Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I'm most grateful. Thank you very much.

To the Speaker and to my colleague from Texas, this is the perfect infrastructure for collaboration and bipartisanship. We have worked together on this issue, and we have confronted the issue that I mentioned to Congresswoman Lofgren on which we will continue to work, which is to ensure the outreach to Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges for the engineers and scientists who are prepared to work in America's technology industry, and I expect that that will happen. I am supportive of STEM visas to provide for the infrastructure of workers for the dynamic technology, Silicon Valley software, Austin, Texas, and beyond to be able to be vibrant and thriving.

But as I just left the President of Malawi, a woman who has inspired Malawians to look to the future, and as they look to the future, we have said that we want to ensure that America has a future with the continent. To remove the diversity visas that create diversity, to take away opportunities from a continent that, by and large, has been an ally and friend to the United States, whose African citizens have come to be reunited with families, who have generated outstanding businesses, from South Africans, to Kenyans, to Guineans, to those from Cote d'Ivoire and those from Nigeria--in my town, Nigerians have created the most successful brand of small businesses from being seamstresses to doctors and lawyers and others.

I cannot vote for a bill that will allow us to remove the component for diversity visas as an exchange or substitute for this kind of approach. We must have balanced and comprehensive immigration reform.

If we pass the American Jobs Act, we will help Hispanic youngsters, Anglo youngsters, African American youngsters, and all Americans.

However, what an insult to America's values to suggest that those who come to this country to give by way of a legal process, diversity visas, are not contributing. I do not want to insult anyone who comes with the idea of helping America. That means wherever they've come from: Africa, Iran, elsewhere.

If they come for a good reason through the diversity visa to reunite with their family, that is the American way. Immigration by law, that is the American way.

I thank the subcommittee ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee for his leadership, and I thank my friend from Texas, Congressman Johnson, for managing, and the sponsor of this legislation as well.

Let me rise in support of what I think is a recognition, a recognition of the sacrifice that families make and those who remain behind after our soldiers fall in battle--a fall pursuant to a service- related injury--and to not have the added burden of having any forgiven debt be included as income to be assessed by the IRS.

I believe that this is a fair and important collaborative exercise, a reasonable response to taxation. I hope, as we come together around veterans and this removal of this burden, we can clearly see pathways to address the question of tax reform that responds to working Americans, that protects working Americans, for that is obviously what this family is. They sent a son off to war, or a daughter off to war-- or a mother or father or uncle or aunt, cousins. America is about family. Therefore, now we have the legitimate response that they would not, through some procedural snafu, be burdened by having that forgiven debt be part of the remaining family's income, particularly those who may have cosigned. I know the fallen soldier would not want that to happen.

As I stand here, I cannot help make mention as well of the resolution that saluted the fallen in Libya, H. Res. 786. I just wanted to acknowledge the passion that all Americans have for Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have often said that terrorism is franchised. It does not have to be an army of millions or thousands, it does not have to be a battalion, it doesn't have to be anything but one wanting to do evil. Therefore, it is important to say to the families of these men in particular, and others that fell, and others that were injured, and the men and women that serve as our face--civilian face, if you will--in embassies and consulate offices around the world, particularly those who have served in the horrific backdrop of 9/11 in a region that is now overwhelmed with conflict--to say to their families that our priority will be to offer you sympathy and to mourn with you and to love you and to indicate that we will not allow divisiveness to fall on the issue of who did it.

What we will do is to raise the flag as Americans and evenhandedly and quickly investigate the source of this horrific incident to our family members. We will not let their memory be diminished by quarreling and squabbling about pointing the finger as much as it will be to investigate what actually happened.

I think it is time now, as we saw occurring just a few days ago with the welcoming home of their bodies, that America draws together to show that we are united around those who have fallen in battle and those who have served, to express our deepest respect, and of course our deepest honor for them.

I will go forth to work harder to ensure that we are protected with secure Council offices and embassies and enhanced security for those who are willing to put themselves on the front line. I think this is appropriate in conjunction with this present legislation, H.R. 5044, that helps our fallen veterans as well.

I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my gratitude to the great American and Astronaut, Neil Armstrong.

Neil Armstrong is a name that will forever be a testament to our nation's will to prevail in the challenge for successful space exploration and push the boundaries--going where no man has gone before.

Neil Armstrong was truly an American hero and icon. He represented the ingenuity and the passion for exploration and discovery that is the hallmark of our nation.

It may have been a ``small step,'' but when he became the first person to set foot on the moon, it changed the course of history, making the impossible possible. His legacy will live on each time we dare to dream beyond what seems possible.

I am sure that everyone in this House and around this great nation has some memory of where they were and what they were doing when they saw Neil Armstrong become the first human being to walk on the Moon as commander of the Apollo 11 mission.

Neil Armstrong was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio on August 5, 1930. He joined the Navy and flew as a naval aviator from 1949 until 1952. In 1955 he made the decision to join the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics' Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory and later transferred to the high speed flight station at Edwards Air Force Base, California to become a civilian aeronautical test research pilot for NASA.

Mr. Armstrong, along with his fellow astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collin, shared the most significant accomplishment of modern man--they were the first people to successfully complete a voyage to and walk on the Moon.

On July 11, 1969, Armstrong, boarded the Apollo 11 spacecraft and departed for the Moon. Four days later he arrived landed our lunar module in the Moon's sea of tranquility.

While Astronaut Collins remained with the orbiting Mother Ship, Neil Armstrong, said

``One small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind,'' and took the first step on the Moon's surface. At that moment Neil Armstrong changed Mankind and the Earth.

At that moment in history, America along with the world celebrated the fantastic milestone--science fiction had become science fact--Neil Armstrong and his fellow Astronauts had accomplished through the help of thousands back on earth and Heaven's blessings.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that in honoring Neil Armstrong, we as Americans will renew young people's interests preparing for careers in mathematics and science.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise on the floor of the House today to pay tribute to astronaut Neil Armstrong, an American hero.

Yesterday, at the National Cathedral, we paid tribute to him as a national hero and recognize that his name will forever be a testament to our Nation's will to prevail in the challenge for successful space exploration and push the boundaries, going where no man has gone before.

As a 12-year member of the House Science Committee and a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I can tell you that I am deeply indebted, but also embedded with the idea of human space exploration. How can I not be, representing and coming from the community where NASA Johnson Space Center is.

Today I rise in tribute to all of them and recognize the greater leadership that Neil Armstrong gave as a humble American. He, along with fellow astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collin, shared a most significant time in our history--one small step for man, but a great and gigantic step for humanity.

Right now in Houston, we are celebrating 50 years of human space exploration at the Hyatt Regency, commemorating NASA Johnson. I want to thank Dr. Mae Jemison and all those who came after this great hero for continuing the dream. They can count on me as a Member of the United States Congress to fight again for human space exploration.

Thank you, Neil Armstrong, an American hero. May you rest in peace.

I would like to join my colleague in asking for the blessings on this Nation and to remind America that we gathered on Tuesday, together, in commemoration and recognition of 9/11. But America also needs us to do better. And I speak

in the backdrop of a horrific tragedy that we are all reminded of in the loss of Americans in what continues to be an attack on our values. That's why it's important for us to shed all that partisanship leads to and the lack of bringing forth bills that would help all of America.

So I am here this morning to remind us of work yet undone, that we just had 61 bills that have been signed into law this year, the fewest in more than 60 years. In all of 2011, only 90 bills were signed into law. And so we know in the last session, the 111th Congress, 258 bills were signed into law. We have got to do better. And the most difficult thing that I rise and speak about is the lack of presenting on the floor of the House the President's jobs bill, the American Jobs Act, that would invest in small business, that would create an opportunity for those who have lost their unemployment to be extended, to create summer jobs and part-time jobs, to be able to ensure that there is job training, and to make sure that we say to America: we are your partner in job creation. Why haven't we been able to overcome those who would stand in the way on the other side of the aisle for putting forth the American Jobs Act? It is to help the American people.

We have not been able to tackle, if you will, postal reform. Those are jobs. Those are people who work to make America's commerce travel from place to place. I have spoken to small businesses, and they say the U.S. Postal Service is their lifeline for their small business. They can actually make a profit by using the U.S. Postal Service. Senior citizens who receive their Social Security checks, sometimes in the mail, many times we know online, but are connected to the post office. They're connected to the letter carriers. They're connected to the local post office in their neighborhood. How do I know? Because of the outpouring of concern for the closing of a post office on Mesa Road in the 18th Congressional District, my congressional district.

So I am interested in this Congress not being known by the do-nothing Congress, do-nothing Republican Congress. I want us to work together and be able to say that these items need to be put forward for the American people. What do we have to say, now looking toward sequestration? We realize that you cannot cut discretionary funding. We realize that 50 million Americans are suffering from food insecurity, and we have a $13 to $16 billion cut in the supplemental nutritional program. That simply cannot be. That cannot be the record of this Congress. No jobs, no postal reform, cutting food that people need, and, of course, staring down at our men and women in the United States military where resources that they need may be cut.

So I am asking that we may be reminded that there are those who have written, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, that in studying Washington politics in Congress for more than 4 years, this is their quote, they have never seen such a dysfunctional place. We can do better. We must do better.

Democrats are ready to work to pass the American jobs bill, to pass postal reform, to pass bills dealing with helping to improve the lives of Americans, to ensuring that no American goes to bed hungry, and that we welcome our troops home and provide for their families. That's the Congress that we should be known for. That's what America is all about.

I ask that God blesses this Nation, but this Congress recognize that we have to be busy until He comes. Let's get busy for the American people. Democrats are busy and want to work to succeed to do what is right for America.

Mr. Speaker, I join in asking for calm, along with Secretary Clinton, in this violent and tumultuous world, and particularly with regard to the actions that are going on in Yemen, Cairo, and certainly Libya. I offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives.

I stand again to say, as the Secretary indicated this morning, that the American people and the American Government had absolutely nothing to do with this heinous film, but we reject the horrible and horrific violence.

I am also saddened to hear that resources probably prevented some of the reinforcing of some of our Embassies. We cannot shortchange the securing of the homeland, and as we go forward in dealing with sequestration, I beg that we understand that we must protect those who serve us overseas, including the United States military.

But I call for peace. I know the American people realize that no religion should be denigrated, but we cannot accept and will not accept and will stand against any violence against the American people or those who serve us in a civilian manner with honor and dignity.

To their families, I offer my deepest sympathy and a commitment that we will stand against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 778, the Rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making further continuing appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day operations through March of 2013.

I am quick to note Mr. Speaker the attempt by the Rules Committee Ranking Member, Ms. Slaughter to amend the rule for H.R. 6365 to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #1 offered by the Budget Committee Ranking Member Mr. Van Hollen, which would have replaced the entire sequester for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a much-needed balanced approach to deficit reduction. The entire House should have been allowed to debate Mr. Van Hollen's measure even though I had serious concerns about the substance. Nevertheless, the debate is one that we should have.

I rise in support of making further continuing appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day operations through March 27 of 2013.

I am also rising in support of helping families in Houston cope.

I am rising in support of Texans who need critical Federal Government goods and services.

I rise in support of people who are clinging to their jobs--the working poor.

I rise in support of those on Medicaid who are beholden to the governor of Texas who is in the business of rejecting federal funds and then using them to prop up his budget numbers.

I rise in support of the elderly.

I rise in support of military veterans.

I rise in support of children.

Today, the House will consider H.J. Res. 117, Six-Month Continuing Resolution. This Continuing Resolution will fund the government through March 27, 2013. The Senate is expected to consider the House-passed Continuing Resolution next week.

The Continuing Resolution reflects a bipartisan agreement between Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and the White House--and will prevent a government shutdown and maintain the programs and services critical to the American people.

The Continuing Resolution (``CR'') ensures a total rate of operations for FY 2013 at $1.047 trillion--the level for FY 2013 discretionary spending that was agreed to as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (PL 112-25).

As a starting point, the CR continues funding at the current rate of operations for federal agencies, programs and services. To meet the agreement to ensure the rate of operations at $1.047 trillion, a government-wide, across-the-board increase of 0.6 percent over the base rate is also included.

The CR caps funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for FY 2013 at the President's FY 2013 request of $88.5 billion--which is $26.6 billion below the FY 2012 OCO funding level. OCO is not included under the $1.047 trillion cap.

The CR continues funding for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund at last year's level, with this disaster relief funding also not included under the $1.047 trillion cap.

The CR includes a clean, six-month extension of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Without this extension, cash assistance and work support for working families would stop in FY 2013.

The CR extends the current pay freeze for federal employees, which includes Members of the House of Representatives and Senators, as requested by the President.

The CR also includes various provisions, often needed in a longterm CR, to ensure adequate funding of certain key government operations and services through the six-month period, including provisions allowing additional funding for such things as:

The Veterans Administration to meet an increase in the disability claims workload.

The Interior Department and the Forest Service for wildfire suppression efforts.

The FCC to conduct spectrum auctions.

Nuclear weapons modernization efforts, to ensure the security of our nuclear stockpile.

Sustaining Homeland Security cybersecurity efforts.

I urge my colleagues to pass this Rule and the underlying Continuing Resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 778 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Upon completion of consideration of House

Resolution 746 the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of

rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of

the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration

of the bill (H.R. 15) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of

1986 to provide tax relief to middle-class families. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a

concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or

adjournment sine die unless a law is enacted to provide for

the extension of certain expired or expiring tax provisions

that apply to middle-income taxpayers if called up by

Representative Slaughter of New York or her designee. All

points of order against the resolution and against its

consideration are waived.

Thank you very much to the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, we rise today to try to bring some logic and sense, because as Americans debate sequestration, they throw their hands up and say, What is that? What is that in the minds of children and the elderly? What does that mean in a real rational way of coming together and saying there are some cuts and there are some revenue increases to be able to invest in the American public?

In order to create jobs, you expend dollars, you invest in research and development, you help to create opportunities for small businesses, you help to promote manufacturing. That's how you create jobs.

But let me tell you what the underlying bill says. This bill will only take effect one year later. It has no opportunity, no desire, and no rationale to raise revenue. Every thinking economist says that we must raise revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to spend dollars to invest in the American public.

Do you want your military families to be on food stamps? Do you want 50 million Americans to suffer food insecurity? Do you want these Americans to suffer? That would include seniors on Meals on Wheels, home care, adult protective services. Millions of children, one-third of them, depend on these social service block grants, child protective services, foster care and child care. This also includes 1 million disabled, respite care or transportation. Do you want to, as I said, continue the food insecurity for 60 million children?

All I can say is that this bill not only kicks the can down the road; it kicks the mountain down the road. Let's vote against this bill. Let's sit down at the table, boost revenue, and invest in the American people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee in this vigorous debate on the Constitution. I am also delighted that the ranking member has indicated, by his reference to the previous speaker, that this is a bipartisan challenge and question about the reauthorization. This does not have a partisan place. It does have a place in the Constitution.

As I do this, might I take just a moment, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, just to acknowledge the loss of our Americans who fell in Libya--Ambassador Stevens and those who were securing him. It is a recognition that we live in a difficult world; but one of the distinctive aspects of America is that we live in a free country, that we are willing to accept the distinctions and differences of all people and that we respect the privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

So I might refresh my fellow colleagues as to what FISA does from the very beginning. It is electronic surveillance, physical searches, the installation and use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, and demands for the production of physical items. Although FISA is designed for intelligence gathering and not for the collection of criminal evidence, the law applies to activity to which a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply if they were conducted in a criminal investigation. Members need to understand there are questions of the Fourth Amendment right here. So what those of us who have a concern on this reauthorization are asking for has simple premise:

We want to join with Congressman Conyers and his simple amendment that allows for greater congressional oversight and the protection of the Fourth Amendment as it relates to Americans by shortening the reauthorization to 2015 from 2017. It intrudes the Congress properly in oversight. In addition, there should be more transparency in the surveillance program, such as requiring the creation of unclassified versions of the intelligence assessments of the surveillance program, requiring the creation of unclassified summaries.

I introduced a simple amendment. We all have respect for the Inspector General's office. That is one independent force of our agencies that most Members of Congress will not challenge. My amendment would require a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Inspector General of the intelligence community on the implementation of the surveillance program under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Now, let me try to find out what the horrifically liberal groups are that are concerned about this. What about the American Library Association? the Association of Research Libraries? the very well- respected Brennan Center for Justice? the Center for Democracy & Technology? the OpenTheGovernment .org?

What we are simply saying today--and we hope our colleagues will listen on both sides of the aisle--is that, yes, we can reauthorize this legislation but that, no, we cannot abdicate the questions of congressional oversight. Today, we had a hearing on the abuse of power. The only issue in abuse of power is whether or not we respect the three branches of government. That is the argument we are making today. Do you respect the three branches of government--the people's House, who represent the people, who by themselves cannot defend themselves against this extensive reauthorization?

In the course of this particular legislation, we had to contend with such things as warrantless wiretapping. Again, as I indicated, the need for the intruding of the Congress is a respect of the liberties which we want to protect.

So I would ask my colleagues to yield to transparency, to yield to a shorter extension. Make this bill stand on its own two feet juxtaposed to the Constitution. While we mourn those who have fallen, we respect that this is a free country. Today, we are not acting on that freedom by giving up the congressional oversight that is necessary. I ask my colleagues to reject the present form of this bill. I beg the Senate to look more readily at a shorter extension and more transparency.

I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I believe that although we had a chance to discuss this reauthorization in the Judiciary Committee, the full import of this bill is too broad and more debate and consideration is necessary. The fact is not lost on me that this is the 11th year following the attacks of 9-11.

I open my statement with a quote from one of my heroines, and a trailblazer on so many levels, Barbara Jordan, who said: ``What the people want is very simple--they want an America as good as its promise.''

Over the past year, Senate and House Democrats have worked with their Republican counterparts, the Administration, the intelligence community, and privacy advocates to

develop proposals for amendments to FISA that would give the intelligence community the flexibility it needs to safeguard our nation, while also providing strong protections for civil liberties. A proper balancing is America--as good as its promise.

And in-keeping with the notion of balance, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee Markup of this legislation which simply asked for a report on the implementation of the amendments made by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. My amendment simply requested that the report include an assessment of the impact of Section 702 of the FISA on the privacy of persons inside the United States. Even with court- approved targeting and minimization procedures in place, the government can and does intercept the communications of U.S. citizens.

It does so without a particularized warrant or a showing of probable cause. This approach to electronic surveillance raises concerns under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, warrantless eavesdropping, and the use of ``general warrants.''

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right ``of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Many of the government activities discussed in this report have the potential to constitute a search as that term is defined in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Namely, government action constitutes a search when it intrudes upon a person's ``reasonable expectation of privacy,'' which requires both that an ``individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object'' and that ``society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.''

The Fourth Amendment and its protections go back to our founding--the ability of the American Patriots to resist unwarranted searches and seizures by the British is inculcated in the American psyche.

Thus, the Fourth Amendment ultimately limits the government's ability to conduct a range of activities, such as physical searches of homes or offices and listening to phone conversations. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to demonstrate ``probable cause'' and obtain a warrant (unless a recognized warrant exception applies) before conducting a search.

This rule applies most clearly in criminal investigations. For example, an officer conducting a criminal investigation typically may not search a person's belongings without first obtaining a warrant that describes the property for which sufficient evidence justifies a search.

The extent to which the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to the government's collection of information for intelligence gathering and other purposes unrelated to criminal investigations is unclear. Although the surveillance of wire or oral communications for criminal law enforcement purposes was held to be subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in 1967, neither the Supreme Court nor Congress sought to regulate the use of such surveillance for national security purposes at that time.

Several years later, the Supreme Court invalidated warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic organizations for national security purposes, but indicated that its conclusion might differ if the electronic surveillance targeted foreign powers or their agents. A lower court has since upheld the statutory scheme governing the gathering of foreign intelligence information against a Fourth Amendment challenge, despite an assumption that orders issued pursuant to the statute might not constitute ``warrants'' for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue. However, even if the warrant requirement was found not to apply to searches for foreign intelligence or national security purposes, such searches would presumably be subject to the general Fourth Amendment ``reasonableness'' test.

In the context of national security, the contours of the Fourth Amendment are necessarily narrowed but not abandoned altogether. The march toward a Big Brother State begins when the people's rights to privacy and to be free from surveillance are surrendered in toto. All we have to do is look at the recent Jones decision which concerned a purely domestic case in which law enforcement took advantage of high- tech tools to follow a suspected drug dealer. A conservative Roberts Court voted 9-0 to invalidate this search.

It is rare for liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans to agree on much of anything these days, but I am sure that many of my colleagues on the other side would find untargeted procedures under FISA unlawful and thereby unconstitutional. Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications.

It is widely known that the Obama Administration would like a clean, five year reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, consistent with the approach taken by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this spring. I would also note that there were two voices of dissent in the Senate committee's proceedings, Senators Wyden and Udall who have been champions of national security, privacy, and civil liberties--which are not mutually exclusive.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was designed to provide critically important authority for the U.S. Intelligence Community to acquire foreign intelligence information by targeting foreign persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. However, our experts now tell us that there are serious issues with targeting procedures, disclosure of basic information and there is a lack of strong rules on how the information gathered can be used.

``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, had with the ill-conceived and now expired Protect America Act of 2007, was that the understandable temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting is difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent such unauthorized and blanket snooping.

Although Section 1881 of the FISA Amendments Act statutorily forbids such reverse targeting, it is a lingering concern of many civil libertarians which I share.

No doubt there are instances where it may be necessary to target persons within and outside the United States in order to address threats but Congress has made it clear that these exigencies must be subject to review at some point and time.

On the issue of targeting procedures, they were designed to ensure that only people reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S. would be targeted. However, in reality quite the contrary has taken place. There has been bulk collection of information without any targets whatsoever. Ensure transparency by conducting as much public oversight as possible, including releasing basic information about the program, such as the type of information collected and how many Americans and people in the U.S. it has affected.

It is also critical that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions and administration interpretations of its authority to collect and use information under the FISA Amendment Act (FAA) become part of the public record and congressional debate.

On the issue of disclosure, there has been a lack of transparency on what type of information is being gathered, who is being picked up and what rights of Americans have been violated.

We must strike a balance between what constitutes ``classified'' information, and other compelling facts, disclosure of which do not threaten national security.

On the issue of rules, there has been a lack of rules that clearly define how the information is being used. The key is to amend the FISA Amendment Act to ensure that information collected under those programs can be used only in the narrowest of circumstances. The FAA's minimization procedures should be amended to ensure that this foreign intelligence warrantless surveillance program doesn't allow information to be repurposed for other government uses.

I understand that there must be a way for the intelligence community to gather vast amounts of information in a manner that makes sense. However, after carefully reviewing these proposals but suffice to say, I am still disturbed about certain aspects of the FISA Amendments of 2008. This Act was not designed for an overreach of power. It was designed to for the intelligence community to conduct meaningful information overseas.

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis DeTocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage.

Thus, the way forward to victory in the War on Terror is for this country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love. It is not easy for me or any Member of this House to go against the President's wishes on a matter of national security but I am convinced that more debate is necessary, and more consideration of what the FISA Amendments mean to national security and civil liberties.

We are in the throes of a national election for which the candidates have labored for over two years and the American people have seen, for better or worse, what they are about. Why so long: because that is Democracy. And civil liberties, Mr. Speaker, are the essence of the stew of our American Democracy.

I hope that Congress can maintain our oversight function to ensure that law enforcement is well aware of their limitations of surveillance balanced by a strong commitment to protecting this great nation from future harm, and limiting the reauthorization to 2015.

Mr. Speaker, ``My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.'' God bless America.

I'm glad that we have songs that can capture our spirits and the love that we have for our Nation. I'm reminded of being a child, singing the words, ``My country, 'tis of thee.'' I'm reminded of that day, 9/11, when Members of Congress gathered to stand on the steps of the United States Capitol to sing ``God Bless America.''

I rise today to pay tribute to Americans and a myriad of persons whose lives remain forever changed because of 9/11. We honor and mourn still those who fell on that day. It was the world, a potpourri of personalities, nationalities, languages, different descriptions, and life stories. It was the world that was in America, a country that welcomes all.

Then, of course, there are those of us who are reminded of the rushing in of heroes and ``sheroes,'' NYPD, civilian volunteers, firefighters, Park Police, Federal workers, all in some way helping to save someone's life, fellow office workers, dishwashers, restaurant workers. Some died so that others might live.

I remember very clearly where I was here in the United States Capitol, having a meeting with one of the Cabinet members of the President at that time, deeply involved in work regarding small businesses, going on with the normal daily responsibilities, Members who work on legislation, constituency issues, and oversight over the government.

There was a rattling outside and, of course, phones started ringing, with the technology of that time. We indicated that we were still in the meeting and did not answer until someone banged on the door and said, I don't know what is happening, but you must get out.

Without panic, but certainly with great concern, as you entered the hallways, people were rushing, rushing to come out of this building. As the rumors began to fly or the words began to fly about the White House, the State Department, then, of course, there was the billowing smoke that one could see from the Pentagon. It was real. It was something that we had never, ever seen. Maybe for those who had been in wars preceding us in far-away lands, but not in the 20th century on the soil of the United States of America, or the 21st century.

I stand today with great honor for those who died, those who died in trying to save others and those who did. I am grateful today that we have the opportunity to be able to say thank you, though sadly, to families who remain, to those who now stand in New York reading names, to those who are at the Pentagon who still have the piercing feeling of loss, and certainly those in Pennsylvania, the family members, the surrounding community.

I am grateful that in the last couple of days we finally acknowledged that there is something to those who breathed the smoke, and they are now going to be included for the entity that provides health care for those who were impacted by 9/11 toxic smoke. It took us too long. I'm glad we passed legislation to help the first responders, firefighters, police, and others who suffered catastrophic illnesses after they went in to help those who could not help themselves.

I remember drafting legislation and introducing legislation for the latchkey children, for many of us don't remember that so many children were left at home and no one came home to see them on that fateful day, 9/11. Children now read the names of their parents or loved ones, grandparents. Children grew up without a family member because of the heinous horror, hatred, contempt, and violence.

I hope this Nation on this day comes closer together, that we come together as independents, Republicans, Democrats, and nothing, that we stand as one Nation being able to be reminded of the greatest Nation in the world.

God bless America, for I will say that throughout my life whatever the ups and downs that we may have, this country is great. As I travel around on behalf of the United States of America, visiting those who fought in Iraq and who fought in Afghanistan, I see that they are great because they were willing to sacrifice at the call of the Commander in Chief and the call of their Nation.

Today I come on this floor to honor all of those who were touched by 9/11, and to remind all of us as Members of Congress and the Nation, never yield to the weakness that we are not great. Always our democracy, our love of God, makes us that.

God bless America.

Let me thank Mr. Turner and the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for their courtesies of yielding to me and allow me to take this moment on the floor on 9/11 to again acknowledge the Members of Congress who this morning joined each other, if you will, two Houses, that came together, on the east steps to be able to acknowledge those who were lost, and I would like to say those

who still live in the backdrop of the tragedy, for many are still pained by the loss of their family members. As we know in New York the reading of the names, and, of course, the laying of the wreath that occurred today at the Pentagon.

We cannot get those lives back, and what we recognize is that those lives represented places around the world, but it also represented moms and dads. Children today have grown up without those loved ones because of the horrific and heinous tragedy, and some might say America's naivete.

But I am glad to live in a country that believes in her freedom. I am glad to live in a country of which we claim democracy and understand it, understand the freedom of speech and freedom of access, freedom of association. I would not want to live anywhere else.

But we were pained on that day because they attempted to take our naivete away from us, our innocence. But I am glad that we came together, both in terms of allowing people now still to travel from the east to the west, from the north to the south, to have summer vacations, to lay out in the open sun. This is our Nation.

I am grateful for having the privilege of serving on the Homeland Security Committee. I hold this flag just to indicate that this is a great Nation.

I'd like to thank our early persons who led this committee. Certainly, Mr. Chris Cox, Mr. Jim Turner, the Homeland Security Select Committee and members who were on that committee.

I want to acknowledge my outstanding ranking member, Mr. Thompson, who has been a great leader on these issues. He has been diligent; he has been patriotic; he has been loving of this country, along with the chairman, Mr. King, who has worked for the common good as we have tried to work together. It has not been a perfect unity because we have had disagreements. Many of us disagree on the interpretation of democracy and civil liberties, but we all believe in one Nation under God, but more importantly, the security of this Nation. Mr. Thompson, I want to thank you for allowing me to serve with you and for your leadership.

It is in that spirit that I rise today to speak to H.R. 3857, which amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

I might just say, Mr. Turner, that there were those of us who were here--and you come from New York, and so I know that more than likely there were people in and around your area, the Queens area, who lost their lives, or family members. So we acknowledge the regions that were impacted, from Boston to New York to Pennsylvania. And certainly those families whose family members were on those airlines, we understand, but cannot feel, the deep pain that they have today.

The 9/11 Commission, of course, came about mainly through the many families that walked the halls. And let me, of course, acknowledge those families who even in their pain, again, came to the Halls of Congress and asked us to do something. So this particular legislation is amending the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to allow public transportation agencies to be eligible for grants for security improvements to be used for specialized patrol teams, including the sustainment of such teams without fiscal year limitation, as long as the agency applying for grant funds submits a sustainment plan for maintaining in future years the capability or capacity achieved with the funds. That is a good step. It allows local jurisdictions to expand their services as long as they're able to sustain it.

In January 2007, soon after Democrats took control of the House after being in the minority, I joined with my colleagues across both sides of the aisle and we passed the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This legislative landmark was critical in strengthening our Nation's homeland security efforts. Specifically, the 9/11 Act established the Transportation Security Grant Program, which provides a vital source of funding for our transportation systems across the United States.

Shortly thereafter, I remember a conference where the House and Senate came together, and I remember the opportunity to establish transportation security centers of excellence. I am grateful that we established one at Texas Southern University, among other Historically Black Colleges, where we looked at ways of improving transportation security.

Having just been briefed by Texas Southern University, I know that they are finishing their work, and I want to thank the team that led on that program. Those funds were truly used productively, efficiently, and effectively to provide new technology, new techniques and vetting procedures on how we can truly secure America.

Since the demise of Osama bin Laden--led by the outstanding military of the United States of America, guided, directed, of course, by the Commander in Chief, President Obama, and the excellent military leadership, the National Security Agency, that provided all of the guidance for this enormous task--it has been revealed in the public domain that terrorists continue to be interested in developing plots to sabotage mass transit systems, and of course the aviation system. This threat, however, is not new. Today, as I indicated, marks the 11th anniversary since the 9/11 attacks, and as such we must take every step to commemorate the men and women we lost on that day. We also have the responsibility to make sure that we do not allow another catastrophic loss of life like the one we faced that day.

In the course of the years since 9/11 we have seen incidents in London and Spain, we've seen incidents in Mumbai, tragic incidents on mass transit. We have also seen the individual efforts that have been made to bring down another airline over American soil, or certainly en route to the United States of America. Therefore, it is imperative that Congress examine how the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are addressing the current and evolving threat to our transportation systems and continue to support programs that have yielded a positive security impact, such as TSA's Transportation Security Grant Program. I have seen in my own transit system the utilization of these funds. I've seen the utilization, as it has been very effective in canine units.

Let's come together around recognizing that the security of America is holistic--first, of course, the frontliners, meaning the United States military; then, of course, the men and women who overlap in jurisdiction under Homeland Security, the many different law enforcements that every day work on the border, work on internal enforcement, work at airports, coalesce and collaborate with the FBI and DEA and ATF, and others, around the question of security.

I am glad these programs are being expanded for security purposes, for efficiency purposes, for utilization of our tax dollars in the right way. That is why I am pleased to see that the majority and the ranking member, along with members of the Democratic part of the committee, at my request and submission of an amendment, accepted my amendment during committee consideration to authorize $400 million for the Transportation Security Grant Program for FY12 and FY13. This funding will ensure that transportation agencies have the resources needed to secure our public and mass transit system. I would argue that it complements what we're doing in aviation, which, together, maintains the nucleus, if you will, of transportation security.

So I'm hoping that this will move quickly through the United States Senate and find itself on the President's desk. It is crucial. I then hope that my colleagues can come together for us to put on the floor a Transportation Security Administration reauthorization. We've done it before; I know we can do it now. And I ask my colleagues to come together in the name not only of security, but of the families, the 9/ 11 Commission, who now bear the brunt of that tragic day, along with so many others.

Thank you to our first responders, and of course to the men and women who now serve around the world and those who have come home. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3857.

H.R. 3857, ``Public Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement Support Act--Amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to allow grants to eligible public transportation agencies for security improvements to be used for specialized patrol teams, including the sustainment of such teams without fiscal year

limitation, as long as the agency applying for grant funds submits a sustainment plan for maintaining in future years the capability or capacity achieved with the funds.''

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3857, the Public Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement Support Act.

Mr. Speaker, In January 2007, soon after Democrats took control of the House, I, along with my colleagues across both sides of the aisles, championed the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

This legislative landmark was critical in strengthening our Nation's homeland security efforts. Specifically, the 9/11 Act established the Transportation Security Grant Program which provides a vital source of funding for our transportation systems across the United States.

Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has been revealed in the public domain that terrorists continue to be interested in developing plots to sabotage mass transit systems.

This threat, however, is not new.

Today marks the 11th anniversary since the 9/11 attacks. And as such, we must take every step to commemorate the men and women we lost on that day.

We also have the responsibility to make sure that we do not allow another catastrophic loss of life, like the one we faced that day.

Therefore, it is imperative that we, Congress, examine how the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are addressing the current and evolving threat to our transportation systems and continue to support programs that have yielded a positive security impact, such as TSA's Transportation Security Grant Program.

Which is why I am pleased to see that the Majority, at my request, accepted my amendment during Committee consideration to authorize $400 million for the Transportation Security Grant Program (TSGP) for FY 12 and FY 13.

This funding will ensure that transportation agencies have the resources needed to secure our public and mass transit systems.

Let me thank the ranking member for his courtesies of extending the time, and let me acknowledge the gentleman from Illinois for the work on this bill and working with my office.

At the first glance, though, this has been proposed by the Obama administration, one would wonder why we were lessening any oversight over baggage. But this is a process that I think is in compliance with all of our commitment to safety and security.

And, in particular, on this day, I do appreciate the fact that there are certain airports which this will cover, that this responds in particular to friends to the north of us, Canada, which has the most sophisticated technology, and a number of other airports.

Also, I think, because of the oversight of the Secretary of Homeland Security, in case there is a need to review this particular process which allows for a bag of an entering person to continue on with them as they come into the country going on to their domestic location. This is, again, an item of trust, but also an item of technology and an item of oversight.

This is an administrative proposal that came by way of the White House in order to establish an administrative process to which the flying public can travel with minimum security disruption.

I always emphasize, however, the importance of ensuring in the most-- the highest of responsibilities, the security of this Nation. I believe that we, as Congress, have the responsibility to ensure that aviation security is not compromised through any efforts that ease travel for the flying public.

The Obama administration has taken great strides in enhancing our transportation security, particularly that in aviation. Although Osama bin Laden, as I've repeated before on this floor, is dead, the threat to our aviation safety and security continues to evolve because we're well aware of franchise terrorism. Not only did the administration lead a successful attack to remove one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, the Obama administration has also taken significant steps to enhance policies that protect the American flying public.

In December, the Department will successfully meet a Congressional cargo screening mandate of screening 100 percent cargo aboard passenger flights traveling in the United States and those inbound to the United States from foreign countries. This is a noteworthy accomplishment, since several in Washington, D.C., touted that it could not be done. It's a day of celebration. It's something that the 9/11 families welcome.

Today marks 11 years since we experienced the devastating loss of life, and 9/11 marked all of our lives by exposing doubts. But as I indicated in my earlier statement, this is a great country, and of course we continue to emphasize not only our democracy, but our rights, along with our security.

There's no doubt today that we are resilient and that we are survivors. Let's not forget the progress we've made in transportation security policies, and we must continue to support measures that take us forward.

That is why I support H.R. 6028 and ask that my colleagues do so, because not only does it help to expedite, it helps to be efficient, but it is in conjunction with security. That is the right step and a collaborative way that we can work together.

Again, I ask support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6028, The No-Hassle Flying Act of 2012. grants the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration [TSA]) discretion to determine whether checked baggage on a flight or flight segment originating at an airport outside the United States must be re-screened in the United States for explosives before it can continue on any additional flight or flight segment if the baggage has already been screened in the foreign airport in accordance with an aviation security preclearance agreement between the United States and the country in which the airport is located.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this legislation we are considering today.

H.R. 6028 came to this chamber as an administrative proposal by the White House in order to establish an administrative process through which the flying public can travel with minimal security disruption.

I believe that we, as Congress, have the responsibility to ensure that aviation security is not compromised through any efforts that ease travel for the flying public.

The Obama Administration has taken great strides in enhancing our transportation security, particularly that in aviation.

Although Osama bin Laden is dead, the threat to our aviation safety and security continues to evolve. Not only did this Administration lead a successful attack to remove one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, the Obama Administration has also taken significant steps to enhance policies that protect the American flying public.

In December, the Department will successfully meet a Congressional cargo-screening mandate of screening 100% cargo aboard passenger flights traveling in the United States and those inbound to the United States from foreign countries.

This is a noteworthy accomplishment; since several in Washington, DC touted that this could not be done.

Today marks 11 years since we experienced a devastating loss of life.

9/11 marked all of our lives by surfacing doubts of our resiliency as a Country.

There is no doubt, today, that we are resilient and that we are survivors. Let's not forget the progress we have made in transportation security policies and we must continue to support measures that take us forward and provide a more safe and secure transportation for all Americans.

That is why I support H.R. 6028 and ask that my colleagues do the same.

Mr. Speaker, just recently it was announced that 50 million Americans experience food insecurity--and experienced it in the last year. What that means is that families in the United States suffer without food. A predominant number of those are single parents and children.

What are we as a country if we allow children to go hungry in this particular great land?

I just came back from Africa, and saw children who are hungry. But yet we were there to encourage better technology to promote agricultural development. But today, this Congress, this House, Republican Congress, is cutting $16 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Program. We can do better.

I want to work with this Congress to ensure that 50 million Americans are not hungry in this great land. Let us revisit the cutting of the Supplemental Nutrition Program because our children are begging, they're asking us: Do we care?

We do care. We cannot cut $15 billion, $16 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Program with 50 million Americans experiencing food insecurity--working Americans, Americans with children. The time to stop is now and support those families.

Madam Speaker, although I have great affection for the gentleman from South Carolina, I am so enthusiastic that

Ranking Member Slaughter is managing this bill.

I rise in great opposition to H.R. 8, but in enthusiastic support for H.R. 15. This is a gift to America's women, working women, mothers.

And let me give you the role: every taxpayer will get tax relief on $250,000. That, by the evidence of this letter from small businesses, will be 97, 98 percent of small businesses. And they are women--most of them, many of them--women who are in their homes having a one-person small business, women who have hired people in a five-person small business, women who are thinking of getting ready to start their small businesses.

Then, of course, the child tax credit. What a boon for working mothers and others who need that desperate relief. And then, of course, the marriage tax relief. EITC, if you come from the gulf region, we were saved by the earned income tax credit for Hurricane Katrina victims. They were able to get some minimal relief to carry them through. The higher education tax credit. The adoption tax credit. And as I indicated, the child care tax credit. A tax credit, as well, for expensing in small businesses.

What are my colleagues and my friends on the other side talking about? A job-killing, economy-killing, deficit-busting H.R. 8 is not the way to go.

So I am enthusiastically here to tell the women of America that this is a vote for you today. Those women who get up every day, who design a way to make a living when there is no job--these women, along with men, who have come into understanding what small business can do for America.

I'm excited because I consider the 18th Congressional District to be a host of small businesses. Everywhere I go, individuals are talking about their small businesses.

I will submit into the Record, Madam Speaker, a letter from small businesses of the Main Street Alliance opposing H.R. 8 and supporting this legislation the Democrats are offering.

This is a celebration for women. This vote today will enhance opportunities for women, small businesses, and families across America.

Madam Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of regular order for any proposed tax legislation, whether it comes to the House Floor today, tomorrow, or next year. The Rule before us is structured and I note that is titled H. Res. 747, but unlike the jetliners that we Americans use every day, this bill and the Rule are not yet ready for take-off.

House Republicans released a proposal, H.R. 6169, that would relax some of Congress's normal procedural rules in order to enact an overhaul of the tax code--so long as the tax overhaul meets the objectives laid out in the House budget plan authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Their proposal states:

``The United States tax code is far too complex and bloated. It forces American citizens and small business owners to focus on filling out tax forms instead of tending to their families and businesses. It is clear to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that real, fundamental reforms to our tax code are long overdue. In fact, our revenue laws have not been substantially reformed in 50 years,'' Chairman Dreier said.

I couldn't agree more with Chairman Dreier but by putting a stranglehold on the tax reform process before we even begin is tantamount to forcing debate on any tax reform bill while potentially limiting input.

H.R. 6169 lays out several components that the tax overhaul legislation must have in order to be passed through the easier legislative procedure.

All of these components seem identical to those laid out in the Ryan Plan that we witnessed in the Spring--it's like a bad B movie rerun.

The required components of the tax overhaul include:

replacing the personal income tax rates with just two rates, 10 percent and 25 percent (or less)

repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT

reducing the statutory corporate income tax rate to 25 percent (or less)

adoption of a ``territorial'' tax system (exempting offshore profits of corporations from U.S. taxes)

collecting revenue equal to between 18 and 19 percent of GDP

The ``findings'' section of the bill states that revenue will ``rise to 21.2 percent of GDP under current law,'' meaning its proposed revenue target of between 18 and 19 percent of GDP is an explicit cut in revenue.

Like the Republican Plan, the bill introduced by my colleagues Ways and Means Chairman Camp and Rules Committee Chair Dreier, does not say which tax loopholes and tax subsidies should be closed to ensure that the tax system still collects revenue equaling between 18 and 19 percent of GDP even after the plan's steep rate reductions and the repeal of the AMT are in effect.

My sense is that even if those with incomes exceeding $1 million were forced to give up all the tax expenditures Ryan could possibly want to take away from them--all their itemized deductions, tax credits, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and the deduction for health insurance for the self-employed--even then the net result for these taxpayers would be an average income tax cut of $187,000 in 2014.

That's because the income tax rate reductions Ryan proposed are so deep that they would far outweigh the loss of all these tax loopholes and tax subsidies.

I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two years ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits.

I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit.

I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great state of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of this month.

The Republican bill temporarily extends for one year, through 2013, all the reduced tax rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 and 2003 that are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. The measure maintains the maximum estate tax rate of 35 percent while retaining the exemption amount of $5 million, provides a two-year ``patch'' to prevent the alternative minimum tax, AMT, from hitting over 27 million taxpayers and allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their capital expenditures for another year.

I feel like we have been down this path before and I recall many of my colleagues staking a claim to fiscal responsibility. Well, I ask in all sincerity, which bill is more fiscally responsible: H.R. 8, which blows a hole in the deficit, or H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative which keeps the Bush Tax rates in place for the people who truly need tax relief.

This is the same Republican Congress which has asked for a balanced budget amendment. It has codified the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is possibly unconstitutional, and has had no impact on jobs and the unemployment problem. Yet today they want us to vote on a tax increase for the top 2 percent. This illustrates what happens when Congress does not work together in a bipartisan manner, laboring for the American people. We must work together and compromise.

The Senate gave us a layup by producing a bill last week which is virtually identical to the Democratic Substitute. All we have to do is act like Olympians and pass it.

The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward fiscally responsible economic recovery.

I support those provisions of H.R. 8 which provide relief for middle- class families and small businesses who will see their taxes go down and get much needed certainty. But I cannot in good conscience support tax relief for millionaires and billionaires at a time when others need help just to make ends meet.

Unlike those provisions of H.R. 8 which benefit America's struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon

the unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a 2-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while keeping their estate tax rate at 35 percent on estates valued at more than $5 Million for individuals and more than $10 Million for couples.

These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job creation and preservation.

I thank the ranking member and the chairwoman of this committee for bringing us together.

I don't like sanctions, Mr. Speaker, but I rise in strong support of this legislation. And when I say that, I understand what sanctions can do to women and children and families. In fact, I'm reminded of a debate on apartheid and sanctions in South Africa. That debate was a question of whether you undermine that nation. But we saw what happened with sanctions when we came together as a Nation to bring down the dastardly structure of apartheid.

Iran, right now today, can stop this legislation by shedding itself of all signs of building a nuclear weapon. The regime change is not by war. This bill does not suggest war. It means that voluntarily, by election, their government can change. But what I believe is most important is that we recognize, having seen that fallen woman bleeding in the street, that human rights abuses are massive. They're massive in their influence on Iraq, where they're influencing the treatment of residents of Camp Ashraf. That must stop.

So this legislation is crucial because it impacts the human rights abuses, it indicates that there is no giving on a nuclear weapon, and it gives Iran, right now today, the ability to stop this legislation and sanctions by owning up to eliminating any sign of a nuclear weaponization, treating its people with dignity, and responding to the needs of the people in Camp Ashraf.

I support the legislation enthusiastically.