Floor Statements

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

H.R. 6602 makes revisions in title 36 to the United States Code that are necessary to keep the title current, as well as to make technical corrections and improvements. H.R. 6602 was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as part of its ongoing responsibility under 2 U.S.C., section 285b, to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States.

This legislation gathers provisions relating to patriotic and national observances and ceremonies, patriotic and national organizations, and treaty obligation organizations under the current title 36. The amendments strike the existing abbreviated table of contents of the title and insert a more comprehensive title-wide table of contents, update the format of the chapter headings of reserved chapters, and make other necessary technical corrections.

H.R. 6602 is not intended to make any substantive changes to the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of nonsubstantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect.

I am pleased again to have worked with Chairman Lamar Smith to draft this legislation, and I thank him for moving it to the House floor and urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

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

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

To our colleagues, this measure before us now, H.R. 6605, is a noncontroversial bill that makes a single technical correction to the U.S. Code. Under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, the Department of Justice conducts an annual review of statutory reporting requirements that are outdated, duplicative, or otherwise no longer useful to Congress. After conducting that review, the Department recommended we eliminate two reports, both related to programs that have not received funding from Congress for the better part of a decade. Last September, with the support of Chairman Lamar Smith, Congress passed H.R. 6189, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act, to remove these two reporting requirements from the Federal code. President Obama signed H.R. 6189 into law on October 5 of this year.

The bill before us today makes a single technical correction to the Federal code in order to reflect the changes we made earlier this year. Specifically, the legislation eliminates a cross-reference to a report that, after the enactment of H.R. 6189, no longer exists. This bill is a housekeeping measure and nothing more.

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

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

I want to begin by pointing out that the same poison pill that defeated this bill on suspension is now being brought up again with the same poison pill that pits immigrant and minority communities against one another and makes the legislation, therefore, unworkable.

Rather than simply creating green cards for STEM graduates, the majority insists that we must pay for the new visas by completely eliminating Diversity Visas, a longstanding legal immigration program. The elimination of the Diversity Visa program will drastically reduce immigration from African nations because immigrants from Africa normally comprise half the Diversity Visa program's annual beneficiaries.

Rather than reaching out to minority and immigrant communities, the majority is for some reason steamrolling through a bill that we otherwise agree with that cuts visas for minorities and signals their continued support for a Grover Norquist-style ``no new green cards'' pledge that says you can't create a green card for one person without taking one away from someone else.

Even worse, it is shamefully designed to reduce the overall level of legal immigration. Under current law, unused visas in one immigration category roll over to immigrants in other categories who are stuck in decades-long green card backlogs. But H.R. 6429 doesn't do this, thereby ensuring that unused visas are wasted and legal immigrants must continue to suffer in long backlogs. This is a naked attempt to satisfy anti-immigrant groups that have long lobbied for reduced levels of legal immigration.

If this is a new strategy on immigration, it sure looks a lot like the old one. A zero-sum rule means our immigration system can never be fixed. We would not be able to craft solutions for the DREAMers who were brought here as children, for the agricultural workers growing the food on our tables, or for the American families whose loved ones are stuck in decades-long green card backlogs.

We're not fooled by the majority's assertion that this latest version of the bill actually helps families. In reality, the provision that the majority touts is a step backwards from the LIFE Act enacted under a Republican Congress in 2000. Under that act, undocumented spouses and children of lawful permanent residents were able to obtain V visas and eventually adjust their status to lawful permanent residents. The bill offered such family members protection from removal and explicitly granted work authorization.

In contrast, the provision that my colleagues herald this morning as helping families grants certain spouses and children who have already waited abroad for over a year temporary V visas. There is no work authorization, and undocumented family members would be excluded altogether from participating in this program.

While the majority bill provides permanent green cards for businesses, it provides nuclear families with nothing more than temporary visas without work authorization--and then, only after a 1- year separation. And to undocumented children and spouses of lawful permanent residents, the bill offers nothing at all.

So I regret that this legislation was brought to the floor without any committee process, without any opportunity for amendment, and without

any input from those on this side of the aisle. I hope that in the coming Congress the majority will cast aside this political theater and join me in the hard work of finding workable bipartisan solutions to fix our immigration system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, who represents the place where many of these techs come from, Silicon Valley, Ms. Zoe Lofgren.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, no one's worked harder on this issue than Mr. Gutierrez, the gentleman from Illinois; and I am pleased to yield him 3 minutes.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, who's worked on this issue, Congressman Jose Serrano.

I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close on this side, if the gentleman on the other side is ready.

I am pleased to yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren) and yield her such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would now proudly yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to Judy Chu, an active member of the Judiciary Committee who, additionally, heads the Asian Pacific Caucus.

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

I thank you, because there's only one problem separating the two views that have been presented by both sides of the aisle here this afternoon. But the proposal of those on the other side, of steamrolling through today, simply does not provide for new visas for STEM graduates. Instead, it completely eliminates diversity visas, a longstanding legal immigration program. And, as surely everyone understands on both sides of the aisle, we strongly oppose a zero-sum game that trades one legal immigration program for another. I heard someone suggest that.

The elimination of the Diversity Visa Program will drastically decrease immigration from African countries. It's as simple as that. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised approximately 40 to 50 percent of the Diversity Visa Program's annual beneficiaries. And so we just say simply: That is not fair. There's no point in us having to swallow this poison pill. And I can assure you that there's no intention that that be done.

Second, the Diversity Visa Program plays an important foreign policy role for the United States. As a former Ambassador testified the year before last at a Judiciary Committee hearing:

The program engenders hope abroad for those that are all

too often without it--hope for a better life, hope for

reunification with family in the United States, and hope for

a chance to use their God-given skills and talent.

And so I ask my colleague to please consider how we can move the STEM issue forward without eliminating the Diversity Visa Program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, George Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) as few have worked harder on this with Zoe Lofgren.

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to gain the previous speaker's attention. The House, of which you are a Member, passed the DREAM Act 216-208, and we enjoyed the support of eight Republican Members.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, 25 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very patient Member from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren.

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

Mr. Speaker, legendary jazz artist Jimmy Heath will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, CBCF, at the Jazz Issue Forum and Concert that will take place during the 42nd Annual Legislative Conference, ALC. Mr. Heath will also perform at the concert, which will take place on Thursday, September 20, 2012, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, DC. Mr. Heath will receive the 2012 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for his six decades of contributions to jazz and world culture.

The oldest living member of the Philadelphia-bred Heath Brothers jazz family (bassist Percy and drummer Albert); Jimmy Heath rose to prominence during the forties, as a member of the Howard McGhee Big Band. In 1948 at the age of 21, he performed in the First International Jazz Festival in Paris with McGhee,

sharing the stage with Coleman Hawkins, Slam Stewart, and Erroll Garner. One of the earliest of Mr. Heath's own big bands (1947-48) in Philadelphia included John Coltrane, Benny Golson, Specs Wright, Cal Massey, Johnny Coles, Ray Bryant, and Nelson Boyd. He also played with and composed for Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Kenny Dorham, Milt Jackson, and Art Blakey. During his career, Mr. Heath has performed on more than 100 record albums, including 7 with The Heath Brothers and 12 as a leader. He has also written more than 125 compositions, many of which have become jazz standards, including C.T.A., and Gingerbread Boy. He has minted over 20 critically acclaimed recordings, including Really Big!, Love and Understanding, New Picture, Little Man, Big Band, and Endurance.

Mr. Heath first worked as an educator with Jazzmobile, New York City's premier not-for-profit jazz program. In 1987, he was appointed Professor of Music at the Aaron Copland School of Music at Queens College, City University of New York. Professor Heath created the Jazz Program at Queens College, where he taught and mentored a generation of musicians, before retiring in 2004. He also taught jazz at Housatonic College and The New School for Social Research. In October 1997, two of Mr. Heath's former students, trumpeters Darren Barrett and Diego Urcola, placed first and second in the Thelonious Monk International Jazz Competition.

Mr. Heath is among the most honored of our nation's musicians. In 2003, he was presented with the prestigious National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, Jazz Master Award. He is the recipient of three honorary doctorates, including one from Julliard. He is the first jazz musician to be so honored by Julliard and has also received The Julliard Service to the Arts Centennial Award. He has received 3 Grammy Nominations, Howard University's Benny Golson Award and The Thelonious Monk Founder's Award among many other honors.

In 2010, he co-wrote I Walked With Giants: The Autobiography of Jimmy Heath, with Joseph McLaren (Temple University Press). Mr. Heath is still actively creative as a tenor and soprano saxophonist, composer and arranger.

Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Heath is a living jazz treasure and I urge all members to join me in commending him for his magnificent contribution to American and World culture.

Mr. Speaker, on our side, I would begin our discussion by yielding 3 minutes to the distinguished senior member of Judiciary, ranking member of Immigration, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to let my distinguished colleague and friend from California know that we're in complete agreement with most of what he said, except that all we want to do is limit this to a 3-year measure instead of 5 years. Now, there's a compromise you can't turn away from.

At this point I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished senior member from the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to commend the statement by the gentleman from California in this regard. Also, on the subject of transparency, two Senators--one from Oregon, the other from Colorado--asked the Director of National Intelligence how many Americans are affected by this law.

The answer: We don't know.

I yield myself 10 more seconds.

Now, we don't know if he meant that he didn't want to tell us that he knew or that he honestly didn't know. Either response or explanation is inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlelady 30 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, no one respects the gentleman from South Carolina more than I do, but I should advise him that it is incorrect to say that members of the Intelligence Committee didn't support my amendment to shorten the sunset period. I have the names of two of them in front of me right now. I also would advise him that the authority unquestionably affects United States persons, citizens on American soil, that their communications are regularly intercepted, and that would, I think, allow him to join in with some of the rationale for the resistance to this measure as it appears right now.

It's in that spirit that I point out to him that, with the lack of transparency and no oversight, the length of the measure is too long, and that this is being brought up under a closed rule was part of our objections. I think they're in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today extends the expiration date of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017. I oppose this unwarranted long term extension because neither Congress nor the public yet have an adequate understanding of the impact this law has had on the privacy of American citizens.

The heart of the FISA Amendments Act is section 702, which authorizes the government to intercept the communications of people who are reasonably believed to be foreign persons outside of the U.S. On its face, the statute includes protections for American citizens who may be on the other end of these communications.

But section 702 does not require the government to obtain a warrant-- and without more information about how the executive

branch uses this authority, we cannot confirm that the privacy of U.S. citizens is adequately protected.

These concerns are more than theoretical. In 2009, the New York Times reported that the NSA had engaged in the ``overcollection'' of American communications in situations not permitted by law. The government assures us that this problem was an accident and has been corrected-- but the report does not inspire confidence in the safeguards we have put in place.

More recently, in a July 26, 2011, letter to Senators Ron Wyden (D- OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that it is ``not reasonably possible'' to determine how many U.S. persons have had their communications intercepted under this law. Even if it is difficult to state an exact figure, it is hard to believe that the Director of National Intelligence cannot even guess. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community didn't fare any better, and simply deferred to the non-answer provided earlier by the ODNI.

The public deserves better--and it is our responsibility to demand more information in the public record if the government will not provide it.

My colleagues prepared a series of amendments that would have addressed many of these basic oversight needs--without any risk to national security or the integrity of the underlying programs--but under this closed rule, we are not permitted to even debate these moderate changes to the bill on the floor. What is so dangerous about increased oversight that we cannot even debate an amendment?

If we require the government to provide us with unclassified reports, public summaries of key FISA court opinions, and an honest accounting of the number of Americans who have been affected by these programs, we will have gone a long way towards the responsible exercise of our oversight role.

And even if we cannot support these modest changes, we ought to amend this bill to provide for a shorter sunset. Meaningful oversight means revisiting these authorities before the winter of 2017. We cannot allow an entire presidential administration to pass before we discuss these authorities again--in the 115th Congress.

My amendment would have had the added benefit of linking this sunset to the three expiring provisions created by the USA PATRIOT Act. It would be to our benefit to consider the most controversial aspects of FISA all at once, instead of piecemeal over the course of the next decade. But under this closed process on the floor today, the House has been denied the opportunity to even consider this moderate change to the bill.

In conclusion, the government can and must do a better job of responding to our questions about privacy and other civil liberties. It can do so without risk to national security.

I have no doubt that these expiring authorities are important to the executive branch, but we should not let this opportunity pass without demanding reasonable, meaningful, and public oversight of a highly controversial law.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5949.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

H.R. 6189, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act, eliminates two reporting requirements that the Department of Justice deems no longer needy or useful to the Congress.

Under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, the Department of Justice conducts an annual review of statutory reporting requirements that are outdated, duplicative, or otherwise no longer useful. In this review, the Department identified two reports that are the subject of the bill before us now. The first of the two stems from the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, under which the Attorney General is required to report to Congress on various grants made to States to perform DNA analysis. Because Congress has not appropriated any funding for these specific grants since fiscal year 2003, this statutory reporting requirement has been obsolete for almost a decade.

The second report is based on the Police Corps Act, originally a part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. The Director of the Office of the Police Corps is required to make an annual report to Congress on the program's status. However, Congress hasn't appropriated any funds for the office since fiscal year 2005.

So, H.R. 6189 is a simple cleanup of the Federal code. There is no need to have these reporting requirements on the books if there's no activity for the Department of Justice or the Office of Justice Programs to report, and none planned at any time in the near future.

It's important to note that this legislation doesn't make changes to the relevant programs; it merely eliminates discrete reporting requirements that are no longer useful.

I want to thank Lamar Smith, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his support and eagerness in moving this legislation through the committee.

I urge my colleagues to support the measure. And having no other requests for additional speakers on this side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, recent events have highlighted ongoing efforts to suppress the voting rights of American citizens. State representatives and political leaders in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Florida have made public admissions that their particular state laws were designed to put a dent in the democratic process.

In order to confront this assault on the right to vote, we are introducing a resolution, expressing the sense of Congress that the month of September be dedicated to ensuring that every eligible citizen is registered to vote in the United States, calling for a National Month of Voter Registration.

This resolution will call for a nation-wide focus to challenge voting age citizens around the country to register to vote and confirm the status of their voter registration.

The National Month of Voter Registration will encourage citizens to take action and mobilize voter education efforts and voter registration efforts across the country. Since the 2010 elections, misguided efforts in many states have led to the enactment of laws that could turn the clock back to pre-2008 levels of voter registration and voter turn-out. With no response, thousands of Americans may be subjected to state actions that are not in compliance with our federal voting standards and that harm the franchise.

This national focus will challenge civil rights groups, third party voter registration groups, and voting eligible citizens to take action to conduct the following:

Register to vote. With voter registration deadlines approaching, many citizens may face significant barriers if they wait until the final hours to register to vote.

Verify voting status. Every voting eligible citizen will be encouraged to verify their voting status by confirming their presence on the voter rolls, and confirming that their address and personal identifying information in hand matches what the state or local board of elections has on file. Many voters believe that their voting status and information is current, however, citizens in Tennessee and Florida have already found that voter purging is real and can impact the right to vote without a voter being aware.

Confirm polling place. Every voting eligible citizen will be encouraged to verify voting location before Election Day. Voters may find that their poling location has changed from prior elections.

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such an assault on the right to vote since the civil rights movement. As I look back on where we have come from in this country, it seems to me that some of these state voting changes mirror the negative trends of Jim Crow in their effect to scale back voting rights.

For instance, last week, the Brennan Center released another report showing how new voter ID laws could impose serious financial burdens on eligible voters. If the right to vote is available to every American citizen, then why are states making it harder to exercise that right?

I. addition, a second Judge in Wisconsin has deemed Wisconsin's strict voter ID law unconstitutional under the state's constitution. Litigants in the law suit found that the law created unnecessary hardships for minority voters who are less likely to possess a valid ID. On the other side of the argument, the state of Wisconsin argued that the law was going to help prevent voter fraud.

Some state lawmakers have raised the issue of voter fraud to justify strict voter ID requirements and other strict voting changes. However, they won't tell you that during the George W. Bush Administration's five year probe of voter fraud from 2002-2007, that Administration came up with scant evidence of widespread voter fraud.

In addition, they won't tell you the amount of voter fraud cases that have come out of states that have strict voter ID, because there are none. There were no cases of fraud in state of Indiana when the Supreme Court ruled on Indiana's voter ID law in Crawford v. Marion, and states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas have publicly stated that there are no current cases of voter fraud being pursued in their states. Mr. Speaker, our voting rights are being threatened by the non-existent issue of voter fraud.

Therefore, if states are going to present their worst laws to impact the franchise, then the American people have to rise up and combat these laws with better practices.

During the National Month of Voter Registration, we encourage every American citizen to take back their right to vote. We will work with citizens to ensure that they register to vote, confirm their voting information is correct on the voting rolls, and verify that they know where to go to vote on Election Day.

It is a troubling thought that in 2012, the Congress has to rise up and introduce this bill to protect voting rights. Even though Reconstruction Era and the Civil Rights Movement are technically in America's past, the current threat against voting rights is just as real as in those days. We are proud to stand with the American people to protect the exercise of their voice in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank one of the most dedicated and productive members of the Judiciary Committee staff for his service to the House, Benjamin Staub. For six years Ben has worked ably and diligently for the Judiciary Committee, and I would like to commend him on his achievements.

After growing up in Greeley and Silverthorne, Colorado, and being named a Boettcher Scholar, Ben graduated cum laude from Yale University. During his time at Yale, Ben worked for the Undergraduate Admissions Office, taught health in New Haven high schools with the Community Health Educators, worked at the Blake Street Head Start and Calvin Hill Day Care, volunteered in the welfare-to-work early childhood educator program at All Our Kin, and served as a Freshman Counselor for Davenport College. He served as the Executive Co- Coordinator and on the Board of Directors of Dwight Hall at Yale--the student-run nonprofit for community service and social justice with more than 3,000 annual undergraduate volunteers. He interned at the Paris branch office of the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) and wrote and recorded a year-long radio column for Colorado Public Radio about his senior year in college. He earned Yale's John C. Schroeder Prize for social service and the Davenport College Prize for Citizenship.

Ben came to Washington following graduation to work for the political television advertising firm of Murphy Putnam Shorr and Partners, and following the 2006 election, came to work for the House Judiciary Committee.

During his time with the Committee, Ben has worked on a host of issues of national significance--principally in intellectual property policy, antitrust law, and civil liberties. He distinguished himself as an excellent writer and was instrumental in the Committee's work on performance rights legislation and protecting intellectual property from digital theft. He authored large portions and supervised the editing and publishing of the Committee staff's report Reigning in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush, and always stood ready to work on a host of issues at a moment's notice, including voting rights, health care, civil rights, immigration policies, and Executive Branch oversight.

Finally, Ben is well known among his peers as a dedicated athlete and began a trend in our office to use stability balls as desk chairs.

On behalf of the Judiciary Committee, its staff, and this distinguished body, I would like to thank Ben for his exemplary work, generosity, sense of humor, and loyalty. He will be sorely missed as a colleague, advisor, and friend. We wish him the best of luck and extend to him our deepest gratitude.

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

I will begin this discussion by asking the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Trent Franks, this question: Why is this measure limited only to women in the District of Columbia? And I yield to him for a response if he chooses to make one.

Then I will now go on with my statement.

The majority of this House, conservatives, can think of nothing better to do than to continue to wage a war against women and take up our time with these divisive issues. Here, we face the worst of economic crisis since the 1930s. So this is another attempt,

yet another attempt, to undermine women's basic reproductive rights with appeals to ideology rather than to sound science.

Every pregnancy is unique and different, and, unfortunately, some women face difficult and emotionally devastating decisions in the course of their pregnancy that would require them to consider abortion as a health option. So we gather here this afternoon to recognize that this legislation is not needed, is opposed by the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, including: the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Catholics for Choice.

With that opening, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlelady that we have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, but we do not have the prerogative to produce unconstitutional programs for them like H.R. 3803.

I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler, the former chairman of the Constitution Committee of the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, may I remind the previous speaker that women's doctors know a lot more about this subject matter than Members of Congress.

And now with great pleasure I yield 1 minute to the Honorable Ted Deutch from Florida, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a senior Member of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee of Oakland, California.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to recognize the delegate from Washington, D.C., an excellent Member of this body, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

May I inform my colleagues that the Planned Parenthood organization will score today's vote, as will NARAL Pro-Choice America score today's vote.

Now, Members, let no one be fooled, no matter what title you want to give the measure that's before us, it is a direct assault against the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and represents another line of attack against women's reproductive rights. That's why there are so many women's organizations that are opposed to it and have been.

The measure imposes an outright ban on abortions before viability, even where a woman's health may be at risk. Do we really want to support that kind of legislation? In cases where a woman's life is endangered, it still requires a doctor to focus on the health of the fetus.

Furthermore, this measure will jeopardize a women's health, her ability to have children in the future, and in the case of rape and incest would force her to bear her abuser's child. Amazingly, the bill even fails to include an exception for young girls who are survivors of rape and incest.

When the American people expect us to focus on putting people back to work, as former Chairman Nadler remarked, this committee again plays politics with women's health. Don't support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?

I yield myself 1 minute.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, when the American people expect us to focus on putting people back to work, we find ourselves again playing politics with women's health, pandering to the most radical interest groups, and wasting time on divisive social issues, which to some may be good politics, but I would caution my colleagues to remember why we've been sent here.

This war against women cannot continue. The middle class is fighting for its life, workers struggling, and yet we're again putting on this show for the extreme conservatives with an unconstitutional bill that has no chance of becoming law. In fact, for those who are keeping count, this is the second time the majority has brought up a bill restricting access to abortion under a special procedure requiring a two-thirds vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the distinguished delegate from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Holmes Norton.

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

Could I begin by asking the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee this following inquiry: Is it not true that the United States of America has less regulation than almost any other industrialized country in the Western Hemisphere?

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas to respond.

Well, the gentleman is welcome. His answer is no, he doesn't know. And I'm going to, in the course of this debate, try to share with him the fact that other industrialized nations have far more regulations than us, just to put things into some kind of relative proportion.

Members of the House of Representatives, Joseph Stiglitz has talked about the subject of regulation. Here is something that he had to say about it that I think will set us in the right frame of mind to examine dispassionately the principle that is under examination this afternoon. He said this:

The subject of regulation has been one of the most

contentious, with critics arguing that regulations interfere

with the efficiency of the market, and advocates arguing that

well-designed regulation not only makes markets more

efficient, but also helps to ensure the market outcome is

more equitable. Interestingly, as the economy plunges into a

slowdown, if not a recession, with more than 2 million

Americans expected to lose their homes, there is a growing

consensus there was a need for more government regulation. If

it is the case that better regulations could have prevented

or even mitigated the downturn, the country and the world

will be paying a heavy price for the failure to regulate

adequately, and the social costs are no less grave, as

hundreds of thousands of Americans will not only have lost

their homes, but their lifetime savings as well.

And so the measure before us, H.R. 4078, by stopping or delaying rules from going into effect, seriously jeopardizes the safety and the soundness of our Nation's economy and our society generally.

Another fundamental problem with this proposal is that it myopically focuses on the cost of regulations while largely ignoring their overwhelming benefits. So this measure, with its misleadingly short title, will not result in creating jobs for one simple reason: there is no credible evidence establishing that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I direct an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) to ask him if he is aware of the fact that the Obama administration has accomplished and accumulated net benefits of regulations in the last 3 fiscal years that exceed $91 billion?

This comes from the Office of Management and Budget, and it's more than 25 times the net benefits of regulations issued by the Bush administration for a comparable period of time.

I would yield to the distinguished gentleman for a response.

Are you telling me that the freeze will be helpful to creating jobs? Are you telling me in response to my question that the freeze will be helpful to create jobs?

I yield to the gentleman.

But do you accept the Office of Management and Budget's findings that the benefits of regulations by the current administration in the last 3 fiscal years exceeded $91 billion?

You may not. You're not able to yield because I yielded to you. So you don't know?

Well, I just wanted to ask the gentleman. I didn't mean to make this as prolonged as it has become, but I don't think his response of a freeze was an adequate response to my question.

I thank the gentleman for his attempted response.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from upstate New York, Ms. Kathy Hochul, who serves with great distinction on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to ask the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Tim Griffin of Arkansas, if he is aware that the President, as he's correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle but that he opposes very strongly H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012?

I would yield to the gentleman for a response.

Well, if I could interrupt the gentleman, this is not about what your opinion is or mine. I'm asking you about the President's opinion.

The President, as you quite accurately said, is supportive of regulation, but he is specifically opposed to this regulation, and I would like to quote to you exactly what he said about H.R. 4078:

The bill would undermine critical public health and safety

protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in

agency decisionmaking, and interfere with agency performance

of statutory mandates.

Now, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

I'd just like the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) to know that later on I'm going to introduce over 60 outstanding leaders, economists, and organizational heads that take a completely different view from the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I'd like him to examine those documents.

I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee from California, George Miller.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

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

I would like to just remark on the words of the distinguished speaker on the Republican side by saying that another Republican has a completely different point of view, who was the former chairman of the House Committee on Science, and was so for over 5 years. He is Sherwood Boehlert, and many of us remember him fondly.

He says that it would be ``difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the House bill.'' He is referring to H.R. 4078.

The legislation might as well just directly order the

agencies that were created to protect the public to close up

shop.

Then he goes on to say:

There is no indication that this bill would aid job growth.

Indeed, by blocking rules needed to make the economy run more

smoothly, the bill could harm our economic prospects for

years to come.

So I present to you a point of view of the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, a distinguished Republican and former chairman of the Committee on Science in 2001 and 2006.

I now yield such time as she may desire to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

At this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the author of this amendment because it highlights the dangers of this bill. And surely if there is anything that we prioritize in our whole ecosystem is the value and importance of clean water over profits, and I am astounded that anyone would oppose the amendment, frankly.

Will the gentleman yield?

I may not need that much time.

But this is the most important provision in this bill--if we can persuade our colleagues to accept it--because we've all been victims of this rising gas price and then they miraculously come down a little bit, and then they start going back up again and then they come down.

I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for introducing the amendment, and I'm proud, along with him, to support consumers across this country.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted no on H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011 (Rep. Cole--Natural Resources).

Had I been present, I would have voted no on S. 2039, a bill to allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands (Sen. Hoeven--Transportation and Infrastructure).

Had I been present I would have voted yes on H.R. 3477, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 133 Hare Road in Crosby, Texas, as the Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office Building (Rep. Poe--Oversight and Government Reform).

Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 465 on H.R. 4402, the Young (AK) Amendment, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted ``no.''

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

This has been an unusual debate in Congress over an extremely important matter. What we have witnessed and listened to today for the 31st time is something that I would like to spare our conservative friends the heavy responsibility of trying to go back to their districts to explain.

I would like them to not have to explain why they voted to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for 17 million children with preexisting conditions. I would like them not to have to explain why they voted to kick over 6.5 million youngsters up to age 26 off their families' insurance policies.

I do not want my dear friends on the other side of the aisle to have to explain why their community hospitals will again have to provide free care to people without insurance and to pay for the medical costs of the uninsured. Medical providers, of course, pass these costs on to private insurers, which pass them on to families, increasing the premiums, on average, of about $1,000. You can tell families paying this hidden tax why they want to impose it. I don't want them to have to try to explain that.

I don't want my conservative friends in this body to explain to the 13 million Americans that they won't receive $1.1 billion in rebates this summer from health insurance companies that have overcharged them.

It goes on and on.

We don't want anyone here to have to explain to the 105 million Americans who will have to face a lifetime limit on their coverage why they would want to allow insurance companies to deny them coverage once they get sick.

Then, of course, there are the preexisting conditions that are an excuse to, first of all, not insure for health insurance and, in addition, to deny insurance once they have it if they feel that it is a long-term illness.

We don't want any of our conservative friends to leave the House and to have to go home to explain to the 360,000 small business employers who use small business health care tax credits in order to help them afford health insurance for 2 million workers that they will not get it any longer.

Finally, we don't want our conservative friends to have to explain why this bill promotes the fiction that repealing the Affordable Care Act won't increase the deficit.

We can't keep doing this. I hope nobody is thinking about 32 or 33 times. There has been no comparable debate over a major piece of legislation that has been through this kind of tortured process in recent memory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to assure my dear friend from California, a former attorney general of his State, that the Supreme Court has made more decisions that I don't like than he doesn't like, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, rather than get into the Commerce Clause, ruled it a tax. I'm sorry he did that. I wish he had done it my way. You don't like the way that he did it.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the former chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would remind my distinguished friend from Florida on the Judiciary Committee that ObamaCare extends Medicaid and does not cause anybody to lose any insurance if they already have it.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, Maxine Waters, who has worked with us on so many progressive causes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to tell Judge Gohmert that there isn't one American in this country that has lost their insurance because of ObamaCare. Not one.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to John Garamendi of California.

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 4155, H.R. 4367, and H.R. 5892. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on these bills.

Personal Explanation