David Jolly

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a real American hero who risked his life to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy today. Yesterday, Navy Ace Commander Philip Kirkwood of Seminole, Florida, accepted the Congressional Gold Medal presented to our American Fighter Aces. Born in New Jersey, Mr. Kirkwood enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942. Earning his Navy wings a year later, Mr. Kirkwood joined the VF-10 flying Hellcats off of the USS Enterprise. Mr. Kirkwood recorded his first air victory over the Caroline Islands in 1944, but it would be far from his last. Over his distinguished career, Commander Kirkwood recorded 12 confirmed victories and 1 probable. One of fewer than 80 living fighter aces, Commander Kirkwood is decorated with the Navy Cross, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Air Medal with five Gold Stars. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Commander Kirkwood for his years of service and his bravery. May God bless Philip Kirkwood, and may God bless each of our American Fighter Aces.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an institution that, for 50 years, has been the cultural heart of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. This month, in May, the Mahaffey Theater celebrates its 50th anniversary. Opening in 1965, the venue was originally called the Bayfront Center Complex, a combination arena and theater along the city's most beautiful downtown waterfront. It quickly proved to be a gathering place for community and civic groups, and its many shows drew tourists from around the State. The artists that have performed at the Mahaffey could easily fill an entertainment hall of fame, from Louis Armstrong to Dionne Warwick to Liza Minelli to Johnny Mathis, Kenny Rogers, and even ``The President's Own'' United States Marine Band, an event that was secured by the invitation of my predecessor, Congressman Bill Young. The first significant makeover for the venue occurred in 1987, and the Bayfront Theater became the Mahaffey Theater after a generous gift from St. Petersburg's Mahaffey family. In 2011, Big3 Entertainment took over the management of the Mahaffey, with CEO and chairman Bill Edwards privately funding a number of major enhancements. Today, the Mahaffey is home to the Florida Orchestra, and it is the annual host site for the Miss Florida Pageant. The Mahaffey also supports, very importantly, the highly successful Class Acts program, which enables school children to experience the performing arts through in-theater performances, as well as in-school outreach and extension programs. The theater also has been the site of very important moments of American history. The theater was the site of the 1996 Vice Presidential debate between Al Gore and Jack Kemp. And in 2007, the Mahaffey hosted the nationally televised Republican Presidential primary debate, known as the very first YouTube debate, having Americans, for the very first time, submit questions via YouTube video clips. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Mahaffey Theater, celebrating a venue that today anchors a growing and thriving Pinellas County arts community and serves as a stage that celebrates the arts but, most importantly, celebrates the remarkable human spirit, the creativity of so many performers, and the dedication and commitment of the greater St. Petersburg community.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest condolences and those of Florida's 13th Congressional District to the family and friends of Rochelle Tatrai Ray. No words can truly convey the loss that has been felt since Rochelle's most tragic passing. Rochelle was the president and CEO of Gulf Coast Jewish Family & Community Services and had been with the agency for 12 years. She was responsible for managing the organization's 600 employees, working with 60 different programs, covering 32 counties of the State of Florida. She worked tirelessly to help those with serious physical disabilities and impacted many families around the country as an advocate for children's mental health policies. She frequently spoke around the country to share her passion for the welfare of children. Rochelle's life was tragically cut short in an abhorrent case of domestic violence last December. Rochelle was just 46 years old. I wish to honor the life of Rochelle, who is survived by her two daughters, Marisa and Selena; her parents, Louis and Gai Linn Tatrai; and her sisters, Dana and Gai Linn. Rochelle will be greatly missed, but her memory will live on through those she has touched and influenced throughout her life. May God bless Rochelle Tatrai Ray; may God bless her family, and may God bless the family of Gulf Coast Jewish Family & Community Services.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, it is silly season again in Washington. It is that time of year when we have our annual budget debates and when we realize that only in Washington can an increase actually be considered a decrease. Later today, we will vote on a bill to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs. That bill increases the Department's funding in real dollars from last year by 5.6 percent, and yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim it is a decrease, when, in fact, it is the highest level of VA funding ever provided to the Department. But even worse, we have a Secretary of Veterans Affairs who is peddling this same intellectually dishonest line as well, the Secretary of a department in which negligence in the past year contributed to the deaths of veterans. Those are the words confirmed by the Office of the Inspector General. And yet, despite the failure of the Department, the Secretary, earlier this week, had the audacity to go behind closed doors with members of only one party and claim that somehow the 6 percent increase being provided by our committee will, in fact, further the VA's failures of the past. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary has exhibited a level of audacity only seen in Washington. If we are honest, it is an audacity that reflects a style of leadership likely to fail--fail the VA, but most importantly, it is going to fail veterans across the United States because, you see, here is the real story. We still have hundreds of thousands of veterans waiting for health care and for benefits. We know there is malfeasance in VA construction, and we know the VA continues to declare veterans and dependents dead when they are, in fact, alive. But here is the most important and the most offensive part of the Secretary's messaging: in the midst of all this, this body has actually continued to trust the Secretary. You see, when the VA Secretary came before our subcommittee, I asked him, point blank: What will it take to clear the veterans' benefits backlog? And he said: Resources. We need over 700 more employees. We need an increase in resources. Now, I question that. I will be honest. I think there is a culture that has changed. I think we need infrastructure and IT that has to change. But he said resources, and so we trusted him. Our bill provides full funding for his request to clear the backlog, and yet he continues to say that our side of the aisle somehow, in providing the request that he made of our subcommittee, is going to fail his administration. It is a despicable display of partisanship at the helm of a department that has no place for partisanship. And so a department that last year was defined not by its successes but by its failures is now needlessly defined by its politics. And you know the one thing the Secretary did not ask for? Additional funding for the Office of the Inspector General, the office that uncovered the negligence, that reported to Congress on the negligence. Zero increase in funding was requested. So our subcommittee stepped in and we provided an additional $5 million for that office. Now, very importantly, we have to acknowledge that this gamesmanship, this leadership failure, should not reflect on the men and women who serve our veterans on the front lines every day. We have great men and women who serve in the VHA and the VBA. I have had the opportunity to visit with them. Just last week, at our local VA hospital, an elderly veteran was brought to tears telling me how much he appreciated the loving care he was receiving from the employees of the hospital. We must acknowledge their service, their contribution, every day, just as we acknowledge the failure of leadership in Washington, D.C. So you see, this week's dysfunction, this week's intellectually creative dishonesty, this week's audacity is just Washington ``small ball'' peddled by this administration, but with real consequences that undermine the confidence of the American people. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington is a 5.6 percent increase actually a decrease. It is appropriations season. It is, indeed, silly season again in Washington, D.C.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple measure. It simply prohibits the relinquishment, the closure, or the transfer of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay out of the possession of the United States. In 1903, as a result of the Cuban-American treaty, the United States began to occupy Naval Station Guantanamo Bay for at least as long as necessary or in perpetuity for naval operations. The treaty stated that the U.S. shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control of the base, while also recognizing the sovereignty of Cuba. Today, Naval Station Guantanamo is a front line for our regional security in the Caribbean. It supports our Navy logistical work; drug interdiction; DHS migrant operations; and, importantly, disaster and humanitarian relief, including responding to the 1980s and 1990s mass migration, as well as the 2010 Haiti earthquake response. Very importantly is what this measure does not do. This measure does not touch the detention facility and the politics of the detention facility. This focuses solely on the national security implications of maintaining the Navy station 90 miles off the shores of Florida. Importantly, it is an issue that has been brought right now as a result of the President's decision to begin to normalize relations with Cuba. Also, importantly, this doesn't take a position on normalizing relations with Cuba. In fact, you could make the argument that normalizing relations with Cuba actually enhances and improves and increases our national security because it allows us additional operational units and boots on the ground at our Navy station there, engaging with the locals, improving our intelligence, improving our ability to respond. The moment the President began to offer normalized relations, the Castro regime demanded the return of Guantanamo. This is a matter of our national security to maintain it. You need not make this political. Simply look at the advice and opinions of the previous three commanders of U.S. Southern Command. Current General John Kelly has called GTMO indispensable to the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and State. The commander before him, Admiral Stavridis, said it is of immense strategic value. Prior to him, General Douglas Fraser, contemplating the eventual closure of the detention facility said, even absent a detention facility, the strategic capability provided by U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay remains essential for executing the national priorities of the United States. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of national security. We have a process for realigning and closing naval facilities. This legislation simply says, for purposes of national security, this amendment prohibits any transfer or closure of Naval Station Guantanamo. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the time I have remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize someone who has been described as a trailblazer, a pioneer, and a woman of firsts: Pinellas Park Police Chief Dorene Thomas who, on this Friday, will retire after four decades of public service. Thomas became the first sworn female police officer at the Pinellas Park Police Department in 1980. In fact, when she started, the evidence room was located in the men's locker room, something she would eventually change. In 2000, Thomas became the department's first female police chief, but she often said she would simply prefer to be known as a good police chief rather than a female police chief. Five years ago, she was elected president of the Florida Police Chiefs Association, another first for women. She has also started intensive crisis intervention training, which teaches officers how to work with people with behavioral or mental health challenges. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize a person who has helped keep our citizens safe, to honor a person who has led with courage, kindness, grace, and understanding. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Thomas for her selfless years of service. Thank you for making Pinellas County a safer place, and thank you to all the men and women who, today, serve on the front lines of law enforcement. Chief Thomas, enjoy your retirement. You have very well earned it.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this commonsense measure that will help us more effectively fight prescription drug abuse while also ensuring that Americans are able to get their needed pain medications. Florida has been at the epicenter of the debate concerning combating prescription drug abuse while ensuring legitimate patient access to critical pain medications. Florida was one of the first States to be affected by the proliferation of ``pill mills'' and took strong action to shut them down, under the stellar leadership of our State attorney general. We have seen similar challenges nationally, and DEA has taken action. Unfortunately, Federal agencies have not coordinated their efforts to ensure appropriate access to prescription controlled substances. In Florida and elsewhere, we are seeing legitimate patients who are getting caught up in the efforts to stop prescription drug abuse. My own father was one of those patients: an 80-year-old retired minister prescribed a legitimate medication for chronic pain and yet unable to fill that prescription at his local pharmacy. All of the best intentions in the world by all of the actors but, unfortunately, there were very unintended consequences for a patient who needed care. The issue is largely due to DEA policies and extremely poor coordination between DEA and FDA. The key to this legislation is collaboration and coordination. This bill requires HHS and DEA to collaboratively assess the obstacles patients like my own father face and more effectively coordinate those efforts to prevent diversion and abuse of prescription drugs, while including the input of private sector stakeholders who are vital to these efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this very important and commonsense legislation.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to address my colleagues, to address the American people on the eve of one of the most concerning days for many Americans, that of tax day, April 15. My previous colleague alluded to measures that we will bring up this week on behalf of the American people, and I look forward to having an honest and constructive debate about the bills this week, our national tax policy. But listen; this is a very human and uniquely American moment this evening, as many people are overwhelmed with the deadline that they face tomorrow to submit their taxes. I think it is safe to say that an appropriate word of many Americans this evening and into tomorrow is one of resentment. There is resentment for many reasons. For many, it is simply the complexity of our Tax Code, that today, in 2015, our Tax Code is so complex that many people struggle with compliance or, for those with resources, have to turn around and spend their hard-earned resources to hire a professional simply to understand the laws and the Code that we have implemented here in Washington, D.C. For others, the resentment is about the amount of taxes they pay, and this is across all income spectrums. The resentment is related to the fact that they question how their taxpayer dollars ultimately are resourced, are spent, are obligated by this body. Some studies have shown that as recently as 2012 over $100 billion was spent in the areas of waste, fraud, and abuse--taxpayer dollars, not Washington's dollars, but taxpayer dollars that we each remit responsibly to our government, that we entrust our government to spend wisely, responsibly, to invest in the right priorities for the Nation, but also to ensure that the business of government runs exactly as that, as a business, an efficient business. So there is frustration by many people. And yet, even worse, the system is designed today to obfuscate responsibility. Think about it. We live in a generation today where, for the majority of Americans, your taxes are withheld from your paycheck. The generation that enters the workforce today simply knows that if they are to be paid $100, it is not really $100, that there is money taken out of it. That wasn't always the case. Until World War II, we didn't withhold. In fact, it was in 1943 when Congress passed and the administration enacted the Current Tax Payment Act that began to withhold. Now, there are a lot of arguments to be made for why we withhold-- ensure the responsible flow of taxes to government--but understand what that very simple measure did. It began to slowly remove the American taxpayer, the American citizen, from the actual act of remitting, of paying for the government that they have. It made it slightly harder to recognize the responsibility that the money that is being sent to Washington every time there is money withheld from your paycheck, that in fact that is the taxpayers' money. Instead, we have generations that have come up just assuming that you are paid $100, but you only get $80 or $90. Well, that is just the way the system works and there is money coming out of it, as opposed to making that $100 and having to remit a check to your government and then hold that government responsible. I know this sounds like a crazy notion in 2015, but it is an important context for the conversation we have in terms of the amount of taxes that are placed upon the American people and the expectation for the level of responsibility of our government to actually spend those resources. This is a very real conversation. This was brought to me just last evening by a woman who owns her own firm, her own practice, and is married to a husband who likewise owns his own firm, his own practice. Now, in that situation, this couple is responsible actually for writing that check, for paying what we call estimated taxes each quarter, and then, at the end of the year, reconciling whether they paid enough or not. For that couple, it is a very real experience. It is very different from a majority of Americans who are employed by an employer, and, in fact, the money is withheld because, for that couple, every quarter--every quarter--they have a conversation around the kitchen table about the amount of taxes that they are sending to their government, the amount that they are resigning over to government and what they expect in services in return. That creates a certain efficiency, a certain accountability. It is a very interesting question. Mr. Speaker, it also leads to how much should that check be that this couple writes in estimated taxes? This is an area of broad debate, and it can be a constructive debate. What is the right marginal tax rate is something that people of differing political positions obviously have deeply held convictions. I can tell you this, though: we live in a world where the average American is subjected to multiple taxing authorities. Consider this: we often think in this body only of your Federal marginal income tax rate and the contribution that individuals make to Social Security and Medicare and other mandatory programs. In Washington, you might have a debate that focuses solely on what is the appropriate marginal tax rate. Well, in State capitols around the country, you have State governments having that same debate, but there is a gap. Rarely would Washington ever consider what is the State tax obligation in a specific State, and rarely would a specific State worry about what the marginal tax rate is of the Federal Government and then extrapolate that out to taxing authorities at the local and municipal level, your school board, your water authority, energy taxes, utility taxes, and car taxes. Mr. Speaker, think about all of the taxes that a single individual is responsible for paying; yet we have no tax ombudsman that represents the taxpayer before all of these taxing authorities. We have no collective assessment of what is the total tax burden of a single individual, not just from Washington, but from your marginal income taxes to your mandatory contribution to entitlement programs to your State taxes to your sales taxes to your water taxes, utility taxes, school taxes, and car taxes. What is that total tax burden? On the eve of April 15, I think it is appropriate to have a conversation about what is the total tax burden that any one individual should be subjected to, not the marginal income tax at the Federal level, not whether it should be progressive or flat, not whether it should be simpler, fairer, or flatter--which, certainly, I think every Member of this body would agree to--but what is the total tax obligation that any one individual should be subjected to? Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, taxes, fiscal issues, tax issues, are freedom issues. How much do we as government collectively, of all forms, ask for an individual to resign over to government to make decisions for them? That payment of taxes, that resignation of resources by the individual to a governing authority, those taxing issues are actually freedom issues. How much does it leave for the individual to have discretion as to the decisions they get to make for themselves? I have actually introduced legislation, H.R. 144, called the Alternative Maximum Tax. It is a very simple proposition. It says that no one individual should have to give to government collectively more than they get to keep for themselves. Think about it. What is the moral justification for why in the United States, this great land of liberty, this country that was founded on the notion that freedom is granted not to government to be disbursed to individuals, but freedom is granted by our Creator to our individuals, and as individuals, we get to decide how much liberty we resign over to government? If that is the case, if our Nation was founded on this remarkable notion that freedom is first granted to the people, how can anybody, how could we ever argue that an individual should then have to resign over more than half of their income, more than half of their resources, to government collectively? Now, understand, this isn't simply a conversation about the marginal tax rate at the Federal level. This is saying from State to local to Federal to water district to utility district, what is the total taxation of any one individual? That ultimately is a freedom issue. The legislation I introduced actually does exactly that. It says an individual is able to add up every single one of these taxes, and, if they hit a threshold of 50 percent, they hit a maximum tax. We have an alternative minimum tax in the country. It says if you fully comply with our Tax Code and you qualify for tax deductions and tax credits, but Washington decides you didn't quite contribute enough, then we are going to hit you with an alternative minimum tax and say: Too bad, we don't like your math; we need more money from you. Well, why don't we have an alternative maximum tax to protect the taxpayer? I will be honest with you. Marginal tax rates, as I mentioned, are something for political debate. I think 50 percent is way too high. I would like to see that number come down because I do believe it is a matter of freedom. This legislation, H.R. 144, I will tell you the political strategy behind it and the absolute transparency, it is to beg the question, to ask the question, the very simple question: Should any one individual have to give to government more than they keep for themselves? It is a moral question, I believe, in 2015. We also this week, in looking for solutions on behalf of the American people, will consider other commonsense proposals. One of them would make permanent the sales tax deduction. One in five Americans live in States that do not have an income tax but do have a sales tax. The State of Florida is one of them. For that one in five Americans, a sales tax deduction is very important. Think about it. Income taxes at the State level are deductible on your Federal tax return; but, if you live in a State that, instead of having income taxes has sales taxes, shouldn't that be deducted just the same? The principle behind a State income tax deduction on your Federal return is it is recognizing, as I discussed in the max tax, that if an individual is already paying and contributing a certain amount to their State for government operations, then it would not be appropriate to tax those dollars. We allow the deduction of State income taxes from your Federal tax return. We should likewise allow the sales tax. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is something that, unfortunately, does not have a permanent place in the Tax Code. Later this week, we will consider--and I believe the House will approve--H.R. 622, to make permanent the State and local sales tax deduction. We also will vote on H.R. 1105, which would ensure the elimination of the death tax--the death tax. Think about this. A nation that says you may have already paid money on your income, but the day you die and leave it for your family, your family has to pay another tax on that, it is as outrageous as it is insulting, and it is a very simple measure that we will consider this week to repeal that. We do have, across the country tonight, a lot of concerned and, frankly, angry constituents probably in every single congressional district. Tax policy and budget policies, we have seen, can be very divisive. As a Congress and as a nation, it is appropriate that we begin to have a national dialogue about how we can do better, how we can do better on behalf of the individual taxpayer because the current system doesn't work. We know that. There is a reason that everybody has different ideas about tax reform. Well, just as we should be doing on so many other matters in this Congress, let's bring a package to the House floor. Let the House work its will on behalf of the American people that we are elected to represent. Let's give voice to the American people that we represent and have an honest and constructive dialogue about the future of tax policy. We owe it to the American people to do our job. Mr. Speaker, on the night of April 14, when so many people are working tirelessly simply to comply with complex regulations and laws that have been enacted by this body through multiple administrations and multiple parties--no one party bears all responsibility--but we know we have burdened the American people tonight, so let us, as we consider these bills later this week, do our job on behalf of the American people and recognize this burden that has created such resentment. Moving forward, let's bring a tax package to the floor. Let's have an honest debate between the two sides of the aisle and do what is right on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity this evening. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the passing of a dear friend and a friend of this body, Mrs. Sheila Gregory, a Florida native and former employee of the House of Representatives. Sheila was a woman of many talents, having worked as a journalist, an educator, a financial planner, and a realtor. It was, however, in her many years of service to several members of Congress that Sheila found her greatest passion. She loved the history of the House, the legislative process, the politics of this great institution and took great pride in her opportunity to humbly serve the public. It was here in the House that she met many members of Congress, a number of whom still serve here today. And it was here that she met her former husband Douglas Gregory. Sheila leaves behind three adult daughters, Angela Oler, Nancy Gregory, and Jennifer Gregory, all of whom were in her loving company at the time of her passing last Wednesday, February 25, 2015 in Fair Oaks, Virginia. In addition to Doug and her daughters, Sheila leaves behind five grandchildren, Alexis, Jordan Douglas, Sasha, Jack, and Mya, as well as two sisters. Sheila Isbel was born on May 30, 1947 and raised in Clewiston, Florida. She moved to Northern Virginia in 1979 to begin her Congressional service. She was a devoted mother and grandmother who will be greatly missed by her family and friends. Mr. Speaker, Sheila Gregory was one of the many people that have come here to serve our colleagues in Congress and in turn help us serve the American people. Even though she left this House to pursue many other varied careers, she never lost her love for Congress and the legislative process. Please join me in sharing our deepest condolences to the Gregory and Isbel families on their tremendous loss.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. JOLLY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Speaker, I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. I fully understand and respect the significant place that this committee sits in, Republicans and Democrats, to keep the government funded. I know that. I think the first responsibility of Congress is to keep the government open. But I take great reservation to my colleague's suggestion that somehow this is an abdication of our constitutional responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Madam Speaker, I want to make something clear to the American people today. All week I have seen signs on the House floor saying that Republicans are shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, and I have seen press conferences saying Republicans are shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, scaring the American people about something that has not happened. Here is what we have not heard: Where are the solutions and where is the compromise? Because I will tell the American people this today: what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said is: It is all or nothing. I understand the interest in a clean DHS bill. I am very sympathetic to that. But to take that position when we know that there are Members of this body who take grave, grave reservation to the constitutional overreach of the President, that is an abdication of the constitutional responsibility of this body. All or nothing is not legislating. Signs are not legislating. Press conferences are not legislating. Legislating is reaching a compromise between two sides of the aisle with very different views of this. I will tell you, this process has not gone how I would have wished it to go. But I know this: the Nation is better and the Congress is better when we have regular order and when we legislate the way the Constitution has ordained. Madam Speaker, we cannot abdicate our constitutional authority to recognize that we have a bicameral, bipartisan Congress with a disagreement, and what we owe to the United States Constitution is the opportunity for us to find a compromise. So I will ask you this: What if DACA provisions were removed from the DHS bill? Does that get us votes? What if we delayed the President's executive order until final disposition by the courts? Does that get us votes? What gets us the votes we need as a body of 300 Members? Not 218 Members, but 300 Members. Where is the compromise? All or nothing is not legislating. I will tell you it was a remarkable comment by the majority leader on the other side of this building this morning to suggest that going to conference is a waste of time. That is an abdication of the constitutional responsibility of this body. All I am asking for, Madam Speaker, is that we recognize the difference and we ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Where is the compromise? Because all or nothing is not legislating. Signs are not legislating, scare tactics are not legislating, and press conferences are not legislating.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House this evening, and I appreciate the opportunity to continue the conversation that was started by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight. Listen, there is a future in this body that, hopefully, is going to look a lot different than what it has looked like in past decades. I would fully concur that government should work and that we should keep the government open, but we must also defend the Constitution, and that is the paradox that we are faced with this week. I rise with some frustration from my side of the aisle and from what I have seen from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in recent days. I have seen speeches upon speeches upon speeches about a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. I have seen big signs in the well of this House, scaring the American people about a potential partial shutdown. I have seen press conferences across the country, including in my hometown of the Tampa Bay area, scaring the American people about something that has not yet happened. Recognize that all of these speeches, all of these signs are coming not from members of our community, not from the people who elected us; these speeches, these signs--the ``sky is falling'' mentality--are coming from our elected leaders, from Members of this body. Why does that matter? Why do I rise tonight to continue the conversation started by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? It is this: all we are hearing are speeches, and all we are seeing are signs. We are not hearing solutions. To this entire body--to both sides of the aisle--our constitutional authority was infringed upon when the President signed his executive order. That is not a partisan issue. We have a responsibility to confront that constitutional overreach. Yes, one mechanism we used to do that was the power of the purse. That is a fundamental power of this body, the power of the purse, and it was appropriate that we responded to the President's unconstitutional overreach by exercising our constitutional privilege, that of the appropriations process. Here is what I would point out to the American people tonight about the speeches that they hear from my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Recognize something very important: what is being presented in the midst of this debate over the constitutional overreach of the President is merely an ``all or nothing'' approach. It is either we pass a clean bill--and as the leader on the other side said, he will deliver 188 votes if we pass a clean bill--or it is nothing. Friends, colleagues, that is not legislating. That is using the bully pulpit. That is politics. That is not legislating. So what I would ask tonight is: Where are the solutions? Where is the conviction on the other side of the aisle? Where are the efforts to pass a bill that accommodates all Members of this body, Members on the other side, and, yes, something the President can sign? You see, I am actually a Member of Congress who thinks that the first priority of this body is to fund the government and to fund the Department of Homeland Security. I am looking to work with colleagues on the other side of the aisle to say: How do we do that? We have a responsibility to do that. I have three Coast Guard installations in my district. They are men and women--it is absolutely true what is talked about--who will have to go to work on Saturday morning with only the promise to be paid later. That is wrong. That is a failure of this Congress if we let that happen. We do have until Friday evening to solve this, and I believe we will, but I am asking, actually, for accommodation and cooperation from the other side of the aisle. What will it take? What will it take? Think about this: Rather than putting signs on the floor, rather than condemning our side of the aisle for trying to respond to the constitutional overreach of the President, what if we talk about provisions that will actually build consensus and get a majority of this body, regardless of Republican, Democrat, Independent--whoever you are--to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to also respond to the constitutional overreach of the President? I think we can get there. Do you know what I have never heard from the other side of the aisle? I have never heard: What if we remove the funding prohibition in the original House bill that prohibited the implementation, the further exercise, of DACA? They criticized it. If we remove it, does that get us the votes to pass a bill? I understand there is disagreement over the President's executive order from last September. I think it was wrong. Members on the other side don't. A Federal judge has said it is unconstitutional. The President of the United States said over 20 times he didn't have the authority to do it. Yet he did it. What if we allowed 6 months to let the courts work their will? It is perfectly reasonable. If you are a Member of this Congress who stood up on opening day and took the oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, to defend and protect the obligation of your office, why don't we agree upon a 6-month delay in the implementation of the President's executive order, an executive order a Federal judge has already put a hold on? Does that get us there? Does that get us the votes necessary? What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight said is absolutely true: Congress should work, Congress should govern. The American people should expect that of all of us. It doesn't matter our partisan affiliations, but it does matter whether or not we truly exercise the convictions about which we pontificate on the floor here tonight. It is not about signs. It is not about the bully pulpit. It is not about press conferences. Any Member who stands up here tonight, Republican or Democrat, and says that we will be worse off as a nation on Friday night if we have not funded the Department of Homeland Security is absolutely right. We must fund the government. But where is the effort on the other side of the aisle to actually reach a compromise? It is not there. I promise you that I have watched my colleagues from the time I got here this week--every speech. The leader on the other side of the aisle made an impassioned speech about the importance of funding Homeland Security, and he is right. My question is this: When will you abandon your ``all or nothing'' approach? Because exactly what you criticize this side of the aisle for is exactly the type of behavior that my colleagues on the other side are engaging in as well. We have failed the American people if we let that lack of cooperation overtake this body and lead us off a cliff on Friday night. The question to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is: Who is willing to step forward with a proposal that gets us there as a body? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time this evening. I look forward to ensuring that our Department of Homeland Security is fully funded come Friday night. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional group of young men in Pinellas County, Florida, the honor guard at Fuguitt Elementary School in Largo. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting with 21 young men of Fuguitt's honor guard who have recognized the importance of respect, discipline, commitment, and speaking out against bullying. These are remarkable young men in third, fourth, and fifth grade. The honor guard program at Fuguitt was started by former Principal Michael Moss; teacher Rhonda Correa; and her husband, Frank Correa, a Marine Corps veteran. The Correas have continued to lead the program today under the leadership of Fuguitt's principal, Dr. Kathi Bentley. The purpose of the honor guard is to develop structure, discipline, and leadership in young students who otherwise might face academic or behavioral challenges. Each student signs the honor guard pledge, which reads: ``As a Fuguitt honor guard member, I am a student leader of this school. As a member, I promise to be truthful, respectful, helpful, and hardworking. I will act like an honorable gentleman and respect and honor the flag of the United States of America. I understand my success is my Nation's success.'' Each day, the honor guard opens the school with the presentation of colors and the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Speaker, the young men committed to this program represent future leaders both in Pinellas County and also in our Nation, and they deserve the recognition and encouragement of this body. I am honored to recognize Fuguitt Elementary School's honor guard members today: in third grade--Romeo Greene, Sean Lange, Blake Logan, Levita Maafu, Troy Mason, George Mercado, Walit Morton, Daniel Mattrass, Micah Timberlake, and Bryce Young; in fourth grade--Domenic Barclay, Johnnie Chattman, Ari Davis, Matthew Kosinski, and Tyrek Tripp; and in fifth grade--Jon Dameron, Anthony Gonzalez, William Maafu, William Muscu, Steven Suero, and Andra Witchard. Today, these young men serve as role models to the rest of Fuguitt Elementary School and are held to a high standard, both academically and behaviorally. I rise today to recognize their efforts and commend the leadership at Fuguitt who are committed to the mission to help these students grow into future leaders. In closing, I would like to share the honor guard's poem that they recited to me at the end of my visit with them. It is a fitting tribute from 21 young men to the exceptionalism of our Nation. ``We are the beacon of light, the hope of mankind, that shining city on a hill, the most beautiful, the most bountiful, the most generous people in the history of the world, the country that has birthed the great titans of science and industry, the country that put a man on the Moon, the country that has liberated tens of millions from the clutches of evil, the home of the brave, the undisputed champion of freedom, the great Republic, the United States of America.'' I thank the Fuguitt honor guard for serving as an inspiration to so many, including to this Member of Congress. May God bless each of them and their families, and may God bless these United States.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to address a very important matter regarding the role of the Congress. And I would associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko) about the role that this body plays in trade but also the role that this body plays in foreign policy and matters of diplomacy. Every American watches the news each day. We all see the same stories, be it ISIS, be it terror around the globe. We know that we, as a nation, are engaged against a threat that, left unchecked, could cause great harm to our homeland and to American interests abroad. We also have heard in recent news the conversation about the Prime Minister of Israel addressing our Nation. We have seen the President's negotiations with Cuba, the President's negotiations with Iran, and it begs the question: What is the role of Congress in all of these matters, in these matters of foreign policy and foreign affairs? So I appreciate the opportunity tonight to discuss a view of our side of the aisle and many in this Congress. I will be joined by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) shortly to specifically talk about the role that Congress provides in setting the direction of our Nation's foreign policy. This body is a coequal branch. We are established under article I of the Constitution, just as the administration is established under article II. We are coequal branches. This body, most every American knows, has the authority to declare war. This body does, this Congress does. We fund our diplomatic activities. We fund our military activities. We authorize the use of military force, as was affirmed by the President today in sending such a request to this body to ask for the constitutional affirmation of this body, of this Congress. And we do so routinely. So when we come across events where sometimes people question why Congress would inject itself into matters of national security, into matters of foreign affairs, let's revisit why and the important role that Congress has served. This body, this Congress rejected the President's negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920. This body rejected the President's negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999. This body did that, reflecting the will of our constituents, of this Nation. This body, very importantly, investigated the Iran-Contra affair. This body investigated the intelligence activities related to 9/11. This body investigated the events of 2011 in Libya. We have the authority of the purse as well, as spending originates in this body. We have used that authority to limit the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo, over the objection of the President. We have used the constitutional authority of this body in matters of foreign aid and, at times, withholding foreign aid. Following the capture of Osama bin Laden and questions about Pakistan's role, this body responded by putting restrictions on that foreign aid. And, yes, this body provides billions to Israel as a matter of not only protecting the security of Israel but furthering our national security in the Middle East. So it is appropriate then to raise questions very respectfully and in a way that reflects our constitutional responsibility of the President's decisions at times. We are one Nation. We are united in providing for the security of our country, but sometimes we have different ideas. And it is okay to raise questions on the President's decisions. Consider the President's recent actions and the concerns of this body over the negotiations to return Bowe Bergdahl that involved the release of five prisoners from Guantanamo, in contravention of a law passed by this Congress and signed by the President. He provided no notice of that. We know that this President sent a secret letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran during a time of critical negotiations that many of us have concerns about and during a time when many of us have asked for additional sanctions on Iran, not fewer sanctions. We know this President has attempted to negotiate with the Castro regime to normalize relations in Cuba. We know that the President sent a message to Putin just before his last election, saying, If you just give me time and wait until after the election, I will have more flexibility. He delivered that message to the Russian President. So it is okay that those of us in this body have raised those questions. The President has the authority to do most of what I just said, although I object to his no notice in the Bowe Bergdahl case. But we also have the authority to provide oversight and to exert our role in this. So how do we do that? We do that in three or four areas that are very ripe right now for conversation, for debate, and in a way that attracts the attention and the interest of our constituents, of the American people that send us here to represent them. We saw today the President's request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force. I appreciate the President sending that request to this Congress. I believe we should have done that last September. I was one of a few Members of Congress who signed my name onto an Authorization for Use of Military Force that we introduced last Congress prior to the President sending his resolution to this body. I believe we had a constitutional responsibility to do that, as this body, to ask: Are we a nation at war? And if so, are we willing to incur the sacrifice necessary to win that war? I am encouraged that the President today, during his press conference, said that by working with the Congress and by negotiating on the language that we can make this resolution even stronger. And I think we will see that. I hope we will see that in the coming weeks and the coming months. The language in the Authorization for Use of Military Force that prohibits no enduring offensive ground troops I think causes much consternation for many in this body. Are we really going to pass a resolution that restricts the tools of our own warfare when it comes to providing for the national security of the United States? The President will have his opportunity to make his case. This body will have our opportunity to make that case as well. Limiting or sunsetting the authorization to 3 years I think is something that we should begin to talk about. It is okay for us to have to revisit a responsible Authorization for Use of Military Force in 3 years so that we don't find ourselves with a President years from now relying on an authorization that can be 10, 11, or 12 years old. We need to have that debate in this body and represent our view of how we respond to ISIS because the President's view has created much concern. We saw at the National Prayer Breakfast that he suggested that the foundation of our response to ISIS needed to start with our own humility, by looking at our own history. I appreciate the academic conversation the President would like to have on that. But that sentiment, in itself, compromises our own national security, in my opinion, because it suggests that we first must look inward before responding to what is a pending national security threat, a threat to our homeland and a threat to our national interests. We need to have a debate whether or not we believe that an air campaign is sufficient. For the President to suggest that no ground troops will be required, that somehow that is a way of providing for the safety of our men and women in uniform, ignores the very risk of those who will be engaging in a dangerous air campaign and will continue to do so every day. And what happens if we lose one of our pilots? What happens if one of our pilots is captured, like the Jordanian pilot that was captured and, as we all saw, the tragic end that he met? Are we, as a nation, prepared to respond and rescue? Are we going to put boots on the ground? Should we put boots on the ground? That is a debate we need to have. None of us are advocating for an extended war. None of us are advocating for putting men and women in harm's way. But if we are going to engage, as a nation, with our partners to defeat a threat to the United States, we need to have an honest debate about how we do that and not start the debate by restricting how we intend to do that. We also have a role in the future of Guantanamo. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 654, which would prevent the President of the United States from handing over our naval base at Guantanamo to the Cuban regime without congressional approval. This is very different from the debate over the future of the prison and very different from the debate over the transfer of detainees. Mr. Speaker, this simply says that we, as the United States, have a naval station 90 miles off our shore, and when Raul Castro demands that we return that to the Cuban people and pay reparations to the Cuban Government as terms of negotiation, my legislation says, No, Mr. President, you may not do that without coming to this body to ask for authorization. Certainly, I would not lend my vote to that. I was pleased to hear testimony in the other body, in the Senate, when the administration said that is not a matter they would consider, but as we have seen in the President's negotiations in the past, it gives us reason to pause. My legislation would simply codify the restriction that says that the Guantanamo Naval Base may not be returned to the Cuban people without congressional approval. Finally, we do have a role in inviting a foreign leader to address this body, Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is fully appropriate as a coequal branch of this government to invite and to ask for Netanyahu to address us about his vision of security in the region, his vision of peace in the region--his vision of security--and also his vision of the current negotiations with Iran. No Member of this body should shy away from receiving an address from the Prime Minister of Israel. We should stand resolute--Republicans, Independents, and Democrats--and be here for that address and not insult the Prime Minister and the people of Israel by turning it into a political game of boycotting an address by the Prime Minister. We should be here showing our support for the security of Israel, for the people of Israel, and, yes, for the Prime Minister's leadership. This is appropriate. We can disagree with the administration without being disagreeable. As we engage in oversight, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue this dialogue, and we do, as the President very respectfully suggested, and I want to thank him again for the tone of his remarks today when he said he hopes the AUMF can be better by working with the Congress. I would ask for the same of the administration when our Speaker steps out and invites Prime Minister Netanyahu because it represents the interests of this body when it comes to Israel and to the current negotiation with Iran. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined this evening to discuss this further by a fine colleague of mine in this body, Representative Rodney Davis from Illinois.

Mr. JOLLY. I thank my colleague. Let's, for a moment, stay on the topic of Prime Minister Netanyahu. One of the reasons we take to the floor is to make sure that the voices are heard from all over the political spectrum. As the media and some in this body have gained the attention of the media by suggesting that the Prime Minister shouldn't attend, it is important for those of us who believe he should to take time to discuss why that is. Most people know and understand--but some people don't--the significance of our partnership with Israel and what it means in one of the most volatile regions of the world. This is a nation that has committed to democracy, to peace, to freedom, to representation, and to security; and they are doing so in an incredibly volatile region. All that they have asked of the United States over the years is that we stand with them in their own courage to promote peace, security, and freedom of their own people. I would say, as I mentioned earlier, for those who have chosen not to attend, I certainly respect that decision, but I think it sends a message that is wrong to say not just to the people of Israel, but to the Prime Minister himself. Not only is there a political message trying to be delivered by those that don't attend, but there is also this notion that, somehow, those of us in this body better understand the internal politics in Israel better than the elected leaders. Why should we not trust that Prime Minister Netanyahu understands what is best for his nation? Why should we try to suggest that we know better than Prime Minister Netanyahu what is right for Israel and for the people of Israel? To suggest otherwise is demeaning both to the Prime Minister, as well as to the people of Israel. I look forward to the Prime Minister's address, and I think this body, as we make decisions both about Iran sanctions but also about our aid to the people of Israel, I think this body has an opportunity to learn from the Prime Minister and to understand the issue better as we begin to make decisions. I look forward to the Prime Minister's address to this body.

Mr. JOLLY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. JOLLY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. It can't be lost in this conversation about the pending address from the Prime Minister. As we mentioned, the security of Israel in a very volatile region, it is a region that is the center of much of the presence of ISIS. As we often see the political debate, the TV commentary, and the radio commentary about how we define ISIS, the fact is that if we are not willing to define our enemy, we will never defeat our enemy. We know that we face a threat, an organization that has declared war on us, and we don't get to choose the threats we face as a nation. We certainly wish we could. We only get to choose how we respond to those threats. The President's submittal of an AUMF request today is the right one. This body, I think, can have a very respectful debate about the terms of how we confront ISIS, about the authority, the authorization that we want to provide this administration for how he engages. I think the most critical thing we can do, though, is not tie the hands of our men and women in uniform and the leadership of our Department of Defense as they make decisions how to execute our campaign against this radical organization. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JOLLY. I want to associate myself with my colleague's remarks and simply close with this. It is important to revisit the context of how we brought this up tonight. We are one nation. The President, the Congress, we are united as Americans, as elected officials of this country, to protect the national security of the United States. The point of tonight's Special Order is that just as the President exercises his article II authority, this body also has a responsibility to exercise our article I authority, and that is okay. That is why we have the greatest republic that has ever been on the face of this Earth. Because we can have these debates in a constructive way between a President with one view of how to respond, a Congress with another, but know every day that we as a nation, the President and this body, are resolved to eradicate the threat of ISIS from the face of this Earth. We will do that. As I mentioned, just as the President asks us to consider an authorization to use military force, we must also ask the President to understand our interest in how this war to defeat ISIS is executed. And on issues of Iran, Cuba, and others, we will work together. We will have our differences and disagreements, but we remain one United States resolved to protect the security of our interests. I look forward to a very healthy debate on these issues in the coming months. I yield to Mr. Davis.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strongest support for the invitation to have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address this body and to express my personal support for the Speaker's invitation. Congress is a coequal branch. The Constitution acknowledges that. It establishes that. To suggest, as some have, that this body does not have a role in the geopolitical and diplomatic strategy of this Nation is flatly wrong. This body, this Congress, funds our diplomatic activities. We, this body, this Congress, funds our military activities. And this body authorizes the use of military force, as acknowledged by the President just today with his delivery of a request for an authorization to use military force. This body, this Congress, authorizes sanctions. And this body has expressed strong support in recent years for additional sanctions on Iran. We have a disagreement with the President, very respectfully, on this issue. But to suggest that this body, this Congress, this coequal branch, established by article I of the Constitution, should simply lay down its responsibility because the President of the United States suggested during the State of the Union that he will veto any additional sanctions we pass would be a dereliction of the duty of this body, of this Congress. That is why we have expressed our interest and we have said to the President that we do want to hear from our greatest ally in the Middle East to express our position of how to secure the region. It is appropriate. We are a coequal branch. At a time when the President continues negotiations with Iran over the objections of so many in this body, at a time when the administration has had to acknowledge--forced to acknowledge a secret letter to Iran, it is appropriate for this body to stand up, and it is appropriate for this body to suggest that we stand with Israel perhaps in a way that the President does not. This body, this House, this Member, we welcome the Prime Minister here in March. We look forward to hearing his vision, the vision of our greatest ally in the region, on securing peace in the Middle East, providing for the stability of the Middle East, securing democracy, and to say with the people of Israel that we stand with you in providing for your security.

Mr. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Washington. I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to law enforcement, recognizing their service each and every day. I had an opportunity a few weeks ago on this floor to thank and to recognize my local law enforcement community, law enforcement officers, law enforcement leadership from Pinellas County, Florida--the cities of St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Tarpon Springs, and others--and, with Tarpon Springs, remember an officer who our community lost just 4 days before Christmas, Officer Charles Kondek, whose end of watch was December 21, leaving behind a family and children. We can pay tribute--which we should and which the vast majority of Americans do every day--but we also are a Congress who must offer solutions and who must act. One of the ways in which we can act is to ensure, just as we do for our men and women of the military, that our law enforcement have the tools and technology necessary to do their job. While much of local law enforcement is, indeed, funded locally, there is a program--the 1033 program that has been debated so much during this past year--that provides equipment, protective equipment, tools, and technology for our law enforcement officers to do their job. That is a Federal program that should not be controversial. I have introduced legislation--because we are a solutions-oriented Congress--to continue the 1033 program, but to simply require one thing to address the concerns of so many, and that requirement is that local law enforcement leadership certify before receiving equipment that they have officers trained and capable of using the equipment. It is very simple. This is equipment that our local law enforcement officers need, and, frankly, if it is not available to them through the 1033 program, they will purchase it as required by their local force, and it will cost local taxpayers the money to do so. Here is the importance of this legislation. It says two things. First, it says that this Congress, your Representatives, want to do our part to provide for the safety of our law enforcement officers, but, secondly, subscribe to this radical notion that should not be controversial: we trust our local law enforcement leadership to set the right policing tone and to provide for the safety of their communities while they also provide for the safety of law enforcement officers that risk their lives every day, officers like Charles Kondek. I would encourage this Congress, as we continue to look for ways not just to pay tribute to law enforcement officers, but to support the work they do every day, to consider this legislation that ensures this program will continue to provide tools and technology to law enforcement officers and says: You know what, we, as a Congress, trust our law enforcement leadership back home because they know best how to provide for the safety of our communities, how to set the tone of policing in our communities, and how to protect our law enforcement officers. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Washington having this Special Order and allowing me time this evening.