Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1379, the ``The D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2011,'' the purpose of which is to grant the District of Columbia (D.C.) Courts and Public Defender Service (PDS) greater administrative flexibility in several areas.

First, the bill authorizes the D.C. Superior Court and Court of Appeals to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially, eliminating the current mandate that they always hold such conferences every year. Under S. 1379, magistrate judges are required to attend these judicial conferences.

Moreover, this bill authorizes the D.C. Courts to toll or delay judicial deadlines in certain emergency situations such as natural disasters, and allows the D.C. Courts to be reimbursed by the D.C. Government for certain office expenses.

Finally S. 1379 gives the D.C. Public Defender Service authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys and changes the term for Family Court judges from five years to three years.

Current law requires the D.C. Courts to hold a judicial conference annually ``for the purpose of advising as to the means of improving the administration of justice within the District of Columbia.''

Federal Courts, however, must hold a conference only every two years. The D.C. Courts have estimated that, in addition to the time spent by judicial personnel planning and attending the conference, they will spend approximately $50,000 on the 2012 judicial conference.

We know that local governments, like D.C., are under tremendous budget constraints, and given Congress' Constitutionally-mandated duty to oversee the District, we should be solicitous to District concerns when it comes to what we require of its government, particularly where costs are concerned.

The requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences was enacted before 1975, long before the internet was created in addition to numerous other advances in communication.

D.C. Courts have determined that the funds, resources, and time required to prepare for and conduct such conferences would be more effectively used if the judicial conference were conducted biennially rather than annually.

With the significant improvement in the dissemination and exchange of information the D.C. Courts' judicial conference is no longer the primary means of obtaining advice pertaining to the administration of justice within D.C.

Specifically, the Courts have determined that electronic and other forms of communication, including the Courts' websites, enable them to regularly communicate with the various participants in the court system.

We should remove the burdensome requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences and, instead, require biannual conferences. Furthermore, despite their important role in the judicial system of the District, magistrate judges currently are not required to attend the D.C. Courts' judicial conference.

D.C. Court magistrate judges hear a variety of cases, including misdemeanor and traffic cases, criminal arraignments, small claims, child support orders, and protection orders.

The D.C. Courts have requested that magistrate judges be required to attend judicial conferences. Because of their importance to the judicial system, I believe that this request should be granted.

The D.C. Courts have also expressed concern with their inability to toll or delay judicial deadlines in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack.

For example, in recent years, snowstorms as well as Tropical Storm Sandy have resulted in devastation of the D.C. Metropolitan area, resulting in federal government closings.

To address this concern, S. 1379 authorizes the Chief Judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court to toll or delay judicial proceedings in the event of natural disasters or emergency situations.

Emergency authority under this bill should be used sparingly, and only in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, S. 1379 requires that if the emergency authority is used for 14 days or more, the Joint Judicial Committee must approve each extension and the courts must give Congress a written justification no later than 180 days after the expiration of the last extension granted.

Currently, there is no statutory authority to allow D.C. Courts, absent explicit authority from Congress, to enter into reimbursable agreements with anyone, including the D.C. government.

This is because the D.C. Home Rule Act prevents the obligation of funds without approval by an Act of Congress. To address this concern, S. 1379 modifies the D.C. Code to allow the D.C. Courts to enter into reimbursable agreements for certain office expenses.

Finally, unlike Federal public defender service organizations, D.C. Public Defender Service does not have explicit authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys; consequentially, its attorneys are unable to protect themselves from potential lawsuits arising during the course of their official duties.

Individuals who provide professional advice and services, such as attorneys, typically carry liability insurance in order to offset the risks arising as a result of the advice or services they render.

To address this, S. 1379 provides the D.C. Public Defender Service explicit statutory authority to purchase professional liability insurance, allowing its staff to be protected from the financial risk of potential lawsuits by clients and others.

The accommodations sought by the D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act are reasonable and will ameliorate several deficiencies under current law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1379.

I thank all of my colleagues. I particularly thank Congresswoman Davis for her persistent leadership, and I join her as a cochair of the Afghan Caucus. I thank the chairman for his support as well.

So many of us have traveled to Afghanistan and have traveled as women to Afghanistan and have begun to look at this country from the eyes of wanting its survival. Malala is a young girl who is not from Afghanistan, but she symbolizes the essence of this motion to instruct. Malala is from Pakistan, but many of you will remember that she took more than one bullet as a young girl who fought and stood up for girls being able to be educated.

In my travels to Afghanistan and to the many provinces, you would hear stories from women, as have been evidenced, about the inability to serve, the inability to express themselves. In meeting with a group of women Afghan parliamentarians, interestingly enough, they would indicate how they wanted to serve their constituencies but how difficult it was and dangerous it was to travel as women to their particular provinces to serve their constituents.

That is not the basis of the principles for which our soldiers have fought and died. America has wonderful principles, and I am delighted that this motion to instruct focuses on providing the safety net for girls and women in leadership and in education. It is indicated, of course, that this transition will occur but with the requirement of a road map to ensure the safety and security of girls and women.

Over the period of time of our being in Afghanistan--the longest war that this Nation has ever seen--we have seen the ups and the downs but, more particularly, the tragedy of having schools burned that were particularly directed towards serving girls. Girls turn into young women and into women who want to serve. As we all know, the hand that rocks the cradle does establish the basis of civilization.

For the democracy of this great nation, I include my support for the motion to instruct, for our Nation not to leave, as it leaves a pathway of democracy, leaves a pathway of democracy for the women and girls of Afghanistan. We must provide the protection that they need to help lead this nation and to ensure its democracy, freedom, and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I know that America watches as we deliberate--and I'd like to use that terminology--on facing the fiscal concerns of this Nation.

Let me quickly remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that America is on the upswing, with increased manufacturing, more consumer confidence. We're moving forward. The economy is moving up. And so I believe it should be pronounced here today that the reform of the entitlements, based upon slipshod, reckless deliberations, or should I say actions, are a nonstarter.

There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we should raise the eligibility age for Medicare, that we should not think carefully about how we approach the reform of Medicaid, and that we don't tell the American people that Social Security is solvent.

So I would say, move quickly to pass the middle class tax cuts that would be for all Americans, 100 percent, up to $250,000, and let's think about, moving into 2013, how we make this economy better by looking carefully at how we reform entitlements that are not handouts, but they are earned.

I wanted to move to something else, offer my deepest sympathy for those who lost their lives in the Oregon massacre, again, at the hands of a gun and a perpetrator that is now dead, and to say that I thank Bob Costa for having the courage to get on national TV and speak to those who are rabid sports fans and say it's time for some form of gun regulation.

The tragedy that occurred with the NFL player and his girlfriend speaks volumes to the idea of individuals who don't need to have guns in their hands. This phenomenon that guns don't kill, people do, is a trite and redundant and ridiculous statement.

We understand that guns have to have someone at their trigger; but the idea that with no regulations about those who've had previous offenses, no regulations dealing with those who've had mental health issues, no regulations for the gun show loophole, that

you can go in and buy guns on top of guns, it is time to reflect.

I think the sports community could work with us to ensure that America realizes that there's nothing wrong with standing up for gun regulation.

As well, let me offer my sympathy to the Brent and Brown families of the tragedy of the NFL players in Dallas. Let me ask the commissioner to work with those of us who are concerned about athletes in pro ball, that we can find a way to intervene. There should be intervention on a lot of these incidences of violence.

Let me close and speak well about the issue of millions of workers in the United States Postal Service, yes, government workers, public servants, who, over the decades, have made Americans' lives easier. Just yesterday we were speaking about another day of--or Monday I think it was, on online shopping.

I have small businesses who always say the post office is the most efficient and the, if you will, cheapest source of getting their business products where they need to be. It is a shame that we have not addressed the question of hardworking postal workers, rural post offices that are prolific in the State of Texas, rural postmasters who've come and said it'll be the death knell of their community.

Let us stand the post office up. Let us view it as a vital system. Oh, we are online, but there are individuals who depend upon this massive postal system. It can be made efficient. It can be made better. We can protect the workers.

Do we want to give a Christmas gift to hardworking postal workers, who as they are known to go through rain or snow or sleet, that is, give them a pink slip for no fault of their own?

This is not the American way. We create jobs; we don't destroy jobs. And it's time now for us to stand up and be heard before the deadline, that our postal workers who are always there, who are the ones that find the elderly and the sick in their home because they know their route and they find those persons if they're in need, they are the good-news people that come by the seniors and come by the disabled and come by the poor families.

I want to say that we can work together, bring our postal workers here to make a difference and to reform the postal system to keep it alive. It is a vital source of work, but it is a vital service to the American people.

Speaking in the instance of deliberations, redundancy is sometimes good. So I join my colleagues in again placing the defining word ``nonstarter'' on any idea to raise the eligibility age for Medicare for hardworking seniors, but hardworking Americans.

Let me clarify that Medicare is earned; it is not a handout. The word that we use as ``entitlement'' sometimes now has become on the order of what ObamaCare used to be. An entitlement is entitled because of earning it, and that goes to Social Security--which is solvent until 2037--and even Medicaid for seniors who are in nursing homes who have worked.

So if we move that aside to look long term at how we begin to look at entitlements, we're open-minded. But the bottom line is let's pass the middle class tax cuts that are for 100 percent of Americans. Let's join Senator Tom Coburn: I'm for raising revenue because we have to; or Senator Corker: There's a growing body of folks who are willing to look at the rate on the top 2 percent; or Kay Granger: Extending middle class tax cuts is just the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, let's get busy in a bipartisan way.

Let me thank the ranking member of the committee. It's always good to be able to thank him, Madam Speaker, for his leadership and service. I think we are safer because Members of Congress like Congressman Thompson, the ranking member, and our chairman, Congressman King, have, on a number of occasions, come together around the idea of America's security. I want to express my appreciation for having been able to serve on the committee for a number of years.

It gives me also a moment to say to the Speaker, or to acknowledge Congresswoman Emerson, for her service as well and to thank you so very much for being a person who loves America. I think that should be our litmus test when we rise on this floor for those of us who love this country.

As the ranking member, and having served as the chairwoman of this committee in previous terms, I know how important it is to provide safety in the transportation modes for the United

States of America. This bill, the No-Hassle Flying Act of 2012--and I thank the sponsor both in the House and the Senate--provides a measure of recognition and acceptance of foreign countries that are making efforts to have consistent security procedures and technology to have an easier travel process for passengers who are deplaning in the United States but going on to another domestic destination. So I want to acknowledge the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, who had this legislation passed in the Senate, and our House sponsor as well.

What the basis of this legislation is, by relieving the need to rescreen every piece of baggage arriving in the United States from countries where we have strong bonds and screening agreements in place, efficiencies will be realized and our screeners can focus more attention on those items we know least about. And the term ``screeners,'' let me correct that and say the Transportation Security Administration personnel. That is probably the most maligned group of American public servants, those who work in the cause of the United States and the safety and security of the United States. But at their best, when they are trained, as I have worked so hard to insist on, to increase their professional development training--and we have made great strides with Administrator Pistole and previous administrators, so much so that as I travel through airports I can see the sense of pride and respect that this group of Americans have for their job. So when we speak of screening, we're talking about serious work that has to be done to ensure the safety and security of America.

We want to be able to work with our allies. This is not an immigration reform initiative, but it is similar to the visa waiver programs, where we have a list of countries that we feel confident that their procedures are not only equal to ours, but their policies, their alliance with us goes decades, and we believe that their citizens can come into the United States.

This particular legislation tries to get the personnel of the TSA to focus on race-based screening that many of my fellow members on the committee have been calling for, and of course that the administrator has listened to. This legislation represents the kind of commonsense security measure this Congress must focus on to make both the Department of Homeland Security and its components work more.

It is, of course, my hope that we can look forward to more work being done with transportation security, that we can look to providing, as I introduced legislation dealing with air marshals, both their funding and increased utilization on some of our flights coming into the United States; that we will have the opportunity to do a transportation authorization bill again like the one I joined with Chairman Thompson on and we reauthorized in the 111th Congress that drew bipartisan support. And of course Mr. King has worked with us on this legislation.

So this particular No Fly for me has merit to it. But as I rise to support the thought behind the legislation passed by the Senate, I also remind our colleagues that air travel is still dangerous. Whether it is the shoe bomber, whether it is the Christmas day bomber, whether it is thwarted incidences that we will never hear about, whether it is the constant reporting of intelligence and classified information that suggests how vulnerable our airlines and airports are, whether it is an accidental or incidental intrusion on the tarmac or the perimeters of the airport, whether it is the accidental entry of a public person, either visitor or traveling public, that goes into an unauthorized area that causes airports to be shut down--incidences that occurred in Newark and other places--we have to realize that we have to be particularly sensitive to this question of securing the traveling public, and particularly Americans. That is why, in the wisdom of the Congress and others, we created the Transportation Security Administration that had a mandated and Federalized workforce of security screeners to inspect airline passengers and their baggage. It gave them broad authority to assess the vulnerabilities in aviation security and take steps to mitigate these risks. I'm glad that they exist.

So I have an acute understanding of TSA's role in aviation security, and I also appreciate congressional oversight. But I further appreciate that, even with that broad discretion, we have to be keenly aware that in the best of all circumstances some loophole, some misstep can occur.

I represent one of the largest systems, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, the William Hobby system. As I would want for that airport system, I would want a system of security for everyone. So this idea of allowing unfettered transfer of your bags coming from a nation that has been an ally, but that has put into place procedures that we can document that are in fact adequate, accurate, and superior, I'm going to raise it to that level, because adequacy is not a basis for fighting the dangers of terrorism.

I only raise a flag of caution--and maybe a red flag--that it is important that the Department of Homeland Security study this carefully. Make sure that they look at the technology and look at the process that in essence will be put in place. Because, again, all good things are meant for good, but we know what can happen if in some way we are in error. I don't want this to be a basis for error, I want this to be a basis for good. I want this to be the intention of the bill, which is to ameliorate some of those delays associated with the rescreening of bags transported on commercial flights from international locations.

I want those traveling to the United States to be welcomed with a smile who are here to do good, and I want them not to miss their connecting flight--and it might be one of us. But our main focus is to secure the homeland.

So to my colleagues, to the chairman and ranking member, I join you in supporting this legislation, but I ask that the Department of Homeland Security, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, who is to give this discretion to waiving rescreening pursuant to a preclearance agreement between the United States and a foreign nation, that seeks to ensure this process works, be very keen and careful of reviewing the process, having the resources to ensure that the technology is superior and that we are constantly reviewing how this is working.

I'm sure that we will see many smiles of our traveling public. They will welcome that convenience. In the course of the convenience, I also argue for security. I know that that will be the case.

I will ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and as well, we continue to secure the homeland.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3542, the ``No-Hassle Flying Act of 2012.'' This legislation, proposed by the Obama Administration and introduced by the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, was passed by the Senate with unanimous support and should receive the support of the House today.

By relieving the need to re-screen every piece of baggage arriving in the United States from countries where we have strong bonds

and screening agreements in place, efficiencies will be realized and our screeners can focus more attention on those items we know least about.

That is the kind of risk based screening that I and my fellow members of the Committee on Homeland Security have been calling for. Thankfully, under Administrator Pistole's leadership, are calls are being heeded.

This legislation represents the kind of common sense security measure this Congress must focus on to make both the Department of Homeland Security and its components work more efficiently and effectively.

It is my hope that in the next Congress we will see more proposals on the House floor regarding the Transportation Security Administration that can garner bipartisan support.

During the 111th Congress, during my tenure as Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation Security, the House considered and passed the TSA Authorization bill that I authored with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, no such legislation was produced for consideration by the House this Congress.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee in the next Congress to ensure we get back to the work of authorizing the critical programs of the TSA.

Our airports are a critical point of entry to our nation, and our airplanes remain vulnerable to terrorist plots as a result of their inherent potential to cause massive destruction and human casualties.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which exposed significant vulnerabilities in our airport security, the 107th Congress moved quickly to pass the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

The Transportation Security Act created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and mandated a federalized workforce of security screeners to inspect airline passengers and their baggage. The act gave TSA broad authority to assess vulnerabilities in aviation security and take steps to mitigate these risks.

As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation on the Committee on Homeland Security, I have an acute understanding of TSA's role in aviation security, which has been the subject of considerable congressional oversight.

Moreover, this issue is one that impacts my constituents immensely, as my district is home to the Houston Airport System, which is one of North America's largest public airport systems and includes George Bush Intercontinental Airport, William P. Hobby Airport, and Ellington Airport.

In 2010, the Houston Airport System served more than 49.5 million passengers, including more than 8.5 million international travelers.

The American people expect Members of Congress to ensure that when they board a plane for business or pleasure, all passengers and their accompanying baggage have been thoroughly screened so as to prevent terrorists and their tools of destruction from posing a danger to passengers.

This issue is something that we understand as Members of Congress; many of us, including myself, fly on commercial airlines when we travel to and from our respective districts. Like the rest of the public, we expect that when we board a flight, it is secure and that we will safely arrive at our destinations within a reasonable amount of time.

While we should balance the need for thorough screening with the ideals of speed and convenience, we must continue to ensure that we are doing whatever is necessary to protect passengers on commercial flights from the dangers of terrorism. We know that many Americans and others traveling to our country are often frustrated by the time it may take to have themselves and their baggage processed through airports.

This bill intends to ameliorate some of these delays associated with the rescreening of baggage transported on commercial flights originating from international locations.

This would be achieved by giving the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to waive rescreening pursuant to a preclearance agreement between the United States and a foreign nation that seeks to ensure that adequate screening procedures were undertaken at the point of origin.

The idea is that baggage that has already been adequately screened by one airport does not need to be screened again once it arrives at one of our airports.

As Members of Congress, we should continue to look for areas in our airport security procedures that we can modify in order to make travel more convenient for passengers that do not compromise their safety.

I thank the gentleman, and I rise to support S. 1998 and commend the basis of this legislation, which will look for a clean audit report and in particular as it relates to Congress submit a report on the plan to obtain an unqualified opinion annually until an unqualified opinion is submitted, and submit to Congress and the Comptroller General a report on DHS' plans and resources needed to modernize DHS' financial system.

Let me be clear that we know that it takes resources to secure the homeland, but this is a Department that has $40 billion in the annual budget and 200,000 employees. DHS is the Nation's third-largest Federal Department. It demands a clean audit.

I would also indicate that one of the issues that we have continued to work on in the committee is to ensure the access of small, minority, and women-owned businesses to the vast contracting needs that DHS is engaged in. In particular, when there are natural disasters, we are often seeing where those who live in the area who would benefit from being able to be the contractors or to be able to work on the restoration and remove the debris cannot access DHS in a fair way to be able to secure a contract to put people to work.

So even as we are talking about audits, I'm talking about management processes, as well. And I would hope that this legislation, as it begins to look at audits and making sure that we have an unqualified audit, will also look at process as we go forward in the 113th Congress, because as we secure the homeland, we want to make sure that we have a Department of Homeland Security that has had very fine leadership in Secretary Napolitano to be able to assure that the infrastructure that runs this agency is parallel to the infrastructure that is securing America. I think that will be a perfect system.

So I do support this legislation, and I hope the comments about small, minority, and women-owned businesses are taken to heart and that we will find a way to ensure that our resources, tax dollars, are utilized by the American people in the right and appropriate way.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Ranking Member, I knew that Mr. King would have other opportunities to be on the floor. We are going to be here through Christmas, but if that is not the case, then he has kind of a smile of Santa Claus, but I just want to say to Chairman King, as well, just to thank you for your service. There is no doubt of your commitment to America's security, and I have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with you on the committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1998, the ``DART Act,'' the purpose of which is to obtain an unqualified audit opinion, and improve financial accountability and management at the Department of Homeland Security.

The DART Act will permit Congress to effectively perform its oversight duties with respect to the Department of Homeland Security.

As a Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Ranking Member of its Subcommittee on Transportation, tasked with oversight of the Department, I am a strong supporter of the work that the Department does on behalf of the American people.

It is important that the public understand the vital work that the Department has done and continues to do to assess and counter threats and to maintain the security of our homeland.

S. 1998 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to comply with the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act, to ensure that the balance sheet of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and associated statement of custodial activity for FY2012 and FY2013, and the full set of consolidated financial statements of DHS for FY2014 through FY2016, are ready in a timely manner and in preparation for an audit as part of preparing required performance and accountability reports.

Furthermore, S. 1998 directs the Chief Financial Officer of DHS to:

(1) Submit a report on the plans to obtain an unqualified opinion annually until an unqualified opinion is submitted, and

(2) Submit to Congress and the Comptroller General a report on DHS's plans and resources needed to modernize DHS's financial systems.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003, with the vital mission of ensuring that, in the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, the American homeland is safe, secure, and protected against terrorists who would do us harm.

Our domestic security is our nation's top priority; a mission that includes terrorism prevention and security enhancements, border management and security, immigration administration and enforcement, cyberspace security, and disaster response.

With a $40 billion annual budget and more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the nation's 3rd largest federal department.

Consequently, this Congress must pay close attention and give careful consideration to the activities of the Department of Homeland Security as we assist it in becoming a more sound, lower-risk, more efficient, and more effective department.

Given the relatively new nature of the Department, along with the fact that it originated as an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, it is no surprise that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has consistently designated--as recently as December 2011--the implementation and transformation of the Department as high-risk with respect to waste, fraud, abuse mismanagement, or needing reform.

Unfortunately, since its inception, the Department has been unable to obtain what is known as a ``clean'' or ``unqualified'' audit of its financial statements (i.e. a finding by an objective reviewer that the Department's finances are in conformity with generally accepted accounting standards). The DART Act seeks to address this issue by directing the Department to take the steps necessary to obtain a clean audit by the end of fiscal year 2013.

In order for Congress to be able to effectively monitor and oversee DHS's efforts in this area, S. 1998 also requires DHS to provide Congress with specific details on its plans to achieve a clean audit, through eliminating material weaknesses in its internal financial controls and by modernizing its financial management systems.

While DHS has previously stated that it can obtain an unqualified opinion on all of its financial statements by the end of fiscal year 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted that ``there is no clear plan for how auditability will be achieved'' by the end of 2013.

As we evaluate the progress of the Department, I want to ensure that the Department has sufficient funding and its finances are managed and structured properly such that our nation is safe and secure from all threats.

I thank the Speaker this afternoon, and I am grateful for the words, the prayer that was offered about light, both of inspiration and collaboration.

I think there are bipartisan voices crying out for an acceptance of a tax cut on 98 percent of the American people. That is why the President went to Michigan, to speak to working men and women, to be able to reaffirm their voices that were spoken so loudly on November 6. Let us have a tax cut that will impact 98 percent of the American people and businesses. And let us collaboratively work together for the steps going forward.

But let me be very clear. Having spoken to physicians yesterday in meetings in hospitals, you cannot raise the eligibility rate of Medicare recipients. It just will not work. You cannot judge a person's physical condition between 65 and 67. That is not the way to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. We know that entitlements, Social Security, is not the issue. Pass the tax cuts on 98 percent, Mr. Speaker, and work collaboratively in 2013 to find a pathway forward to make this economy the growing economy that it has begun to be. I ask my colleagues, let's work together.

I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank the gentlelady from Illinois for her persistence on this issue of seniors and Medicare.

Congresswoman Schakowsky, along with Congresswoman Matsui, cochaired a task force that was very effective on making sure that the Democratic Caucus--and, really, Members of Congress--had an understanding of the safety net, but also the issue around the word ``earned.''

For some reason or another, when you put the benefits of individuals on the altar of sacrifice, it's because they didn't earn anything. You can sacrifice them. One thing that the Congresswoman emphasized is the idea that Social Security is earned, Medicare is earned, and, to a certain extent, Medicaid, though it's on a different structure.

To the gentleman from California, I want to speak directly to what you've said as insurance commissioner. We value your experience, because here's my point that I want to make. I want to stay narrowly focused.

First of all, let me say that there are enough bipartisan voices right now to pass the Senate bill. I want to thank Congressman Walz, whom we have a petition with 178 Democratic names. We welcome our colleagues, Republicans, to get on. But the point I want to make is that--and I want to change my vernacular, I want to change my language--100 percent of the American people will get a tax cut. If we pass the Senate bill, 100 percent----

The Senate bill is $250,000 and below. The income up to $250,000--whatever you make--receives the continuation or a tax cut, and the remaining obviously expire. Simple premise. That means 97 percent of our businesses today, that means all the businesses on Main Streets in everybody's cities and towns will be protected going into the 2013 tax year or the 2012 tax year. But what it means is that middle class Americans will not have a $2,200 per family of four going into January 2013. I just want to lay that on the table, because now I want to move to this question of entitlements, but specifically the eligibility as it relates to age. That's been batted around.

I really wanted to come here today. I was home over the weekend, and I said, I have to get to Washington to convey the thoughts in the minds of my constituents, not only the average citizen, but doctors whom I sat down with yesterday to ask about this question. But here's my point. Now, you can look at it globally, and then I'm going to narrow it down.

Globally, one would say that we're living longer. Of course women are. This is the actuarial genius here, you know, the actuarial tables that you deal with. So women are living longer. It's always been a tradition, et cetera, but the body politic is living longer, maybe because they're healthier. That is not the case in the span of what we're speaking of, because what we're talking about globally, or nationally, are people whose beginnings are different, whose lifestyles are different.

Now, I don't know, but the family farmers--and I'm not picking on that group of people--have worked with their hands. Of course they work with their minds--they have to have a budget and make things work--but they're in the outdoors, foresters. Some would say, well, that's a healthy lifestyle. I don't know until you walk a mile in their shoes. Those who work in the coal mines in West Virginia; those who are in the sanitation department of our municipal cities; those who work in concrete and the building trades; those individuals who work in the energy industry in all shapes, forms, and sizes; those who may be in the vocational trades, maybe even nurses and nurses aids who are lifting patients all day long, thank God for them. We see them all the time when we're visiting the sick and our relatives or even we're in the hospital. So what I'm saying is you cannot have a cookie that fits all. You cannot immediately jump to entitlement reform between now and December 31.

Here's a solution: The bipartisan voices have said pass the Senate bill or pass the elimination of the tax cuts on the top 2 percent--but I, frankly, believe that 100 percent of Americans will get it. We cannot then jump to entitlement reform now. It would not be wise. It is not prudent. It does not work.

When you talk about 65 to 67, that is a lifetime. Because what you do, as the gentleman has said, you throw seniors into the marketplace. You save a buck, and they have to spend two bucks, three bucks, four bucks. And then on top of the four bucks, they will have doors slammed in their face.

The Affordable Care Act was premised on a 65-year-old Medicare admission, if you will--except for those who are disabled--and therefore, now, you want to skew it. You've already claimed that ObamaCare is going to raise prices. Look at the projection of cost to the seniors, trillions of dollars that they will pay in the open marketplace. But more importantly, how many of the poor seniors not having the money to go into the open marketplace will drop dead? I'm being colorful because, in terms of your lifestyle, some people struggle to get to 65. It makes no sense that they should be on the altar of sacrifice.

I'm passionate about this because I just don't understand why we jump so far. I say, Members, let's be deliberative. You cannot throw it out and say, oh, that's what we're going to do, when you don't know the numbers, you don't know the ultimate results, you have not done an analysis on what seniors of this age, what are their particular work histories. Maybe we will have, 40 years from now--let me go 20 years from now, we'll have all white collar seniors. I don't know what we have now, and therefore I can't judge that 65 for one person is 65 for everybody.

Let me say this to my good friends that are here: Let's take raising the Medicare age off the table. I'm delighted to see people here who are 65, 72, 80, 42, fine, but sometimes we do not represent a microcosm of America.

Let me finish on this note. I sat down with doctors and I posed a question. Doctors have a sense of pride. They like their work and they think they can keep us healthy. They could have said a number of things to me: Well, if we stay on a nutritious diet and if we do our exercise, I can see that in the future. They did not say that.

They shook their heads, and they said it is unbelievable. It won't work. It doesn't work. It's not a good answer. They were against raising it on the basis of medical grounds.

So let me just say this: I hope that we stand firm, our caucus. I hope we will work with the White House. I know they are speculating over a number of opportunities and options, but my perspective is you go for this tax relief, and you put on the table for deliberative consideration what is the best approach to have Medicare savings and to provide for the American people. But I can't fathom burdening seniors with raising the eligibility age for Medicare.

Could I say one thing before the gentlelady, and then I will finish on that and then step away.

I'm so glad you used the statistic of a white male because I want this to be holistic. You did it on income. There are other disparities between African Americans, Asians, and Hispanic based upon a number of factors, a number of factors. So, there is a population that you've just mentioned, I assume there are numbers for white women, and then there are what we call health disparities because of various ethnic differences and distinctions, nothing that would make them different as Americans, but it would make you want to think more closely about a cookie-cutter approach to how Medicare can be. And to raise it to 67 is dangerous for the diversity of this country. And remember what we said. We want to be for the 100 percent.

I thank you for allowing me just to say that point. Thank you, Congresswoman, because I think our fight is a noble fight, and it is not against anybody, it is for something, and I would like our friends to join us and recognize that this is not a good idea. I thank the gentleman.

This is an enormously positive exhibition of the working relationship of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. And I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for the evidence of collegiality in these waning moments of the 112th Congress.

I'm going to follow my ranking member and acknowledge appreciation for the service of Judiciary Committee Chairperson Lamar Smith, who happens to be a tall Texan. And so we are delighted to thank him very much for the work that he has done, and to join with an established icon of Judiciary prominence in John Conyers. The two match well in their excellence, and I thank the ranking member and the former chairperson for his work and service. There is great work being done by the Judiciary Committee, and I think it is enormously important that we are the holders and protectors of the Constitution on behalf of not only our Members but on behalf of the United States of America.

Now is not the time, but I do want to acknowledge and hope that the House will consent at the appropriate time to acknowledge one of our fallen of great prominence of this committee, someone who I sat in his office as a baby Member of Congress, the Honorable Jack Brooks, who has passed. I hope there will be an appropriate moment for us to honor him before we leave today.

I rise to be able to thank the sponsor of this legislation--he attracted my interest in it--to correct something that probably was thought to be of good direction, but was not, in the limitation of the coverage of the President and the President's children, the First Family's children.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, let me say that we are celebratory of the fact that we have not had another attack on our soil since 9/11. If we look at it in a global perspective, we've not fought a war on our soil since--I believe at least an intense one-- since the Civil War. But certainly we know that terrorism and danger have taken a new direction in this country and the world. And for those of us who spend time on these issues on a regular basis, this is a forward-thinking and smart initiative to ensure that the security of the men and/or women who have served as President of the United States and their children can be fully protected.

Let me acknowledge, as well, the service of the men and women of the United States Secret Service. And to be very frank, having jurisdiction over the Secret Service and Homeland Security and having interacted with them on a number of occasions, certainly we note that there was a moment in this last year that did not reflect well upon the decades of service of the United States Secret Service. But they have done their job well. They have been dutiful servants and protectors of the men that have held the highest office, along with the First Ladies and their children. This legislation speaks to a modern-day world where you never know where danger may approach someone and can be utilized in an untoward manner, such as being held hostage and used to threaten the sanctity and democracy and freedom of this Nation.

So this legislation reflects our smartness and astuteness in correcting what was probably thought to be good but upon reflection does not reflect on the goodness of this Congress, the goodness of the American people, who respect the service of their public servants to the highest office in this land.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation. And as this exhibits our opportunity that we can work together, I know that we'll find the right solution for solving our issues of middle class tax cuts and the fiscal deadline and make sure we move in a very positive direction.

Mr. Speaker, America has always been known to rise to the occasion--the American people, our values--when there is a need for us to come together. Just a few minutes ago, I sat in for a moment on the recapturing of the enormous bravery of those who were on Flight 93, Americans who came together and made a sacrifice. So although all my remarks will not speak to the issue of sacrifice, some of what I say this morning speaks to the values of the American people who always, when called upon, have said: Send me.

But first I'd like to speak to an issue of just basic fairness. Let me give great respect to the constitutional premise that the Senate has the right to advice and consent. Of course that comes with the Presidential right to nominate persons to serve in his or her administration--either at the Cabinet level, under Secretaries, various appointees--throughout the administration, administrations from years gone by. So I rise today to query the character assassination of Ambassador Susan Rice. She has not been nominated.

We are so fortunate to have such a dynamic Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton, who has indicated her desire to leave the administration at the end of her term, but has also indicated her willingness to continue her work--recently in Syria, possibly even today in that devastating area.

Certainly, her partner at the United Nations for 4 years in diligent, excellent, astute, thoughtful and patriotic service has been Susan E. Rice, a daughter of Washington, D.C. and parents who loved America, a graduate of Stanford University, where of course she earned department honors and university distinction, became a Harry S. Truman scholar, Phi Beta Kappa and a Rhodes scholarship, certainly a beginning that did not warrant the kind of personal attacks that we have seen.

I think we should leave politics and campaigns and won or lost races to November 6, 2012, for you cannot debate a political and Presidential campaign around a patriotic public servant. If there is a nomination for Ambassador Rice, the Senate has every right to advice and consent, and the votes need to be taken on up and down.

I can assure you that if she is nominated by the President she will serve this Nation well, as she has done in the past. I know her well as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs under the Clinton administration, dealing with very difficult issues involving African countries such as Ethiopia and Eretria, responsive and detailed. Why in the world, with others who may have been equally culpable in misunderstanding what actually occurred on that day--the tragic day where we should be speaking more to the loss of brave Americans in Benghazi, Libya--why is she the one that is pinpointed, pinpointed, pointed, and with, I think, inappropriate accusations, casting aspersions and doing damage to a reputation of service that is undeserving?

So my words are simply this: let's be fair. Let's carry on our rights as Members of Congress to speak to the issue of what a tragic incident occurred in Benghazi. If there is a nomination--which I hope there will be--among the many talented people that the President has, it will be his choice. Senators that are eager, friends of mine, Senator Kerry and others, may have this opportunity. But let us hold to the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty, that someone's great service is deserving of respect--and she is deserving of respect. Susan Rice is deserving of respect.

Let me move quickly to this idea that America cannot settle its issues of financial concern before the fiscal deadline. See, there is no cliff, because as we all well know, the simple premise of making sure that we have tax cuts for those making $250,000 and below have the right to follow through on the President's premise because this is what the American people voted on.

Vote for the tax relief for $250,000 and below, Mr. Speaker, and move forward in reconciliation on doing the right thing for Medicare holders, Social Security, and Medicaid. None of that has anything to do with the deficit; therefore, we need to know that we are in a nonstarter position, Mr. Speaker. We need to go forward and reconcile to do what is right for the American people.

There should be one powerful driving force for all of us--and that is to serve the American people.

The least we can do before December 31, 2012, is to provide the middle class of America--the working men and women of America, those who every day get up at 6 a.m., at 4 a.m., and work night shifts--a tax break. I am proud to commit to giving Americans making incomes of $250,000 and below a tax break, and I stand here today proudly in having signed the petition.

Let me say what else we can do very quickly.

As a cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, we have passed a bipartisan bill on the intervention in and prevention of bullying. Everywhere you go, you're hearing about the dastardly conditions of our children who are going to school across America.

To our Members of the United States Congress, let's pass that legislation before we leave here, and let's go into 2013 with America recognizing that the Congress understands that the safety and security of our children in the schools of America are vital. That's the least we can do--to protect the children of America. Pass the Bullying

Prevention and Intervention Act of 2012 now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding my absence from rollcall votes 605-608 on Thursday and Friday, November 15, 2012 and November 16, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: For rollcall vote, 605, I would have voted ``no''. For rollcall vote 606, I would have voted ``no''. For rollcall vote 607, on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2453--Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue gold and silver coins with a design emblematic of Mark Twain, I would have voted ``aye''. For rollcall vote 608, on H.R. 3803 ``Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012'' to provide normal trade relations status to Russia and Moldova, ends Jackson-Vanik restrictions on both economies, and establishes new human rights-related sanctions on Russia, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance and significance of World AIDS Day.

Established by the World Health Organization in 1988, December 1st is universally known as World AIDS Day. World AIDS Day serves to focus global attention on the devastating impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. All governments, national AIDS programs, churches, community organizations and individuals are given the opportunity to display their commitment to fight this deadly disease.

It has been more than 30 years since the first AIDS case was reported in the United States. It does not seem like it was too long ago, but HIV/AIDS had affected many around the world before the disease even made its way to America's shores. Since then, countless researchers, healthcare providers, politicians, and educators have contributed to the global initiative to contain and eventually eliminate its presence in all corners of the world.

Although HIV/AIDS is no longer a mysterious and mischaracterized entity, it is the most relentless and indiscriminate killer of our time. And though a diagnosis is no longer the sealing of an immediate fate, it is the beginning of an indefinite battle for life, adequate health care, and for social belonging.

With an estimated 38.6 million people worldwide living with HIV at the end of 2005, and more than 25 million people having died of AIDS since 1981, December 1st is a date which serves to remind everyone that action makes a difference in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Let there be no mistake, we are here to acknowledge that AIDS is a deadly enemy against which we must join all our forces to fight and eliminate.

Americans should be reminded that HIV/AIDS does not discriminate. With an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 HIV-positive individuals living in the U.S. and approximately 56,000 new infections occurring every year, the U.S., like other nations around the world is deeply affected by HIV/AIDS.

The detrimental effects of HIV/AIDS have also hit home. More than 65,000 people in Texas are living with HIV. Thirty-Six percent more Texans are living with HIV today than just seven years ago. In 2010, studies showed that 1 in every 3 diagnosed persons in Texas were not getting proper medical treatment. We must make certain that every affected individual receive efficient medical treatment that will afford them long life.

Not only is the state of Texas suffering from HIV and AIDS, but my district, the 18th Congressional District of Texas, has seen an increasing number of people living with the disease. In 2010, there were over 22,000 reported persons living with HIV (non-AIDS) in the greater Houston area, and more than 9,000 reported persons living with

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I think the difference with my friends on the other side of the aisle is their lack of recollecting that America has always viewed immigration as good. In fact, I heard a very potent story this morning about the restoring of the Statue of Liberty that so many of us as children have had the opportunity to climb to the very top and be reminded of the welcoming of the huddled poor. That's what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I just want to deviate for a moment in this time of economic tension just to remind people that tomorrow is World AIDS Day. I want to congratulate the Thomas Street clinic in my district and remind people that 25 million people have died since 1981. I just wanted to acknowledge those individuals as we begin this very important debate.

We are respectful of immigrants. Even in the Democratic Caucus, and I would imagine in the Conference--my good friend who is now managing had an immigrant history. Yesterday, we elected a son of immigrants to be the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. He told a very potent story about his grandfather coming here to the United States of America. I can assure you that he did not come with massive degrees, but he built a foundation for his country and for his family.

Now, I am very much in support of the STEM process and premise, which is to give opportunity to those who have studied in our universities, research institutions. Why wouldn't I? Having had children who have had the opportunity to attend some of the best institutions in this country, having had my children meet some of those very students, from Harvard to the University of North Carolina and Duke, I am well aware of the importance of this. But I would raise the question of whether or not we can judge the Diversity visas, where people have come from places like Bangladesh and Uzbekistan, Germany, Ethiopia--one of our strongest allies in Africa--Liberia, with an African woman as President, the first on that continent, South Africa. Or maybe we would choose to ignore our friends in Israel, where Diversity visas were received; or Albania, where we went to war to ensure the integrity and the saving of those people; or Hungary or Iceland or maybe our strong ally Turkey. That's what Diversity visas represent.

There is no reason to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. In fact, if my friends would really pay attention to the recent charge of the November 6 election, they would know that what America needs is comprehensive immigration reform. If I might, in this debate of deficit reduction and the need for increased revenue, we know that if you had comprehensive immigration reform over 10 years, you would introduce into the economy $1.5 trillion. That's a reason to come to the floor right now and vote this bill down and start in the next week and put on the floor the bills that Luis Gutierrez and myself and Zoe Lofgren and John Conyers and many others--at one time, Senator McCain wanted to put on the floor of the Senate and the House.

My concern is that we tried to come in a bipartisan manner. I introduced legislation--an amendment, rather--in the markup to say that let's study this issue of fraud with the Diversity visas, or let's assess what it is, because we have evidence that, in fact, the alleged fraud was because of a computer error, not the people who are applying.

Mr. Speaker, 15 million have applied. Only 50,000 have been able to get the Diversity Visa. And of those, some of them are African immigrants, 50 percent of them; but they equal only 1 percent of the legal permanent residents.

This whole question of terrorism just troubles me. I went to the Rules Committee in a spirit of bipartisanship to say, eliminate the provision on Diversity Visas. We can then support you. Keep the underlying premise of this legislation. I even asked that the rollover be extended because there's no evidence that you can get 55,000 in 4 years.

If you are serious about creating jobs--I am serious about creating jobs. My colleagues are serious about creating jobs. But I am disappointed that we would classify the Diversity Visa as bringing in ne'er-do-wells, people we don't want. Because I will tell you that America was built on the ne'er-do-wells--maybe those of us who came as slaves or indentured servants, who came in the late 1800s with not any money in their pocket but who were determined to serve this Nation.

I thank the gentleman.

I recall the story of my colleague whose grandfather served in World War I. As soon as he got here, he was willing to shed his blood for this country.

I am on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to jeopardize one inch of this Nation's security; but I can assure you, if we look to 9/11, there was no one there with a Diversity Visa. The terrorists had student visas, and they were overstays.

Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, who introduced this, said that Diversity Visas are at the heart of the definition of America. And as my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Lofgren said, Who that was a terrorist would want to stand in line and provide all of the information that they needed to provide to get a Diversity Visa?

I will enter into the Record a letter from the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration, who absolutely opposes H.R. 6429, a church that believes in the Beatitudes, as we all do.

Committee on Migration c/o Migration and Refugee

Services, USCCB,

Washington DC, November 28, 2012.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the U.S. Conference of

Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to oppose H.R. 6429,

legislation that would eliminate the existing Diversity Visa

program and its 55,000 permanent immigration visas in order

to provide visas to foreign graduates of American

universities with expertise in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

To be clear, USCCB is not opposed to an increase in STEM

visas. We prefer to see Congress authorize additional visas

for this purpose, however, rather than eliminate existing

immigrant visa programs. Our nation should not limit itself

in attracting newcomers who can help contribute to our

economic and cultural growth. And it certainly should not

eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which is one of the few

avenues available for many would-be immigrants from some

African and European countries to immigrate to the United

States.

While we appreciate the spirit of an unrelated provision in

the bill that would permit some beneficiaries of family-based

immigration petitioners to live in the United States while

awaiting their priority dates, we believe that persons

granted such a status should also be granted work

authorization, as has been done in the past, so they can

support themselves during this period.

H.R. 6429 falls well short of what is needed to repair our

flawed immigration system. Indeed, we believe it would

represent a setback compared to current law in that, for the

first time in more than a generation, it would eliminate a

category of legal immigration. We look forward to working

with you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives

to achieve comprehensive immigration reform in the near

future.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez,

Archbishop of Los Angeles, Chairman,

USCCB Committee on Migration.

I can only say, the Catholic Church does not want terrorists to roam this Nation.

And if we look closely at this allegation of fraud, we will find computer error. We will find that with the decades of Diversity Visas, as they were introduced with Bruce Morrison, we will find that this is not the cause of any cancer of terrorism. If we go into our hearts, we will know that Diversity Visas reflect the language written so eloquently by the poet for the Statue of Liberty and that is: ``Give me your tired, your poor.'' Those are the great Americans.

And I can assure you that in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, the diverse 18th Congressional District in the city of Houston, they reflect what America is. They are building the jobs.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this, and let us get back to the drawing board for a conference on immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res. 821 the Rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants.

As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment.

On Wednesday, I once again offered amendments in Rules Committee to protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the Committee voted against it.

Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process.

Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all Legal Permanent Resident, LPR, admissions.

Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about 50 percent of the DV program's beneficiaries, however only 1 percent of legal permanent residents recipients.

Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents.

The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to attempting to enter without permission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants.

As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment.

On Wednesday, I once again I offered amendments in Rules Committee to protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the Committee voted against it.

Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process.

Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) admissions.

Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about 50 percent of the DV program's beneficiaries.

Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents.

The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to attempting to enter without permission.

chance for the american dream

The Diversity Visa sustains the American Dream in parts of the world where it represents the only realistic opportunity for immigrating to the U.S.

Former Rep. Bruce Morrison--one of the architects of the Diversity Visa--testified in 2005 that the program advances a principle that is ``at the heart of the definition of America;'' the principle that ``all nationalities are welcome.''

Ambassador Johnny Young, Executive Director of Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified at a 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing: ``The Program engenders hope abroad for those that are all too often without it--hope for a better life, hope for reunification with family in the United States, and hope for a chance to use their God-given skills and talents.''

It's a delight just to be with you, not a delight on this discussion that we're having. I want to thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for her leadership and membership on the Budget Committee, and certainly the gentleman for Virginia on his leadership on the Budget Committee, and delighted to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and have a reasoned discussion.

And just to pick up from where Mr. Scott was saying and just reinforce it, Medicare is solvent. Let me just turn. Medicare is solvent. Medicare is solvent. Medicare is solvent and it is strong. It is solvent to 2024.

Social Security, which is not even an issue, has nothing to do with this deficit. It is a trust fund, but more importantly, it is solvent until 2037. Let me repeat myself that Medicare is solvent. Social Security is solvent until 2037. That is really a lifetime.

The gentleman has made a very good point that I would like to pursue in discussing fiscal deadlines. I have washed my mouth out with soap and will no longer yield to terminology that has been used that is falsifying where we are.

Let me first go over, and I'm going to mix some apples and oranges a little bit of what the President has offered us. I know we've heard it, but let me reinforce the fact. And my numbers are going to be not precise, but I'm going to say that 1.2, 1.1, over 1 trillion in tax cuts. And then a war dividend, a peace dividend of about 1 trillion--I want to say war, but war savings.

I have signed on to expedite the return of our heroes from Afghanistan, move into the diplomatic process, bring our soldiers home. And $50 billion in infrastructure that creates jobs.

For those of you who find sinkholes for your cars, overcrowded on various freeways and highways, this is to aid in doing what we have not done over many decades, $50 billion.

And then, of course, the mentioned Medicare. And Mr. Scott has indicated that is the President's attempt to be the reasonable man, even though on November 6, 2012, America spoke soundly and loudly that the idea of protecting the safety net of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is vital. I add to that unemployment insurance. In terms of those who have been looking for jobs, that is crucial. We have a lot of young people who have started out with a job but then may not have had it. Please know that unemployment insurance is that--it's insurance, not a handout. It's a hand up.

Do you realize that all of this would be wiped out with the proposal that our friends insist on keeping, when economists will tell you several things. First of all, there is no documentation that in fact if you keep the cuts, you'll create jobs. There just isn't any basis for that. First of all, we take care of 97 percent of small businesses with income under $250,000. Go up and down the streets of America on Small Business Day and ask these small businesses what their income is, not what they take in and pay employees, et cetera. They will not pay any taxes on income of $250,000. And then, if you are hardworking, an $80,000 salaried person, two workers in the family, $40,000 and $40,000; that's $80,000. If you make $250,000. If you make $15 billion in salary or in income, you will get a tax cut of $250,000. Is that not the reasonable man and woman standard? Is that not reasonable?

Let me tell you why that's reasonable. Because as I said, most economists will tell you that, first of all, cutting spending is not the answer in a

recession as relates to the deficit. And so we're not insensitive to the deficit. We want to have a reasoned response to the deficit. The crisis is to ensure that middle America and low-income Americans and young people with their start-off jobs making a certain amount of money do not have an enormous tax increase as they go into 2013.

Be very sure now, this whole thing about going downhill doesn't exist, because it's something of a slide. All of these things don't happen right at 2013. We have the time to be reasonable to deal with the tax cuts to save people from having increases, meaning those earning $250,000 and below. And for the blessed and well-to-do, let me just say this is not any punitive measure in suggesting that we don't have the respect for people's wealth and the well-to-do. What we're saying is where there's mutual benefit, there's a mutual burden. And I haven't heard a cry out from anybody to say that they would not welcome that balance.

So then we have the opportunity, even though the President's put on the table, as the gentleman from Virginia said, $480 billion. This whole boogie man about entitlement reform is such a straw man. It's just something to throw out to the American people. The people that are on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are entitled ne'er-do- wells. That is not true. The people who get Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, even unemployment insurance, are people who have worked. They have worked. They have earned this.

Now, there are many ways that we can look at these elements going forward. But the idea that we would throw this on the altar as a sacrifice and cloud people's minds and tell them that they are in fact going to be the life or the answer of whether or not our good friends join us on the other side of the aisle and do this reasonable act of cutting the taxes of 100 percent of Americans and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the 1 and 2 percent.

Let me just tell you, for those who think that they don't mind the cliff, I'm not sure who's been saying that. And I respect them for it. I said I wasn't going to say that. But you're talking about increasing taxes. You're talking about causing the loss of jobs, increasing taxes about $3,000 on the average family. You're talking about increasing unemployment from 7.9 percent to about 9.1 percent. This is what we're playing with. But let me just give you something else.

The tax cuts that we have been paying for already over a 10-year period, the extension would cost $2.4 trillion. And if anybody is serious about cutting the deficit, how nonsensical and what sense does that make to continue these cuts? If they could document for me how these create jobs, then maybe we would be able to respond to it.

Does anybody realize and recognize that Hurricane Sandy came through and that one of the mayors of one of the largest cities was just here this week asking for an enormous infusion of dollars, of which we are merciful and recognize the role of the Federal Government? Why are we stalling on the simple process of eliminating the Bush tax cuts of 2 percent of the individuals who have been particularly silent because they recognize benefit and burden? And for our corporations--and I have the greatest respect for capitalism--presently flush with cash, let me tell you what the instability is. The corporations, the businesses are saying, Tell us what the deal is, then we'll plan. We'll know what to do, and so we will be able to stabilize. I hope they'll invest the money they already have out into the market because there's still incentives for creating jobs. Maybe if we pass the American Jobs Act, we'd be able to do that.

Let me just finish on this point to my dear friend. I want to remind everybody that tomorrow is World AIDS Day; and I want to remind people that over its lifetime and up to the end of 2005, 38.6 million people worldwide were living with AIDS and more than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. And so a lot of people say, Oh, that's behind us. What is she talking about, HIV/AIDS? Well, I know when I go into the Thomas Street Clinic in Houston, Texas, that is not the case. And I congratulate them for what they have done. But there are approximately 1 million, 1.2 million positive individuals that live in the United States and 56,000 new infections every year.

Why am I saying that? Because when we think of discretionary funding, it's a nebulous term. What does it mean? Mr. Reid rightly asked my good friends on the other side of the aisle, What spending cuts are you talking about? It was the intervention of the Federal Government with the Ryan White Treatment Act and the research regarding HIV/AIDS that have helped people like those who are hemophiliacs and others in the large population. That means that everybody gets it. It's not a stigma. Everybody is possibly susceptible to it. Where would we be without that intervention of the Federal Government?

So in the shadow of honoring tomorrow and those who have lost their lives in this terrible epidemic, to be able to salute and thank those who've done the research and improved the quality of life of those who are now living with HIV and AIDS and saying to those millions who lost their lives that we will not forget, that's what this debate is about. It is about rental income for poor people. By the way, those poor people are working people. It is about supplemental nutrition dollars for women and children. I would not call them the deadbeats of life. Those who speak on the floor about national security and border security, do you realize that we'd be cutting $823 million from customs and border protection? These are the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government.

And so rather than take a frivolous perspective on this, rather than tell people that you can't do anything before 2013, rather than suggest that entitlements are laid upon the table, on the altar as a sacrifice, just tell the American people the truth. Let's just tell them the truth. Entitlements are not the issue. And if so, cool heads can sit down and engage the American people and tell us how many seniors in nursing homes do we want to throw out in the street. What options do they have? Maybe we'll begin to talk about home care. That's okay. But you don't talk about home care overnight.

So you have to be deliberative. And then, who wants to make a fuss about Medicare when it's solvent until 2024? Again, abusing the information given to the American people. Who wants to make a fuss about Social Security when it's solvent and it's about you earned it?

So to Mr. Scott, my call today is to thank you for giving us this opportunity. As I speak to my constituents, I indicate that we're just immersed in these kinds of discussions and I'm hoping and, as I said, I'm optimistic and believe that cool heads will come together. We'll be back next week. We'll be talking to our constituents over the next couple of days.

I'm looking at a sheet that has a number of revenue options that I'm going to be studying. That means that I am not in any way taking the serious work of the deficit for granted. But I do want to put a firewall around hysteria and put the hysteria over here, and get to work with eliminating the tax cuts for the top 2 percent, give everybody a $250,000 income tax break, and then, in a thoughtful manner, look at a number of ways and join with the President on saying it's valuable to do something about infrastructure, it's valuable to count in the war savings and to bring our troops home--heroes--with honor. I passed an amendment to do that, to honor every returning soldier that comes home.

So I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his service, but also for the work that you've been doing on this issue. I hope I'm not too animated, but let me end on a very quiet note. I am calm, and I believe that we can be deliberative and responsible in our thinking, and I look forward to that occurring.