Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, he mentioned that we have no problem on one day voting for tax decreases and then the next day voting against unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle haven't given us an opportunity to vote for tax decreases in this session of Congress. Would that we'd had that opportunity, we certainly would have, because the money that the hardworking people of this country earn belongs to them. It doesn't belong to the government. That's what our colleagues across the aisle think. They want to control everything in this country, including all of the money that the good citizens of this country work hard to earn.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this same-day rule on unemployment insurance.

When the White House economic advisors released their report back in January 2009, they concluded that if we just borrowed $1 trillion, the stimulus would stop the unemployment rate from increasing beyond 8 percent. Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest deficit in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. The response of the liberal Democrat leadership is to add $30 billion more to the deficit by not offsetting another extension of Federal unemployment benefits.

The American people want real economic growth and private job creation. If job creation is the number one priority for the Democrats, I'd hate to see what the number two priority is, given the dismal numbers that they've created, particularly in the last 18 months.

During consideration of H.R. 5618, the Democrats' $34 billion unpaid for Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, before the July 4 recess, Democrats opposed the Republican motion to recommit, which would have paid for the extension.

Specifically, the Republican motion to recommit would have used $34 billion in unspent stimulus funds to cover the cost of extending expired unemployment benefits through November 30. This was a fiscally responsible motion which recognized that the American people want Washington to stop spending money we don't have. Adding insurmountable amounts of spending to our soaring deficit helps no one.

Painting Republicans as being unfeeling and uncaring about those who have lost their jobs is inappropriate. We are very concerned with those people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them. But putting us more and more into debt and increasing the deficit is not going to do that. And our colleagues across the aisle should have learned that by now with their very, very bad policies.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when asked on July 4th are we headed in the right direction, Vice President Biden answered, ``The economic initiatives that we took, they're working. They're working.'' Vice President Biden's repeatedly touted the failed stimulus package, and has recently coined what he calls ``the summer of recovery.'' Yet when asked about concerns that the stimulus is not working he acknowledges that unemployment remains, ``unacceptably high.''

You know, if we are in a summer of recovery, we can't quite understand why we continue to have high unemployment in this country. When asked by ABC's This Week host Jake Tapper in an interview aired Sunday if the administration ``is getting enough credit'' for the Wall Street bill, the health care bill, and the economic recovery act in light of polls showing the majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, Mr. Biden said, ``The vast majority of the American people and a lot of people really involved don't even know what's inside the packages.'' On the contrary, for the first time in a long time the American people are taking a very strong interest in what Congress is doing, reading the bills and voicing their opinions.

Eighteen months after President Obama's $862 billion so-called stimulus, which really cost $1.2 trillion if you include the $347 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates for interest payments on the borrowed money, as my colleagues said across the aisle, there are still five job seekers for every job opening, and we have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate. I appreciate my colleague from Florida helping me make that point that we still have a problem despite the fact that there have been so many policies passed here and so much money spent. We have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate.

Instead of facing reality, we are hearing that everything is going great. That is, everything except that which they might be able to somehow blame on the previous administration. Ignoring that virtually all of the jobs they are touting are government jobs, this misleading statistic doesn't represent net job growth, thereby omitting all the jobs lost since the liberals seized complete control of Washington.

Doesn't it really seem discordant to be promoting unemployment benefits when Democrats are touting this as the summer of recovery? If the Democrats' stimulus were so successful, why do we need to increase our debt by $30 billion more for additional Federal unemployment benefits? Rather than acknowledge their stimulus plan failed and the American people were sold a bill of goods, the President and his administration continue to propose new government programs that increase the deficit. This is wrong. The American people know it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know our colleagues again continue to want to rewrite history, but it's just not something we're going to let you do.

Our economy was doing great until you all took over the Congress in January of 2007. You keep blaming what happened in the last few months of President Bush's Presidency on President Bush. But you were in control of Congress. You've been in control. And you have to take the responsibility for what happened. The job losses came on your watch.

We had a $200 billion deficit when you took over the Congress, and you have caused the deficit to go up. It is Democrat policies which have created the problems, not the Republican policies.

On Monday, President Obama took to the Rose Garden to criticize Republicans for insisting that new government spending to extend the Federal unemployment insurance program be paid for by cutting government spending elsewhere. Ironically, in another speech in the Rose Garden last November, President Obama took the opposite position, touting his signing an extension that was ``fully paid for.'' And this is his quote: I would also like to announce I just signed into law a bill that will help grow our economy, save and create new jobs, and provide relief to struggling families and businesses. Now it's important to note that the bill I sign will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for and so it is fiscally responsible.

Those remarks were made by President Obama on November 6, 2009. So he was for paying for spending before he was against it.

On June 28, Speaker Pelosi made statements indicating the best way to

create new jobs is to hand out more unemployment checks. This is her quote: This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy and it is job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative that you can name.

This is news to a lot of economists.

I wanted to share also a portion of a Wall Street Journal article from Tuesday entitled, ``Stimulating Unemployment.'' This is the quote: ``Only last week, Vice President Joe Biden was hailing the stimulus for saving and creating three million jobs. This week the White House says we need even more stimulus in the form of jobless checks to make up for the jobs his original spending stimulus didn't create.''

The one possibility the President and congressional Democrats won't entertain is that their own spending and taxing and regulating and labor union favoritism have become the main hindrances to job creation. Since February 2009, the jobless rate has climbed to 9.5 percent from 8.1 percent, and private industry has shed two million jobs. The overall economy has been expanding for at least a year, but employers still don't seem confident enough to add new workers. The economists who sold us the stimulus say it's a mystery. But maybe employers are afraid to hire because they don't know what costs government will impose on them next.

In the immediate policy case, Democrats are going so far as to subsidize more unemployment. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you pay people not to work, they often decide not to work or at least to delay looking or decline a less-than-perfect job offer holding out for something that may or may not materialize.

The economic consensus which includes Obama administration economists in their previous lives couldn't be clearer on this. In a 1990 study for the National Bureau for Economic Research, labor economist Lawrence Katz found that the results indicate that a 1-week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of unemployment insurance recipients by 0.16 to 20 weeks, 16 to 20 weeks.

A March 2010 economic report by Michael Farrell of JP Morgan Chase examined several studies and concluded that lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5 percent points.

A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of U.C. Berkeley on a related subject begins: It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.

President Obama has said that this is a misguided notion and that attitude reflects a lack of faith in the American people. Yet Democrats have consistently passed legislation which takes away the choices and freedoms of the American people. That is the true reflection of a lack of faith in the American people.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out again to our colleagues across the aisle that the reason we had a surplus when Bill Clinton was President was because Republicans were in charge of the Congress, and the reason we had a deficit the last 2 years of the Bush administration is because Democrats were in charge of the Congress.

We'll continue to remind you of that.

I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats are totally in control of Congress. They have been since January of 2007. In the House, the number is 255- 178. There are two vacancies. In the Senate, it's 59-41, so the Democrats are clearly in charge,

but they continue to blame Republicans who are very much in the minority. The American people are seeing through that, Mr. Speaker. They understand who has the responsibility. And I think, what the quote from Mr. Kyl is saying is that the money belongs to the citizens of this country.

I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing it up. It proves the point. Our friends on the other side of the aisle think that all the money in this country belongs to the government and that it's up to the Members of Congress to decide who is going to get that money. They joined in with President Obama in believing that they should spread around the wealth, take from some and give to others. I think we have heard that philosophy before, but that isn't what the American people believe. They believe that they worked hard for their money; they should keep it.

And I would also say to my colleague across the aisle, is it right and decent to saddle the American people with debt that is going to haunt us for many, many generations? Children not yet born are going to be given this debt while our friends across the aisle fund their pet projects and take from those that they wish to take from and spend where they want to.

There wouldn't need to have been any kind of wait because, again, you are in the majority. You could do this.

I want to say again, Republicans are very sympathetic to those who have lost their jobs, but the problems came when our colleagues across the aisle began irresponsible spending when they took over the Congress, adding rules and regulations. We know what drives jobs away. It's increased government spending and it's increased rules and regulations.

I think that we have to point out the liberal Democrat agenda has failed. Our friends across the aisle need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their real problems.

We are in touch with those folks. I go home every weekend and I talk to the people in my district and they tell me they are very concerned about the future of this country. I can't tell you, Mr. Speaker, how many people tell me every weekend, I am frightened to death for the future of this country based on what is happening in Washington these days.

This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governments we have seen since the liberal majority seized control of Congress in 2007.

As I said, my colleague from Florida said earlier that job creation is the number one priority for Democrats. Well, obviously, they are missing the mark. Their spending programs have destroyed, not created, jobs.

Albert Einstein is credited with saying the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, our colleagues keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. They are not going to get different results as long as they have these irresponsible policies.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this same-day rule, reject the liberal agenda that continues to distract from private sector job creation and getting our economy back on its feet.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Langevin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1537 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1537.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1537 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee.

This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, relating to consideration or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment compensation.

Finally, the resolution allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of July 23, 2010. The Speaker, or her designee, shall consult with the minority leader, or his designee, on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.

These are not unusual procedures, as some of my colleagues on the other side are wont to argue. I want to point out that in the 109th Congress the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. This rule is for a specific bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that absolutely essential funds continue to reach the millions of American citizens struggling to find a job, keep their homes, and provide for their families. This legislation is unconscionably overdue, with unemployment benefits having expired on June 1 of this year.

While I'm pleased to point out that this legislation is retroactive to that date, nevertheless, millions of Americans who desperately needed our support were left hanging by an egregious obstructionism that prevented this legislation from moving forward.

This Congress, and I include both the House and the Senate, has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the American people and to ensure that, in this time of extreme economic hardship, Americans can rely on essential government services to help them through the hard times. Unemployment insurance is one of those services, part of a range of urgently needed activities that are necessary to rebuild our economy and recover from the recession. There is no excuse for delay.

That only two Republican Senators saw fit to vote to ensure that 2.5 million Americans could claim lapsed benefits demonstrates a complete lack of concern for struggling Americans. The fact is that for every open job there are five applicants, leaving the vast majority out of work. Unemployment insurance is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Why Members of this Congress are able to vote in favor of massive tax cuts for the wealthy one day and against unemployment insurance for hardworking Americans the next day is beyond me.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I kind of like would rather that we not have to do a same-day rule. What we should be doing is a 6-weeks-ago rule so we can go back in time and relieve some of the great anxiety and financial hardship endured by millions of Americans while they waited for this Congress to act.

Over the past few days and weeks, much of the debate about the emergency measure has revolved around its cost. While I don't dismiss these concerns, bringing our economy back from the brink of disaster doesn't come cheap, and we have a responsibility to

support Americans during this most painful and difficult time.

In fact, I would argue that Democrats and Republicans have a significant difference of opinion when it comes to what it means to be fiscally responsible. Seemingly, my Republican colleagues think that being fiscally responsible means that when our economy is prospering, and it has prospered in the past and will again, when it's prospering, you will have free rein to cut taxes for the wealthiest and the well to do among us and spend with abandon, as they did when we were prospering. But when their irresponsible fiscal policies come back to bite them, well, then it's too expensive to invest in our economy, to provide for those who can't provide for themselves, or to spend what is necessary to jump-start the economy.

Republicans say they aren't opposed to spending these funds on unemployment insurance; they just want to cut the same amount from other programs. Well, I'll tell you what they can cut. How about not doing any further tax cuts for wealthy people? How about cutting missiles to nowhere? How about cutting some of this Pentagon money and war in this world? How about cutting huge tax subsidies for offshore oil drilling? How about cutting out people taking their money and running to tax havens away from America and not fulfilling their responsibilities?

Mr. Speaker, I don't see Republicans offering to cut those things. Instead, I see them blocking essential legislation with vague platitudes about the need for cuts. They see nothing wrong with leaving the people who are most suffering the effects of their misguided economic views out in the cold. The Republicans' track record has proved them to be nothing but fair-weather deficit hawks.

Democrats, on the other hand, see things a bit differently. We, too, believe that balancing the budget is vital for our long-term prosperity. And I've been here and others, as well as the sitting Speaker, have been here when we did just that, balance the budget. But it can't be done on the backs of struggling Americans. In order to grow this economy, we need to invest in the American people. The Federal Government has a responsibility to help our communities meet their needs and ensure that anyone who wants to find work for a decent wage can do so.

Our economy is already showing considerable signs of recovery, but a jobless recovery is unacceptable. Make no mistake, job creation is the number one priority for Democrats. That is why we're working hard to find ways to create jobs and grow our economy again. But, in the meantime, we cannot simply let millions of Americans fall into financial ruin, lose their homes, be unable to pay their rent, and jeopardize their futures and the futures of their families and children.

Unemployment insurance can make the difference between whether families can afford to put food on the table or pay rent while they devote themselves to finding new employment or to get by, just get by, until the economy improves and jobs are more forthcoming.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, so that this much-needed, much-overdue legislation can be considered in a timely manner. The American people are waiting. And waiting 1 more minute, not 30 minutes on the U.S. Senate, or 30 hours as they are taking now, waiting 1 more minute is 1 minute too long.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just to answer my distinguished colleague from North Carolina very briefly, when she began her remarks by indicating that we haven't given them an opportunity to vote on tax cuts, my last look at the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act gave 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. I would be interested to know how many Republicans supported that measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a good friend of mine at this time, the distinguished gentleman from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who is a good friend of mine.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

I will yield additional time.

I just want to share with you as a segue of what you're saying, these are remarks from Senator Kyl on the other side:

On extending President Bush's tax cut, despite the cost, his quote, ``You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.''

These are the people that are holding up unemployment.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from not very far from here, Maryland, Donna Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to my good friend from California, firstly, I would argue with you that California is not necessarily the greatest State in the Union. We happen to have 50 great States and six wonderful territories in this great country of ours. But coming from Florida, I find that rivalry worthwhile. We will match him any day.

This Congress, when he speaks in terms of the measure that we are proceeding on, from the standpoint of process, this Congress alone provided suspension authority on a day other than Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, has allowed for passage of the Iran sanctions conference report, a paid-for doc fix, the Small Business Microlending Expansion Act, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, and a resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, sponsored by the Speaker along with Representatives Boehner and Cantor.

This same-day authority has allowed for passage of several bills that have already become law, including a bill authorizing the Oil Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, legislation expanding the Small Business Loan Guarantee program, legislation for the Temporary Extensions Act and the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act. All of these bills passed with overwhelming support from the House.

This same process has not only benefited majority Members, it benefited Republican Members as well. Representatives Luetkemeyer, Gingrey, Tiberi, Calvert, Reichert, Platts, Fallin, Schock, Fortenberry, Carter, and Lee have all benefited from this provision by having their legislation adopted under suspension of the rules in spite of what day of the week it was. So much for that. Back to the point dealing with unemployment.

People think that this stuff is done in a vacuum sometimes. Well, Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed job creation legislation that extended critical unemployment insurance benefits to help Americans who lost their job through no fault of their own make ends meet as they look for their next job opportunity.

The Republican obstruction is unprecedented. Since 1959, Congress has never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when unemployment is more than 7.2 percent. There are a considerable number of economists--Alan Blinder, Ralph Martire and, then more important, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--who say that for every $1 spent on unemployment it creates $1.90. So, really, the best stimulus for this economy suggests, as the economists do, that it is stimulated much more by spending on unemployment than we would tax cuts.

I want to say one final thing on tax cuts. I have two personal friends that are fortunate enough in this country to be billionaires. They earned their money the hard way; they earned their money during good and bad times, and

none of us hold any truck with either of those billionaires. I know two other billionaires personally, and not one of them before has ever said that they favored tax cuts--just to talk about some of the American people--they manage regardless.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a good friend of mine, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Speaker, he fought his way all the way over here, and even though I have but 2 minutes, I would like to share 1 of my minutes with Mr. Langevin.

I would inquire of my good friend from North Carolina if she would be so kind as to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Langevin as well.

Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to provide those struggling to find work this small reprieve; and Democrats in Congress are also committed to putting forth the necessary effort to create jobs, spur economic growth, and put our country once again on the road to prosperity.

But, in the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that those most profoundly affected by these difficult times are able to stay afloat--to feed their families, to keep their homes, and to continue to search for new jobs. We must not play political football with unemployment insurance. It is simply too fundamental to the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Our economy is starting to turn around, and the American people cannot afford to wait another second, let alone 30 hours for the United States Senate to act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on the same-day rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2010, together with Senator Franken. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation and the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country, and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. After several hearings and much work, today we begin in earnest the process of building on that foundation to go still further to ensure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans.

In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong.

The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, along with important provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve, and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and give prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform.

The programs created by the Justice For All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them.

In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kids have come to light, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem.

We have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation.

I thank Senator Franken for working with me on these important issues and helping to craft this important bill. I also appreciate the Republican Senators, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have provided input for this bill and participated in the process. I am confident that this legislation will be enacted in a bipartisan fashion, just as the original Justice for All Act was, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to reach that goal.

The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause.

Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year.

As I have researched the problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, the States, including Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates, that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reductions and to justice for victims in jurisdictions across the country.

Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for these efforts, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A 2008 study found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone. While Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. The Justice Department released a report last year finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab.

That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that

could help close cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions, rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested.

The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested.

The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog,'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages, and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately.

The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits, and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help.

We have also taken important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women in law enforcement, and I know that in the vast majority of cases, our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know, however, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe.

This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution.

This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified, quite persuasively, before the Judiciary Committee about how competent defense attorneys help her do her job as a prosecutor even better. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money.

This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence.

This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to participate.

The bill also asks states to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program.

Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions.

In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term.

Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for these efforts moving forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather Community for the great job that she's doing managing this rule, and I even recognize my friend from Fort Lauderdale is doing a reasonably decent job of managing the rule from his side.

You know, the focus of this institution is right now on what it is that the American people want us to focus on, jobs. Everybody here, Democrat and Republican alike, is talking about getting our economy back on track, creating job opportunities. The problem is that the policies that are emanating from this institution are tried and failed policies of the past.

I listened to my friend from Tennessee just a moment ago talk about the Great Depression. Well, Mr. Speaker it's very obvious that the policies of tax-and-spend that were pursued during the Great Depression exacerbated the Great Depression. In fact, very famously in testimony delivered before the House Ways and Means Committee in the fall of 1939, the Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had these words to say. He said, We've tried spending money. We've spent more than we've ever spent before. Now, after 8 years of this Roosevelt administration, we have unemployment that is just as high today as it was when we started and an enormous debt to boot.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Treasury Secretary of John F. Kennedy, Secretary Douglas Dillon, who pursued a pro-growth economic policy, you would not find him critical of President John F. Kennedy's economic policy. If you look at Treasury Secretary James Baker, who had been an opponent of Ronald Reagan's vision of putting into place pro- growth economic policies during the 1980s or, actually, when he was running his friend George H.W. Bush's campaign, he called it voodoo economics. But if you talk to Jim Baker today, he is a huge proponent of those policies, having seen the empirical evidence of their success.

So as we look at Secretary Douglas Dillon, as we look at Secretary James Baker, and look at Secretary Henry Morgenthau, it's very clear what it is that works. And so that's why, while Democrats and Republicans alike, Mr. Speaker, talk enthusiastically about getting the economy back on track, getting jobs created--because we all know how the American people are suffering. In part of the area I represent, Mr. Speaker, I have a 14.4 percent unemployment rate. It was just announced this week. My Statewide unemployment rate in California, a State with nearly 40 million people, the largest State in the Union, the greatest

and most important State in the Union I should add as well, has tragically an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent.

We all know that with the policies that we've gone through in the last 18 months, we were promised that if we pass the trillion-dollar stimulus bill we would not see the unemployment rate exceed 8 percent. We were told at this point following implementation of the stimulus bill that the unemployment rate would be at 7.4 percent. Well, as I said, in my State it's 12.3 percent, the largest State in the Union. Nationwide we all know, very sadly, it is 9.5 percent.

So clearly everybody's talking about the need to create jobs and get our economy back on track, but the policies have been the tried and failed policies of the past.

I had an interesting conversation 2 years ago with one of the leaders in Latin America who had been the President of his country in the 1980s. He was President for 5 years, and during that period of time, he pursued an extraordinarily statist, big government, high tax, regulatory vision for his country, and they had serious problems. He became President again and governed like Ronald Reagan governed. He focused on reducing the size and scope and reach of government. He reduced taxes to stimulate economic growth. He put into place an effort to reduce the regulatory burden, and he said to me in this meeting 2 years ago that the worst 5 years in the modern history of his country had been when he was President from 1985 to 1990. And he asked rhetorically, how can you in the United States of America contemplate moving in the direction that the rest of the world has learned to have failed?

I was just talking to the son of Ronald Reagan a few minutes ago, Michael Reagan, on the phone. He told me that he was just in France, and we all know that we have not used France as our economic model for the future. But Mike Reagan was telling me that he was there, and people are scratching their heads wondering why it is that we would be pursuing in the United States of America, the greatest Nation the world has ever known, a policy that has led to an 84 percent increase in the last 18 months in nondefense discretionary spending.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're here under a martial law rule, and since it's part of my job as a member of the Rules Committee to focus on procedure, I want to congratulate my friends in the majority for establishing martial law rule only for the issue at hand here and not providing blanket consideration of martial law rule.

I will say as I said in the Rules Committee last night, we have since mid- to late May every single week extended suspension authority through the rest of the week. Last week, we took a little break from that and we didn't do it, but this week again in this rule we have blanket extension of suspension authority. I know those are very inside baseball things, but they are indicative of an arrogance that we have seen from the majority that is really undermining the deliberative process the American people deserve and desperately seek for this institution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to join with my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, in urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule in hopes that we can come together with a very decent and bipartisan approach following the John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model to make sure that we get our economy back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1712) providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5566 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 1712.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I am happy to start off this part of our session with this resolution that provides that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 5566, with an amendment.

With this resolution, we are adopting nearly all of the Senate's amendments to our House-passed bill addressing the very important subject of animal crush videos.

I emphasize that the reason this resolution doesn't adopt the Senate- passed bill in its entirety is due to concerns that criminalizing attempts and conspiracies in this area creates a serious constitutional concern about prior restraint of speech. And as chair of the Judiciary Committee, I hold myself open to the discussion or inquiries of any Member of the House about the constitutional aspect of the remark I just made.

We need to remember that the history of this bill is thus: the prior law that we passed was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and that's why we are here doing it again. We think we've got it right this time.

As a strong supporter of this bill, and of the law, I have tried to make sure that we pass a constitutional bill. To stop crush videos, we need a law that stays on the books, and that's what this resolution will do.

The underlying subject is one that we have discussed previously. In summary, there is a market for videotapes and still photographs depicting, typically, small animals being slowly crushed to death. Don't ask me about the psychiatric make-up of people in our society that go in for this sort of thing. But it's, unfortunately, a reality.

We adopted a bill in 1999 which became a law intended to ban the creation, sale, and possession of the depiction of such acts. They became known as crush videos. But in April, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Stevens, invalidated the statute. The Court held that the law was overbroad and violated the Constitution's First Amendment.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Chairman Bobby Scott of Virginia, held a hearing in May and heard from some good witnesses who all agreed that a narrower legislative approach would be constitutional and survive court challenges.

The bill that we passed was narrower than the original law. The most important difference is that the bill would only prohibit the sale of crush videos that are obscene. This would likely address the key flaw in the original statute because obscenity is outside the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In September, the Senate took up H.R. 5566 and amended it. The Senate version also used the same approach that we did to such obscene depictions. The only difference is that the Senate bill prohibits the creation of crush videos, which I believe is acceptable because it includes an interstate commerce requirement.

However, that provision and the prohibitions on distributing crush videos, domestically or outside the United States, include prohibitions on attempts and conspiracies which would, in effect, impose punishment equal to that resulting from a completed offense. This is particularly problematic with respect to the creation of expressive materials, no matter how little redeeming value they may have.

We should not enact a prohibition on activity or discussions about creating materials which, as yet not completed, may or may not turn out to be obscene. Justice Potter Stewart explained the problem with describing when something is obscene in Jacobellis v. Ohio by saying, ``I know it when I see it.''

Until an image is completed, there is no way to know that it will be obscene. Once completed, then it can be prosecuted as such. Therefore, the version of the bill before the House today adopts every change that the Senate proposed, except the problematic part concerning attempts and conspiracies.

The bill we passed was a strong and constitutional measure addressing the problem of crush videos, and the bill now before us is no less effective with these changes, and so I urge support of the bill.

I particularly commend a member of the Judiciary Committee, Elton Gallegly, and my colleague from Michigan, Gary Peters, who both have worked in an effort to enact legislation addressing the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to our distinguished colleague from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer, for such time as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to congratulate Judge Poe on his comments about the bill. I agree with him. But let's keep hope alive that the other body will not fail us at this moment with so few days left.

I yield back the balance of my time.