Speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. The chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a. M. The chair will receive a message. The messenger mr. Speaker, a message from the senate. The secretary mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore madam secretary. The secretary i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 1998, cited as the d. H. S. Audit requirement target act of 2012, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. The speaker pro tempore the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. Jones, for five minutes. Mr. Jones mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Yesterday in the republican conference i acknowledged that five marines and one soldier from my district, the Third District of north carolina, had been killed in afghanistan by the afghans they were training. This to me is just does not make any sense at all why we stay in afghanistan. I also shared with the conference an email i got from the former commandant of the United States marine corps, who has actually been my advisor on afghanistan for three years. The commandant, i said, mr. Commandant, why do we stand by and see our american soldiers, marines killed by those people we are training . I said, mr. Commandant, how many more have to die, killed at the hands of the people theyre trying to help . And i read this from the commandant. At the end of the day, i am more convinced than ever that we need to get out of afghanistan. When our friends turn out to be our enemy, its time to pull the plug. The idea that troops we have trained and equipped now turn that training and equipment on us is simply unconscionable. Whether we leave tomorrow or 1,000 tomorrows from now, nothing, nothing will really change. Were now nothing more than a recruiting poster for every malcontent in the middle east. We need to wake up, and i read that yesterday in the conference, mr. Speaker. I want my party and the Democratic Party to wake up and get our troops home. Mr. Speaker, recently on cnns reliable sources with howard kurtz, wellknown journalist made this statement. We seem to be concerned about the sex lives of our generals than reallife soldiers. Probably no one knew who sergeant Channing Hicks and specialist Joseph Richardson were. They were two american soldiers killed in afghanistan the friday before he was interviewed. Almost everyone in the country knows paula boardwell. Thats such a tragedy, mr. Speaker, that our troops are dying in afghanistan and were writing about generals having relationships with outside of a marriage. It makes no sense. Weve lost 32 americans in october and november. I want to know where is the outrage here in congress, why are we spending money we dont have, why are our troops dying and yet we just seem to go on and on talking about the fiscal cliff . Well, i know thats important. Mr. Speaker, it is time for congress to realize that we are having young men and women to die in afghanistan for a failed policy that will not change one thing. Mr. Speaker, before closing, i make reference to this poster of a Young American in a casket being carried by his colleagues to be buried. Please, American People, put pressure on congress to bring our troops home now and not wait until december, 2014. I ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the loved ones who lost those in iraq and afghanistan. Please, god, help get our troops home now and not later. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizing the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer, for five minutes. Mr. Blumenauer mr. Speaker, mitt romney weathered a storm of criticism late in the campaign after Hurricane Sandy for his earlier comments about privatizing fema and turning responsibility back to state and local governments. But during an era of fiscal restraint and global warming, its high time that we start this conversation in earnest. How big do you want your fema to be . How generous your Disaster Relief payments and how much do you want to pay for it . In todays New York Times oped section, theres an article that points out potential liability for Flood Insurance alone is 1. 25 trillion. Second only to the liability for Social Security. Right now we have arguably the worst of both worlds. The federal government responds to disaster usually paying too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things. We provide federal money to put people back in harms way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future Risky Development worse. We often take remedial action, like for theifying beaches, a temporary solution, that can actually accelerate erosion elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more serious flooding downriver. By giving the illusion of protection, more people locate in dangerous areas and the vicious cycle is repeated with untold damage to families, with loss of life, loss of property, disruption of business. Perhaps wed be better off if we began with a serious conversation about what people expect from fema and heavily subsidized Flood Insurance. What if the balance of responsibility between individuals, local, state and federal governments was analyzed . What if we required individual Property Owners to assume more of the cost of Disaster Mitigation and recovery by paying the full cost of their Flood Insurance premiums and having recovery benefits provided on a declining scale after repetitive incidents . What if local developers were required to insure their buildings withstood the cost of certain foreseeable disaster events . Would they be less likely to pressure local governments to approve Risky Development proposals . If individual homeowners absorb more of their costs with slightly higher home prices, would it make it less likely theyre going to be buying homes in sdwuss locations . Shouldnt sdwuss locations . Shouldnt local governments have stronger building and zoning codes to make cost less likely and recovery less expensive . What if these local governments were put on notice that when they invest in infrastructure that the federal Disaster Relief is only going to cover a portion of the loss and that portion will decline with increasing frequency of events . While there appears to be little appetite for overall federal control, there ought to be even less appetite for the federal government to pay for the failure of local control to plan, zone, enact and enforce strong Code Provisions and consumer protection. The notion that this is all going to be a oneway street for the federal taxpayer to pay for repetitive disaster costs is something that needs to be challenged and rejected out of hand. Now, make no mistake, i think it would be foolish to privatize fema because theres a need for federal response to true disasters. Thats precisely the time that the local economy and taxpayer are least able to pay the full cost of recovery. They need money, personnel and assistance, but that doesnt mean a permanent entitlement to risky behavior. The federal government should deal with what is truly catastrophic and with the humanitarian costs. Families obviously should not be less destitute, hungry and homeless in the aftermath of natural disaster. There is, however, no reason that we encourage the repetition of these terrible events. In a time of fiscal stress and budgetary realignment, we should include government disaster spending, liability and Development Policy as we address the fiscal cliff. Done right this will not only save money but countless lives as well. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. Hayworth, for five minutes. Ms. Hayworth thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all work in congress during these final weeks of 2012 is focused on the fiscal cliff. Were worried and rightly so about what it means to our economy, to our future, to the daily lives right now of hardworking americans who are in all too many cases already struggling to make ends meet. Like the mother in carmel, new york, who told me their kids are going to have to limit their sports activities because shes finding trouble to find gas money to fill her tank a week. I helped her mom who is doing all she can just to get by. She cares for her family. She has a job, and shes a taxpayer. Shes in the middle class, and shes being squeezed from all sides. And she knows that even though she has to set and keep a budget, the federal government hasnt been able to do that, and thats why were facing the fiscal cliff. The federal government has been spending her hardearned tax dollars like water, running trilliondollar deficits year after year. Shes angry and she has every right to be angry. So what are we going to do about it . Lately weve heard a lot of talk about raising revenues, but not nearly enough talk about bringing the federal government down to the right size, about matching spending to the resources we have, about balancing the federal budget. Oh, we hear about a balanced approach, but thats just a way of saying we need to increase taxes. Actually, we dont need to increase taxes. The best thing we could do would be to not increase taxes. The best thing we can do is to raise revenues by making our economy as healthy and strong as it can be. That means we need to help our businesses grow and hire. Thats become way too hard to do in the past couple of years. A businessman in duchess county, new york, said hes going to have to limit the number of employees he has to less than 50 so he wont be subject to penalties under the 2010 health law. So right now the federal government is keeping him from offering jobs. That hurts the people who need jobs and who would be happy to be on a payroll where they would be putting their own contributions into Social Security and medicare. Increasing taxes means less growth and fewer jobs, and thats not balanced. Three years ago i made a pledge to oppose tax increases. I made that pledge to the citizens i serve and to no one else, and i made it because tax increases will hurt them. When jen, the owner of la petite cuisine in new york says the best thing i can do is give her a break from high taxes, i believe her. I ran for congress to help jen and all the Small Business people like her who are the engines of job creation. I ran for congress to help all the people who need employers like jen to hire them. These good people deserve better than temporary fixes. They deserve a plan that solves our economic problems for the long term. They deserve a plan that goes beyond politics and shows a commitment to putting the federal government on a budget and on track to eliminate our crushing debt, that respects our Citizens Rights to enjoy the fruits of their labor and to spend and save and invest as they see fit, which is the best way to grow the economy and add jobs and that allows each of them, regardless of their station in life or where they live or their ethnic background or their gender to use their energy, talent and common sense as free people in a nation that must remain the strongest in the world which is simply cannot be if its drowning in debt. Im here to fight for whats best for my constituents, every one of them, today and every day in every single way i can. I am here to serve them and not any party or idea ideology. My constituents future extends far beyond any election. They deserve that future to be as secure and prosperous as it can be. And it surely can be if we in congress and the white house can have the courage to move Forward Together in a spirit of true cooperation. I stand ready to do that, and i stand with the people of the hudson valley. Thank you, mr. Speaker, and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. Gutierrez, for five minutes. Mr. Gutierrez mr. Speaker, let me tell you how you know you have turpped the corner in the immigration debate. When sean hanity and senator rand paul and a group of others in the Republican Party began saying its time to rethink the partys approach to immigration, we have probably reached a milestone. When donald trump says the probable policy of asking 12 Million People to selfdeport is, quote, a crazy policy, that likely caused the republicans the white house, you have turned the corner. Any time i agree with donald trump, hope for bipartisan agreement should be running high. Most americans believe that election day demonstrated beyond the same old politics, the same tired, blame game on immigration. So when i saw republican sponsored senate bill on the house calendar this week, i thought, well, maybe House Republicans are changing their tune. On the campaign trail we heard governor romney say he supported a green card to the every math and science graduate from our university. Why should we educate some of the best minds on earth and say sorry, no room in the u. S. Economy for you . It makes no sense. They go away and compete against us rather than innovating and creating jobs here. Then i took a closer look at what the republicans are actually proposing. They havent turned the corner at all. In fact, they havent even stepped out of their houses. They certainly didnt learn anything from the last election. The stem visa bill on the house floor this week was actually voted down in september. It was introduced with a few changes and no consultation with democrats. I want to find a bipartisan solution on immigration. Im committed to it. I know it wont be easy. They say a journey of 1,000 miles begins with just one step. The problem is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to take one step and have the democrats travel the other 999. 9 miles. Certainly this bill isnt even a step its a shell game. Its the same problem that the stem bill in september had. It holds visa from a Legal Immigration program that works over to a new visa category where there may or may not be sufficient demand to use those visas each year. Immigration is always a zero sum game for my colleagues on the other side. We will only increase visa for immigrants we like if we can eliminate immigration for immigrants we dont like. But it isnt even a sum zero trick they are pulling here. Thats the myth. Only 20,000 stem visas would be issued to graduates meaning that the other 35 visas would just disappear. And which immigrant do they want to exclude in order to play this game . People from around the world who want a chance to make a new life for themselves in the u. S. You know, people like the fathers and mothers and grandparents of almost every member of congress. In this case, half of the people who come to america legally through the Diversity Visa Program come from the continent of africa, over half of them. But they come from all over. So the republicans would have us say to the good people of ghana or south africa, but also to the people of sweden, and ireland, and new zealand, and taiwan who applied to come here legally, sorry we have to withdraw the chance you had so we can convert them to maybe 20,000 stem graduates. Maybe. Once again republicans math doesnt add up. Heres something i bet you didnt know about the visa diversity program. Many come to this country and join the armed forces of the United States of america. But these legal immigrants are the target of the republican bill. I have news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. You cant fool immigrants. You cant pretend to be proimmigrant and eliminate immigration for one group to allow another group to come. I woke up the day after the election. I saw a new landscape for the immigration debate. It is one where democrats and republicans Work Together to solve tough problems facing the United States. We should not treat this as an opportunity for politicians to score political points again. But sadly, that is what is happening here. I want republicans to know that democrats support stem visas. We dont need to kill other Legal Immigration programs to create a stem program. But republicans are more interested in killing the diversity visa than in creating a program for stem grads watts for this bill, no matter what happens on friday, will not pass in the senate. Mr. Speaker, i believe we can turn the corner on real Immigration Reform, but only if republicans are willing to put on their walking shoes and take a few steps with democrats walking side by side for a greater, better america. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Fitzpatrick, for five minutes. Mr. Fitzpatrick thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor the life of lois of new briton in my home county of bucks, pennsylvania. A devoted husband and loving father, he passed away earlier this week after a long life of service to his community and country. As a young man in the army, louis answered his countrys call and honorably served in the korean war, and was awarded a purple heart for his service. Upon returning home from the war louis went on to serve his community as an officer with the Philadelphia Police department for over 20 years. I had the opportunity to visit the Korean War Memorial here in our Nations Capital with louis earlier this year. I was fortunate to have been able to spend that time with him. And proud to have called him my friend. His life of service is an example to each of us and i wish his family all the b