Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4323) to reauthorize programs authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4323, currently under consideration.

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

In 1989, Debbie Smith was kidnapped from her Williamsburg, Virginia, home while her husband, a police officer, was sleeping upstairs. Her assailant dragged her into the woods behind her home and raped her.

Despite being threatened with further harm, she bravely came forward, reported the assault, and consented to a forensic exam with hopes that her attacker would be quickly identified and apprehended. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

In the years following the sexual assault, Debbie Smith, stricken with thoughts of suicide, struggled with the paralyzing fear that her unknown attacker would return to inflict harm on her and her family. The traumatic effect remained with Debbie and her family for over 6 years until an offender was identified and convicted using DNA analysis.

I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 4323, the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2014, to ensure victims of rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes do not have to endure similar experiences to Debbie Smith in the future. I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan support received from the numerous cosponsors of this important legislation, including lead cosponsor Congresswoman Bass of California and original cosponsors Ranking Member Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Scott. I also would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague from New York, Carolyn Maloney, in cosponsoring this bill reauthorizing the program she helped create in 2004. Finally, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Ted Poe, has also been a strong leader in this area for many years, and we are all very appreciative of his efforts.

With the goal of eliminating the backlog of untested DNA samples, the Debbie Smith program awards grants to State and local governments to fund the collection of samples from offenders and crime scenes, including rape kits, increased laboratory capacity, and the analysis of DNA samples in a timely and appropriate manner.

Additionally, grants are authorized to provide training, technical assistance, and education to law enforcement officials, court officers, corrections personnel, and forensic science and medical professionals.

The effectiveness of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions is unquestioned. As of January 2014, the use of the FBI's National DNA Index has provided important assistance in more than 224,000 investigations. In my home State of Virginia, the database contains more than 366,000 offender profiles and has aided in nearly 8,500 criminal investigations.

Due to a number of factors, including the expansion in recent years of the number of States requiring arrestees to submit DNA samples, the demand for the testing of these samples continues to outpace the capacity of State and local government laboratories.

In 2011, laboratories processed 10 percent more DNA cases than in 2009. However, backlogs persisted as demand grew by 16 percent during the same period, illustrating the need for the continued support of this vital program.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, reauthorizing the Debbie Smith program, to continue the reduction of DNA backlogs nationwide.

I thank Debbie Smith for her contribution to this effort and for her courage in standing up for millions of others.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I recognize the many people who have worked very hard to bring us to the reauthorization today of this important legislation.

I particularly want to thank Congresswoman Maloney for her leadership from the original legislation to today. Congresswoman Karen Bass of California unfortunately could not be with us for this debate this evening, but she has played a role as the lead cosponsor of this legislation. I thank the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Scott, for their hard work on this as well.

I certainly thank the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his contribution, as well at the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for his work in this area on this and other legislation affecting crimes against women.

Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that will help avoid many, many future victims. I really thank Debbie Smith and Natasha Alexenko for being with us when we talked about this issue this afternoon. I want to thank them for their courage in speaking out about it. They are not only helping to have a better understanding on the part of the public of the nature of this problem, but they are actually helping to fight crime.

This Congress will be helping to fight crime when we get these perpetrators of these horrific events much, much more quickly than these multiyear delays that we have heard about tonight. We need to get them quickly. We need to prosecute the guilty. We need to exonerate the innocent and put the guilty ones in prison, where they cannot perpetrate more of these crimes. Some of them are out on the streets for additional years perpetrating multitudinous crimes. This is a serious problem. It will save the taxpayers money by reducing the amount of crime that is perpetrated in our society.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to welcome Dr. Bryan Smith, a constituent of the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia and a friend who has offered the opening prayer today. I hope the doctor's prayer offers this body guidance and wisdom for the tasks before us.

Dr. Smith serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Roanoke, one of the largest congregations in Roanoke Valley. During his time at First Baptist, I have known Dr. Smith to be a man who believes in putting faith in action, working tirelessly to help others grow spiritually.

Dr. Smith and his wife, Mary, have served in ministry together for more than 25 years. They have two children. He is a graduate of Mobile College, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I want to thank Dr. Smith for serving as guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4138.

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

Mr. Chairman, our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws, the Congress with writing the laws, and the judiciary with interpreting them.

The Obama administration, however, has ignored the Constitution's carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extraconstitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. This raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the executive power granted to the President and specifically violates the Constitution's command that the President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Mr. Chairman, from ObamaCare to welfare and education reform to our Nation's drug enforcement laws and other areas of the law, President Obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce. In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that ``I refuse to take 'no' for an answer'' and that ``where Congress won't act, I will.''

Throughout the Obama Presidency, we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn't get his way, but the Constitution does not confer upon the President the executive authority to disregard the separation of powers and rewrite acts of Congress based on his policy preferences. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress.

We cannot continue to allow the President to ignore the constitutional limits on executive power. The President's far-reaching claims of executive power, if left unchecked, will vest this and future Presidents with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant.

As prominent law professor, Jonathan Turley, who testified that he voted for President Obama, warned in testimony before the Judiciary Committee:

The problem with what the President is doing is that he is

not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He

is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to

avoid, that is, the concentration of power in a single

branch.

That is why I join with Representative Gowdy and Chairman Issa to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act. This legislation puts a procedure in place to permit the House or the Senate to authorize lawsuits against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws.

The courts have held that lawsuits alleging institutional injuries must be brought by the injured institution itself, and H.R. 4138 is solidly in line with those judicial precedents. In addition, because it is an act of Congress, the ENFORCE the Law Act can apply special court procedural rules to significantly increase the speed at which cases challenging the President's failure to faithfully execute are considered by the courts. These provisions are critical to ensure the President cannot simply stall a lawsuit until his term is up.

In addition, these provisions are similar to those that were in the Line Item Veto Act. Litigation challenging the constitutionality of the line item veto proceeded through the district court and was decided by the Supreme Court within 7 months of being filed.

The ENFORCE the Law Act will help overcome the hostility the courts have shown toward deciding disputes between the political branches in the past.

The Constitution's Framers did not expect the judiciary to sit on the sidelines and watch as one branch aggrandized its own powers and exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution; rather, the Constitution gives the Federal courts very broad jurisdiction to hear ``all cases . . . arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.'' However, over time, the courts have read their own powers much more narrowly, refusing to exercise a vital check over unconstitutional action by the executive branch.

When the courts refuse to step in and umpire these disputes, they cede the field to this and future Presidents. The separation of powers is not strengthened by the refusal of the judicial branch to referee the division of power between the branches.

As then-Senator Obama observed in 2008:

One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to

guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the

power of other branches. And I think the Chief Justice has

been a little bit too willing and eager to give an

administration, whether its mine or George Bush's, more power

than I think the Constitution originally intended.

The ENFORCE the Law Act will help ensure that, when Congress brings a lawsuit against the administration for its refusal to enforce the laws, the courts take up the cases and decide it expeditiously.

This legislation is a good first step toward ending this crisis and restoring balance to our system of government.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my distinct pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), another chief cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that this legislation does two things: one, it expedites any court consideration of lawsuits brought under this legislation; two, it recognizes the distinction between constitutional standing and other standing that has been court created.

It says that that standing can be waived. That does not in any way determine what a court's ruling might be

or even what its ruling would be on the standing of a particular lawsuit brought, but it strengthens the hand of the Congress--any Congress--and under the control of any leadership to determine whether or not to bring lawsuits.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a leader of the House and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind those here that during the time that the other party was in the majority, they sued the Bush administration to enforce a subpoena related to Harriet Miers. All we are trying to do is that, when you do that, we make it very clear that there will be an expedited process.

We have sued to get documents for the Fast and Furious matter. That is more than 4 years old.

So we are only trying to make this process of holding up the powers of the House work better.

At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to respond to my good friend and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Conyers, regarding his comment about lawsuits brought with regard to a subpoena when the Democrats were in the majority.

I also want to point out, and I will ask at the appropriate time that the first page, since it is voluminous, and only the first page of each of four lawsuits that were brought by the gentleman from Michigan against three separate Presidents, Ronald W. Reagan, George W. Bush, and interestingly, Barack Obama, be inserted into the Record.

I would only point out that this legislation simply--when there is consensus, as there was not in those cases because only a few other Members joined the gentleman, but when there is consensus in an entire body, the House or the Senate votes to bring a lawsuit, that this would do two things.

It would expedite that process, so we don't have it drag on for years and years like the Fast and Furious case has been dragging on, and it would also make sure that only the standing issues that are in the United States Constitution would be a bar to bringing the lawsuit, and not court-administered, court-created standing issues.

So I urge my colleagues again to support the legislation.

[From LexisNexis]

John Conyers, Member, United States House of Representatives, et al., Appellants v. RONALD WILSON REAGAN, individually, and as President of

the United States, et al.

No. 84-5171

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

765 F.2d 1124; 246 U.S. App. D.C. 371; 1985 U.S. App. Lexis 30754

January 18, 1985, Argued

June 28, 1985

Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia (D. C. Civil Action No.

83-3430)

Counsel: Margaret A. Burnham, a member of the bar of the

Supreme Court of Massachusetts, pro hac vice, by special

leave of court, with whom Michael D. Ratner, Frank E. Deale,

John W. Garland, and William Genego, were on the brief, for

Appellants.

John M. Rogers, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom,

Richard K. Willard, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joseph

E. DiGenova, United States Attorney, and Leonard Schaitman,

Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for

Appellees.

Theodore M. Lieverman, Ira J. Katz, and Alan Dranitzke,

were on the brief for Amici Curiae National Lawyers Guild, et

al., urging reversal.

Daniel J. Popco and Paul D. Kamenar, were on the brief for

Amici Curiae U.S. Senators Strom Thurmond, et al., urging

affirmance.

Judges: Tamm, Wald, and Bork, Circuit Judges. Opinion for

the court filed by Circuit Judge Tamm.

Opinion by: Tamm.

Opinion: [*1125] Tamm, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from the dismissal, 578 F. Supp. 324, of

a suit brought by eleven members of the United States House

of Representatives challenging [**2] as unconstitutional the

military invasion of Grenada in October of 1983. Because the

actions complained of have long since ended, we dismiss the

appeal as moot.

I. Background

A. The Invasion of Grenada

On October 25, 1983, United States military forces invaded

the island nation of Grenada. At the time of the invasion,

the political situation in Grenada was unstable: Prime

Minister Maurice Bishop and other government officials had

been assassinated on October 19, political power had been

seized by a newly established Revolutionary Military Council

under the leadership of Army Commander General Hudson Austin,

and a 24-hour curfew had been declared. President Reagan

stated that he [*1126] ordered the invasion to protect

innocent lives, including approximately 1,000 Americans

living in Grenada, to prevent further chaos and to assist in

restoring law and order and government institutions to

Grenada.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Chairman, we have only one closing speaker remaining, so if the gentleman is prepared to close, we will close right after.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This House has passed close to 200 bills that are piled up in the United States Senate that create jobs, that promote domestic energy production, that reform our out-of-control Federal regulatory process in this country, but it is also well worth taking our time to protect this institution's prerogatives and the people.

Here in the people's House, we represent the interests of the people of this country, and to uphold the powers, the article I powers of the House, is vitally important.

The Constitution provides that ``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.''

Yet, the current administration has unilaterally sought to rewrite the law, not by working with the people's elected representatives, but through:

blog posts like this one, which removes penalties for employers who would otherwise be required to provide insurance coverage for their employees;

regulatory ``fact sheets'' like this one, which creates an entirely new category of businesses and exempts them from their responsibility under the law;

letters such as this one, which acknowledges that people are having their health insurance terminated under ObamaCare, in violation of the President's promise that ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep it,'' and then claims to suspend the law's insurance requirement to a date uncertain.

This one letter alone suspends the application of eight key provisions of ObamaCare, namely, those requiring fair health insurance premiums, guaranteeing the availability of coverage, guaranteeing renewable coverage, prohibiting exclusions for preexisting conditions, prohibiting discrimination based on health status and others.

Why is this being done?

To delay the terrible consequences of ObamaCare until after the next election. As this headline from The Hill newspaper announced just last week: ``New ObamaCare delay to help midterm Dems: Move will avoid cancelation wave before Election Day.''

These actions are not supported by the United States Constitution. It is time for Congress and the judiciary to act. This bill would empower the Congress and the judiciary to remind the President that ours is a system of government consisting of three separate, coequal branches, not one-branch control of our government.

Support the ENFORCE the Law Act, and restore the constitutional basis for the American system of government and the rule of law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as it would allow the President to rewrite the civil rights laws on his own without any accountability in court.

The amendment, if adopted, would literally provide that nothing in the bill shall affect any action taken by the President or by the head of an agency or, indeed, any action taken by ``any other officer or employee of the United States,'' with regards to the protections provided under the civil rights laws.

If adopted, this amendment would immunize from accountability in court this President and any President and other Federal employees when they fail to enforce the civil rights laws, as written.

What if a President decides that certain groups should not be protected under the civil rights laws and fails to enforce those laws to protect certain groups?

Indeed, what if any entry-level employee of the Federal Government decides the civil rights laws should not be enforced to protect certain groups that are protected under the clear terms of the civil rights laws?

This amendment, if adopted, would immunize the President or any entry-level employee of the executive branch from accountability.

In fact, this amendment stands for the very policy this bill opposes. This bill provides for holding accountable the President or any other Federal employee whenever they fail to faithfully execute the law.

This amendment, in stark contrast, would prevent the Federal courts from ordering the President and other Federal officials to enforce the civil rights laws when they are failing to faithfully execute them.

It was a sad day when Members of this House stood up and applauded this President when he said, during his State of the Union Address, that he would seek to circumvent Congress when the people's duly elected Representatives oppose his proposals and when a senior member of the Senate called for the President to unilaterally stop enforcing the law against certain individuals if legislation is not passed by September, as Senator Schumer did last Thursday.

It is another sad day when an amendment is offered to explicitly shield the President or any other Federal employee from accountability when their actions are not authorized by the laws enacted by the people's elected Representatives.

The President should not be above the law; and by that, I mean any law, not the least of which are the civil rights laws of the United States.

Because this amendment would codify the terrible policy of allowing a President carte blanche to enforce or not enforce the civil rights laws as he deems fit, it should be opposed by every Member of this body, especially those who would like to see the civil rights laws protect everyone, as they are written.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, the amendment is clear that it would prohibit the language of the bill from bringing a lawsuit when the President fails to enforce the civil rights laws.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler's amendment purports to clarify that nothing in this legislation limits or otherwise affects prosecutorial discretion. If this amendment is adopted, it will only serve to cause confusion regarding the scope of the President's duty under the Take Care Clause and the ability of Congress to bring a lawsuit pursuant to this legislation.

The underlying bill provides that the House or Senate may authorize a lawsuit based upon adoption of a resolution declaring that the executive branch ``established or implemented a formal or informal policy, practice, or procedure to refrain from enforcing'' Federal law in violation of the Take Care Clause.

Adoption of a ``policy, practice, or procedure'' is not an exercise in prosecutorial discretion; rather, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves a determination as to whether a particular individual or entity should be the subject of an enforcement action for past conduct.

In other words, nothing in this bill limits prosecutorial discretion. Thus, inserting into the bill an exception for the undefined term ``prosecutorial discretion'' would only serve to cause confusion.

Worse, including an exception for prosecutorial discretion would also allow the executive branch to move to dismiss every case brought pursuant to this bill on the grounds that it was merely exercising prosecutorial discretion. This would result in costly and wasteful delays in the court's ability to decide the merits of these important separation of powers disputes in a timely manner.

Additionally, if adopted, the amendment would cause confusion as to the meaning of the Take Care Clause itself. The clause imposes an affirmative duty on the President to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' This amendment proposes to interpret that duty by codifying into statutory law that there is a ``constitutional authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion.''

However, unlike the duty imposed by the Take Care Clause, the words ``prosecutorial discretion'' appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution. We should not place an undefined limit on the Take Care Clause into the United States Code.

Finally, the amendment would, in practice, act to prohibit the Federal courts from further refining the contours of appropriate prosecutorial discretion. The base bill seeks to encourage courts to engage in active constitutional issues, not to put entire categories of subjects off-limits from review by the Federal courts.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons already cited, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would gut the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as it would gut the bill.

Read the text of the amendment. The amendment would explicitly prohibit the bill from affecting the executive branch's compliance with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. But that is exactly the point of the base bill.

The base bill encourages the courts to decide constitutional issues relating to the Constitution's separation of powers between the branches of government. We would of course expect the President to obey those decisions from the courts, yet this amendment would grant the President the authority to defy those very court decisions by making sure that the President did not have to be, quote, affected by them.

This amendment only adds insult to injury. It would take a bill designed to encourage the Federal courts to engage in the constitutional issues of the day and amend it to explicitly allow the President to defy the decisions of those courts.

There is no reason to exempt court decisions from the bill's coverage. The base bill allows Congress to bring lawsuits if the President fails to faithfully execute the laws. The President is obligated to follow Federal court decisions to the same extent he must follow Federal statutes, treaty obligations, and, of course, the Constitution itself.

Rather than furthering the bill's goal of enforcing the Take Care Clause, the amendment would create an enormous loophole in the bill's coverage, and so I must urge my colleagues to reject this gutting amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and just say for the reasons already cited, this is a very harmful amendment. It would gut the bill. For that reason, I oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will support the adoption of this amendment. This amendment basically codifies, at least as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, requirements that already exist regarding reporting the costs of congressional litigation. When the House engages in litigation, the costs of that litigation are already reported to the House Appropriations Committee and the Committee on House Administration. This amendment merely expands these existing reporting requirements to include the Government Accountability Office.

Had the gentleman from Rhode Island prefiled this amendment during Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill, we may have been able to consider it during markup. However, without notice of the amendment, we were not able to determine at markup whether the amendment implicated any attorney-client privilege concerns. We are now satisfied, given existing reporting requirements, that this amendment does not present a privilege problem.

For these reasons, I support the adoption of this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution declares that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

However, President Obama has failed on many occasions to enforce acts of Congress that he disagrees with for policy reasons and has stretched his regulatory authority to put in place policies that Congress has refused to enact.

Although President Obama is not the first President to stretch his powers beyond their constitutional limits, Executive overreach has accelerated at an alarming rate under his administration.

To help prevent Executive overreach and require greater disclosure when it occurs, the gentleman from Florida, Representative DeSantis, introduced H.R. 3973, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act.

I want to thank Representative DeSantis for introducing this commonsense legislation to ensure that there is greater transparency and disclosure regarding the executive branch's enforcement of Federal law.

The Justice Department is currently required by law to report to Congress whenever it decides to adopt a policy to refrain from enforcing a Federal law on the grounds that the law in question is unconstitutional.

The Faithful Execution of the Law Act strengthens this provision by requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress whenever a Federal official establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain from enforcing a Federal law and the reason for the nonenforcement, regardless of whether it is being done on constitutional or policy grounds.

As Professor Jonathan Turley observed regarding this legislation in testimony before the Judiciary Committee:

It is hard to see the argument against such disclosures.

Too often, Congress has only been informed of major changes

by leaks to the media.

Congress should not have to rely on media leaks and other unofficial sources to find out that the executive branch has decided not to enforce Federal laws.

Congress cannot possibly know the extent of executive branch nonenforcement of the laws without mandatory disclosure of all nonenforcement policies by the person who should be fully aware of such policies, namely, the Attorney General, the Nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Passage of H.R. 3973 is essential if Congress is going to play an active role in overseeing that the separation of powers between the branches is maintained and that the President is faithfully executing the laws.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2641.

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

5\1/2\ years after the financial crisis struck in 2008, America remains in a jobs recession. Millions of Americans would call it a jobs depression.

The RAPID Act responds to America's urgent need for new jobs with critical help. According to testimony received by the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee, the RAPID Act would help to stimulate the creation of 3 million jobs.

In an economy in which the labor force participation rate has reached record lows, there is little more urgent jobs legislation that Congress could pass than the RAPID Act.

The jobs the RAPID Act would create, moreover, are high-wage, highly- skilled construction jobs. This is not just sure-fire legislation to create millions of jobs; it is sure-fire legislation to create higher wages for hardworking Americans.

Why do we need legislation to create these jobs? The reason is simple. Since before the financial crisis began and up to this day, the Federal Government's outdated and overly burdensome environmental review process has kept legions of jobs and workers waiting too long for approval from Federal bureaucrats.

The United States now ranks a dismal 34th in the world in the procedures, time, and costs needed to obtain governmental approval of new construction permits.

The heart of the problem lies with delay in the completion of reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, commonly known as NEPA. When NEPA was first implemented, neither Congress nor the executive branch contemplated that the NEPA process would bog down responsible Federal permitting.

On the contrary, when Congress debated the issue, it talked about timeframes like 90 days to complete review. In 1981, the Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, thought all review could be done in a year.

A recent study, however, found that the average length of time to complete just one part of the process, the preparation of an environmental impact statement, was 3.4 years and growing. Examples abound of cases in which it takes far longer.

The port of Savannah, Georgia, for example, has seen a potential dredging project mired in review for over 13 years, with no end to review in sight. Cape Wind, a significant wind energy project in Massachusetts, took 12 years to reach the end of review.

Making matters worse, many projects that finally emerge from the administrative review process only become bogged down again in lengthy litigation challenging agencies' permitting decisions.

Clearly, the system needs to be reformed. Vice President Biden summed it up dramatically during a visit to the Savannah port in 2013 when he said:

What are we doing? We're arguing about whether or not to

deepen this port. It's time we get moving. I'm sick of this.

Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. It's an economic issue.

How do we get moving? The key is to find the right balance between economic progress and the proper level of analysis. The RAPID Act strikes this balance. It does not force agencies to approve or deny any projects. It simply ensures that the process agencies use to make permitting decisions, and the timeline for subsequent litigation, are transparent, logical, and efficient.

To do that, the RAPID Act draws upon established definitions and concepts from existing NEPA regulations. It also draws upon commonsense suggestions from across the political spectrum, including from the President's Jobs Council and the administration's Council on Environmental Quality.

Most significantly, the RAPID Act sets hard deadlines, including an 18-month maximum deadline for an environmental assessment and a 36- month maximum deadline for an environmental impact statement.

It cracks down on prolonged lawsuits by establishing a 180-day statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging permitting decisions and limiting claims to those presented during the permit's public notice-and-comment process, and it consolidates who manages the process by empowering lead agencies to manage environmental reviews efficiently from start to finish in order to avoid waste and duplication of effort among bureaucratic agencies.

In many respects, the bill is modeled on the permit streamlining sections of Congress' SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 transportation legislation, which commanded bipartisan support. A study by the Federal Highway Administration found that this legislation has cut the time for completing an environmental impact statement nearly in half.

President Obama, himself, moreover, strongly supports permit streamlining consistent with the recommendations of his Jobs Council. In his 2014 State of the Union Address, the President expressed his desire ``to slash bureaucracy and to streamline the permitting process for key projects so that we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.''

Congress should transform the President's rhetoric into action and enact this legislation to streamline permitting on all federally funded and federally permitted construction projects.

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) for his leadership on this issue, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this critical legislation and cut down the time it takes America's workers to see a real jobs recovery.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2014.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 2641, the

Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act

of 2013, as ordered reported by the Committee on the

Judiciary on July 31, 2013. There are certain provisions in

the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.

However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that

forgoing consideration of the bill does not alter or diminish

the jurisdiction of the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional

claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or

similar legislation. I request you urge the Speaker to name

members of the Committee to any conference committee named to

consider such provisions.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding and acknowledging our jurisdictional

interest, and would request that you insert our exchange of

letters on this matter into the committee report on H.R. 2641

and the Congressional Record during any consideration of this

bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to the gentleman from Georgia that the provisions on the projects that he mentioned are exactly why we need this legislation. It is because this legislation incorporates those ideas which started, by the way, in this House with the work of the Transportation Committee, in the transportation bills, and that now needs to be codified and put into law so that it can be made available not just in those projects but in every project in which the Federal Government has a regulatory role.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.

It is bad enough that agencies already take too much time to conclude construction permit reviews. It is even worse for them to draw out the process on the basis of junk science. And that is precisely what the Obama Administration's pronouncements on the ``Social Cost of Carbon'' appear to be.

To be specific, multiple commenters on the Administration's latest ``findings'' argue that ``carbon's social cost is an unknown quantity; that [social-cost-of-carbon] analysts can get just about any result they desire by fiddling with non-validated climate parameters, made-up damage functions, and below-market discount rates; and that [social- cost-of-carbon] analysis is computer-aided sophistry, its political function being to make renewable energy look like a bargain at any price and fossil energy look unaffordable no matter how cheap.''

Junk science and sophistry have no place standing between hardworking Americans and new, high-paying jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.

The RAPID Act includes important reforms to assure that agencies wrap up their environmental reviews for construction permits within a generous four-and-one-half years. The current language of the bill applies these reforms to all ``environmental reviews'' and all ``environmental decisionmaking processes'' begun after the bill's enactment.

The amendment takes the next step and applies the bill to environmental reviews and environmental decisionmaking processes begun before enactment. But it also generously provides that the time remaining for agencies to conclude a review or decisionmaking process will be calculated as if the review or process had begun on the date of enactment--just as with a new permit application. Other deadlines in the bill will likewise be calculated as if the relevant timeframe began on the date of enactment, not before enactment.

The amendment thus represents a very reasonable balance between assuring that pending permit applications will at last be wrapped up and providing agencies with adequate time to wrap them up.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary and could needlessly block important energy construction projects from breaking ground.

The March 2011 ``Project No Project'' study identified 351 energy projects, including nuclear projects, that, if approved, could generate $1.1 trillion for the economy and create 1.9 million jobs annually.

I appreciate that my colleague is concerned about the safety of nuclear power, including in earthquake fault zones. The RAPID Act does not require agencies to approve or deny any particular project or permit application.

It simply ensures that the environmental review and permitting process is conducted by agencies in an efficient and transparent manner. It is consistent with the administration's own guidance, the President's Jobs Council's recommendations, prior, bipartisan legislation, and the all-of-the-above energy strategy that America needs.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

The RAPID Act will create jobs by ensuring that the Federal environmental review and permitting process works like it should. The RAPID Act is drafted to make agencies operate efficiently and transparently; it does not prevent citizens from participating in this process.

In fact, the bill makes sure that agencies provide the public with reasonable public comment periods. It authorizes up to 60 days of public comment on Environmental Impact Statements, up to 30 days of comment on environmental assessments and other documents, and grants the lead agency authority to negotiate extensions or provide them on its own for good cause.

This is more than fair. By comparison, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, regulations only require agencies to allow 45 days for public comment on draft Environmental Impact Statements and 30 days for public comments on final Environmental Impact Statements.

The RAPID Act also reasonably requires that a person comment on an environmental document before challenging it in court, and bring any suit within 6 months, as opposed to 6 years. Opponents should not be able to delay a project indefinitely by playing hide-the-ball with agencies or by resting on their rights.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security, a department in need of good government reform, from all of the government rulemaking reforms in this bill. We should not do that. The bill does not threaten needed regulation in the Department of Homeland Security's jurisdiction but simply ensures that DHS will avoid unnecessary regulation, issue smarter, less costly regulation when necessary, and not enter into sweetheart backroom deals for more regulation under the cloak of judicial orders. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do respect the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from Texas. The Department of Homeland Security has vast jurisdiction, however, and it is an agency cobbled together, a department cobbled together with authorities from a whole host of other areas, and they have not always made things work very effectively there. One of the things that they need is more discipline and guidance in terms of how regulations are written, and that is exactly what this legislation does.

The gentlewoman raises a legitimate concern with regard to the speed with which regulations can be issued in certain emergency circumstances. I would call her attention to section 653 of the legislation, which covers just those circumstances in which the President can take action swiftly because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency. As a result of that, this amendment is not needed because it takes the Department completely out of the reforms provided in this bill. Therefore, I must continue my opposition to the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman. I am not persuaded that the Department of Homeland Security, especially with a provision that provides for emergency relief from any of the provisions of the bill, cannot be greatly benefited, and all those who have to deal with the Department of Homeland Security will not be greatly benefited, if the Department is operating more effectively and if the regulations they promulgate are more efficient and more effective and more addressed toward what really needs to be done to address problems and not simply adding to the regulatory burden that businesses and American citizens face. So I continue my opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share and welcome the gentlewoman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but I submit that the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting the Rothfus-Barr amendment that would make sure that agencies do a much better job of identifying adverse job impacts before they impose them.

The gentlewoman's amendment, offered on behalf of the gentleman from Georgia, unfortunately would have the opposite effect; that is because it would give the executive branch a strong incentive to manipulate its jobs impact and cost-benefit analyses to avoid the requirements of the bill.

The amendment also puts the cart before the horse, offering carve- outs from the bill based on factors that cannot be determined adequately unless the important analytical requirements in the bill are applied in the first place.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate that the right way to address the concern about the impact of regulations on jobs is to join me in supporting the Rothfus-Barr amendment that would make sure that agencies do a much better job identifying adverse job impacts before they impose them on the businesses and individuals that have to make the tough decisions to close businesses, like the family that manufactures bricks that we referred to yesterday that is looking to have to eliminate two-thirds of the jobs in their business because of repeated increased government regulations, making it less and less likely that they can grow their business, much less add jobs, and are facing the loss of jobs and possibly the loss of the business altogether.

The way to do this is to figure out the impact on jobs before you impose the regulation, and that is what the Rothfus-Barr amendment does. I support that. I oppose this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First, let me be very clear to my good friend from California. I share his concern about the kinds of explosions that he is concerned about and want to see appropriate ways to deal with these problems through the regulatory process.

It is pretty clear that OSHA has done a pretty poor job of it thus far, and I believe that this legislation will help to improve the rulemaking process and create greater transparency, so that we will get to a resolution of what needs to be done and not do what does not need to be done, in the most effective way.

The amendment attempts to shield yet another agency in need of good government reform from all of the good government rulemaking reforms in the bill. The bill does not threaten needed regulation in OSHA's jurisdiction, but it simply assures that OSHA will avoid unnecessary regulation; issue smarter, less costly regulation when necessary; and not enter into sweetheart backroom deals for more regulation under the cloak of judicial orders.

Ironically, the amendment actually could slow down the progress of improving safety in the workplaces of concern. The whole point of the bill is to assure that regulation remains effective while imposing lower costs.

If employers could spend less money on equally effective OSHA dust regulations, then they would be free to invest in additional safety measures on their own; or, of course, they could use the money to hire more workers and pay higher wages.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from California, let me say that, with regard to the efforts that need to be undertaken when a regulatory process is already underway, is accommodated for in the bill in the new section 553(g), subsection 2(A):

When the agency for good cause, based upon evidence, finds

(and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of

reasons therefor in the rules issued) that compliance with

subsection (c), (d), or (e) or requirements to render final

determinations under subsection (f) of this section before

the issuance of an interim rule is impracticable or contrary

to the public interest, including

interests of national security, such subsections or

requirements to render final determinations shall not apply

to the agency's adoption of an interim rule.

So I would argue that this is going to improve and enhance the process, but it is also going to create more transparency; it is going to create more cost-effective rulemaking; and it is going to prevent lawsuits being brought--the so-called sue-and-settle lawsuits--where a friendly government agency is sued by an organization that wants something; and the settlement of the suit leaves out all the parties who are going to have to provide for it, have to pay for it, have the impact on their workers considered. They don't even get notice of that.

So all of these reforms are good reforms that make the regulatory process better.

I do not believe that it will be appropriate to adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when inspectors general find agency waste, fraud, and abuse and recommend that new regulations be issued or old regulations be modified, the natural instinct of the guilty agency is to try to evade the recommended corrections to its bad behavior. By shielding agencies from the bill's transparency and accountability requirements, the amendment would help them do just that. It

would further entrench the ability of recalcitrant agencies to shirk the recommendations of inspectors general and continue their habits of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Especially in these times of fiscal austerity, we must do everything we can to make sure that agencies pay heed to inspector general recommendations and purge all waste, fraud, and abuse from their operations. The ALERRT Act includes powerful tools to make them do just that.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressmen Holding, Collins, and Subcommittee Chairman Bachus for their hard work on this bill as well as committee staff on both sides of the aisle. Four bills combined into one and still under 100 pages will do much to reform, and in some cases eliminate, hundreds of thousands of pages of Federal Government regulations in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we are more than 5 years into the Obama administration. Real unemployment is still a massive problem in this country. America's labor force participation is at record lows. The nominal unemployment rate is down, but that is only because desperate Americans dying for work are abandoning the workforce in droves.

Everybody knows that the only real long-term solution is to restart the engines of economic growth in this country. If we could just somehow increase our growth rate by as little as 2 additional percentage points, things would begin to turn around. One way to do that is to pass the ALERRT Act.

The cost of Federal regulation today is estimated to be a staggering $1.86 trillion. That almost wipes out the $2 trillion this Nation's manufacturers have just produced, the first time in history we have hit that level in 1 year. There is our 2 percent growth right there, and more, gobbled up by the mind-boggling tide of tyrannical regulation flowing out of Washington.

If we could just cut our regulatory burdens by a portion, we could turn this economy right around. The ALERRT Act would do that. It promises real relief from our regulatory nightmare. If enacted, it would change night to day in terms of the level of regulatory costs Washington imposes on our economy, and it would do so without stopping one needed regulation from being issued.

How do I know? Because it says so right in the bill. Right on page 27, it says:

The agency shall adopt the least costly rule considered

during the rulemaking that meets relevant statutory

objectives.

Take away a few key words and what does that say? The agency shall adopt the rule that meets statutory objectives.

So the rules will still be made, and statutory goals will still be met. But put the key words back in, and what happens? America starts to save hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't need to spend, because the agency shall adopt the least costly rule that meets statutory objectives.

Do that over and over again, and that is real money that we will save, real money that can produce jobs for our constituents, real money that hardworking Americans can use to grow their businesses, all without stopping a single needed regulation from being issued.

My friends across the aisle say that won't happen. They say the bill will bring all good rulemaking to a screeching halt. My goodness, it is ObamaCare all over again. My friends across the aisle haven't read the bill. You have to read the bill to know what is in it. If you read the bill, you understand it. You see there on page 27, the agency shall adopt the rule that meets statutory objectives.

My friends, the people in my district and yours are smart. They can read the bill. They can tell that, although Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf seem to want to talk about this bill, the sky is not falling and the wolf is not coming on account of this bill. What is coming on account of this bill is real relief for hardworking Americans and prosperity around the corner.

Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill. Take Americans' hard-earned dollars out of the hands of Washington's bureaucrats who want to flush it down the regulatory drain. Let it stay in the hands of workers and businessowners who know how to spend it wisely and well. Oppose the motion to recommit. Support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2804.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just over 6 months ago, President Obama announced that he would once again pivot to the economy. The bottom line of his speech: after 4\1/2\ years of the Obama administration, ``We're not there yet.''

The President was right. We were not there yet nor are we there today. Job creation and economic growth continue to fall short of what is needed to produce a real and durable recovery in our country. The nominal unemployment rate is down, but that is not because enough workers have found jobs; it is because so many unemployed workers have despaired of ever finding new full-time work. They have either left the workforce or have settled for part-time jobs.

As long as this situation continues, Congress must stay focused on enacting reforms that will stop the losses, return America to prosperity, and return discouraged workers to the dignity of a good, full-time job. The legislation we consider today is just that

kind of reform. Through its strong, commonsense measures, the ALERRT Act will powerfully and comprehensively reform the Federal regulatory system, from how regulations are planned to how they are promulgated to how they are dealt with in court.

This is legislation that Congress cannot pass too soon, for while the Obama administration's pivot to the economy has faltered, the Federal bureaucracy has not wavered an instant in its imposition of new and costly regulation on our economy. The ALERRT Act responds by offering real relief to the real Americans who suffer under the mounting burdens of tyrannical regulation.

Consider, for example, Rob James, a city councilman from Avon Lake, Ohio, who testified before the Judiciary Committee this term about the impacts of new and excessive regulation on his town, its workers, and its families.

Avon Lake is a small town facing devastation by ideologically driven, anti-fossil fuel power plant regulations. These regulations are expected to destroy jobs at Avon Lake, harm Avon Lake's families, and make it even harder for Avon Lake to find the resources to provide emergency services, quality schools, and help for its neediest citizens, all the while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions, which are the stated target of the regulations.

Title I of the ALERRT Act helps people and towns like Rob James and Avon Lake to know in real time when devastating regulations are planned, comment in time to help change them, estimate their real costs, and better plan for the results as agencies reach their final decisions.

Consider, too, Bob Sells, one of my constituents and president of the Virginia-based division of a heavy construction materials producer. His company and its workers were harmed by EPA cement kiln emission regulations that were technically unattainable and included provisions vastly changed from what EPA proposed for public comment; other EPA emission regulations that were stricter than needed to protect health, gerrymandered to impose expensive controls on other types of emissions and which prohibited commonsense uses of cheap and safe fuel that could actually help the environment; and Department of Transportation regulations that, without increasing safety, vastly increased record- keeping for ready-mix concrete drivers, unnecessarily limited their hours and suppressed their wages.

Title II of the ALERRT Act helps to protect people like Bob Sells and his workers from regulations that ask job creators to achieve the unachievable, do not help to control their stated regulatory targets, suppress hours and wages for no good reason, and inundate Americans with unnecessary paperwork.

Title III of the ALERRT Act offers long-needed help to small business people like Carl Harris, the vice president and general manager of Carl Harris Co., Inc., in Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Harris is a small home builder. Every day, he has to fight and overcome the fact that government regulations now account for 25 percent of the final price of a new single-family home.

Mr. Harris participates in small business review panels of existing law uses to try to lower the costs of regulations for small businesses, but he has seen firsthand how loopholes in existing law allow Federal agencies to ignore small business concerns while ``checking the box'' of contacting small businesses. One case is that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Cranes and Derricks Rule, which was effectively negotiated before small business was ever consulted and threatened to impose disproportionate costs on small builders.

Title III of the ALERRT Act helps small business job creators like Mr. Harris make sure that agencies like OSHA stop treating them like procedural hurdles and afterthoughts, take into real account the difficulties small businesses face, and lower costs on small businesses that must be lowered.

Finally, consider Allen Puckett, III, who is the fourth-generation owner of Columbus Brick Company, a family-owned enterprise that has been making fired-clay bricks in Columbus, Mississippi, since 1890. His company distributes bricks to more than 15 States, has second-, third- and fourth-generation employees, offers a fully funded, profit-sharing retirement plan and a 401(k) matching program, and has a nurse practitioner come on site twice a month to provide a free clinic to all of its employees.

Mr. Puckett's company may now be shuttered in the face of two waves of sue-and-settle brick-making emissions regulations that threaten to put his company and others like it out of business. After time- consuming litigation, the first regulations were thrown out in court but not before Mr. Puckett's company had already lost at least $750,000 in compliance costs and the entire industry had lost $100 million. The second replacement regulations threaten to be twice as expensive, so expensive that Columbus Brick Company expects to have to downsize by two-thirds or close.

The translation for hardworking Americans employed by such businesses is: higher prices for goods, fewer job opportunities and lower wages.

Title IV of the ALERRT Act helps people like Allen Puckett find out about sue-and-settle rulemaking deals in time, make sure their concerns are heard by agencies and the courts, and have a fighting chance to achieve a just result for themselves, their employees, and the families and communities that depend on them.

In all of these ways and more, the ALERRT Act brings urgently needed regulatory reform to hardworking Americans, whether they are small business people struggling to be heard by faceless Washington bureaucracies or whether they are citizens of small towns who are crushed by the impacts of regulations that force plant closings, harm families, and kill the revenues needed to provide vital services.

I thank Mr. Bachus, Mr. Holding, and Mr. Collins for joining with me in offering the individual bills that now come to the floor together as the ALERRT Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this urgently needed legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a contributor of one of the bills that has been included in the ALERRT Act.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, who has worked so closely with us on this legislation and who is the sponsor of one of the pieces of the ALERRT Act.

Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I believe that I have the right to close, so if the gentleman from Georgia would proceed, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Let's begin by reviewing the facts: $1.8 trillion plus--and that is just Federal Government regulations, mind you. That is not State government regulations or local government regulations. $1.8 trillion, one-eighth of the total economic production of our country, is spent on government regulations. Some of those regulations are necessary, and this law by no means eliminates the regulations. It puts them through a process whereby we will know that the regulations are needed and are done in the most cost-effective way and in the most commonsense way.

What will be the result of that? Lower costs for goods and services; lower taxes for Americans who face, right now, an average per-family cost of $11,500 a year in higher costs of goods and services and higher taxes as a result of regulatory burdens. So imagine if some of that money were reduced what the savings would be. Imagine what it would do to job creation in our country.

We have talked a lot about manufacturing here today. Last year, for the first time in history, manufacturing in the United States reached $2 trillion in production--$2 trillion. It sounds remarkable until you consider that regulations cost $1.86 trillion--just Federal Government regulations almost wiping out the entire economic production of the manufacturing sector of our economy if all those regulations apply to manufacturing, which, of course, they do not.

But consider the impact on individuals. Consider the impact upon Rob James, the city councilman in Avon Lake, Ohio, who is experiencing reduced revenues coming in to meet basic obligations like education and emergency services because regulations of power plants with unnecessary ideologically driven anti-fossil fuel burdensome regulations are expected to destroy jobs in Avon Lake.

Consider the job loss in the business of Mr. Allen Puckett and his brick manufacturing company in Mississippi who expects to have to lay off two-thirds of his employees because of the second round of sue-and- settle brick-making emissions regulation where somebody sues, and the regulatory agency makes a settlement of that in a friendly case that Mr. Puckett and his employees didn't even know about the process where the suit was being brought and couldn't enter into it and say this is what is going to happen if you have to implement these regulations.

Or consider the impact on the cost of buying a home, one of the basic parts of the American Dream, when Mr. Karl Harris of Wichita, Kansas, says that one-quarter of the cost--one-quarter of the cost of a home today is in the form of regulation, the cost of those regulations.

With this legislation in place, businesses across America and workers across America will experience an increase in their profitability and an increase in their wages. We don't need to have government interference in the marketplace with regard to wages. They would rise on their own if the government would take practical steps in reviewing regulations before they are implemented in this country.

Finally, let me say that this is all about the individual and their freedom. Government regulation suppresses freedom of ideas and of implementing new ways of doing things. Yes, we need to have regulations to protect safety in the workplace. Yes, we need to have regulations to protect the environment, but they need to be commonsense regulations that are going about doing what needs to be done and no more, and are going about doing what needs to be done in the most effective way, and they are going about doing what needs to be done in a way that the people who are going to be impacted by those regulations, who are going to see their businesses lost, their workers lose their jobs and not even have any notice that this is going to occur.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as Federal regulatory agencies attempt to pile more and more regulatory burdens on America's struggling workers, families and small businesses, the least we can ask is that they be transparent about it. What could be more transparent than requiring them, the regulators, on a monthly basis, online, to update the public with real-time information about what new regulations are coming and how much they will cost?

Once they have that information, affected individuals and job creators will be able to plan and budget meaningfully for new costs they may have to absorb. If they are denied that information, they will only be blindsided. That is not fair.

Title I of the ALERRT Act makes sure this information is provided to the public. To provide a strong incentive to agencies to honor its requirements, title I prohibits new regulations from becoming effective unless agencies provide transparent information online for 6 months preceding the regulations' issuance.

The amendment seeks to eliminate that incentive. Without an incentive like that in existing law, what have we seen from the Obama administration? Repeated failures to make disclosures required by statute and executive order, including the administration's yearlong hiding of the ball on new regulations during the 2012 election cycle. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time, and just say that the fact of the matter is that the provision in the bill that this amendment attacks is a very straightforward provision that just provides for transparency. It doesn't stop any of the regulations the gentleman from Georgia referenced; it simply says if you do the regulations, tell us about them ahead of time so as you move toward the final implementation, the last 6 months before it goes

into effect, the public gets to see it, the media gets to see it, the businesses that are impacted get to see it, the workers who may lose their jobs get to see it. That allows them to prepare for it, and it allows them to comment. It allows them to try to change the law. It is simply a fair way to enter into regulations. It is a commonsense provision that should be kept in the bill, and the amendment should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

America's small businesses, workers, and families are being crushed by an annual regulatory burden that in 2012 amounted to $15,000 per household. That is an expense bigger than any family expense except for housing, and the number of new costly regulations just keeps growing and growing.

In response, titles II and IV of the bill, which this amendment seeks to strike, those two titles write into statute best practices into rulemaking that help to lower costs, avoid unnecessary regulation, and keep pro-regulatory special interests from abusing the courts to force new costly regulations upon the public.

They do all of this without denying the ability of agencies to issue new regulations that are sensible to fulfill statutory mandates.

Why is this so important that the bill do that? Because although these are best practices, they are too often honored in the breach or not at all because they are not yet written into statute.

The amendment substantially guts the bill; denies important protections to American workers, families, and job creators; and unjustifiably prolongs the time during which regulatory agencies can operate without adequate checks and balances.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

I strongly support the amendment that he and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) have offered. I urge my colleagues to support it as well, which protects America's workers.

I support the amendment.

Those who suffer the most from over-reaching regulations are workers who lose their jobs or see their wages cut on account of regulations that cost too much. Displaced workers suffer lower earnings once they find new work. That earnings gap persists over the long-term. Blue collar workers are the hardest hit.

Those who take too long to find new work are more likely to leave the labor force and retire. These workers, their families, and this country cannot afford to lose good work, good workers and good wages to needless regulatory excess. This amendment makes sure that agencies better analyze the potential impacts of new regulations on jobs and wages. And it makes sure that agencies come clean with the American people when they impose new regulations that they know will impose real adverse impacts on jobs and wages.

It will protect America's workers and families--and give voters the information they need to hold agencies and their enablers accountable when agencies recklessly destroy jobs and wages.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I strongly support his amendment.

Madam Chairman, one of the simplest, most effective, and most commonsense measures we can take to make sure agencies issue smarter regulations is to require them to do just what this amendment requires: identify achievable objectives for new regulations when they propose them; identify metrics by which they will measure whether those objectives are achieved; and at the end of their rulemakings, live by their own, stated objectives and whether the metrics say the proposed regulations can achieve them.

That is plain, simple, commonsense decisionmaking that American families and businesses live by every day. It is high time that Federal agencies be required to live by these standards, too.

I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Texas' amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I strongly support his amendment.

Madam Chair, title III of the ALERRT Act makes important reforms to assure that agencies identify whether their new regulations will have significant adverse effects on small businesses. One of the most important adverse effects is to identify whether

these new regulations will make it harder for small businesses to obtain credit.

Small businesses create the majority of the new jobs in our economy, yet without access to credit, how can they do that? How can they even survive? The gentleman's amendment makes sure that agencies do identify whether new regulations will make it harder for a substantial number of small businesses to obtain credit. It is a reform that is long overdue and especially important as our country struggles to achieve a real and durable job recovery.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I support his commonsense amendment and urge my colleagues to join in making it unanimous.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., would like to take this opportunity to thank David Lachmann for his service to Congress and congratulate him on his retirement. David has worked in the House of Representatives for the past twenty-five years, many of those with the House Committee on the Judiciary.

David began serving as Legislative Director for Congressman Nadler's office in January 1993. He joined the staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary in 1998 as minority staff for the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. In 2001, David moved with Representative Nadler to the Constitution Subcommittee and became its Chief of Staff in 2006.

David has spent nearly thirty years in public service. Prior to joining Representative Nadler when he became a Congressman in 1993, David served as Legislative Assistant to Representative Stephen J. Solarz from 1989-1992. From 1985 to 1989, David was the Chief of Staff to Eileen C. Dugan, a member of the New York State Assembly, representing part of Brooklyn. A native of New York City, David is a graduate of Boston University and holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science.

David's ability to work well with his colleagues, especially across the aisle and across the Capitol, made him a valuable staff asset to passing many key pieces of legislation. He had the lead staff responsibility in the House for several significant bills that were enacted into law including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Public Law 106-274). He was the lead Democratic staffer during the debate over the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and has been a key resource to Members, various Administrations, and colleagues on and off the Hill during the Subcommittee's consideration of critical constitutional, civil rights, and civil liberties issues.

We are deeply appreciative of the service and contributions that David has provided the Judiciary Committee and the Congress for the past twenty-five years. Over this time, many people on and off Capitol Hill have been fortunate to call him a colleague and friend. He will be missed. We wish him the best of fortunes and fulfillment in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1123) to promote consumer choice and wireless competition by permitting consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1123, currently under consideration.

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

Last winter, due to an expired exemption to existing law, consumers lost the legal right to unlock their cell phones so that they could use them on a different wireless carrier. Outraged consumers flooded Congress and the White House with complaints over this change in policy that resulted in reduced marketplace competition.

In response to this impact on consumers, a bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members introduced H.R. 1123, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. The legislation reinstates the prior exemption to civil and criminal law for unlocking cell phones for personal use. It also creates an expedited process to determine whether this exemption should be extended to other wireless devices such as tablets.

When this legislation is enacted, consumers will be able to go to a kiosk in the mall, get help from a neighbor, or see a wireless carrier to help unlock their cell phone without any risk of legal penalties. This is not the case today, which is why this legislation is necessary.

H.R. 1123 is supported by such diverse groups in the cellular industry, from the large carriers of CTIA to the small carriers of the Competitive Carriers Association.

Although these two groups announced a private sector agreement in December on unlocking based upon this same legislation, that agreement cannot eliminate the potential of civil and criminal sanctions for consumers who unlock their cell phones. So the need for the legislation remains. Even Consumers Union supports this critical legislation.

The committee has been aware of law enforcement concerns regarding the explosive growth in smartphone thefts. Efforts by criminals to undertake bulk unlocking and transfers of stolen phones are a growing concern in America. Smartphones seem to have become crime magnets in many cities across America.

Because the policy issue has always focused on the ability of consumers to unlock their phones, the legislation is similarly focused on individual consumer unlocking without raising law enforcement concerns. Why would it make sense for Congress to enable criminal gangs to more easily make money off stolen phones instead of simply solving the main issue of consumers being able to unlock their own phones?

Some would like this legislation to go even further. However, I hope all can agree that this is a good start and a solid piece of legislation that will empower consumer choice.

I urge my colleagues to support this important proconsumer legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on the very point that the gentleman from California just raised, I will submit a letter for the Record from the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, representing many small businesses and entrepreneurs around America and endorsing this legislation.

I would also like to note that the Consumers Union of America and the Competitive Carriers Association, which are the small telecommunications companies that have to compete with the big behemoths, would both be concerned about their ability to compete in this very area; but they both support this legislation as well, the Consumers Union representing consumers and small businesses, and the SBE representing small businesses and entrepreneurs.

SBE Council,

Vienna, VA, February 24, 2014.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte: The Small Business &

Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) is pleased to support

H.R. 1123, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless

Competition Act of 2013. Entrepreneurs require flexibility to

successfully run their businesses, and they certainly support

the freedom and choice provided by H.R. 1123.

H.R. 1123 repeals a Library of Congress (LOC) rulemaking

determination regarding the circumvention of measures

controlling access to copyrighted software on wireless

telephone handsets for the purposes to connecting to other,

different wireless handsets. This means entrepreneurs and

small businesses can easily switch to another carrier once

their contracts expire on their cell phones or tablets.

H.R. 1123 is a common sense measure that aligns government

policies with the flexibility the 100,000 members of SBE

Council need. We look forward to working with you to advance

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the gentleman from Colorado, I understand that you would like to see copyright law changed. But the fact of the matter is this is copyright law, and so the fact of the matter is right now consumers cannot legally unlock their phones, and we need to fix that problem. We have been working to do it.

I have worked very closely with the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee so that this change that was made is bipartisan. It should come as a surprise to no one because we, in fact, discussed this during the markup of the bill in the committee. When we did discuss that, we said we would continue to work with Members moving forward, and we came up with language that is bipartisan.

It is also supported, by the way, by Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley in the United States Senate. This is a bipartisan and bicameral compromise to move this legislation forward to address the concerns of organizations like the American Consumers Union supporting this legislation, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the Competitive Carriers Association, the CTIA, and also, importantly----

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. I will read very briefly from the letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police.

It says: ``As Congress contemplates legislation to facilitate lawful unlocking by individuals, either for themselves or for devices on a family plan, we urge you to retain the prohibition on bulk unlocking consistent with both the 2010 and 2012 decisions from the Copyright Office. We believe that maintaining this prohibition will reduce smartphone thefts because the criminal sale of these devices will no longer be as profitable.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

That is correct. This legislation is not intended to impair unlocking related to family plans consisting of a small number of handsets or of used phones by legitimate recyclers or resellers. The objective of this savings clause is to make it clear that the legislation does not cover those engaged in subsidy arbitrage or in attempting to use the unlocking process to further traffic in stolen devices.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker remaining on our side. I believe I have the right to close, so if the gentleman has anything else he would like to say.

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

I would just say to the gentleman from Colorado, I understand his larger aspirations with regard to changes in copyright law. The committee recognizes that our copyright laws have not been amended in 40 years, and that we are conducting a comprehensive review. We have held many hearings on copyright issues already. We have many more planned, and we are going to continue that work, but this small bill to protect the rights of consumers on cell phone unlocking does not meet his aspirations to try to use it as a vehicle for greater things being done here because it is intended to be a narrow fix to a problem that was created when the Register of Copyrights did not take the necessary steps to allow the continued unlocking of cell phones.

So it has taken a great deal of bipartisan work on the part of the ranking member and myself; the ranking member of the subcommittee, who had objections to the bill as reported out of the committee, has since left Congress, and the new ranking member has signed off on the change that was made here to bring organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police into acceptance of this, and we still have the support of important consumer organizations, like Consumers Union, as well as the cell phone industry organizations. As a result, this legislation needs to move forward as it is today.

The savings clause that the gentleman objects to is meant to make it clear that this is focused on consumers and not on the larger issues. If enacting in one area as we are in this very narrow, targeted bill, we sent a signal in another area, and a signal is what the gentleman identifies, we would never enact anything. So it is important that we address what is in this bill, the language that was worked out in the committee, that was discussed in the committee, that was then worked out further as the bill was reported to the floor, and pass this legislation today, and we can work on these broader issues in the future, but in the meantime, we need to protect the rights of our consumers to unlock the phones that they own when they purchase a used cell phone.

I am happy to yield briefly to the gentlewoman.

Reclaiming my time, what the gentlewoman says is, indeed, true; that there is a private agreement, but that private agreement cannot and does not mitigate the fact that the act of unlocking a cell phone carries with it a felony penalty under the law, and that is absolutely ridiculous. So this legislation needs to be passed, and we can then move on to have the larger debate about the importance of cell phone unlocking--or rather, section 1201 of the DMCA, and other issues as we move forward on various copyright issues in the committee, but now is not the place, now is not the time to have that debate.

This simple, bipartisan legislation should be passed by the House. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1944) to protect private property rights.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1944, currently under consideration.

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

In 1997, Susette Kelo was trying to rebuild her life when she purchased a small, Victorian house perched on the waterfront in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut.

It was Susette's dream to own a home that looked out over the water. The little pink house she purchased was in need of repair, but with lots of hard work, she was able to restore it and start a new life for herself on the banks of the Thames River. Susette was finally living her dream.

Tragically, however, the city of New London turned that dream into a nightmare.

In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced its intent to build a plant in Fort Trumbull, and the city of New London began planning a massive redevelopment of the area surrounding the Pfizer plant. The city handed its power of eminent domain to a private corporation to take the entire neighborhood for economic development purposes.

Susette and several of her neighbors, some of whose families had lived in their homes for generations, challenged the city's use of eminent domain all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a desperate attempt to save their homes and their mostly blue collar neighborhood.

However, the Supreme Court, in one of the most controversial rulings in its history, held that private economic development constitutes a ``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under the Court's reasoning, the government can now use the eminent domain power to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. As the dissenting justices observed, by defining public use so expansively, the result of the decision is:

Effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the

takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The specter of

condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent

the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any

home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. The

government now has license to transfer property from those

with few resources to those with more. The Founders cannot

have intended this perverse result.

The Court's 5-4 decision against Susette and her neighbors sparked a nationwide backlash against eminent domain abuse. Susette's fight helped remind Americans that private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in the Constitution. Poll after poll that came out in the wake of the Court's ruling consistently showed that Americans from across every demographic cross-section overwhelmingly opposed the decision and supported efforts to strengthen property rights protections.

Although Susette's story is probably the most infamous case of eminent domain abuse, it is by no means an isolated case. Every day across this country, Americans are forced to sit back and watch powerlessly as their homes, small businesses, family farms, and churches are bulldozed to make way for high-end condos, shopping malls, and other upscale developments.

Oftentimes, after Americans go through the trauma of losing their private property to eminent domain abuse, the planned private economic development doesn't even occur. In New London, for instance, the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project never got off the ground. After spending close to $80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new construction, and the neighborhood where Susette Kelo's little pink house was located is now a barren field, overrun by weeds.

It is time for Congress finally to step in and do its part to rein in eminent domain abuse by passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act. I want to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for reintroducing this legislation. He and I have worked together on this issue for many years, and I am pleased that this legislation incorporates many provisions from legislation I helped introduce in the 109th Congress, the STOPP Act.

Specifically, the Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits State and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds from using economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. Any State or local government that violates this prohibition will be ineligible to receive Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years.

Moreover, this legislation grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill. In addition, it allows State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, church, or small business. As the Institute for Justice has observed:

Using eminent domain so another richer, better-connected

person may live or work on the land you used to own tells

Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do not

matter as much as money and political influence. The use of

eminent domain for private development has no place in a

country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and

protection of property rights.

This bill creates incentives for State and local governments to help ensure that eminent domain abuse does not occur in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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

I have in my hand bits of the few remaining bricks from the foundation of Susette Kelo's home in New London, Connecticut. They were picked up at the site just over a year ago.

They once supported the lovingly arranged sanctuary of a woman who raised five sons and put herself through nursing school by working as an emergency medical technician. They gave her a place to rest after a long day's work surrounded by the things that meant the most to her. They were the foundations of her castle until the government's bulldozers arrived.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kelo's home, known as the ``little pink house,'' was reduced to rubble--this rubble--by the government's abuse of eminent domain and has remained just that--rubble.

These bits of bricks serve as a stark reminder of the government's inability to plan people's lives better than they can plan them themselves. They are the dramatic result of a type of government abuse that should never be rewarded with Federal taxpayer dollars. The homes that hardworking Americans have earned should be protected from government abuse, and we here in the people's House have a duty to do just that.

I had the opportunity to meet Susette Kelo. To me, she is a genuine American hero, fighting all the way to the United States Supreme Court to protect her little pink house and to protect all of our Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

To me, the failure of the Court to correctly rule on that eminent domain case cries out for the Congress to correctly rule on this abuse by passing Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill, by passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

As has been noted, 43 States have acted to protect eminent domain rights. Isn't it time for the United States Congress to do the same?

I urge my colleagues to support the Private Property Rights Protection Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, saw some of the most intense fighting of World War II. Among them on D-Day was Sergeant Robert L. Sales of Madison Heights, a member of the Virginia National Guard Company B, 116th Infantry. After coming under fierce attack in the first wave of the invasion, Mr. Sales made his way to the seawall. He was the only man from his landing craft to survive the landing and went on to continue fighting on the frontlines. Thanks to his selfless service, the citizens of France were given hope of once again living in freedom.

It was this heroic service that earned Mr. Sales the French Legion of Honor nearly 70 years after the Allied invasion. He was one of six World War II veterans to receive the French Legion of Honor directly from French President Francois Hollande at a ceremony in Arlington on February 11, 2014.

The French Legion of Honor is France's highest distinction and is presented as an expression of gratitude for aiding in efforts to liberate France from enemy forces. Those eligible for the medal must have fought in one of the major French liberation campaigns, which includes the D-Day landing at Normandy.

As a member of ``The Greatest Generation,'' Mr. Sales joined the Virginia National Guard in 1941. The actions of Mr. Sales throughout his service in World War II also earned him America's deepest gratitude and well-deserved military honors, including the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.

As we recognize the valiant service of Mr. Sales, we are reminded of all service members who have made tremendous sacrifices and our responsibility to honor them every day. I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Sales on becoming a Knight of the French Legion of Honor. I am grateful for his service, and the service of all of our veterans, in the defense of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Representatives Robert Hurt and Morgan Griffith, I submit these remarks in honor of the remarkable life of William Overstreet, Jr. and his dedicated service to the United States of America.

Mr. Overstreet, a native of Clifton Forge, VA and a longtime resident of Roanoke, VA, was a veteran of World War II. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army Air Force with the 357th Fighter Group. He flew more than 100 missions in Europe. While on a mission in 1944, Mr. Overstreet's flight turned into a moment that will forever be captured in history. In pursuit of a German aircraft, Mr. Overstreet flew his plane beneath the arches of the Eiffel Tower in Nazi-occupied Paris, shooting down the enemy plane. His actions were a source of great encouragement and motivation for the French people and French Resistance troops on the ground.

Mr. Overstreet received numerous honors for his actions, including France's Legion of Honor in 2009 from the French ambassador to the United States at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, VA. When presenting the medal, the French ambassador lauded the actions of Mr. Overstreet and the role he played in the liberation of France.

Mr. Overstreet passed away on December 29, 2013 at the age of 92. To many in the Roanoke community, he was known as a selfless man who was dedicated to serving others. For those who knew Mr. Overstreet, it was certainly a well-deserved honor.

His heroic actions in the face of the enemy have inspired many and will live on in stories told of ``The Greatest Generation'' of Americans who fought to preserve the principles we hold dear. As we remember the life of Mr. Overstreet and his valiant flight, it is a reminder that we must always pay tribute to our veterans and active military who have made tremendous sacrifices to ensure that the United States of America remains a country where liberty and freedom prevail.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I consume.

However stark Americans' differences of opinions can be on the matter of abortion, generally, there has long been bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life. The Hyde amendment, named for its chief sponsor, former House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal funding of abortion since 1976, when it passed a House and Senate that was composed overwhelmingly of Democratic Members.

It has been renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for over 35 years, supported by Congress' control by both parties and Presidents from both parties. It is probably the most bipartisan, pro- life proposal, sustained over a longer period of time than any other.

Just last week, a Marist landline and cell phone poll of over 2,000 adults found that 58 percent of those surveyed oppose or strongly oppose using any taxpayer dollars for abortions. It is time the Hyde amendment was codified in the United States Code.

H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Chris Smith of New Jersey, would do just that. It would codify the two core principles of the Hyde amendment throughout the operations of the Federal Government, namely, a ban on Federal funding for abortions and a ban on use of Federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, probably millions and millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared the horrors of abortion. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Hyde amendment has led to as many as 675,000 fewer abortions each year. Let that sink in for a few precious moments.

The policy we will be discussing today has likely given America the gift of millions more children and, consequently, millions more mothers and millions more fathers, millions more lifetimes and trillions more loving gestures and other human gifts in all their diverse forms. What a stunningly wondrous legacy.

I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

At this time, Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would say that the evidence is overwhelming that the American people do not support using taxpayer funds for abortion, and the evidence is very strong that that should not be allowed under ObamaCare, either, and it is also very strong that individuals have the opportunity with their own private funds to purchase a policy that provides for abortion. It might be a separate policy from the policy that provides their health insurance. It would be probably not very expensive. That is their choice. That is their conscience. That is not what the American people expect to see done with their taxpayer dollars.

In fact, as one of our committee witnesses pointed out, a majority of the public opposes government funding for abortion. Women oppose funding by a few percentage points more than men, and those who are poor and would presumably be those most likely to seek government funding for abortion oppose it more than those who are more affluent.

The bill before us today is supported by all segments of American society, and it should be supported by this House, as well. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Let's pass it through the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Helene Combs Dreiling on her election as President of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). This distinguished position is well deserved and reflective of her many professional achievements in the field of architecture.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) is the professional membership organization for American architects, with more than 80,000 members across the country. In addition to her new position as President, Ms. Dreiling has served the AIA in numerous leadership roles.

Currently, Ms. Dreiling serves as Executive Director of the Virginia Center for Architecture, a Richmond-based non-profit that develops

the public understanding of architecture through a broad array of outreach programs. She is also a past member of the board of trustees of the American Architectural Foundation and a past president of the Virginia Society, AIA and AIA Blue Ridge.

Ms. Dreiling received her Bachelor of Architecture degree from the College of Architecture and Urban Studies at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. She is a resident of Roanoke, VA, which is located in the Sixth Congressional District.

Throughout the ages architecture has been at the very foundation of our society, representing the greatness of our past and the promise of our future. It can be seen in the pyramids of Ancient Egypt, the coliseums of the Roman Empire, and the monuments that grace our nation's capital today. Architecture plays an ever-important role in ensuring the structural foundations of our communities and our legacy for future generations.

It is an honor to recognize Ms. Dreiling. I am certain that the AIA will benefit greatly from her leadership, and I wish her the best of luck during her tenure as President.