Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. It is no accident that this is one of the first bills of the new year. Like some of the other legislation, it is not a new idea. In many ways, what it really is is this body, once again, if you will, reiterating when we talk about freedom of information for the American people, whether it is a private citizen who doesn't know what the government knows about him or her and would like to or it is an interest group, a think tank, or very, very often the press--The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, and a host more--wanting to know what the government is doing, what their government is doing with their money, their freedoms. This bill emphasizes in no uncertain terms something that is long overdue: that the balance between the American people's right to know about their information and the government's right to keep a secret shall always be balanced in favor and presumed to be the American people's right. In other words, no longer, after this bill is signed into law, will an administration, Republican or Democratic, be able to presume that they are going to say no if they possibly can. Instead, this bill shifts the burden to the presumption of yes. Not only does it shift the burden, but it puts an outright mandate that, after 25 years, information not covered by national security requirements or classifications of secret or above, shall, in fact, simply be available. These are fundamentally important distinctions between the current law. But more to the point of a modernization, this legislation mandates a single point of asking for FOIA, an assumption that it is long overdue for us to streamline and improve the ability to get this information and get it to everyone. One of the aspects of the legislation is that H.R. 653 will require that information asked for again and again and again be posted and available for everyone rather than each time being a burden of somebody wanting similar or even identical information to have to put in a FOIA request. Mr. Speaker, what I want to close with is this isn't just bipartisan; this is universal. Members of the House and the Senate, whether there is a Republican or Democratic President, whether it is on behalf of a constituent wanting some simple information, we regularly use the Freedom of Information Act, and we regularly find ourselves frustrated. This is good for the administration. It builds on legislation like the DATA Act and other reforms that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have done over a number of years. Lastly, I want to thank my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). From the very day we began heading the committee, more than 5 years ago now, together, he has always been for FOIA reform, always been for more transparency, and always been supportive of the legislation you see here today. I want to thank Mr. Cummings, something that I don't get enough chances to do. And I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz for bringing this bill, not only as it was originally written, but with some important modifications to make it, hopefully, go through quickly when it is considered by the Senate. I urge its support.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for bringing this, in a timely fashion, to the floor. I want to thank my partner in this legislation, Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania. Now, Congress often does things and makes a lot of to-do about it. I don't want to overstate this simple technical correction, but I don't want to understate it either. The fact is America is proud of people who volunteer or choose, in the worst possible conditions, to go in harm's way, to go in devastation's way. It is a small thing, but very meaningful, to say that, one, they won't have to pay for their passport out of their own pocket, and, two, although normally the contracts for these first responders come out of Los Angeles and Fairfax County, should there be a major disaster again that is beyond these first responders' capability, the law will allow for anyone authorized by the United States Government to go and help in these areas to be granted, as necessary, a passport, including expediting fees, in order to get to the devastation quickly and with a minimum of bureaucracy involved. America knows about Haiti, Nepal, Japan, and so many other devastated areas over the last few years. Until today, America never took the time to simply say in this small way thank you to our first responders: Thank you for what you do. We certainly appreciate it enough for it to come out of the taxpayers' pocket to make sure it doesn't have to come out of your own pocket when you are going, on behalf of the American people, to help those in need around the world. Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing this in a timely fashion. I urge support.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brian Terry and his service to this great country as a U.S. Border Patrol agent. In 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives began a program known as ``Operation Fast and Furious.'' The program was a maligned attempt to track 2,000 weapons destined for drug cartels. Five years ago, Border Patrol agents were assaulted by a band of robbers 17 miles inside the U.S. border in Arizona, resulting in the death of Brian Terry on December 15, 2010. Two of the guns found at the scene were linked to Operation Fast and Furious. Together with Senator Chuck Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform attempted to get answers for the Terry family, but this effort has been stonewalled and obstructed by those responsible for the ill-conceived Operation. Before serving three and a half years with the U.S. Border Patrol, Agent Terry served in the United States Marine Corps and worked as a police officer in Ecorse and Lincoln Park, Michigan, not far from his hometown of Flat Rock. He was only 40 years old when his life was cut tragically short. Agent Terry is survived by his mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, brother and two sisters. Some of those involved in Agent Terry's shooting were recently convicted for their terrible crime. However, the Obama Administration continues to actively resist turning over information related to the Congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. We must never give up our fight to ensure the Terry family gets nothing less than full accountability from their government. I have pledged to them before, and do so again today, that I will continue to pursue the truth.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colonel Glenn W. Sanders for his past three years of dedicated service as a Legislative Liaison for the Army Reserve. I wish him well in his next assignment as an instructor at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Colonel Sanders is currently assigned as the Legislative Liaison for the 81st Regional Support Command at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. During the last three years, he supported Army Reserve units across the southeastern United States, meeting with Congressional staff and Federal, State and Local elected officials. Prior to this assignment, Colonel Sanders served one year in the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command in Afghanistan, working as the Executive Officer to the Command's Operations Officer. From 2008 to 2011, he served on Capitol Hill as a Congressional Fellow and then as a Liaison in the Army House Liaison Division. His previous assignments include Mobilization Division Chief, Assistant Professor of Military Science, Battalion Operations Officer, Detachment Commander, Battery Commander, Squadron Fire Support Officer, Battery Executive Officer, Troop Fire Support Officer and Platoon Leader. Colonel Sanders holds a Masters of Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College; a Masters of Public Administration from California State University, Northridge; a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of California, Riverside; and a Certificate in Legislative Studies from the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. He is a graduate of the Army War College, Reserve Component National Security Course, Defense Strategy Course, Command and General Staff College, and the Field Artillery Basic and Advanced Officer Courses. His awards and decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, United Nations Medal, NATO Medal and Army Staff Identification Badge. He is a recipient of the Order of Saint Maurice from the National Infantry Association. I wish Colonel Sanders, his wife Kari and his daughters Kira and Kelli well as they move to Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the veterans of my district. In particular, I want to call attention to my constituent from Carlsbad, California, Dr. Lester Tenney, 95, a proud member of the 192nd Tank Battalion of the U.S. Army that fought in the defense of Bataan, the Philippines against Imperial Japan in the first battles of World War II. Surrendered by his commanders on April 9, 1942, he survived the infamous 65-mile Bataan Death March, a Hellship to Japan, and nearly three years of brutal, slave labor in a Mitsui coal in southern Japan that is today an UNESCO World Industrial Heritage site. On this 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, it is important to call attention to Dr. Tenney's most important achievement. This has been to forgive his capturers and to forge meaningful friendships with Japanese citizens. In 2008, Dr. Tenney sat down with Japan's ambassador to the United States Ichiro Fujisaki with two simple requests: 1) an official apology to the Allied POWs for the prohibited abuse and slave labor they experienced in the care of Imperial Japan; and 2) a visitation program to Japan to initiate healing and reconciliation. In 2009, the apology was delivered and in 2010 the annual trips began. The result of efforts and experiences by men like Dr. Tenney is that for 70 years Japan has enjoyed a prosperous peace and the United States and Japan have become unshakeable allies. Dr. Tenney reflects upon this and his POW experiences in his occasional articles for The Wall Street Journal. For this year's anniversary of surrender on the USS Missouri, Dr. Tenney wrote what that time meant to him and the other POWs who had been liberated. He rightly points out that the war and the peace is composed of the deeds and sacrifices of many: foot soldier to general; sailor to fisherman; mother to widow. None should be forgotten. With profound respect, I submit Dr. Tenney's essay in which he eloquently reminds us to honor our veterans and implores us to pass on and teach future generations of the legacy of World War II in the Pacific. [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 1, 2015] Japan's War Legacy The postwar generation may now be the majority in Japan, but they too must know the atrocities of war (By Lester Tenney) Imperial Japan became history on Sept. 2, 1945. Gen. Douglas MacArthur accepted Japan's unconditional surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, ending World War II. For me, nearly 600 miles south in a prisoner of war camp outside Nagasaki, unaware of these historic events, I simply remember the pure joy of liberation. What was V-J Day like for POWs? For those of us in Fukuoka No. 17-B POW Camp, the war ended on Aug. 15, when our Mitsui company overseers, without explanation, stopped sending us down into their coal mine. We were returned to camp for an unusual midday meal of limitless rice and recognizable vegetables. We received our first full Red Cross boxes. And the camp guards said ``hello'' in English instead of striking us with their rifle butts for not bowing. After lunch, the camp commander, flanked by trucks mounted with machine guns, gathered us on the camp's parade ground. He curtly announced, ``America and Japan now friends. War is over.'' There is no accurate way to describe how it feels to be a slave one moment--starved and abused, forced to work long hours in a treacherous mine, beaten daily for not working fast enough or not bowing low enough--and a free man the next. After more than two years underground in the dark, narrow seams of a coal mine, it was glorious to be in the sun. American planes soon appeared overhead and with them came parachutes carrying 55-gallon drums of food, clothing, medicines and magazines. One parachute failed to open, its cargo of fruit salad spilling out onto the camp yard. We happily and immediately dined on the scattered remains. Baron Mitsui, a 1915 Dartmouth graduate who owned our coal mine and many others, hosted a series of dinners for senior Allied commanding officers of our POW camp. The baron had often visited his captive village and was aware of the grim conditions. Over the meals, he reportedly asked the officers for their tolerance and thanked them for their efforts. Photos from the dinner series show a wary indulgence in the eyes of the American, Australian, British and Dutch guests. Fast forward to last month, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe used the same word--tolerance--in his statement on the 70th anniversary of the war's end. ``How much emotional struggle must have existed and what great efforts must have been necessary . . . for the former POWs who experienced unbearable sufferings caused by the Japanese military in order for them to be so tolerant nevertheless?'' Mr. Abe marveled. While I welcome any step, however modest, the Japanese make in addressing war crimes committed against POWs, this word stops me short. It makes a war crime a matter of inconvenience. I can tolerate someone cutting me off in traffic. But being a POW was not a matter of tolerance. It was a matter of life or death--mostly death. The denial of water and food on the Bataan Death March didn't simply inconvenience us; it killed thousands of soldiers. My fellow prisoners and I didn't tolerate nor have we forgotten the beatings and torture, the starvation and broken bones, or the filth and stench of dying men. What tolerance did I have watching my buddy tortured so viciously that he had to have both legs amputated? And what of today? Our wait for Japan's apology, offered officially in February 2009, wasn't tolerance. It was patience. Patience for justice. Still, Mr. Abe's awkward statement on Aug. 15 suggests that our patience may not be in vain. His mention of POWs is the only reference in the statement that clearly matches a noun of wrongdoing to a verb of responsibility. He correctly points out that ``unbearable suffering'' was ``caused'' by Imperial Japan's military. Acknowledging the perpetrator of a crime and the crime itself is the first step toward reconciliation. For me, the war is hard to forget. But as Mr. Abe points out, the postwar generations are now the majority in Japan. Japanese today aren't responsible for what happened more than 70 years ago. But they also cannot forget or distort the past. Japan owes me, the descendants of its victims and its own citizens the truth. As Mr. Abe said, ``We Japanese, across generations, must squarely face the history of the past. We have the responsibility to inherit the past, in all humbleness, and pass it on to the future.'' Imperial Japan tormented, enslaved and defiled many people. This is a grave legacy to pass on and to teach future generations. But it is vital to keep memories like mine alive. It's one thing to remember great deeds done by great men, like Gen. MacArthur in Tokyo Bay. But World War II's history is composed of the suffering of many individuals in different circumstances. This, too, should not be forgotten, or else the lessons of the war will be incomplete.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I join fellow Members of the Lebanon Caucus to request a moment of silence for the victims of the bombings in Beirut, Lebanon, on November 12, 2015, that claimed the lives of at least 43 people and injured over 200. In addition to those lost in France on November 13, and in Egypt on October 31, almost 400 murders have been claimed by ISIS in the period of less than 2 weeks. I invite my colleagues to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna), my friend, who introduced the resolution today condemning the attack and showing our support for Lebanon. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to remember the innocent lives lost at the hands of ISIS terrorists, and I urge the administration to do everything in its power to bring those responsible to justice. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I am a member of the majority. When the majority brings a bill to the floor, you normally start off with ``yes'' and hope to stay there. In this case, I started off with ``likely'' and didn't arrive at a ``yes.'' So, reluctantly, I am going to vote ``no'' on this bill. I am not going to vote ``no'' because of what it seeks to do. I am certainly not going to vote ``no'' knowing that we need to fund our troops in the field in a war that has dragged on for 15 years and now has re-ignited. But I am going to vote ``no'' because of how this bill is paid for. I have done as much as I can as long as I can to tolerate how we ``score'' things. At the risk of being wrong, I will remind people that I am only as good as the information that my staff has given me. But according to CBO, $2.5 billion worth of this pay-for comes from premium payments that are accelerated, meaning we are robbing from the future to pay for today. Another one comes from extended pension smoothing, $9 billion. This is a time-shifting on money over 10 years. Again, we are robbing from the future to pay for this year. Another one, $4 billion, comes from Social Security disability. But it is a double count. It has already been scored elsewhere previously. And $5 billion comes from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will be the third time this year that we have brought a bill saying we are going to sell this oil at its low price. Ultimately, the real question is: Aren't we selling off an asset today to pay for current expenses? $3.5 billion will come from FCC bandwidth sales. I can live with that. I'm not thrilled with it. I think we should make more bandwidth available to the public so that, in fact, space we can all use without paying would be available. But here is the one that really broke me: Extending the Medicare sequester rate saves $14 billion, but the one-time saving is based on an occurrence in the year 2025. So, in closing, Madam Speaker, I will not sell our future for this year's budget; and, therefore, I recommend a ``no'' because of the pay- fors on this budget.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the great musical contributions of singer and songwriter, Mr. Graham Nash. Over the decades, Mr. Nash has been a member of several legendary musical acts and written many powerful songs like ``Teach Your Children'' and love songs like ``Our House'' with Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. I particularly remember the song ``He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother'' when he was a member of The Hollies because we both lived in Ohio. Mr. Nash won a GRAMMY in 1969 for ``Best New Artist'' with Crosby, Stills, & Nash. Their debut album was nominated for Album of the Year and inducted into the GRAMMY Hall of Fame in 1999. Mr. Nash is also a two-time-inductee in both the Songwriter's Hall of Fame as well as the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Additionally, a New York Times best-selling author, an internationally renowned photographer, and a philanthropist and activist, Mr. Nash used an array of artistic outlets to share his beliefs and talents around the world. Mr. Nash was born and raised in the United Kingdom. But he mentioned to me one of his proudest days was August 14, 1978--the day he became an American citizen. He is currently a resident in California and I am proud he calls our great state home. A new exhibition titled ``Graham Nash: Touching the Flame'' at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Museum in Cleveland, Ohio, documents the extraordinary career of Mr. Nash. We are fortunate he has shared his creative musical talents and thought-provoking songs with the world. For these reasons, I commend Mr. Graham Nash as a remarkable lyricist and performer.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, in this short 1 minute, I will close by reminding people that Ronald Reagan so notably said: ``Nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program.'' This is a permanent program that is only paid for in offsets at one- quarter what it costs, and that is an estimate. If the cost goes up, it will spend even more. Understand that we are selling the strategic petroleum reserves to pay for the vast majority of this 5-year program, and then we are taking 10 years to pay for the remainder. This is a gimmick. It is not paid for. Do not be fooled. If you are a fiscal conservative, you must consider this not a permanent entitlement and vote for the Brat amendment because, if you don't, what you are doing is unfairly adding to this debt. I would vote for this if it was paid for. Madam Chair, it is not paid for. It is a fraudulent pay-for by any possible means of this body. Please, vote for the Brat amendment because this is not a pay-for entitlement.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit the thoughts of my friend, Matthew Polk, regarding the consideration of H.R. 1493, the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act. Matthew Polk is deeply involved in the preservation of cultural heritage and I believe his comments are both insightful and valuable to the ongoing effort to preserve the cultural heritage of civilizations around the world. Mr. Speaker, I first wish to thank Congressman Issa for his interest in this matter and the opportunity to provide a statement for the Congressional Record. With regard to H.R. 1493, I applaud this bipartisan effort to protect Syrian cultural property as well as to coordinate our Government's enforcement efforts to protect international cultural property. I also applaud Mr. Chabot's and Mr. Engel's understanding that this bill is not meant to target the lawful trade in Syrian or other cultural goods and that it only authorizes import restrictions on artifacts illegally removed from Syria after the start of its civil war. Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that the burden remains on the Government to prove that the artifact in question is illicit. While protecting Syrian cultural artifacts from looting is important, it is also important that we stay true to our own values. Our tradition of due process requires that the Government meet its burden of proof before private property may be seized or forfeited. This legislation does not change the burden placed on the Government under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Here, as under the CPIA, the Government must establish: (1) the item is of a type that appears on the designated list of Syrian artifacts that will be created; (2) the item was ``first discovered'' in Syria and is subject to Syrian export control; and (3) the item was illegally removed from Syria after the effective date of the restrictions, which in this case is March 15, 2011. The fact that an object's ``country of origin'' or manufacture may be ``Syria'' cannot constitute the sole basis for its seizure and forfeiture under either this legislation or the CPIA. Sincerely, Matthew S. Polk, Jr., Board Member--The Committee for Cultural Property, Former Trustee--The Baltimore Museum of Art, Member--The Museum Trustees Association, Member--The Walters Art Museum Collections Committee, President--Historic Textile Research Foundation.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, this amendment reflects a simple principle. The government does not and should not have unchecked power to track American citizens. There are many very legitimate reasons to observe license plates using camera technology. Every day in America, law enforcement drives through neighborhoods looking for stolen cars. Cameras and computers identify the number of that plate and run it against a database to see if it is stolen. But again, there is no reason to store that data. The bulk collection of the location of every American's automobile is well beyond a reasonable standard. It is a difficult one, but it is simple in this case. The Federal Government should not provide money for cameras that indiscriminately bulk collect information on where you are at all times. I hope that this amendment will spark a healthy dialogue similar to the one we had on the PATRIOT Act, one in which we agreed that with a court order you can collect this kind of data, with a court order you can seek it, with a known database of stolen cars or wanted criminals, you can compare a camera image. But the simple collection, in bulk, of your location of your car, 24 hours a day, using thousands, tens of thousands or perhaps millions of cameras, is far too ``1984'' for Members of this body or the American people. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, in closing, I respect the gentleman's opinion, but we are not legislating on this appropriations bill. What we are doing is determining that the relevant committees of jurisdiction have not authorized broad collection of data of the American people. The committees of jurisdiction have not authorized this sort of proactive tracking of people because, at some point, someday there may be a reason to use that database. So, in fact, it is perfectly appropriate not to spend the money, not to authorize the money until or unless the authorizing committees have made a thorough decision of what should be authorized and what safeguards need to be in order. So my amendment will simply limit, until such time as a legislating amendment or authorization from a committee can, in fact, ensure that we both authorize law enforcement to collect and protect the privacy of American citizens because, ultimately, these are the taxpayer dollars of the American citizens and the privacy embodied in the Constitution and guaranteed to every citizen. Therefore, I insist that Members consider voting for an amendment that recognizes, just as the minority clearly said, we have not yet had a debate on the basis under which we should pay for the bulk collection against the American people without their permission or safeguards of their rights. I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers. I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer this amendment, and it becomes necessary because selective spying by using these devices commonly called StingRays or cell site simulators or IMSI catchers has become a reality. These sophisticated, affordable mobile devices in fact spoof or convince your phone that they are a valid cell tower and allow for the gathering of communications content, including texts and emails. What is disturbing is that Federal dollars may be being used to capture tens of thousands of Americans' information without a warrant. The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and more have, in fact, uncovered cases of nationwide use by the FBI and other agencies working to cover up StingRay use in instances in which they have, among other things, dropped criminal cases to avoid having to disclose their use of them. Additionally, they have entered into nondisclosure agreements at times in order to not do so. Just a month ago, this House--and the Senate, a few days ago--passed, overwhelmingly, a new authorization of the PATRIOT Act. We did so with a careful balance between what our government can do to us and what protections we have, and particularly the Fourth Amendment. This is a narrowly crafted amendment. It in no way stops the use of these devices when a Federal court has ordered and allowed the use, either a FISA court or a common warrant issued by a judge. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, each person who comes up here will talk to you about the painstaking work that the chairman and the ranking member went through to craft a bill that would both strengthen our security, following on with things we have learned since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, and also make changes based on both lessons learned of things the PATRIOT Act overdid and excesses by the Presidential usurping of the intent of Congress. We have achieved that by a 25-2 vote in our committee, a vote that is almost unheard of. I think, most importantly, though, we are doing something the American people need to know, and that is we are bringing transparency to the process for the first time. Under this legislation, a FISA court, working in secrecy, that makes a decision to expand or to in some other way add more surveillance will have to publish those findings, declassify them, and make them available not just to Congress but to the American people. We cannot guarantee that behind closed doors secret--and necessarily secret--judge actions would always be what we would like, but under this reform, we can ensure that Congress and the American people will have the transparency and oversight as to those actions, not by whom they were after but what they did. That is going to bring the true reform that has been needed in a process in which the trust of the American people has been in doubt since the Snowden revelation. I, personally, want to thank the ranking member and the chairman. This could not have happened without bipartisan work and without the support of those who want to strengthen our security and of those who want to strengthen and retain our freedoms under the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this bill should mandate our knowing more and the government not knowing. It should have ensured that the government only had what it needed. It should have protected private companies who wanted to exchange appropriate information between each other. It should not have created a vast treasure trove here in Washington or somewhere in the hinterland where the government now and in the future can dig in for any purpose--criminal background investigations or perhaps simply checking to see if you paid your taxes. The fact is, this is a data vault that is not narrowly construed, and, therefore, sadly, without the amendments that were not allowed, I am not in a position to vote for this bill. I thank the chairman, and I thank Mr. Polis for his kind remarks also.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the rule, but not without trepidation. I will be opposing the underlying bill, but not without regret. The underlying bill could have done what we wanted it to do. It could have allowed for the exchange of information while protecting individuals' privacy. It could have limited that information to preventing a cyberterrorist attack. But, in fact, amendments that were offered on a bipartisan basis, a number of them, that could have limited this would have, in fact, allowed us to have the confidence that this information would be used only for what it was intended. Mr. Speaker, since 9/11, the government has begun to know more and more about what we are doing, who we are, where we live, where we sleep, whom we love, whom we do business with, and where we travel. And we have known less and less. Just a few days ago, the Ninth Circuit in northern California had to rule that the government had to turn over information in a usable format. It took a Federal court order to do so.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as we meet today shortly after noon here, it is evening in the Persian Gulf. It is evening off the coast of Yemen. As we speak, Iran is supplying the rebels, the Houthi rebels, with weapons. Their ships are heading toward them. Iran is, in fact, our enemy; and Iran is, in fact, in an active war to destabilize many of the Arab countries, as we speak. Iran is a terrorist state, but we are pretending it isn't. The Houthis have been determined by the United Nations to be stopped as rebels, and yet the Theodore Roosevelt is circling rather than, in fact, sinking that ship or stopping it. We, America, are negotiating a nuclear deal that may or may not work--that remains to be seen--but we are negotiating with a terrorist state, a terrorist state that will, I guarantee it, continue going forward to destabilize the region and cause American lives to continue to be lost. This is the peril that we have. We have had it since 1979. If we do not stop Iran far beyond its nuclear ambitions, we, in fact, will lose American lives every day for the rest of my life.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I don't come to the well and speak on rules. I think the gentlewoman from New York will almost not recognize me on the House floor in this capacity. But I think this is an extremely important rule, and I think the last two minority Members made the point for me very well, and I would just like to maybe comment on it for just a moment. Mr. Polis is a dear friend of mine that I have cosponsored and I am cosponsoring legislation with. He and I agree on a great deal. He talked about the question of whether this was American to do what we are doing. Nothing could be more quintessentially American than to say when we have a real difference of opinion between two bodies--in this case the House and the Senate--that we want to provide an opportunity to reconcile those differences and to go to conference, to spend a week or two, as necessary, publicly, as the rules require, debating the differences between our visions. Democrats in the Senate have been able to keep us from having any kind of a comment on the President's acts, which have been ruled by a Federal judge as unlawful and unconstitutional. Now, I just got basically told ``shame on you'' by my other colleague, and I really can't understand that. He knows that there is a real difference of opinion in this body between what the President can do and what he is doing. He said, and I am paraphrasing: Please don't shut down the government because you disagree. Just disagree. Mr. Speaker, the President has made it very clear time and time again that the wrong place to argue with him is on a debt limit, the wrong place to argue is on a budget, and now the wrong place to argue is on our one constitutional absolute, which is the power of the purse. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important place to reconcile these differences than when we are debating the power of the purse. The President has said he has the authority. Fine. A Federal judge will decide that. But the House can decide whether or not to fund him. It is our obligation to decide whether or not his spending of the American people's hard-earned money is, in fact, consistent with the best interests of the American people. Now, I want immigration reform. I want every aspect of it. I have hardworking farm families in my district who cannot live without an effective solution for an out-of-control farm labor base. Almost every farm laborer in California either is or was unlawfully in this country at one time. We have held up other immigration waiting to try to get an agreement with the Senate. If we do not begin today by creating space in our democracy for the healthy debate between the two bodies over the next 3 weeks, then we have shirked our duty. If we simply shut down and give up, we have shirked our duty. If we simply capitulate and fund whatever the President wants--just a blank check--we might as well just say, Spend such funds as you may need to, and go home. That is not what the American people want us to do. They want us to reasonably provide the advice and consent when it comes to appropriation. This bill was intended to do it. The 3-week extension gives the President a full 3 weeks to wage, if you will, his view with the American people, the Senate to do so, but I desperately want the healthy public debate between Members of the House, Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, on what we will do going forward. I would hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee would vote with me, if not on the rule, then certainly on the passage of 3 weeks to give democracy a chance, 3 weeks for our Republic to do what is enshrined in the Constitution, what has been the policy of these two bodies for over 230 years. Provide the 3 weeks, go to conference, publicly debate the differences between the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the President and, quite frankly, a Federal judge, in front of the American people. I have been here 14 years; we have been working on immigration problems. The President has been President for 6 years; we have been working on immigration problems. Three weeks of healthy debate, nothing could be more appropriate in our great Republic.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, anyone who says that we are going to let down the guard on national defense because we are having a healthy debate and we have continued full funding of the Department of Homeland Security simply is not being genuine in the discourse. The fact is, 3 weeks of full funding is exactly the right thing to do. Our enemies will know that we take homeland security seriously, but we also take immigration seriously. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Burgess from Texas, said one thing that should be repeated in this body every single time we use the word ``immigration'': America allows more people to come here through the front door not more than just any country in the world but more than all the countries of the world combined. Over 1.2 million people will immigrate to this country legally this year. We are generous beyond any other country in the world. So no one can say we are not pro-immigrant. We are. But there are 11 million people in this country who are unaccounted for, and getting it right and spending those dollars wisely is Mr. Burgess' requirement, and it is my requirement. To all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote ``yes,'' make this happen, and we will have a healthy debate in our Republic.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we mourn the loss of Edward J. Leong, who passed away on December 7th, after a lengthy battle with cancer. Ed served for 36 years in the Office of the House Legislative Counsel, 16 of them as Senior Counsel. He specialized in titles 5 and 39 of the United States Code, the law governing the federal workforce and the United States Postal Service. His sharp mind, relentless pursuit of perfection, and skill ensured the bills considered by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Congress were written in a manner that allow for effective implementation. Ed was a mentor and teacher to many current and former staff. His professionalism and dedication to his work are an example to this institution. Ed's soft-spoken manner, kind nature, and laugh made him a pleasure to work with. As Chairman, I extend the sympathy and condolences of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to Ed's wife, Chee Lee, his children Stephen and Anna, and his colleagues--in particular those in the House Office of Legislative Counsel.