the Dawn Center, which is a refuge for victims of domestic and sexual violence in Hernando County, Florida.

With these sorts of experience, I know and understand how important grant programs like these authorized by the Violence Against Women Act are to law enforcement agencies fighting domestic violence, the advocates serving the victims of domestic violence, and most importantly, the victims themselves.

Violence against women is unacceptable in any terms. It should be unacceptable to everybody in this room, regardless of your gender, regardless of your sexual orientation, and regardless of your age. I hope it's that obvious.

The rule we have before us today provides the House the ability to consider measures that would help provide stakeholders with the tools they need to combat this terrible crime.

If House Resolution 83 passes, then tomorrow the House will debate two separate versions of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. We will have 1 hour debate on the underlying bill, which passed the Senate just 15 days ago.

We'll also spend 20 minutes debating a Republican alternative to the Senate bill. At the end of the debate, we will vote first on the Republican alternative to the Senate bill, and if that House amendment fails, then we'll have an up-or-down vote on final passage of the Senate reauthorization. It's that simple.

These options offer two separate and distinct visions on how the Federal Government can help aid in the fight against domestic violence.

I can say that, during my time as sheriff, I never saw a single Federal domestic violence case ever prosecuted, but I know the Federal dollars went to the States and counties to help combat these types of crimes. I also know that victims of all genders and sexual orientations found shelter and safety in places like the Dawn Center because of grants like those authorized in the Violence Against Women Act.

For all those reasons, I know this a debate we need to have. That's why I'm proud to stand here today sponsoring a rule that lays the options out on the table, provides for vigorous and enthusiastic discussion of those options, and ultimately, let's the people's House work its will.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I do not.

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

I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Every day, people flee their homes because of violence they suffer at the hands of a domestic partner. If there's something we can do to stop that violence to save those women and children, then we need to do it. Inaction is unacceptable. I've seen the consequences of doing nothing too many times when it comes to domestic violence.

We have before us a rule that provides the House with multiple options on how we take a stance against domestic violence right here and right now. We may not agree on which of these two visions is the best one, but I think we can all agree that something must be done. That's why I say to you, Mr. Speaker, support the rule before us today. If you want to do something, anything, then you need to start with voting for the rule. That's the first step. That's what we need to pass first and foremost so we can debate those options.

Some folks here will like the Senate's vision of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act more than they like the House alternative. Others have problems with the Senate bill and think the House's plan is the way to go forward. Either way, if you want to take a stand against violence against women, then you need to support this rule.

This rule is how we move to the next step, to debate the options before the House to ensure that law enforcement departments, organizations like the Dawn Center back home, and victims of domestic violence can get the support that they so desperately need.

There are those who want to confuse this with another issue before this House, but this is the issue that we have today, the issue on domestic violence, the Violence Against Women Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 27, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

`` . . . to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; to establish post offices and post roads; to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; . . .''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 821 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, which will allow the House of Representatives to consider H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012.

As I am sure my colleague from Colorado will point out, H. Res. 821 is a closed rule. The fact is that like Mr. Polis, I prefer an open- amendment process. Open rules let us come together on both sides of the aisle and contribute ideas to help make a bill better.

Today's rule will be closed, but that's because the crafting of the STEM Jobs Act has been in a collaborative process for the last few months. Chairman Smith, the author of this legislation, has already worked with his committee, Republicans, Democrats, and even the Senate to come up with a bill that, hopefully, everybody could support.

Unfortunately, we've since been informed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other Chamber are looking to play politics with the STEM Jobs Act. However, that doesn't change the fact that Chairman Smith worked diligently to make sure this legislation was filled with bipartisan ideas.

The STEM Jobs Act would eliminate the flawed Diversity Lottery Green Card program and reallocate up to 55,000 green cards a year to new green card programs for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees.

According to a study by the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, in 1990 about 91,000 full-time foreign graduate students were studying in STEM fields in the United States. That number had jumped to almost 149,000 by 2009. It was 149,000 in 2009. However, the vast majority of these highly skilled, highly educated innovators are leaving the United States where they once received their education.

We're training hundreds of thousands of highly skilled engineers, technicians, and scientists at American universities and then sending them back home to compete against us in other countries.

They aren't moving to other countries because they want to leave the United States. They're moving because the immigration system forces them out.

Currently, we only select 5 percent of our Nation's legal immigrants based on skills and education they bring to America. So the vast majority of foreign students who come to America for advanced degrees and get their education find themselves on a years-long green card waiting list and give up on the idea of staying here in the United States.

When they leave our country, they take with them all their training and all of their potential to go work for America's business competitors in Canada, Europe, and Asia. The exodus of U.S.-trained STEM professionals has been referred to as reverse brain drain.

The STEM Act of 2012 would reverse this trend. It would establish a program to prioritize green cards for immigrants with graduate-level degrees in the STEM fields. To offset the number of green cards that would be given to the STEM Visa program, the bill would eliminate the diversity lottery green card program, a program that has been repeatedly highlighted as a threat to our national security.

The result is that there would be no net increase in the number of green cards we give out as a Nation. The difference is that we will get immigrants who have the training and the skills that we need to keep American businesses competitive in a globalized and increasingly technical age. In the process, we will eliminate a visa lottery system that's rife with fraud and abuse and the State Department stated contains significant threats to our national security.

In the Rules Committee meeting last night, some opponents to H.R. 6429 said that fraud and security concerns are old problems and that they've been fixed. My colleagues were right in that these are old problems, but the State Department inspector general report published in 2003 listed the widespread abuse in the diversity lottery visa program. The inspector general pointed to identity fraud, forged documents, and national security threats. That's their words.

However, my colleagues were absolutely wrong to say that the problems have been fixed. In fact, just 2 months ago, the GAO released a study discussing the ways the State Department could reduce fraud in our immigration system, and it highlighted the diversity lottery program. Moreover, the STEM Jobs Act does this without putting American jobs at risk.

This legislation includes provisions that would require the petitioning of an employer to submit a job order to the appropriate State workforce agency. The job opening would then be posted in the agency's official Web site in an effort to publicize available jobs for Americans.

In addition to reforming the green card process for foreign students with advanced STEM degrees, H.R. 6429 also includes provisions that would help reunite families waiting on the immigration process. As it currently stands, family green cards can take 6 or 7 years to process and be approved. During these long years, families are separated. A spouse or parent can be living as a permanent resident in the United States while their loved ones wait back home hoping to be reunited somewhere down the line. This pro-family legislation would help reduce the time these families need to spend apart without speeding up or preempting the actual green card process.

Provisions contained within the STEM Jobs Act would expand the V nonimmigrant visa program to allow spouses and minor children of permanent U.S. residents to come to the United States to live with their loved ones once they have spent 1 year on the green card waiting list. The bill expressly states that these folks would not be allowed to work, taking jobs away from American citizens, nor would they inherently be entitled to any government welfare programs because of the V visa in and of itself.

Similarly, the expanded V visa program won't speed up or expedite the green card process in any way. All it does is this: It ensures that families don't have to live separately and in uncertainty as to when they can be reunited at an unknown time down the line. It brings families back together.

The simple fact is that our current immigration system is ineffective. We educate the world's best and brightest and then send them away to be our competitors. We only prioritize about 5 percent of our visas based upon what they actually contribute to our economy. We have a diversity lottery system that is subject to widespread abuse and opens up our country to entry of hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists. We separate spouses, parents, and minor children for unknown years on end.

We can do better with the STEM Jobs Act. It is an important step towards doing better. It makes the American green card process smarter, safer, and more family oriented. It protects American jobs and workers while still supporting the American innovation industry, which is why over 100 major companies and councils have supported H.R. 6429.

I support this rule, and I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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

I do not.

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

To my good friend from Colorado, we agree on so many issues, particularly as it relates to immigration reform. We agree. I think this is the first step in regards to where we need to go. You have sold a very persuasive argument in regards to why it is so important, so important, that we have a STEM visa program; why it's important to us to keep that brain power that we educated in the United States, keep them

here in this country to support our businesses and our manufacturing so we can be more competitive on a global market. You have made my case on that argument.

I'll agree with you that this immigration system that we have is broken. I wasn't here 2 years ago or 4 years ago when the Democrats were in power in both the House and the Senate and the Presidency, and they moved nothing forward that we're talking about today.

It's disappointing when you have all the levels of government and you don't accomplish anything as it relates to this. And now we want to turn it around and say that this is a flawed bill. At the end of the day, this meets the needs of our corporations of creating more jobs here in America, about putting more people to work, and it also rectifies an issue on the V-Visa program in regards to instead of having families split because someone has a legitimate green card as a resident here, that he has to be split or she has to be split from their family. The mother of their children or their children are kept from coming in the United States. Because today, the way the program is, they are kept from coming to the United States. So they don't have an opportunity to get a job, anyhow.

But what this does do is it rectifies a problem that allows parents to be reunited with their children. I don't know, but that's important to me as a father of three. I would much rather have had my family here if I was a resident alien here. I would rather have my family here so I could reach out and touch them and help encourage them and move them forward in the American principles--that's what I would want to do-- versus trying to talk across great distances to try to bring a family together. That's no way to raise a family. But they do it because they have to. This rectifies that problem. While it doesn't allow them to go out and get a job, it does bring the family unit back together again. I know, Mr. Polis, you have a son. You would rather have your son with you than a thousand miles away, as I would.

So this is a step in the right direction. This is moving us forward, not moving us backwards. This is actually taking an approach that should have been taken 4 years ago, and the Democrats punted it down the field. In September, we voted on this initial STEM bill and we had 30 Democrats across the aisle vote with us. We didn't meet the threshold of two-thirds because it was under suspension.

I truly believe that this bill has the ability to cut across the aisle. And we heard our good friend from Oregon talk about it--for the right reasons. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean we should just throw it in the scrap heap. And I agree that we can pass this bill and send it to the Senate. The Senate has the option to bring it up, debate it, vote on it, amend it, and send it back to the House. Do your job. I agree that that's what they should do. At least have the discussion. When the Senate comes out and says, We're going to ignore it, we're not going to do anything with it, that's a disservice to the American public, it's a disservice to those that create jobs, and those Americans that need jobs.

You talk about a zero sum game. This is not a way to reduce immigration. I don't know where my good friend got the numbers about how this is going to increase the number of illegal immigrants to this country. I've never heard that before. I've never seen anything in writing as relates to that. I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't know that. I think it just sounds like a good number. What we don't want to do is scare people to be opposed to something that is good for America.

We made an investment as a Nation in these foreign students when they came here, when we allowed them here in the STEM fields. Why let that investment leave? Why would we ignore that investment and say, you know what? we don't care, when it has a direct negative impact on this country--not on any other country--on this country it has a direct negative impact. It's just common sense. And I guess that's the problem. Sometimes common sense and Washington, D.C., are vast worlds apart.

While looking at this, it's just a small, commonsense reform to our immigration policy. But what it does do is addresses a dangerous Diversity Visa problem. Even the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services testified in front of the Judiciary Committee that visa lottery fraud includes multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education and work experience, pop-up spouses or family members, and false claims of employment or financial support in the United States. His words, not mine.

For example, one third-party agent in Bangladesh entered every single name from a phone book in Bangladesh into the lottery system in order to extort money. If your name got pulled he would go to you and extort money so you can come to the United States. Or, guess what? Sell that winning slot to someone else.

That's not what the whole program was designed for. I would suggest to you that students that are coming from foreign countries come across-the-board. We have them from China, we have them from the Ukraine, as you like to keep pointing out, and from all over the world to come to our universities, particularly for those STEM degrees, advanced degrees. So I would suggest to you that you're going to continue that diversity by getting people that have gone to the max that are going to be so productive here in America to help us. It's not a sum game. It's just a rational game.

I really wish that I knew that if we passed this today, that it would become law. The President has already kind of said he wouldn't sign it. I don't know how you can have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about STEM, those individuals who have come to our universities and graduate with a degree in those STEM sciences, how we can just ignore them and say, Listen, this is good for America.

Instead of making this a Republican or Democratic idea, why don't we just pass it because it's the right idea? Let's do something for once that's good for America. Let's do something once that's good for those green card holders that are currently here in the United States, bringing their families together so they can become productive in whatever sense their family decides. Wouldn't we want to do that? I would want to do that. I want to see families reunited, not split apart, not kept because of some arcane rule that's going to take them 6 or 7 years, maybe, to get a green card so they can bring their family here in the United States, where this would allow them to come 1 year after being on the waiting list, they get the opportunity to come here and be reunited with their family.

For all that we hear about Democrats are always for families, this time I guess they're not. This time I guess because they're from some other country, maybe they're just not that important. They are to me. I think it's important. Here's once where the Republicans are stepping forward on an immigration issue that's good for America, it's good for the people that are currently here on green cards legally. It allows them to reinvest. How can this be bad for America? Is it because it's a Republican idea? Is that the reason why this is a bad piece of politics? I would hope not. I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle will be like Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon and look at the real merits of it.

While not perfect in any sense of the word, as is any legislation that comes out of this place, at least it's a move and a step in the right direction. And let the Senate do their job. Let the Senate bring it up. Let the Senate vote on it and amend it and send it back to the House. Let the Senate for once do their job. And then, Mr. President, you can make a decision whether you're going to veto it or not. But let's quit playing politics with immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my good friend from Colorado because we agree on so many issues as it relates to this. We just don't agree on everything.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 29, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 773 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, which provides for consideration of two different pieces of legislation.

The first of these bills transfers lands within the State of Minnesota to the benefit of the State's public school system. The rule provides for consideration of each and every amendment offered by Members to the Rules Committee by the amendment deadline.

The next measure this rule allows for consideration of is H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012. Also called the FAA Reauthorization, this legislation would reauthorize programs that are critically important to our national security.

First passed in 2008, FAA has enjoyed a history of strong bipartisan support. Now, President Obama and his administration have made it clear that a clean, long-term extension of FAA is their number one intelligence priority. That's exactly what H.R. 5949 does.

Recognizing that our Nation's security cannot and should not wait until an emergency, the 11th hour, or rushed reauthorization, the Select Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have had hearings on the FAA's reauthorization, they've marked up the bill, and they've sent it to us months ahead of the expiration deadline. I congratulate both of these committees on their timely and dedicated work for the sake of our own safety.

It is with the tools that the FAA provides to our intelligence community that we're able to monitor our Nation's enemies overseas. Without this authority, the ability to track those individuals who aren't American citizens and want to do harm to this country would return to the state it was in before September 11 of 2001.

I really want to stress that the FISA Amendments Act applies to targeting non-U.S. citizens living outside of the United States.

The FAA also enhances civil liberty protections for Americans. The government cannot target an American overseas without first obtaining an individualized court order from the FISA Court. Prior to FAA, the government was not required to obtain an individualized court order to target U.S. persons outside of the United States. This is an expansion of the civil liberties made possible by the FISA Amendments Act.

As a former law enforcement officer, I know how important it is to get the information that we need to work on a case. Without good, reliable information, you can't do your job and protect the citizens, but the information must be obtained in the right way.

FAA is a critical tool at our international community's disposal in our war against terrorism.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting our national security by voting for the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a number of issues that my good friend from Colorado brought up cover both bills, actually. One, obviously, is the Minnesota bill as relates to public education. That was passed by the Minnesota State Legislature in a bipartisan way, and it was also signed by the

Democratic Governor of Minnesota in regards to this particular issue on this particular bill as it relates to Minnesota.

With that, I'm going to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

Madam Speaker, I certainly do appreciate the gentleman's comments because, as a former law enforcement officer, I want to make sure that we protect Americans. But I'm not so sure I want to protect those in foreign countries that are not Americans, those in foreign countries that would do harm to America, like they did on this day 11 years ago.

You know, FISA--our good friend mentioned about 2008, but prior to 2008, Americans could be entrapped within the FISA context.

In 2008, that changed. What it said is that, if Americans become involved in a FISA investigation in which their names come up, the information comes up, it has to be minimized. Then they have to go to a Federal judge and to the FISA court to get an authorization to do what they need to do as it relates to a warrant in order to receive and recover that information. That's what 2008 did. What the President has asked is that we just continue to do what we did since 2008. The protections that were put in place for American citizens that were not there prior to 2008 are to be extended. That's the intent of the reauthorization act of the FAA.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot, particularly as it relates to FISA. I want to clarify and make sure everyone understands that the FAA authorizes the targeting of non-U.S. citizens who are overseas. They are not citizens of the United States. Thus, they don't have the protections under the United States Constitution--nor should they.

If an American becomes a target during the investigation, just as in a criminal investigation when I was sheriff and someone became a target during a wiretap, we then have to identify that person. If we want to go after him, if we want to eavesdrop on his conversations, we have to get a separate order to allow us to do that. Back in 1978, when this was first put in place--guess what?--if an American were picked up in one of these wiretap operations, there was no requirement to go back and get a separate authorization to go after that American citizen. But 2008 changed that. 2008 put in a particular protection for American citizens who may get caught up in a FISA investigation in regards to the collection of data or voice transmissions. That's the difference.

So, when people start talking about it as it relates to civil liberties, if you live in a foreign country, you don't have civil liberties with us if you're plotting against the United States. That's the whole identification reference to this: that it's a foreign country and a non-U.S. citizen.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I've heard my good friend from Colorado. Maybe he wasn't serving on the Judiciary Committee this summer, but prior to this being vetted within the Judiciary Committee, all the members there were offered a classified briefing as it relates to FISA. Every member had the opportunity to attend that. As I said, I'm not sure if Mr. Polis was a member of that Judiciary Committee at the time it was offered to all. As a matter of fact, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, the ranking Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Ruppersberger, pointed out to the Rules Committee that, at any time, any Member of this House can request a classified briefing--any Member.

He wanted to make sure that this didn't become a political football. He admonished all of us not to make this a political statement, but to do what's right for this country.

I hear time and time again from my good friend as this relates to civil liberties of Americans. If you look back to 2008, that was rectified. Prior to that I would tell you that the civil liberties of Americans were in jeopardy, but in 2008, that was corrected, and it's continued on in this reauthorization of 2012.

Once again, the FISA court is comprised of U.S. District Federal judges, and they also have a right to appeal to a court of review made up of Federal judges. The information, as Mr. Ruppersberger said, is if you want a briefing requested, if you want additional information in a classified setting requested, every Member has that opportunity. As a matter of fact, in the Intelligence Committee, there wasn't one opposing vote. Democrats and Republicans alike came together and said this is what's important to keep America safe. They don't want to have another 9/11 on their watch. At the same time, we want to protect all Americans.

When people start throwing this around and saying this is an assault on American civil liberties, that's just not right, it's not correct, and it's wrong because this bill does everything to protect Americans from intrusion into their private lives. It forces the Federal Government to go back to court if it uncovers through these surveillance techniques activities by an American citizen who's doing something wrong as it relates to terrorism against this country. It gives them a process to do it because, prior to 2008, they could do it without abandon. They could wind up collecting any information on U.S. citizens. In 2008, that changed and rightfully so. There should be constraints on the Federal Government.

I heard also there's no checks and balances. That's just not true. Every 60 days there's a report done in reference to FISA in regards to the intercepts. Twice a year, there's an automatic report that has to be generated that goes to Congress. And at any time, the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee can hold hearings--and they do--as it relates to classified information, as it relates to FISA. That's oversight. That's what we're supposed to do.

And the reason they say this is secret--well, guess what, it's not secret, but it's kept under wraps because of this: if we tell our techniques to our enemies, then guess what? They'll figure out a way to circumvent so they can get the information, pass the information, and conspire against this country. That's the reason in law enforcement we don't give up our techniques because the bad guys will figure it out. They're pretty smart folks. They have time on their hands. What we don't want to do is give them time on their hands to assault the United States of America, kill our citizens, kill and injure those first responders, and then put our military at risk.

This is directed to those that live outside of this country, those that are not American citizens. Let me make this perfectly clear. Besides all the rhetoric of those who would love to inflame different people as it relates to this, this has nothing do with American citizens, except if they do get caught up in a conversation with someone who is a foreign national that it does have to go back to court to get that specific authorization to record or transmit that information as it relates to them.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and bring these two very important pieces of legislation to the House floor for a vote. If there's one duty that is inherently part of our Federal Government's core mission, it's to provide for our national security. None is more important than making sure that this Republic survives.

The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization is a key tool in keeping our Nation safe. We heard it from both sides of the aisle who testified in front of the Rules Committee yesterday. As we continue to fight terrorists around the world who want nothing more than to harm our Nation, the FAA gives our intelligence community the tools they need to track these enemies overseas. That's the important word, ``overseas.'' We can't give up that fight, which is why we need to keep using the information we have access to. The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization balances this need for security with civil liberty protections for Americans living abroad. It keeps us safe at home while protecting Americans living around the world.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the bipartisan tradition of supporting the FAA and to vote for this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member Tim Scott for allowing me to speak on this very important issue.

This rule does something that is decades overdue. It puts the Nation on a path to comprehensive tax reform. Achieving a fairer, simpler Tax Code isn't an easy goal, which is why we are considering today and tomorrow a multi-step process. First, we need to extend the current tax rate. This extension gives us a bridge, the time we need, to dig into the Tax Code and find a way to make it work for all Americans, not just some. Perhaps even more importantly, it stops the largest tax hike in history. It's worth repeating: the largest tax hike in history.

Madam Speaker, this tax increase would threaten more than 700,000 American jobs, and for those folks lucky enough not to lose their jobs, it could very well lead to lower wages for them. If we don't act, the Democrats' tax increase will hit 53 percent--more than half--of all American small business income.

When I brought these small businesses up at the Rules Committee last night, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle responded to me and my questions by coming back with statistics, things that don't really matter much to anybody. Yet, when I talked about small businesses in my district--those folks making over $200,000 who are going to be impacted by this increase on taxes--it related to actual jobs, what they can create and what they may have to cut back on. These are real people, not some statistics that somebody in some Washington think tank came up with. These are real people, real job creators in America. We are talking now about stifling that at a time when job growth in America is anemic at best.

My fellow speakers earlier talked about just that issue in regards to what has changed.

What has changed in America since that increase, or the 2001-2003 tax decrease, was passed by the democratically-controlled Congress in 2010? What has changed?

You heard from my good friend Mr. Gowdy that nothing has changed. Now we are going to look at those job creators--and let's slap them again. Let's take away the certainty for the people. We have almost 11 percent unemployment in my district, so now we are going to crush them again by taxing those job creators and by putting jobs out of the reach of real Americans.

I thank my friend.

H.R. 8 will prevent real hardworking Americans from getting hit with history's largest tax increase. We have an obligation to make sure that we do this. If we extend it for a year, it gives us the opportunity. It has been decades since we have had real tax reform. The Ways and Means Committee, through regular order, has the opportunity to have input from both Democrats and Republicans alike--experts in the

field--to talk about how we craft tax policies that are going to carry us through the next decade.

This is such an important issue, Madam Speaker. This is about the future of America. This is about how we move forward.

Ways and Means has had 20 committee hearings already on this issue. One of my favorites was on the Fair Tax, which is what we are talking about as we move forward--the ability of the American people to hear debate on this floor and in committee sessions through an open process in which we can amend laws or legislation that is going to come forward to this House. It is also the ability to get input from all of us-- Democrats and Republicans alike--because it really is about where we are heading as a Nation.

We talk about job creation. This is about job creation. This is about sustaining the current jobs that we have and about allowing American businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs. It's not some crazy idea. This is real America. These are businesses in my district.

Mr. Chair, it is DoD policy that when a servicemember becomes a casualty, his remains are returned to the family as quickly as possible with the utmost respect and dignity.

This policy was revised and mandated by Congress in 2008 when new requirements were established for transportation and honor guards for the remains of combat casualties.

As a nation, we owe our fallen heroes and their families a debt that can never truly be repaid. The dignified transfer of a casualty is the least that we can do to honor the sacrifice paid by the men and women who volunteer to lay their life down in the defense of others.

I am happy that this bill in front of us today fully funds the transportation and escort of these heroes, and want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for continuing to make this a priority.

I remember meeting with a family from my district last year whose son, Corporal Johnathan W. Taylor, gave his life defending our freedom on February 22, 2011 in Afghanistan.

Now beside his fellow brothers in uniform, his parents, Mark and Deborah, have said that they were proud to have seen their son off on what they like to call his final tour of duty.

This final tour of duty was important for his family, as well as his friends and fellow Marines.

It was important because they all had the opportunity to see Corporal Taylor return home for the last time, with the honor and military escort he has so rightfully earned.

Continuing to fully fund this important mission will allow other families, who have made the most difficult sacrifice imaginable, the opportunity to watch their children return home and laid to rest as a national hero.

Army SPC Clarence Williams III will be laid to rest next Monday, on July 23, in the Florida National Cemetery. He was killed in action in Afghanistan last week.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Dallas, my Rules Committee colleague, Pete Sessions, for yielding me the time.

Over the past couple of years, I've met with thousands of people in Florida's Fifth Congressional District, whether it's businessmen, people on Medicare, veterans, and they all have the same appeal to me: Please, please repeal ObamaCare.

It's clear the American people know what our Democratic leaders still, to this day, don't want to admit: ObamaCare eliminates millions of American jobs, it cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, and it puts in place 21 tax hikes that are going to cost the American people more than $800 billion over the next 10 years. And guess what. It only pays for 6 years of coverage. What a scam.

Everybody knows the health care system is broken and reform is needed, but ObamaCare is not the answer. Madam Speaker, I think a number of my colleagues forget that although the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate--because it's a tax--it did declare parts of the bill unconstitutional. The Court explicitly stated the Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. And expansion, they said, of ObamaCare unconstitutionally forces States to expand Medicaid.

So the vote we take on this rule, H.R. 6097, gives Members of this body two things: repeal a law that is in part unconstitutional, and repeal an $800 billion tax increase on the American middle class. I have to think that if the other side knew that this was a tax increase back when they first implemented it, that--you know what?--they probably would rethink their thought on it.

Last night, my colleagues on the other side said that ObamaCare reduces the deficit, but it's also a tax cut. Only in Washington does that work--creating a new trillion-dollar health care program means reducing government spending. Only in Washington is $800 billion in new taxes a cut. These are numbers I know my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle know, and, more importantly, the American people know it.

For all these reasons, I'm grateful to Leader Cantor for introducing the Repeal of Obamacare Act, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I support the rule, I support the underlying legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues who want real health care reform to do the same.