Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this short-term highway bill because it fails to provide a funding mechanism that will guarantee the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund which is needed to spur investments in our nation's roadways, bridges, and public transportation infrastructure.

This is just another example of our failure to govern, and as a result we are sacrificing the jobs and economic development that are critical to the progress of our nation.

This is that same scenario that has occurred under the Republican leadership of the House over and over again: when we passed the last 2- year highway bill, with the farm bill, with the budget and debt ceiling.

These short-term extensions and governing by crisis make it nearly impossible to plan for future infrastructure needs. We have a crumbling infrastructure. We can't keep pretending to fund through phony accounting gimmicks. We actually have to put money into it.

About 90 percent of the revenue in the Highway Trust Fund is generated by a federal 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline and a 24.4- cent-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel.

Federal fuel taxes have not been increased since 1993, and because of this stagnation the

gas taxes' buying power is about 40 percent below that in 1993.

If those taxes had been adjusted to keep pace with the consumer price index, for example, the tax on gasoline, which is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, would be about 30 cents per gallon, and the tax on diesel fuel, currently 24.4 cents per gallon, would be about 40 cents per gallon.

Other factors, such as increases in fuel efficiency, have reduced demand for fuel, causing the fund's overall revenues to fall.

Rather than proposing a bill that guarantees a long-term funding mechanism, such as an increased gas tax, the House brought to the floor legislation to fund highway projects for 8 months with a series of accounting gimmicks and one-time fund transfers.

The highway bill passed in the last Congress only authorized funding for two years. For two years we have known that this problem was coming, yet the House Ways & Means Committee has not had a single hearing on transportation finance.

We need to act to invest in our nation's transportation system, but under this bill we are simply dodging a problem. A real solution will require the political courage and leadership that we have failed to demonstrate here in the House, today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4719, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2014.

The legislation before us today is another in a long line of picking and choosing which tax extenders to make permanent. Instead of looking at all of the tax extenders comprehensively we are again picking the extenders that many Members may find easy to approve, and making them permanent. I find it ironic that Representative Camp has continued to bring permanent extenders to the floor, some of which he chose not to extend at all when he released his plan for comprehensive tax reform earlier this year.

But that aside, what is truly at issue here is again the unwillingness to find a way to pay for these tax expenditures. This package of five bills would increase the deficit by $16.2 billion over 10 years. With the passage of this package today the House will have approved $534.4 billion in tax breaks over ten years. This is more than the entire non-defense discretionary budget for all of this year. Republicans say that we do not have enough money to pay for an extension of unemployment insurance or to feed the most vulnerable in our society, yet here we are spending money they have said over and over that we do not have.

I support some of the individual extensions in this bill such as the Conservation Easement Incentive Act which allows for family farmers, ranchers and forest land owners to receive a tax break for setting aside areas of their land for conservation purposes, which is a noble and well intentioned goal.

However, I cannot support this legislation without considering the cost. We cannot continue to blindly pass permanent tax breaks, even if the outcome of such breaks would benefit charitable organizations.

I have seen firsthand what happens when we take that approach. We did that under President Bush and went from budget surpluses to budget deficits. Deficits that have pushed Congress to reduce investment in our country in recent years.

I look forward to Congress addressing the tax extenders that require action by the end of the year in a serious way, not the way in which they have been brought before us thus far.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the language in this bill, or rather the lack of language, regarding the elimination of funding for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

There is nothing more crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness, and accuracy of elections. Voting should not be an act of blind faith--it should be an act of record, and the EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral process. Too many people across the country lack confidence in the legitimacy of election results, and dismantling the EAC will further erode faith in our democracy.

The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral process. Too many people across the country have lost confidence in the legitimacy of the election results. In fact, a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports found that 68 percent of likely voters believe that elections are rigged (or favor) incumbents. Dismantling the EAC would further erode that necessary faith in the process.

How quickly have we forgotten the Florida recount with its hanging chads, pregnant chads, and hand counts of ballots to determine voter intent? The 2000 election exposed critical flaws and inconsistencies in how elections were conducted, and in its wake the Congress under the leadership of Whip Steny Hoyer approved the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to assist state and local jurisdictions.

Yet the legislation we are considering today willfully ignores this history. The bill defunds the EAC and assumes that Congress will pass legislation to transfer some of its vital functions of the EAC to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an agency that does not have the capability or the expertise to do the job. The work of the EAC does not fit into the mission of the FEC.

Additionally, funding for the EAC has always included a set aside for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to continue its work on testing guidelines for voting system hardware and software. Work that will most likely stop as the House has already appropriated NIST funds for Fiscal Year 2015.

I would have liked to offer an amendment to this legislation to reinstate the EAC's Fiscal Year 2014 levels, but unfortunately, the overall budget limitations in this bill make that nearly impossible.

The lack of appropriations takes us in exactly the wrong direction. While millions of Americans are casting their ballots on un-auditable voting machines, eliminating the EAC would increase the risk that our electoral process will be compromised by voting system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk? Certainly not. Do we want problems to go undetected? I would hope not. Less oversight, lesser standards, less transparency in reporting, less testing, fewer audits weakens our democracy. Abolishing the EAC is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of a segment of northern Cyprus. This invasion has since morphed into a prolonged occupation in which an estimated 43,000 Turkish soldiers are deployed in the occupied territory, and tens of thousands of Turkish citizens have migrated to the island since 1974. Turkey's invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus has created yet another long-running international conflict, one that continues to destabilize the eastern Mediterranean region.

I agree with those in the international community who assert that a peaceful, long-term resolution of this conflict must include the establishment of a unified Republic of Cyprus, in which the religious, cultural and political beliefs of all Cypriots can be expressed through a truly democratic political process. I am encouraged by the democratic selection of new leadership in the Republic of Cyprus, and reassured by the willingness of Turkish-Cypriot leaders to continue a dialogue about potential reunification. These are signs that a peaceful resolution is possible, but a key component of any long-term settlement must include the withdrawal of Turkish military forces from the island.

A long-term, peaceful resolution of the Cyprus standoff is not simply in the interest of the island's Greek and Turkish inhabitants. A successful resolution of this conflict would remove a major obstacle to Turkey's integration with the rest of Europe, a development that would enhance the security and economic wellbeing of millions of people in the region. Our government should be working daily to facilitate that outcome, and I will certainly use every opportunity available to me to make that point to Administration officials.

Mr. Chair, this Financial Services Bill seeks to overturn the intent of Dodd-Frank by bringing the Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau under the turmoil of the annual appropriations process.

Bankers have people to look out for their interests, brokers have people to look out for their interests, investors and hedge fund managers have the same. Until the CFPB was created, the same could not be said for the average consumer. The current funding stream for the CFPB, from the Federal Reserve System, to the annual appropriations process, puts politics, not the consumer first.

If we have learned only one lesson from the financial crisis of 2008, it should be this: when we protect consumers, we protect the health of the entire financial system.

It is clear that the consumer credit and housing bubbles of the last decade were the result of unfair and deceptive practices and credit card companies and lenders that steered families into mortgages and financial products that they did not understand and that they could not afford.

In 2010 after an open process that included a now rare House-Senate conference, the Congress passed historic reforms to the nation's financial system. Among these reforms was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Indeed, a strong argument could be made that the creation of the CFPB is the most important and most beneficial provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms.

Members of the House and Senate, after much deliberation, concluded that in order for the CFPB to effectively protect American consumers, it must be independent.

The Dodd-Frank legislation, which is the law of the land, is clear on this point. This new financial watchdog would be independent, insulated from the partisan fights of Capitol Hill, by deriving its operating budget from non-appropriated funds from the Federal Reserve.

House Republicans are once again attempting to politicize the funding process for the CFPB, handcuffing the CFPB in order to preserve the status quo that benefits big banks at the expense of American consumers.

This legislation would change the nature of the CFPB and make its funding different from other bank regulators which remain independent of the appropriations process.

In an appropriations bill that is already $566 million below last year's funding level, where will Congress find the $500 million, or $400 million, or $300 million in Fiscal year 2016 and beyond? I fear that the answer is that we will not fund it at all. That is not acceptable. That would hurt the American consumer, and would inject more risk into the economy.

Instead we should continue to ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have the independence and resources it needs as it continues its critical work of protecting consumers and by extension the entire U.S. financial system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of what is now the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Since its founding in 1914, this legislative reference service unit of the Library of Congress has served as a repository of information and expertise for Members of Congress and their staff.

The CRS was an idea first championed by Senator Robert M. LaFollette Sr. and Representative John M. Nelson, and established on July 16, 1914 by former Librarian of Congress, Herbert Putnam. Previously known as the Legislative Reference Service (LRS), this service unit provided basic reference services for Congress in its early years.

As a result of rising demand for LRS services following World War II, the Legislative Reorganization Act (LRA) of 1946 expanded the size and scope of LRS by hiring policy experts in issues consistent with the new committee system. A second transformation of the Service occurred in 1970 when the LRA was amended to mandate that LRS provide reliable and objective research and analysis, and strong support for Members and committees. LRS became what we know today as CRS.

Over the past 100 years, the contributions of CRS have been invaluable to the efficiency and effectiveness of Congress. Today, CRS provides broad, non-partisan research and analysis for members of Congress on all legislative and oversight issues of interest. Its utmost priority is to certify that Congress has uninterrupted access to the nation's best thinking.

The Service employs a diverse workforce of over 600 analysts, data professionals, counselors, and support staff who are dedicated to supporting our Federal legislative process. In Fiscal Year 2013 alone, CRS provided more than 630,000 briefings, reports, and analyses for Members and committees.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the past and present staff of CRS for decades of invaluable contributions and service.

Mr. Speaker, this year, Peddie School in Hightstown, New Jersey celebrates its 150th anniversary as one of the finest independent schools in the nation. Peddie School prides itself on the intellectual, social, and moral growth of its students.

I have been fortunate to have visited Peddie's campus and host interns who went to Peddie. Whenever I observed their work and work ethic, it was always apparent that their actions and skills reflected the values of Peddie, including respect, honesty, scholarship, balance, and courage--the same values that were also revered at its creation as a Baptist school during the Civil War. This philosophy is further evident in the uniting Ala Viva chant and student accomplishments in a diverse range of areas, from a dominant golf team to state poetry competition accolades.

I congratulate Peddie School for 150 years of fostering young women and men to become thoughtful and constructive members of society. May the next 150 years bring the same success and see generations of students develop into successful, upstanding citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that affects line 18, I believe.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I rise in support of this important bill. I want to point to one good aspect of it.

I am pleased that the bill recognizes libraries as an integral part of helping the unemployed and underemployed get good jobs. Libraries, often at their own expense, are already helping many reach work with literacy skills, resume writing, computer skills, and librarians are offering a wealth of experience in assisting individuals to take advantage of all of the things that libraries offer.

Specifically, this bill includes a number of provisions from my bill, the Workforce Investments through Local Libraries Act, known as the WILL Act. The bill before us today will allow libraries to receive funds to continue their great work.

The Workforce Investment Act became law in 1998 and has not been updated over all these years. For 16 years, the Workforce Investment Act has been an important, nonpartisan help to workers and employers. However, over those years, employers' needs have changed and the skills needed to obtain good jobs have changed. This bill modernizes the programs that keep America competitive.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado says that this would send a signal to European countries, and as my friend from California makes clear, it would not be a signal that help is on the way any time soon. The natural gas would not come soon, but the signal that would be heard loud and clear by manufacturers and homeowners is the price of gas would be going up.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that I am offering, along with Mr. Quigley of Illinois.

The effects of the natural gas boom have been felt throughout our economy, but before we hurry to ship our energy advantage overseas, we should ensure that we are not exporting our ability to create jobs, keep energy prices low, and to fuel a resurgence in American manufacturing that is so badly needed.

The Holt-Quigley amendment will ensure that the Department of Energy--before approving additional LNG exports--adheres to unambiguous congressional guidance in consideration of how such exports will affect our economy, our communities, and our environment.

H.R. 6 would essentially approve all pending LNG applications, in addition to those that have already been approved. All approved and pending export facilities add up to an ability to export 36 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day.

Thirty-six billion cubic feet per day is about 40 percent of U.S. peak daily consumption during this past winter--a winter, I should note, with volatility in the domestic natural gas market resulting in shortages in some areas--while, elsewhere, prices spiked, resulting in up to a 250 percent increase in natural gas prices from the previous year.

Now, we know that exporting more LNG will raise prices, but what we don't know is by how much. We know that higher prices will create problems for U.S. manufacturing and homeowner heating, but we don't know how badly.

We should take the time to consider what greater volumes of LNG exports will mean for energy prices, jobs, manufacturing, the environment, and the economy.

As with all the bills on the floor this week, H.R. 6 is about supporting oil and gas interest at the expense of American manufacturing, American families, and the environment.

Our amendment has the support of both America's Energy Advantage and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a coproposer and coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Groups representing a diverse group of businesses and manufacturers support this amendment--groups that believe we should proceed with caution when making decisions about vast quantities of domestic energy resources.

The Department of Energy has already approved LNG facilities that are capable of exporting 9.3 billion cubic feet per day, and before we irresponsibly and hurriedly expedite the approval of up to 36 billion cubic feet--nearly four times as much of LNG exports per day--I believe we should consider the effect this will have across our economy.

Mr. Gardner says this amendment of ours might slow exports. Well, it might because the idea is not to do it as quickly as we can, but to do it as wisely as we can. Our responsibility is not just to look after the oil and gas interests. Our responsibility is also to look after American workers, American manufacturers, American consumers, and homeowners.

No one in this Chamber should want our domestic natural gas prices to increase on a par with those in Europe or Asia, and a vote in support of the Holt-Quigley amendment will ensure that that is not the case.

I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

The legislation before us today is hardly worth debating, not because these issues are unimportant, but because these are the same tired pro- big oil and gas bills that we have debated over-and-over again.

H.R. 4899 is a combination H.R. 2231, Offshore Energy and Jobs Act and H.R. 1965, Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act of 2013.

Both these bills have already been passed by the House in the First Session, over my objections, and in the 112th Congress we similarly considered nearly identical bills.

The White House threatens to veto these bills, the Senate will never bring them up, but here we are again, on the week before the July recess, in another attempt to score political points by pushing policies that harm our

environment and ignore the threat of climate change.

I know my friends on the other side of the aisle wouldn't consider themselves environmentalists, but I'm glad to know that at the very least they support recycling.

I think this has been said before but there are three Rs to recycling and one of them is reuse.

However, another recycling-R is to reduce but we certainly are not making an effort to limit how many times we can bring the same bill to the floor. And the bill before us absolutely does not recognize that our domestic demand for oil has decreased in recent years even as production has continued to rise.

I'm opposed to H.R. 4899 for the same reasons I have opposed H.R. 2231 and H.R. 1965.

This bill would require a new outer continental shelf leasing plan, even though the Department of Interior has already begun the process of writing a new plan. It would require leases of offshore areas that have been excluded from leasing previously because of lack of infrastructure and environmental concerns.

The bill cost the federal government money by providing more offshore revenue to a handful of coastal states.

The bill prevents coordination of agencies with coastal management responsibilities by prohibiting the National Ocean Policy. This will create more offshore conflicts and likely limit the ability of energy companies to operate safely and effectively in coastal areas.

And all of that is just offshore.

Onshore H.R. 4899 irresponsibility and unnecessarily would expedite the approval of drilling, while limiting judicial review.

The bill would also require a plan to lease an ever increasing amount of area onshore, in part by requiring a plan to cover the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska with a spider web of roads and pipelines.

In closing, oil and gas production is up, thanks in part to the policies of the Obama administration, and as a result energy imports are down.

This bill will not lower energy prices, and it will not help us develop new sources of clean energy. These are the same policies and the same talking points we have heard again-and-again.

And again, I am strongly opposed to this bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4899.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.

Let me begin by acknowledging the enormous work that went into bringing a bill of this scope to the floor. It contains a number of provisions I support, including a 1.8% pay increase for our troops and other measures designed to improve the lives of our servicemembers and their families. I am particularly grateful for the committee's inclusion of nearly $40 million above the President's request for suicide prevention and outreach activities, and twice what I and 100 of my House colleagues had requested earlier this year. I am also grateful for the committee's acceptance of an amendment I offered that mandates a study on the potential relationship between financial stress and suicide among members of the military. In March 2014, we suffered no combat deaths but lost 700 servicemembers and veterans to suicide. We have to end this epidemic, and I hope these additional investments and this study will help bring about that outcome.

Moreover, this bill now contains important reforms to our nation's surveillance practices. Three amendments that I either offered or co- sponsored were attached to this bill, and they are worth discussing in some detail.

My first amendment would set aside $2 million to expand the Intelligence Community Whistleblowing and Source Protection Directorate, which provides employees of the National Security Agency (NSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other intelligence agencies with a safe, legal, and secure way to report abusive or unlawful practices. The amendment passed unanimously.

Currently, this office is literally a one-man operation. Given the fact that there are tens of thousands of federal employees and contractors who work for Intelligence Community elements, it is simply not realistic to expect one person to be able effectively to receive and investigate large numbers of valid complaints from conscientious internal whistleblowers through, no matter how talented. Because of the secrecy of the intelligence community, oversight is impossible without the participation of employees inside the system who know about activities of the agencies. This amendment will help ensure that all employees and contractors in the IC know where and how they should lawfully report potential incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, criminal conduct or whistleblower retaliation.

The second amendment, offered with Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-09), would prohibit funds from being used to subvert or interfere with the integrity of a cryptographic standard proposed, developed, or adopted by National Institute of Standards and Technology. Last year, published reports indicated that NSA had slipped language into an encryption standard published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that created a ``back door'' that NSA--as well as foreign intelligence services or malicious hackers--could exploit. The Holt/ Grayson amendment would prohibit that practice and passed unanimously. The last thing the NSA should be doing is weakening encryption standards. This amendment is one of many steps we need to take to prohibit such conduct in the future.

The third amendment, offered by me and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-05), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Thomas Massie (KY-04), John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13), Ted Poe (TX-02), Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02), Jim Jordan (OH-04), Beto O'Rourke (TX-16), Justin Amash (MI-03), Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), Tom Petri (WI-6), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Blake Farenthold (TX-27), G. K. Butterfield (NC-01), and Mark Sanford (SC-01) would end two abusive surveillance practices revealed in recent months.

First, the amendment would prohibit any warrantless search of the so- called ``702 databases''--the massive government databases, created by the NSA and first disclosed by Edward Snowden, that contain records of the emails and phone calls of millions of innocent U.S. citizens.

One of the predictions I and others made in 2008 when Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act became law was that NSA would misuse the law for the ``reverse targeting'' of Americans' communications while collecting against foreigners. As we now know, that is exactly what happened, and those communications-- billions of phone calls, emails, text messages and the like--sit on National Security Agency servers, available for search without a warrant. This amendment would bar the NSA from using any funds in this act to conduct any warrantless search of stored communications of Americans collected under Sec. 702 of FISA, thus protecting the privacy and Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Second, the amendment would prohibit the NSA and Central Intelligence Agency CIA from installing ``backdoors''--such as malicious software or hardware--into commercially produced products. This provision was originally contained in my Surveillance State Repeal Act, H.R. 2818. Despite efforts by the House leadership to derail the amendment, it passed by a large bipartisan majority of 293-123.

This amendment makes a loud and clear point: It's time to stop treating Americans as suspects first and citizens second.

Unfortunately, despite the many good and important things contained in H.R. 4870, this bill continues to make the wrong choices for the wrong reasons. The overall spending would be almost $600 billion, a level that is impossible to justify in terms of the threats to the U.S. or in terms of spending by other countries, including potential adversaries. This bill would spend another $10 billion on a failed missile defense system that has not been, and will not be, ever be viable. The so-called ``overseas contingency operations'' fund--the money that fuels the war in Afghanistan and our combat activities elsewhere in the world--is set at nearly $80 billion dollars, and a large slice of that money will be used to continue an American military presence into 2015 and possibly beyond. It includes hundreds of millions of dollars for research on a new nuclear bomber design. And taking the prize for defense-related corporate welfare is the beleaguered F-35 program. Congressional Quarterly reports that the full cost of the program may exceed $1.5 trillion dollars over its lifetime. That is more than we will spend on the entire federal government in the coming year. There are vastly cheaper alternatives that would still provide the United States with a first-rate modern fighter-bomber. Instead, this bill throws still more good money after bad.

I am not comfortable with vast sums of money this bill will waste on weapons we don't need and wars we should not be fighting. But I am also not comfortable allowing the National Security Agency to continue collecting and exploiting the communications of tens of millions of innocent Americans. Accordingly, it is with mixed feelings I oppose passage of this bill and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 2014 Special Olympics USA Games. I am proud to say that the 2014 USA Games are being held throughout the state of New Jersey this week.

I especially want to honor the Special Olympics New Jersey Staff and Board of Directors, the athletes who demonstrate a true commitment to sport, the families that support them, and the volunteers and sponsors. They are all extraordinary citizens of this great state who demonstrate true ``Genuine Jersey Pride'' in the spirit of inclusive sports play.

Team New Jersey is made up of 269 athletes and 73 coaches, representing every county in our state, the largest delegation from New Jersey in the history of the Games.

The Special Olympics was established by President John F. Kennedy's sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, and is the world's largest organization dedicated to developing and enhancing the talents and abilities of children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Her support for people with intellectual disabilities

was the driving force behind the Special Olympics program. Through her leadership, a backyard summer day camp transformed into a global movement.

She believed that given the chance all people can accomplish great feats. I wholeheartedly agree. Her relentless effort and advocacy manifested into entire networks of foundations and research dedicated to improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.

The creation of the International Special Olympics Games in 1968 enabled a thousand participants and their families to compete in track and field and swimming events. Since those first games, the Special Olympics have grown to over 170 countries and include over 4 million child and adult athletes. The United States now hosts its own quadrennial Special Olympics Games and includes participants from all 52 U.S. programs.

New Jersey was among the first states to enlist in the Special Olympics program over 40 years ago. We now have over 21,000 athletes and 20,000 volunteers. It is fitting then for New Jersey to be the host of the 2014 Games, called the Games of Welcome and Acceptance. The Games will undoubtedly highlight our State's delightful spirit and innate sense of community. Participants will compete in 16 Olympic- styled events that include Unified play, where people with and without intellectual disabilities get to perform together and create friendships.

The enormous impact of the Special Olympics extends far beyond athletic competition. The athletes will gain a sense of pride and belonging that will carry over into their everyday lives. Once again, congratulations to all of the athletes who are participating in the 2014 Special Olympics USA National Games and to all those who help make the Games possible.

Madam Chair, I thank my friend from California for this amendment, but also for her longstanding work on this issue and related issues.

When we hear about this impossible situation which we find ourselves in today in Iraq, with the country clamoring for us to do something, we should be reminded of how we got there. It is not because of something that has expired. It is because of something that still exists.

The gentlelady is absolutely right that we should repeal that, repudiate that, and get ourselves on a new track, which requires deliberate attention by the Congress, if we are ever going to use military force, and not a blank check to the administration.

I thank my friend from Florida for offering this amendment. It should go a long way toward recovering the lost reputation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Mr. Chairman, this came about because the National Security Agency

has a dual role of developing encryption standards and breaking encryption. The reports widely circulated and, I think, generally verified show that these two dual roles caused real problems for American standards and, hence, for American technology and American companies.

It is unfortunate that NIST, which is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of national and of even global standards for technology, was effectively used to propagate defective encryption standards, and this amendment, I think, will help correct that. It is important that we keep high standards and that everyone knows it. This is an important amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I also appreciate the comments of the chair of the committee.

Mr. Chair, this amendment answers questions millions of Americans have asked: Will we stop the government's unconstitutional searches of Americans' stored communications? Will we prohibit the government from deliberately sabotaging the security of the internet and America's technology products?

This amendment would do both while still giving the government all the authority it needs to collect foreign intelligence on real threats. It is a first step towards reversing the current government paradigm of treating our people as suspects first, and citizens second. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment.

It has been over a year now since the nation learned of the scope of the National Security Agency's vast surveillance programs targeting global communications, and thus the communications of every American. These programs have been executed in the absence of true, probing Congressional oversight, and they have been repeatedly rubber-stamped by a secret court that has too often acted as an enabler of this domestic spying rather than a check on it.

Earlier this spring, the House passed a bill--the USA Freedom Act-- that if enacted into law would have the effect of essentially enshrining these unconstitutional programs into law. While I hope the Senate will either reject or substantially improve that legislation, there is no guarantee that the USA Freedom Act or any other stand-alone NSA reform legislation will pass the Congress this year. That is why I and over a dozen of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, have brought this amendment to the House floor tonight. I should also note that this amendment is supported by dozens of groups from across the political spectrum, as well as some of America's leading technology companies, including Google.

This amendment answers questions millions of Americans have asked: will we stop the government's unconstitutional searches of Americans' stored communications? Will we prohibit the government from deliberately sabotaging the security of the internet and America's technology products? This amendment would do both while still giving the government all the authority it needs to collect foreign intelligence on real threats.

The first part of this amendment would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless searches of the communications of Americans collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. One of the predictions I and others made in 2008 when this provision became law was that it would be misused for the ``reverse targeting'' of Americans' communications while collecting against foreigners. As we now know, that is exactly what happened, and those communications--billions of phone calls, emails, text messages and the like--now sit on National Security Agency servers, available for search without a warrant. This amendment would bar the NSA from using any funds in this act to conduct any search of stored communications of Americans collected under Sec. 702 of FISA, thus protecting the privacy and Constitutional rights of all Americans.

The second part of this amendment would prohibit the government from forcing American technology companies to build in ``back doors'' to their products that would compromise the encryption and privacy safeguards built into them. Early this year, published reports revealed that RSA, which provides the SecurelD remote login devices used by House Members and staff, had, at NSA's insistence, built in such ``back doors'' to some of its other products that compromised the privacy and encryption features of the devices in question. This amendment would prohibit that practice, thus helping to restore public confidence in the security and integrity of American produced high technology products.

This amendment is a first step towards reversing the current government paradign of treating our people as suspects first, and citizens second. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to address another facet of a national tragedy, the epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and veterans.

In March of this year, zero U.S. troops died in combat. In that same month, almost 700 soldiers and veterans died at their own hand.

This bill, the bill that is before us today, takes enormous strides to treat mental health problems underlying this epidemic. It provides tens of millions of dollars for therapy, outreach, and peer-to-peer support. For that, the chairman and the ranking member and all of the committee members have my sincere praise and gratitude.

Suicide and the decision to take one's own life is complex and often mysterious, but we err if we think suicide is only a mental health problem. In truth, suicide is often the desperate act of a soldier or veteran in a desperate situation. One important component of that desperation is financial stress.

My amendment has been endorsed by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and would set aside $1 million to study these issues to improve our understanding of the links between financial stress, financial abuse, and military suicide and to generate recommendations to fix these interlinked problems.

A few years ago, Army Sergeant Angelo Stevens was living with $100,000 of debt. He had just been told that, because of his deteriorating finances, he was at risk of losing his security clearance. If he lost his clearance, he would lose his job, which would make his debt even more unmanageable.

Sergeant Stevens met with a military financial planner. He left feeling hopeless and humiliated. He told a reporter:

I walked out thinking, ``If I'm dead, my family can get

$500,000 in life insurance, but I have to kill myself.''

Sergeant Stevens ultimately found help and survived, but he was far from alone in his desperation.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I can certainly sum up quickly to say that I think it is important that we understand how effectively suicide prevention programs at the Department of Defense, the VA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are working together and how they can work together better.

This is a serious national problem. This is one component of that problem, and I thank the gentleman. Again, I commend everyone on the subcommittee for the attention they are paying this year to this important problem.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their cooperation in preparing this commonsense amendment.

My amendment would carve out $2 million within the $504 million intelligence community management account and allocate it to the intelligence community whistleblowing and source protection directorate, which is a component of the Office of the Inspector General of the intelligence community.

Currently, this directorate is literally a one-man operation. Now, the intelligence community is a closed, secretive community. It is different from almost all other agencies this Congress deals with. Only from workers within these programs are we likely to learn about improprieties. Given the fact

that there are tens of thousands of Federal employees and contractors who work for the intelligence community elements, it is not realistic to expect the IC inspector general to be able to receive and investigate effectively any and all valid complaints from conscientious internal whistleblowers through a single investigator, no matter how talented that investigator may be. This $2 million reallocation of funds will help the community whistleblowing and source protection directorate hire more needed additional investigators and support staff and will fund outreach and education efforts across the intelligence community.

For our system of oversight of the intelligence community to work properly, it is vital that all employees and contractors know where and how they can report lawfully potential incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, criminal conduct, or whistleblower retaliation. So this directorate can truly become that place only if it has sufficient resources. I see this as a step in that direction. This amendment will ensure that they have resources to respond to legitimate concerns.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman.

If I may make one comment in response to the ranking member and then yield to the chairman, there has been a lot of concern in this House about people going public with concerns about activities in the intelligence community, and we should want them to have a reliable channel through which they can lawfully express their concerns about criminal activity, about whistleblower retaliation or waste, fraud, and abuse. This office, underfunded as it currently is, is the official place for them to go, and we should make it more accessible.

I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman, and 2 and 0 in this soccer day is probably a pretty good score.

So with that, I yield back the balance of my time with thanks to the chair and ranking member.