David Jolly

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, this past December, the community of Pinellas County, Florida--indeed, the Nation--lost an American hero, William M. Allen. Bill Allen was 83 years old and had served in the United States Army from 1949 to 1953 as a sergeant, Charlie Company, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division. Mr. Allen was a prisoner of war from January 1, 1951, until August 1953, held captive during the Korean war after being overcome by Chinese troops. Mr. Allen was just 19 years old at the time. To those who knew Mr. Allen, he was one of those remarkable people that left a lasting impression on you after just a single encounter. He was a patriot. He would share his stories not for his own attention, but to impart on each of us the story of sacrifice that our men and women in uniform make so that the United States--all Americans--might live in peace, protected by those who serve. Mr. Allen's story was most human. In his own words, he wrote this about his enlistment in the Army and subsequent deployment: Then there are people like myself, the little guy who went to Korea as a young kid, still wet behind the ears, fresh out of high school, who joined a peacetime army, but soon found himself in one of this country's most controversial military and political situations known at that time. When it was over, we came home as veterans; no longer were we the kids down the street. We were now that guy home from war, the war that only a very few knew very much about, a war that was unpopular, and a war that was soon to be forgotten, forgotten only by those who didn't have to fight it. Mr. Allen did fight that war for us, and his sacrifice truly became real the day he knew he had been overcome by Chinese forces. He recalls wondering at that very moment would they shoot him, and in those brief moments, Mr. Allen recalled that he knew then that the course for his life would forever change. Two things he said he knew for sure: one, he was still alive; and, two, he was now a prisoner of war. Indeed, the course of Mr. Allen's life had changed forever. He endured many terrible moments as a POW. His family endured much grief, much worry, much pain; but his life had also changed forever because Mr. Allen would later find another calling in life, that of teaching others the importance of service, teaching about the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, sharing with others the true cost of freedom. He would share these lessons with anyone he would encounter, but he also did something very special. He contributed many of his personal items from the war--letters, telegrams, newspaper articles--to the Armed Forces History Museum in Largo, Florida, for a permanent display dedicated to his POW story. Moreover, he then volunteered his time to teach young people at the museum the very lessons of service, to share with visitors his deeply personal story. Mr. Speaker, Bill Allen served our Nation in war, but he then served his community here at home, passing down a rich legacy to generations that follow. I was one of those individuals who had an opportunity to share in that story, and I am blessed by my experiences with Mr. Allen. For his military service, Mr. Allen was awarded many medals, including the Combat Infantry Badge, the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and others. Mr. Allen is survived by his wife, Helen, of whom he once wrote: If she was not with me, I don't know what I would have done. She was not only my wife, but she is my best friend. Mr. Allen is also survived by his children, Susan and Bill, and many grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, before Mr. Allen's passing, he presented me with a copy of his book, ``My Old Box of Memories,'' and inscribed on the inside jacket is his message, ``Freedom is not free.'' Indeed, we know freedom is not free. Today, I rise to remember and honor Mr. Allen, to remember and honor his legacy, a legacy that will live on through the many people he has touched and, most importantly, through individuals, children, and youth that he devoted his time to educating about the cost of war, the importance of sacrifice, and the dignity of service. I thank Mr. Allen today for his service to our Nation and to pay a most fitting tribute, that for a man who sacrificed so much on behalf of our Nation, today is remembered in the well of this House--the people's House--by Members of Congress and by a grateful Nation. May God bless Bill Allen; may God bless his wife, Helen; may God bless his family; and may God richly bless each and every American who today serves and protects and defends the United States of America.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. You bring much education experience as a layperson but also somebody with very specific political convictions. The President talked about free community college. And as an example, he used two local areas that now provide it. Well, I think that is the point of departure for our view of government. If a local community decides that they want to provide education through whatever tax levy that the residents there might support, that is a great opportunity. But to suggest that somehow Washington, which so often fails in orchestrating through the heavy hand of government a new type of education economics, is going to work better than those two communities that he cited last night is exactly where the view of government between our side of the aisle and his begins to depart.

Mr. JOLLY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. JOLLY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time. I hope what the American people have seen and our colleagues have seen is a Congress with solutions. We will be passing through this House border security solutions, a homeland security solution. Frankly, addressing the constitutional overreach we saw from the President, we will be passing energy independence solutions, education solutions, tax reform solutions. We are committed to doing that on behalf of the American people. I look forward to working with our colleagues, and frankly, we remain hopeful that we will have the opportunity to work with the President on this as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and to address the country this afternoon and to do so with colleagues of mine from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to draw a contrast between the view of government represented by our side of the aisle and of that which we heard last night from our President, a President who seemingly ignored the will of the people as expressed by the ballot box in November and who, instead, doubled down on an agenda that we believe on our side of the aisle is the wrong view of government and the wrong direction for our Nation. So I rise with my colleagues today to talk about just a few of the very substantive points and to do so very constructively and to present why we have a different view of government and why we think that is important. I would start by suggesting this. If we think about what the President said last night, in his words, the President declared from the rostrum that no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. Now, I understand the sympathetic position on climate change. I am from a coastal State, and, frankly, I am a member of the Republican Party who believes that, indeed, the climate is changing, but I do not believe that the greatest challenge facing our future generations is that of climate change. In fact, you can harken back to the words of Thomas Jefferson. He had a very different opinion than our President had last night. He said that public debt is the greatest of dangers for our Nation to fear. I would suggest that Jefferson was right, that the greatest threat to our future generations is actually economic security and domestic security. I would like to speak for just a couple of moments about that and allow my colleagues to talk about other portions of the President's remarks. Let's first talk about the long-term threat to our economic security--our national debt--a topic that was completely ignored in the President's address to the Nation last night. Understand the significance of where we sit historically when it comes to the national debt. When this President took office, our national debt was just over $10 trillion, meaning it had taken 220 years for our Republic--220 years--to accumulate just over $10 trillion in debt, a number already far too high. In the 8 years of this administration, an additional $10 trillion will be added under this President's watch. When he leaves his office, our debt will be over $20 trillion. Mr. Speaker, that is a threat to our national security. The greatest threat, perhaps, to our national security, arguably, could be unwatched, out-of-control spending and debt that ultimately collapses our economic system and ensures that we are no longer the world's greatest superpower. In fact, George Washington, himself, admonished that we have a moral obligation to pay off our debts during the life of the majority, during our lifetimes. Rather than hearing from a President who doubled down on a very progressive agenda and who suggested with the rare audacity, as he did, that our Nation is fine in that conflicts and wars are over, in that our economy has returned, in that we have faster job growth than European nations--and yet the President suggested last night that he wants to grow our government in the very same manner that these European nations have today--and rather than tell us how to grow a government we already can't afford, I would ask the President to present a plan to pay for the government we already have. The greatest threat to future generations is not climate change. It is our economic security, and it is also our homeland security. Many on this side of the aisle have grave reservations about the President's current plan to combat the war against ISIS, or ISIL--against radical extremists-terrorists who intend to bring harm to the United States. That is a threat. That is a real threat. The President called for something last night that I strongly agree with. I think this body should have a robust debate about an authorization to use military force. We owe it to the American people, who sent us here, to represent them on this very critical issue of what is our national policy to protect our homeland, to protect American lives. In fact, what is the current plan to arm Syrian rebels, and what is the likelihood that that will actually be successful when we have seen a lack of success in areas like Iraq? Despite the declarations of last night, I would challenge that we are not as safe as, perhaps, the President suggested. From the Middle East, to Africa, to Paris, to Yemen, to our very own border, what is that plan? House Republicans passed a border security bill that reflected the will of the people last July, yet we heard nothing last night--not a single comment--about how to secure our border. It is a sharp contrast. We heard about negotiating with Iran. We heard about releasing prisoners from GTMO. We heard nothing about securing our borders and securing our homeland, so we have taken this time today to present a constructive contrast between the President's view of government and our view of government and what we believe are the right priorities of our government. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues today, and I would yield now to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. JOLLY. With that, I yield to a real leader in this institution, a colleague of ours from the great State of Alabama, Mr. Bradley Byrne.

Mr. JOLLY. In our remaining time, I would like to revisit another topic--it is one on which I think the solutions on our side of the aisle reflect the will of the people that we saw at the ballot box in November--and that is border security. We need to reclaim this issue, as conservatives. We need to redefine this national conversation. The President likes to continually say that if Congress would just send him a bill, then all would be okay, and it is usually followed by suggesting that if we send a bill that we pass, he will veto it. What he means is we have to send him his bill. I just want to point out something because we do have solutions on this side of this aisle, and we have acted responsibly on behalf of that. In July, we passed a border security bill that put facilities closer to the border to keep those who enter illegally closer to the border. We changed the policy to ``last in, first out,'' so if you get in, you don't get to linger for years before you are returned if you don't have a humanitarian claim that merits staying. We also increased funding for judges, created tele-courtrooms so that we could more expeditiously process those who come here illegally--and rightfully so--and we should do so very responsibly. We are a loving nation made better for immigration, but we should show everybody the rule of law and how you responsibly immigrate here. Mind you, we also passed a bill that provided for the health care of those who come here and while they are detained here, but I want to point out something very specific. In the coming weeks, this Congress is going to offer another bill--because that one was never accepted by the Senate or went to the President--to require operational control of our border. That is a great urgency, to have operational control of our border, not to just address the traditional border security issue, but to address what we know is a growing concern about our domestic and homeland security. We have seen the threats around the globe. Most certainly, that has to be an area where we can reach agreement with the White House, and I hope we can take up the President on his offer to put a bill on his desk and ask him to sign it, just as he has pledged to do so.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Davis, any more comments this evening?

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. JOLLY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I would like to claim this time to spend a few moments on the floor of this House to express the appreciation of myself and my colleagues to those who serve every day in our law enforcement community. There is no better way to kick off this time than to yield to a colleague of mine from the State of Washington, a former sheriff of 30 years in law enforcement, and a former Sheriff of the Year from King County, my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. JOLLY. I thank my colleague from the State of Washington. Today, on Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, I would like to yield to a champion supporter of law enforcement, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as well to say thank you to law enforcement officers throughout Pinellas County, Florida, and across the Nation. Thank you for your service and thank you for your sacrifice. And I thank your families. Each day in Pinellas County, Florida, the community I have the opportunity to represent, as well as across the country, thousands of law enforcement officers serve and protect us, often at great sacrifice to their families and at risk to their very own lives. This was the case on December 21 when Officer Charles Kondek of the Tarpon Springs Police Department in Pinellas County responded to simple a noise complaint. It would be Officer Kondek's end of watch as he tragically lost his life at the hands of a gunman, a gunman whose actions represent the type of inhumanity that we entrust our law enforcement officers each day to protect us from. Officer Kondek was only 45 years old, and he is survived by, and his memory lives on through, his wife and his six children. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this story repeats itself throughout communities across the country. The Nation witnessed, on December 20, in New York, two law enforcement officers who were assassinated by an individual with one intention: to take the lives specifically of law enforcement officers. Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of Pinellas County, the brotherhood of law enforcement officers, the sisterhood of law enforcement officers who protect us each day understands, just like law enforcement officers across the country, the very risk to their safety and to their lives and the risk and the heartbreak of their families and their children, that that risk is very real. In our county, we have lost a total of 24 officers, including, in recent years, St. Petersburg officers David Crawford, Jeffrey Yaslowitz, and Thomas Baitinger, each representing a precious loss of life while serving and protecting us. And yet we find ourselves today listening to some, a minority in our society, who wish to give voice to those who undermine the very honor of law enforcement officers, who undermine the very sacrifice of our law enforcement officers, and who undermine the very danger that these law enforcement officers face each day. Instead, we should be rising to say ``thank you'' to the men and women of law enforcement, ``thank you'' to the men and women in our communities who protect and defend us. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do just that, to say ``thank you.'' Thank you to Officer Kondek of Tarpon Springs for his service, and thank you to his family for sharing him with a community that will forever remember his ultimate sacrifice. Thank you to the families of all fallen law enforcement officers, and thank you to those who continue to serve each day. I want to thank our local law enforcement leadership in my hometown of Pinellas County: Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, Clearwater Police Chief Dan Slaughter, St. Petersburg Police Chief Anthony Holloway, Chief Terry Hughes of my hometown of Indian Shores, Belleair Police Chief Bill Sohl, Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent, Kenneth City Police Chief Kevin Matson, Largo Police Chief Jeffrey Undestad, Pinellas Park Police Chief Dorene Thomas, Pinellas County Schools Police Chief Rick Stelljes, Tarpon Springs Police Chief Robert Kochen, Treasure Island Police Chief Tim Casey, and Chief David Hendry of the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg. I especially want to thank all members of law enforcement in my hometown and those throughout Pinellas County who get in their cars each day and walk the streets, respond to crime, investigate crimes and respond to disturbances and ultimately protect us. I want to thank those I am privileged, within the law enforcement community, to call friends, officers from the Clearwater police force: my dear friend Detective Jonathan Walser, Detective Michael Stonelake, Detective Christopher Precious, Sergeant John Brown, Officer Bill Renfro, Lieutenant Juan Torres, and Lieutenant Richard Harris. And from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, my friend, Sergeant Steve Wagner. Thank you to each of you. And I want to thank the Capitol Police officers who protect each of us here as Members of Congress and the thousands of Capitol visitors each year that are protected from threats that at times can be tragically real. Thank you to all who serve, from Pinellas County, throughout the State of Florida, communities across the country, and right here in this very Chamber. Thank you for protecting us. Thank you for serving. Thank you to every law enforcement officer for your commitment to duty, your service to your community, and your service to your fellow man. As my colleague, Bradley Byrne said, blessed are those who would lay down their life for their brethren. That is the oath--to risk their life to protect others--that our law enforcement officers renew each day. Indeed, may our loving God richly bless each one of you who put on the uniform of law enforcement, and may God richly bless your families. May God's loving hands protect and defend each of you every day of your service, just as you protect and defend each one of us. Please know that this Member of Congress and millions of people across the country, including those in Pinellas County and Florida's 13th District, including communities throughout our Nation, are forever grateful for the service of law enforcement officers, your service to your fellow man. So today, on behalf of millions of Americans, I simply say to each of you serving as law enforcement officers, thank you. With that, I yield to a new colleague of mine from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers for this time. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY

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

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important appropriations measure to keep our government funded and open, but I also rise to encourage my colleagues on our side of the aisle and address many of the concerns I have heard. In July of this year, this House, our side of the aisle, passed a border security bill focused on protecting our borders from illegal entries, building facilities at the border to hold illegal entrants at the point of crossing, increasing the amount of immigration law judges and tele-courtrooms that allow undocumented individuals to be adjudicated close to the border instead of being provided travel to courts around the nation, and authorizing our National Guard to respond to the spike in illegal border crossings. This House passed that measure. The Senate refused to consider it. The President would not sign it. Last week, this House, our side of the aisle, passed legislation declaring null and void the President's recent Executive Order granting temporary amnesty to millions who have broken our laws. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. This House passed that measure. The Senate refused to consider it. The President would not sign it. After the President's Executive Order, dozens of us, including myself, sent a letter asking the leadership of the House Appropriations Committee to attach a provision to this bill declaring that none of the funds provided to the Administration may be used to implement the President's amnesty order. But the Senate refuses to consider it. The President will not sign it. The numbers today are simply not on our side. And our only remaining recourse is to shut down the government--a tactic that I cannot support, that I said I would not support when I was elected, and I intend to keep my word. This is a tactic that I believe is terribly wrong for our country, for our economy and for private sector jobs throughout the country. And so today we should say to the American people, ``The President, the Senate, they must own their legacy. And this House must own ours.'' So what is our legacy today on this side of this aisle? It is a legacy of fighting for Constitutional principles, adherence to the rule of law and separation of powers ordained by our founders, and it is a legacy that today includes a good appropriations bill that is right for the country, and frankly, right for conservatives. The bill we pass today: 1. Prohibits any funding for the president's Race to the Top Education program, better known throughout the country as Common Core; 2. Slashes the budget of the Internal Revenue Service and prohibits the agency from targeting non-profit groups based on political or ideological affiliations; 3. Reins in the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to reach further into our local communities with regulations opposed by mayors, homeowners, businesses, and agriculture interests; 4. Maintains critical pro-life protections preventing tax dollars from being used for abortion related services; 5. Cuts Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board which uses price controls to impact available care to patients; 6. Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to prisons here in the United States; and, 7. It prohibits Department of Justice programs like Fast & Furious. And most importantly, this bill represents a continued dramatic rollback of our federal budget. This bill spends approximately $1.1 trillion on federal activities, down from approximately $1.4 trillion just five years ago. This budget is lower than we have seen in years and represents a historic downturn in spending--all at the hands of Republicans in Congress. Recall that the President submitted his budget proposal at the beginning of this year and it was resoundingly rejected by both the House and the Senate, including rejection by many members of his own party. This is our budget now, and it is a budget we should support. This budget prioritizes the right programs for federal spending. It funds our men and women in uniform with the tools and technology they need to safely combat threats around the globe. It provides increased funding to the Veterans Affairs Administration to decrease wait times for benefit applicants. It wisely invests in targeted medical research to address Alzheimer's, cancer, and pediatric sub-specialties. Finally, and let's be very clear here, this legislation allows us to combat the President's Executive Order on amnesty from a much stronger position in a matter of weeks. We don't have the votes today in the Senate to overturn the President's amnesty order. That is the reality. There is no means to get a measure even to the President's desk for him to veto. We simply don't have the votes in the Democrat-controlled chamber on the other side of this Capitol. It would be short-sighted for us to convince ourselves otherwise and proceed listlessly down a path to what would only lead to a government shutdown--a shutdown that would break the faith of the American people who have entrusted us with the responsibility to govern. But we will, beginning January 6. In mere weeks, we will have a Senate controlled by conservatives who can join with this body, this side of the aisle, and continue our legacy of fighting for Constitutional convictions over Constitutional compromise. Let us today embrace these critically important incremental conservative successes in this appropriations bill--successes that reflect our view of government--and let us then return to this body in only a few weeks with our new Senate colleagues to continue the fight on behalf of the American people. We can then lay on the President's desk legislation that challenges his Executive Order and asks him to defend what we all believe is an intellectually dishonest interpretation of his authority under Article II of the Constitution. Colleagues, I urge your support.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5059, legislation to improve mental health and suicide prevention services for our Nation's veterans. Across the country today, there are families grieving, remembering loved ones who, in a moment of tragedy, took their own lives. These families also have in common another memory--the day their loved ones put on the uniform of the Armed Forces for the first time, who raised their right hands and took an oath to defend the Nation, to defend and protect each of us. In many ways, we as a nation have failed to defend and protect them. We have failed to ensure sufficient access to mental health care and suicide prevention services. We have remarkable caregivers and mental health counselors in our VA and DOD health systems who are on the front lines of mental health services every day, who do remarkable work; but, administratively, we must do more. We must empower veterans to seek immediate care for mental health and suicide prevention services. We must incentivize mental health professionals to join the VA workforce and deliver health care to our veterans, and we must improve the coordination between the VA and the DOD to deliver these services. This legislation does exactly that, and it is why it deserves our full support. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of national importance, but it is also a matter of personal conviction for many families, including for a mother in my district who, on Memorial Day of this year, at the C.W. Bill Young VA Medical Center at Bay Pines, approached me to share a story about the loss of her son who took his own life while awaiting enrollment in the VA, while awaiting mental health treatment from the VA. His mental health needs were left untreated, and he took his own life. There are very few things more important for this body than to give voice to the voiceless. We are doing that today by speaking out about the tragic experiences of those who are no longer with us and by improving a health care system that provides remarkable care every day to our veterans but who need this Congress and this administration to enact much-needed changes. Mr. Speaker, this is critically important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in its passage.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the National Defense Authorization Act, both because we as a Congress and the President have failed to honor our men and women in uniform by properly recognizing and authorizing the current actions against ISIS, and because this legislation wrongly begins to roll back the pay and benefits our service members rightfully deserve. Its been nearly two months since the President announced his military campaign against ISIS. Our military has flown thousands of sorties and we have thousands of our men and women in uniform with their boots on the ground. The President calls them military advisors but they are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. We are engaged against an enemy that has taken American lives, and enemy that has said they want to penetrate our homeland, an enemy the President has identified by name and declared that our national strategy is to destroy this enemy. And yet the President has yet to propose an Authorization to Use Military Force, and this body has yet to bring one up. We each have failed in our Constitutional responsibility to have an honest debate about whether we are a nation indeed at war, and whether we are a nation prepared to accept the human sacrifice that comes from conflict, and very importantly how we as a nation will responsibly pay for this conflict. Instead, we have considered only the President's proposal to arm moderate Syrians--an elusive strategy that will do little to combat the war on ISIS, only complicates our geo-political strategy as it relates to Syria, Iran, Russia and other hostile nations, and a strategy most likely to fail. Two months ago we had a debate over approving the Presidents strategy to arm and train Syrian rebels, but not a broad Authorization to Use Military Force as we should have. I voted against the President's plan then, and today I most reluctantly rise to oppose this National Defense Authorization Act because quietly tucked into this legislation is a renewal of this authority for two years. While our men and women in uniform continue to commit their lives to fighting our enemy and protect our homeland, we quietly approved for two years the weakest part of an already questionable military strategy. To make matters worse, the President and the Senate included in this legislation a cut to the housing allowance for our military, and increase in pharmaceutical co-pays, and a rejection to the pay increased proposed by this House of 1.8%. This is wrong. Earlier this summer, this body passed a National Defense Authorization Act that rejected the President's proposals. Our body rejected the President's proposed pay increase of 1% and instead passed a raise of 1.8%. We rejected the President's proposal to require a 5% reduction in personnel housing allowance, we rejected changes to the commissary program that would increase costs on military families, and we rejected new pharmaceutical copays proposed by the President. I was pleased to vote for this measure because it was right for our men and women in uniform, it recognized their sacrifices by rejecting proposals that would have had a significant negative impact on the quality of life of those who serve us every day. Despite our efforts, the President and the Senate prevailed in implementing these cuts through this legislation--and most insultingly, at a time when we are asking our military to confront ISIS and tenor elements around the globe, and at a time when the Commander in Chief has decided it important to commit military troops to battle the scourge of Ebola. This President and this Congress can do better. We should vote down this measure, return to negotiations with the President and the Senate, and do what is right for our men and women in uniform and what is required of this Congress Constitutionally--to debate and decide if we are today a nation at war with ISIS and if we are a nation with a clearly defined strategy that will be effective in combatting this growing threat to our national security. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure and demand better.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional organization from the Tampa Bay area. Troop Rewards is a group that helps our veterans heal from the psychological stresses of war and reunites them with their families in a safe and relaxing environment. In 2009, the founder of Troop Rewards, Tom Burkett, received a phone call from a private first class overseas inquiring about the cost of returning home to Clearwater Beach and having a short rest with his family. Tom replied, How can you be charged anything when you have spent the last year risking your life for our country? This donation was the first of many for Mr. Burkett, and it inspired him to start the nonprofit Troop Rewards organization. Since then, Troop Rewards has helped more than 100 military members readjust to life after deployment by reintegrating them with their family in a moment of rest and relaxation through the foundation's recovery vacations. With destinations ranging from Maine to Florida, returning military troops have the opportunity to spend time with their family--a reward they have rightfully earned. Mr. Speaker, Troop Rewards reflects one of our highest priorities as a nation: to repay a debt owed to those who have sacrificed so much for us. I rise today to commend Troop Rewards and their many partners in this effort, including the Sandpearl Resort in Clearwater, Florida, and the Clearwater Marine Aquarium. May God bless these fine organizations, and may God bless our troops.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, once again, the President's health care plan, known to the Nation as ObamaCare, is in the news, both because it is open season for individuals to choose their level of health care coverage, but also because of the now-made-public suggestion by a senior architect of ObamaCare that the administration would have to rely on, in his words, the ``stupidity'' of the American people to get the President's plan enacted. Those are shameful words that disrespect every American and have rightfully been condemned by Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the American people know exactly what is in the bill. We are reminded of it every day that we now live in a country where our government will fine you--fine you--for not having the health care coverage that it deems adequate. It is called the individual mandate, and it is a classic government-knows-best ruse, but this time with the threat of fines and penalties on individuals who don't comply or, in the interpretation of the Supreme Court, with new taxes just for you. These fines will steadily increase each year. By 2016, it is estimated that 6 million Americans will be subjected to individual fines from their government. I take a very different view than many in the current administration. First, I think the American people are smart enough to make health care coverage choices for themselves. Second, I don't believe our government should be mandating on individuals the health care coverage that is right for them and their family, particularly under the threat of penalties and fines and additional taxes. That is why this week I have introduced legislation to rescind the individual mandate in ObamaCare as though it never happened. Unlike the 906-page bill that was ObamaCare, this bill, the Patient Freedom Act, is merely two pages. Every Member of this body can know what is in this bill before we pass it. Many of us believe that a full repeal of ObamaCare is appropriate and right for the country, but it is foolish for us to think that the President will sign a repeal of his signature legislative achievement. That is why my bill covers only one provision, the individual mandate. Let's have a government that, again, trusts the people to make their own discussions, that does not suggest, in the terms of this now-famous adviser to the administration, that the American people are too ``stupid'' to make their own health care coverage choices. Let's empower people with true patient freedom, true health care coverage choice. This modest compromise is very simple. It says to the American people, ``If you like your ObamaCare, you can keep it, but if you believe that you should have different coverage, you are empowered, you are entrusted, you have complete control over the health care coverage discussions for you and your family.'' We are entering a period in January when compromise will be required for this Congress and this President to work together. This is a simple two-page bill that says the American people are indeed smart enough to make their own health care decisions for themselves. I urge my colleagues to consider this commonsense bill. Let's put it on the President's desk and ask him to do what is right for the American people.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, we will be asked as a Congress later today to vote on authorization of the President's request to arm Syrian rebels. I rise this morning to oppose the President's request, and I do so with a heart of conviction that says we must do more to combat, confront, defeat, and destroy ISIS, but also with the conviction, respectfully, that the President's request is simply wrong. ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States. My belief on this is clear. I was one of a little over a dozen Members of Congress to recently introduce legislation authorizing the President to do more. We must eradicate the ISIS regime that perverts a religion founded on peace and uses it as a platform to engage in crucifixions and beheadings and mass murders. But I oppose today's request because it fails to seek the full authorization of this body. It fails to seek a clear mandate of the American people and because it asks this body to approve only one small portion of an overall strategy that is continuing to evolve. And that portion is most controversial, most questioned, and most vulnerable to failure. We should be here today as a Congress debating whether we are a Nation at war, whether ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States, and if we are at war, we as a Congress should be asking the question: Are we fully engaged as a Nation to defeat ISIS, and are we fully committed to accepting the consequences and the casualties required to do so? But that is not what today's vote is about. Today's vote is whether we as a Nation put our reliance on Syrian rebels, and that leaves far too many unanswered questions. We tried this in Iraq, to mixed results. We know Syrian rebels--we know this-- some will cooperate with ISIS and, in fact, contribute to the additional killings of Syrian Christians and religious minorities. Are we prepared as a body to accept those collateral casualties of terror? We know training will take months. What will we be doing tomorrow? We know Russia has declared this will be an act of aggression. What is our Nation's response, and what is this body's response? And how does today's debate contribute to our Article 1, Section 8 authority under the Constitution? Are we quietly allying with the Syrian Government, a regime that 18 months ago we said we wanted to topple, or is this an act of aggression against Syria's sovereignty? And where is this Congress in this debate? The final question is: Do we seriously think, as the President portends, that this will not require a single pair of boots of our Special Operations community to touch Syrian soil? Do we truly rely on Syrian rebels to lay the targets for our elite air assets? There are boots on the ground today. We can call them military advisers, but the fact is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday said, if necessary, he would recommend putting them in a combat role. We are not having that debate here on the floor of the House. The American people deserve a President and a Congress that are honest about what we face as a Nation militarily. The doubt in this debate in this Congress has been palpable. We question the strategy, we question the trust of Syrian rebels, we question our constitutional responsibility, and yet we are prepared as a body to ignore all doubt, to ignore our uncomfortable conviction of opposition to this request simply out of a desperate hope that somehow this matter might resolve itself without the President and the Congress having a hard conversation, recognizing that we are a war weary and tired Nation faced again with an asymmetric threat from terrorists who have threatened our homeland. We want to believe the beheadings and the audible threats of terror to our shores is not real, but we know it is. We as a Nation do not have the luxury to choose what threats confront us; we only choose our response. So my request of my colleagues in this House is that we have a full debate on what we face as a Nation. The President has brought us this very limited request merely out of statutory convenience, not out of constitutional conviction. We should not accept that. My request of the President is this: very respectfully, do not trample on the constitutional authority of this Congress as you reluctantly march to the drumbeat of war that you are rightfully hesitant to engage in and with an elusive strategy that leaves so many unanswered questions today. This body should have a full debate. The American people deserve to know that the President has requested full authorization and this Congress has had an opportunity to deliberate on it. I reluctantly oppose the request today, knowing we must do so much more to confront ISIS. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and in opposition to the EPA's Waters of the U.S. Act. I represent Pinellas County, Florida, a district that lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay, surrounded by water and prone to flooding and storm runoff. So, like many coastal communities, this is an important issue to us. EPA issues can be divisive--we know that--but they need not be. My message today is not one of anger. It is simple common sense. We can do better. The EPA can do better and the Corps can do better. This is not a debate over clean water. Everybody in this body supports clean water. But this is a debate over the expanded jurisdiction of a Federal Agency and the current overreach of that Agency. In this case, this legislation is opposed by a variety of interests, from agriculture, shopping centers, chambers, homebuilders, manufacturers, transportation interests, but very importantly, by counties and mayors like many in my district who spoke to me in August. We are called as Members of this body to represent our communities. Let's do that today. Let's represent the interests of our communities. This is not a moment for ``Washington knows best,'' because Washington does not know best in this case. Mr. Chairman, we can do better. In this case, let's send it back and insist on a better rule.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the newest Members, and I have to tell you it is amusing to find the paradox on the other side of the aisle that, yesterday, we were being criticized for not considering a bill. Today, we are being criticized for considering a bill. I sat in my office, just like many others today, and watched the President of the United States attempt to admonish the House for working. I want to make something very clear to the American people tonight. The President's plan for the crisis on the border was rejected not just by this body, but by the Senate. There is not a majority in the Senate or in the House willing to consider and approve the President's plan for the crisis on the border. That plan is dead on arrival, with a majority in the Senate controlled by his own party and a majority in this House, and so the Senate brought up its bill, and it was rejected. The Senate, controlled by the President's party, left town. This House, this body, this Congress, this caucus, is working. I am new to this body, and I find it fascinating that the media and the pundits and the consultants can take a set of facts and suggest that, because we are working together, somehow we are dysfunctional. That is an absurdity. We are working. What is dysfunctional is the other side of this Capitol. What is dysfunctional is the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue. This body is working. We are sitting here complaining on both sides of the aisle--some in my own caucus--about what is not in this bill, but the fact is what is in this bill is the right solution. This is a good bill, and I would say to the folks on my side of the aisle, I know a lot of folks have concerns about this. For conservatives, this is the bill we have been asking for, for years. This is a responsible, commonsense approach that says if you come here illegally, you will be returned into the responsible and caring hands of your government, and frankly, let's put in the hands of everybody a packet that says how to immigrate here legally. We are a loving and caring Nation, and we are better for that, but we are also a Nation of laws. This bill says enforce the law. It is accountability. That is all it is. Where the President has proposed nearly $4 billion, this body has proposed less than $700 million, fully offset by cuts to other Federal programs. This is a conservative bill. It pays for itself. It is about enforcement. It is about accountability. Lastly, I will say this as a new Member of this body. I admit my naivete. I am a Pollyanna. I actually believe this body can work. I believe what is good and right about this body. I believe we can work. Let me tell you why we ended up here today and we didn't get a bill done yesterday is because we have Rs and Ds next to our names. If we drop the Rs and Ds, we had enough votes last night to pass this bill. We know it on both sides of the aisle. This is a commonsense bill that addresses the priorities of the American people, and if we were here yesterday not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Members of Congress that know what is right for the future of this country, we could have passed this bill yesterday. So instead of complaining yesterday that we didn't pass a bill and complaining today that we are here working on a Friday night to pass a bill, we can keep it honest, drop the partisanship, and pass what the American people expect, which is responsibility and accountability and commonsense solutions. That is why we are here tonight. I think we need to pass this bill. I think every Member of Congress should pass this bill. This is a good bill.