Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3630, an unacceptable, tone deaf response to the legitimate needs of the American people.

Unless Congress acts this month, millions of hardworking Americans-- nearly 2 million in January alone and over 6 million in 2012--will be cut off from the emergency lifeline provided by unemployment insurance. In my home State of Michigan, over 160,000 jobless Americans would be left adrift, without any way to weather the worst job market since the Great Depression.

Providing unemployment benefits during periods of economic crisis should be a no brainer. These benefits help keep the economy afloat and give job seekers the time necessary to find work in a tight job market. As

such, previous Congresses have always come together to pass these benefits on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. In fact, since the unemployment insurance system was created, Congress has never cut back on federally-funded extended benefits when unemployment was over 7.2 percent.

Yet, this is exactly what this unacceptable proposal from the Republican Majority would do. H.R. 3630 would cut back the maximum weeks of unemployment benefits from 99 weeks to 59 weeks for current beneficiaries in Michigan. According to the National Employment Law Project, the proposed cuts could mean a loss of up to $22 billion in economic activity next year and approximately 140,000 jobs lost nationally in 2012.

Additionally, the bill would add additional unnecessary restrictions on those seeking benefits. Applicants would be required to have a high school diploma, or use benefits to pay for the pursuit of a GED. It would also further humiliate those seeking unemployment benefits by requiring the unemployed to take drug tests in order to receive benefits. Insinuating that people are remaining unemployed because they're using illegal drugs is the height of ignorance and exemplifies how out of touch the Majority is when it comes to understanding the plight of Americans trying to survive the Great Recession. If anyone deserves to be drug tested, it's the Wall Street executives whose recklessness and irrational gambling problem caused the massive unemployment problem in the first place.

H.R. 3630 isn't a serious effort to extend these provisions. Instead, it's a package that's filled with riders and controversial cuts that won't pass the Senate. The bill includes language that would:

Create indefinite delay to standards that protect people's health from industrial boilers and incinerators, which would prevent up to 8,100 premature deaths, avoid 52,000 asthma attacks, and 5,100 heart attacks each year;

Short-circuit the review of the controversial Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline;

Make millions of seniors, some with incomes as low as $80,000 a year, pay substantially more for their health care under Medicare--increasing the health care costs of these seniors by $31 billion over 10 years;

Impose a pay freeze and benefit cuts that would take more than $53 billion out of the pockets of federal workers;

Cut $10.6 billion in Medicare ``bad debt'' payments, which help hospitals cover out of pocket costs that low-income seniors are unable to afford;

Cut $6.8 billion for hospital outpatient payments for emergency room visits;

Cut $4.1 billion to Medicaid DSH payments for hospitals that treat high numbers of uninsured patients; and

Relax restrictions on self-referral to physician owned hospitals, which would result in increased utilization of services and higher costs for the Medicare program.

The time is long past for partisan gamesmanship. In two short weeks, in addition to unemployment benefits running out, the taxes of middle class families in Michigan are scheduled to increase by $1,800 and cuts in the reimbursements for doctors who participate in Medicare will kick in.

It is clear that the Majority needs to take a break from its war on the environment, seniors, and the uninsured and join with Democrats to create jobs and grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2010, along with additional cosponsors. This legislation represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. This legislation is designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by eliminating racial profiling through changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice.

This legislation can be traced back to the data collection efforts of the late 1990's that were designed to determine whether racial profiling was a fact versus an urban legend. Based upon the work around that legislation, by September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice. Moreover, many in the law enforcement community have acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities.

At a recent Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue of racial profiling, we approached the issue from the perspective of ``smart policing'' and what makes sense in a time of austerity in the face of the continuing need to protect public safety. I believe that it became clear during the hearing that enough agreement exists to allow us to re-open the bipartisan dialogue on racial profiling commenced by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft.

Despite the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias--and we value their service highly--the specter of racial profiling has contaminated the relationship between the police and minority communities to such a degree that federal action is justified to begin addressing the issue.

While the Department of Justice promulgated a series of guidelines in 2003 which were designed to end the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, these measures do not reach the vast majority of racial profiling complaints arising from the routine activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. Further, the guidelines provide no enforcement mechanism or methods for identifying law enforcement agencies not in compliance and, therefore, fail to resolve the racial profiling problem nationwide. In this instance, there is no substitute for comprehensive federal anti-profiling legislation.

The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to eliminate racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling that is well documented. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates that training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities that is to be submitted through a standardized form to the Department of Justice. Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices.

Decades ago, with the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation, this country made clear that race should not affect the treatment of individual Americans under the law. However, recent events demonstrate that racial profiling remains a divisive issue that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. When law-abiding citizens are treated differently by those who enforce the law simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, they are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. With the cooperation of the Administration, we have the opportunity to develop a comprehensive approach to eliminating the practice of racial profiling through this legislative effort. I hope that we do not miss this historic opportunity to heal the rift caused by racial profiling and restore much of the community's confidence in law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, H.R. 10 is the mother of all antiregulatory bills. Since the House was in session during 2010 for 116 legislative days, under this bill--and I invite any of my colleagues to make any different analysis--the Congress would be required after 70 days after they receive a rule to act upon it. If you only have 116 days, legislative days a year, it would be literally impossible to handle the number of rules that we would get.

Namely, we got 94 rules last year, 116 days. If we were handling every rule--please, use your arithmetic skills, ladies and gentlemen. This bill would be unworkable, and it would be impossible for new regulations to be enacted. But then, maybe that's the whole thrust of the matter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The REINS Act is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills in the Congress. The only problem, I say to the distinguished author, the gentleman from Kentucky, is that it won't work. There are only 116 legislative days.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Steve Cohen, a ranking subcommittee member in Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valuable member of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Education Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, Rob Andrews.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut, the Honorable Jim Himes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Colorado, Diana DeGette, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Government Oversight Committee, Mr. Gerry Connolly.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California, the Honorable George Miller.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored at this time to recognize the former Speaker of the House, the leader, the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our final speaker, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, who is finishing out a brilliant career.

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

I want to merely start off by recognizing that somewhere buried in this amendment is the gentleman from Texas' recognition that regulations could or might create jobs. I want to thank him for that.

There's no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. Now, we've talked about this for 2 days. But at our hearing in the Judiciary Committee, one of the anti-regulatory bills that we considered, we had an American Enterprise Institute witness, Christopher DeMuth, from the conservative think tank that AEI is, and he stated in his prepared testimony that focus on jobs can lead to confusion in regulatory debates and that the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.

I must say to my colleagues that that is exactly the same impression that I came out of my Judiciary Committee hearing with, and it's the same impression that I've come to realize is probably accurate in the debate for the last few days on the floor of the House itself.

I'm concerned about this amendment because it would add to the analytical burdens of agencies, the speculative assessment of jobs added or lost, and how many of those jobs would be added or lost in the public and private sectors.

For these reasons, I conclude that this amendment would not be helpful, and I am unable to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his excellent presentation. I agree with him that what probably triggered this bill in 1988 was Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history in which his privacy was violated in a very major way. And so I join him and the members of the House Judiciary Committee in supporting the Video Privacy Protection Act, which provides continued consumer protection. H.R. 2471 is very important in this respect because, over the course of the 23 years since this measure has become law, there have been significant changes in the ways and the means by which people view technological content.

Movies can now be downloaded to mobile phones; live events can be streamed in real-time to laptops using mobile Internet services. There were so many other things happening in the transformation that go on at all times that could not have been contemplated in 1988. So there was ambiguity about whether the statute applies only to physical goods, such as videocassettes and DVDs.

Under this bill, a videotape service provider means anybody engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery or prerecorded videocassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials. It's the phrase ``similar audiovisual materials'' that has created some ambiguity. So what we've done is specified the requirement of informed written consent for disclosure may include consent through electronic means using the Internet.

As the bill moved through committee markup, I wanted to make sure that the bill provided the greatest protections for consumer privacy. Accordingly, like the subcommittee chair, I supported the Nadler amendments that required such consent requests be clearly and prominently presented to the consumer.

Fortunately, those amendments were accepted. And though I feel that the bill could have gone further--I believe, for example, that the consumer should be asked periodically if their consent should be renewed--it is a good bill. Accordingly, I join in supporting its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina, my friend Mel Watt of the Judiciary Committee. He is the ranking subcommittee member of this part of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of my time to a distinguished magistrate from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), now a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

I appreciate the excellent description of the chairman, Lamar Smith, on H.R. 1021, the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act. This is a very bipartisan piece of legislation, extending by 5 years the authorizations for 30 temporary bankruptcy judges in more than 20 judicial districts around the country.

I might point out that we're not adding bankruptcy judges; and, Members of the House, that's what we ought to be doing, really, instead of just continuing the same number. We need

more. Why? Because bankruptcy judges are needed more than ever.

The bankruptcy filings have increased during the worst economic downturn the Nation has experienced since the Great Depression because long-term high unemployment rates and reduced incomes have sent more people into the bankruptcy court, because of the continuing mortgage foreclosure crisis which has affected so many people, and the increasingly onerous credit card obligations, and the sky-high student loans that are being collected on, and the uninsured medical debt.

Last year 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed, representing a more than 8 percent increase over the prior years. Two of the Nation's largest automobile manufacturers in Detroit, General Motors and Chrysler, filed for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11. These two cases alone involved billions of dollars, tens of thousands of workers, thousands of auto dealers, and thousands of creditors located in all parts of our Nation. Just last month, American Airlines filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, and the national bookstore chain Borders filed last month.

A third factor must be kept in mind: that while we maintain the status quo, more needs to be done. Bankruptcy courts have been performing admirably but under critical strain. So while the bankruptcy courts' workload increases, judicial resources are, in fact, diminishing. And that's why we're authorizing new judicial membership in the bankruptcy courts in the coming year, if everything works out as we anticipate.

Right now, though, we merely ask the House of Representatives to support the bill that I and Chairman Smith have cosponsored which would maintain the new judges that are on the bench but will not add any more.

I urge your support for the additional judgeships.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, a member of the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Members of the House, under the Constitution, article I, section 10, clause 3, these kinds of interstate compacts must be ratified by the House of Representatives. Senate Joint Resolution 22 gives congressional approval to an agreement between Missouri and Illinois to amend the interstate compact establishing the Bi-State Development Agency.

My colleague on the Judiciary, Judge Gohmert, has expertly described what it is that brings us here, but I would merely add that the congressionally approved interstate compact establishing the Bi-State Development Agency in 1950 serves as the primary provider of the public transportation for the St. Louis metropolitan area. It also develops, maintains, owns, and operates bridges, airports, wharves, docks, grain elevators, industrial parks, parking facilities, refuse and waste handling facilities, as well as fuel, energy, air, water, rail, or commodity storage areas. Also, there is a 40-year maximum maturity period for bonds and other financial instruments which will allow the agency to finance projects for longer periods of time.

I congratulate my colleague from St. Louis, William Lacy Clay, a distinguished Member from Missouri whose father was in on the first interstate compact, and now we're proud that he and other of his colleagues from both Missouri and Illinois are supporting this Senate Joint Resolution 22. I urge its favorable consideration.

I would like to yield the distinguished gentleman as much time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

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

I want to begin our discussion this morning with the reference that Federal regulations impose an annual cost of $1.75 trillion on business. I would like the Members to know that the reference made to this study is the Crain study. I'd like to use the name so that you can track exactly what is being said about it.

The study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool. Who says this? They said it as a preface to the study itself. And for the benefit of the 433 other Members besides myself and the chairman, I am going to put this in the Record and also make it available to all of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.

The Crain study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool, and the Congressional Research Service, our own operation, criticized much of the Crain study's methodology and noted that the authors of the Crain study themselves told the Congressional Research Service that their analysis was not to be a decisionmaking tool for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the right level of regulation. So every time somebody mentions this study again on the floor, I am going to refer them to the Congressional Research study, which has never been disputed or declaimed by anybody.

In no place in any of the reports do we imply that our reports should be used for this purpose--that's the Crain study people themselves. That's not the Congressional Research study; that's the authors. And here is the Congressional Research study that I would like to introduce into the Record at this time.

[From the Congressional Research Service]

Analysis of an Estimate of the Total Costs of Federal Regulations

(By Curtis W. Copeland, Specialist in American National Government,

April 6, 2011)

[CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress--Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, www.crs.gov, R41763]

Summary

Some policy makers have expressed an interest in measuring

total regulatory costs and benefits (e.g., the Congressional

Office of Regulatory Analysis Creation and Sunset and Review

Act of 2011, H.R. 214, 112th Congress), and estimates of

total regulatory costs have been cited in support of

regulatory reform legislation (e.g., H.R. 10, the Regulations

from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, H.R. 10,

112th Congress). However, measuring total costs and benefits

is inherently difficult. This report examines one such study

to illustrate the complexities of this type of analysis.

A September 2010 report prepared by Nicole V. Crain and W.

Mark Crain for the Office of Advocacy within the Small

Business Administration (SBA) stated that the annual cost of

federal regulations was about $1.75 trillion in 2008. This

cost estimate was developed by adding together the estimated

costs of four categories or types of regulation: economic

regulations (estimated at $1.236 trillion); environmental

regulations ($281 billion); tax compliance ($160 billion);

and regulations involving occupational safety and health, and

homeland security ($75 billion). Some commenters have raised

questions about the validity and reliability of this

estimate.

For example, Crain and Crain's estimate for economic

regulations (which comprises more than 70% of the $1.75

trillion estimate) was developed by using an index of

``regulatory quality.'' One of the authors of the regulatory

quality index said that Crain and Crain misinterpreted and

misused the index, resulting in an erroneous and overstated

cost estimate. Other commenters have also raised concerns

about using the index to estimate regulatory costs, and about

the regression analysis that the authors used to produce the

cost estimate. Crain and Crain said that they believe they

interpreted and used the regulatory quality index correctly.

Crain and Crain's estimates for environmental, occupational

safety and health, and homeland security regulations were

developed by blending together academic studies (some of

which are now more than 30 years old) with agencies'

estimates of regulatory costs that were developed before the

rules were issued (some of which are now 20 years old).

Although the agency estimates were typically presented as

low-to-high ranges, Crain and Crain used only the highest

cost estimates in their report. The Office of Management and

Budget has said that estimates of the costs and benefits of

regulations issued more than 10 years earlier are of

``questionable relevance.''

Crain and Crain's estimate for the cost of tax paperwork

was based on data from the Internal Revenue Service and the

Tax Foundation, but OMB data indicate that the number of

hours of tax paperwork may be much higher than Crain and

Crain's estimate. On the other hand, the authors' assumptions

regarding the cost of completing the paperwork may be too

high. A threshold question, however, is whether tax paperwork

should be considered in the same category as regulatory

costs. OMB does not include tax paperwork in its annual

reports to Congress.

Crain and Crain said they did not provide estimates of the

benefits of regulations, even when the information was

readily available, because the SBA Office of Advocacy did not

ask them to do so. OMB's reports to Congress have generally

indicated that regulatory benefits exceed costs. Crain and

Crain said their report was not meant to be a decision-making

tool for lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in

choosing the ``right'' level of regulation. This report will

not be updated.

* * * * *

Policymaking and the Crain and Crain Estimate

As noted at the beginning of this report, Crain and Crain's

estimate that federal regulations cost $1.75 trillion in 2008

has been cited as evidence of the need for regulatory reform

legislation. However, Crain and Crain told CRS that their

report was ``not meant to be a decision-making tool for

lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing

the `right' level of regulation. In no place in any of the

reports do we imply that our reports should be used for this

purpose. (How could we recommend this use when we make no

attempt to estimate the benefits?)'' \103\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ E-mail to the author from Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark

Crain, March 7, 2011. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Crain and Crain suggest, information on regulatory costs

alone, whether for individual rules or for all rules in the

aggregate, provides only one piece of information that

Congress and other policymakers can use in determining how to

proceed. For example, even if all federal regulations did

cost $1.75 trillion in 2008 (which at least some commenters

believe may not be correct), if the monetized benefits of

those regulations were determined to be greater than those

costs, then policymakers may conclude that those costs were

(in the words of Executive Order 12866) ``justified.'' On the

other hand, if the monetized benefits of federal regulations

were estimated to be less. than the estimated costs,

policymakers may reach another conclusion, or may decide to

examine any non-monetized costs and benefits of

those rules. But a valid, reasoned policy decision can only

be made after considering information on both costs and ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

benefits.

The Center for Progressive Reform is another study that notes that the $1.75 trillion cumulative burden cited by the study fails to account for any benefits of the regulation. I am going to, at the appropriate time, introduce that into the Record.

The Congressional Research Service notes that the study's methodology is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs.

So I would urge the Members to be aware of what I am going to do during this debate the next time somebody names this study without naming the name of the study and the fact that it was put together by Mark and Nicole Crain, commonly called the Crain study.

The Congressional Research Service notes that the study's methodology is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs. The study relied on international public opinion polling by the World Bank on how friendly a particular country was to business interests and ignored actual data on costs imposed by the Federal regulation in the United States. The Congressional Research Service concluded that a valid, reasoned policy decision can only be made after considering information on both costs and benefits of regulation.

The next thing I would like to do is examine what seems to be a political or legislative strategy that is being used in this debate. You see, there are three bills that are antiregulatory bills--and there's no question or dispute about that--designed to slow or halt rulemaking and give industry more opportunities to disrupt the rulemaking process of the Federal Government. H.R. 3010, which we are taking up today, is one of them. H.R. 527, which we took up yesterday, is another one of them. H.R. 10, the king of all regulatory antiregulatory bills, is coming up next week, the REINS Act, which, for the first time in American history, determines that the Congress must also approve the rules of all the agencies, of which there are some 40 or 50.

And for the benefit of every Member of the Congress, I am getting together every agency that would now be involved and that would have to have their rules--believe it or not, this is not ``Saturday Night Live''--would come through the Congress. Can you imagine what that would do to our schedule?

These bills are blatantly and unhesitatingly designed to slow down and even halt all Federal rulemaking, thereby threatening public health and safety by undermining the agencies' ability to address a whole range of issues.

What about food-borne illnesses? What about toy safety? What about infant formula safety? What about financial security?

All three antiregulatory bills also give industry more opportunities to disrupt the rulemaking process. The bill under consideration now, for example, requires formal rulemaking and expands opportunities to challenge agency action in court. As if they need any help from the corporate lawyers that are all lined up to do their work at the present moment, but no, we want to give them more opportunities to go in court, as if they can't figure it out for themselves.

H.R. 527 of the previous day does this by expanding the use of small business review panels. The measure coming up next week would require Congress to approve all major rules. Not only do we have to do that, but we have to do it within 70 legislative days before they could take effect, effectively, of course, allowing industry to intervene in Congress to stop a rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The AFL-CIO has backed up what the ranking member, Mr. Miller, of Education and Labor has said. They warn that H.R. 3010 would upend more than 40 years of labor, health, safety and environmental laws, and threaten new needed protections. It would cripple the regulatory process and make protecting workers and the public secondary to limiting costs and impacts on business and corporations.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, November 28, 2011.

Dear Representative: When the Congress returns from the

Thanksgiving break the House is expected to vote on three

``regulatory reform'' bills--H.R. 10, the Regulations from

the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (the REINS Act), H.R. 3010,

the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the

Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. Each of these bills

would up-end the entire regulatory system making it

impossible for the government to protect workers and the

public from workplace hazards, dirty air and water, unsafe

drugs, tainted food and Wall Street abuses. The AFL-CIO

strongly urges you to oppose each of these bills.

The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA)--H.R. 3010--is a

particularly harmful measure. It amends the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), but it goes far beyond establishing

procedures for rulemaking. The RAA acts as a ``supermandate''

overriding the requirements of landmark legislation such as

the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and

Health Act. The bill would require agencies to adopt the

least costly rule, instead of the most protective rule as is

now required by the OSH Act and MSH Act. It would make

protecting workers and the public secondary to limiting costs

and impacts on businesses and corporations.

The RAA will not improve the regulatory process; it will

cripple it. The bill adds dozens of new analytical,

procedural, and judicial review requirements to the

rulemaking process, which will add years to the process. The

development of major workplace safety rules already takes 6-

10 years; the RAA will further delay these rules and cost

workers their lives.

The RAA substitutes formal rulemaking for the current

procedures for public participation for high impact rules and

for other major rules upon request. These formal rulemaking

procedures will make it more difficult for workers and

members of the public to participate, and give greater access

and influence to business groups that have the resources to

hire lawyers and lobbyists to participate in this complex

process. For agencies that already provide for public

hearings, such as OSHA and MSHA, the bill would substitute

formal rulemaking for the development of all new rules,

overriding the effective public participation processes

conducted by these agencies.

H.R. 3010 would subject all agencies--including independent

agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Consuumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB) to these new analytical and

procedural requirements. It would be much more difficult for

agencies to develop and issue new financial reform rules and

consumer protection rules required under recently enacted

legislation.

The REINS Act (H.R. 10) would radically alter the

regulatory process by requiring Congress to vote to approve

all major rules before they can go into effect. Rules not

affirmatively acted on by both the House and the Senate

within 70 legislative days would die. Under the REINS Act,

politics, not scientific judgment or expertise would dictate

all regulatory actions. Corporate opposition and influence

would swamp the public's interest and block needed

protections.

H.R. 10 is impractical, unworkable and unnecessary.

Congress has neither the time nor expertise to consider and

act on detailed, technical and scientific issues. Moreover,

Congress already has the authority to disapprove rules

through the Congressional Review Act or block their

implementation by withholding funding.

H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act,

expands the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

by covering regulations that may have an indirect effect on

small businesses and adding a host of new analytical

requirements that will make it even more difficult for

agencies to take action to protect workers and the public.

Virtually any action an agency proposes even a guidance

document designed to help a business comply with a rule could

be subject to a lengthy regulatory process. While the bill

purports to be focused on small business, it would cover more

than 99% of all employers, including firms in some industries

with up to 1,500 workers or $35.5 million in annual revenues.

This bill also creates a small business ``czar'' by

increasing the powers of the Chief Counsel of Small Business

Advocacy. This individual would become a super-regulator,

with new powers to review proposed regulations and suggest

alternatives. Agencies would be subject to review by both the

Office of Management and Budget and the Chief Counsel, adding

to regulatory delay.

H.R. 3010, H.R. 10 and H.R. 527 would further tilt the

regulatory process in favor of business groups and others who

want to stop regulations, and make it much more difficult for

the government to protect workers and the public. These are

dangerous proposals that will not create one new job or solve

any of the pressing problems facing our country.

The AFL-CIO strongly opposes H.R. 3010, H.R. 10 and H.R.

527 and urges you to vote against all three bills.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Government Affairs Department.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The distinguished ranking member of Agriculture wasn't here when the ranking member, Mr. Miller of Education and Labor, was here talking about the agricultural problems and the problems that H.R. 3010 presents to us.

What I would like to just ask the gentleman, yesterday the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of both grapes and tomatoes for salmonella contamination. Did the gentleman have some reservation or objection to this regulation that the FDA operated on?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

If you think that this bill should go further, then why would FDA need to have H.R. 3010 be made more likely to kill regulations that control jobs and health?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a ranking subcommittee member in Judiciary.

Would the gentleman yield to me for just a few seconds?

Would the gentleman from California tell me now or at some future time which health regulations he would like to get repealed or withdrawn?

So you don't have any complaint against FDA at the present time?

But you're okay with them?

So you don't want to improve it?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, sir.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me because we want to acknowledge the committee's parliamentarian, Allison Halataei, on her last day of service to the committee.

Allie has been an expert on House and committee rules, has ruled fairly on all matters of legislation that fall within the committee's jurisdiction, and has been valuable to all the members on both sides of the aisle. We've come to rely on her excellent judgment and experience.

On behalf of the Democratic members of the committee, we wish her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I would just like to point out that the Crain study referred to already by the distinguished chairman of the committee, apparently he hasn't found out that it's been held in error in a number of ways but mostly by the Crain study people themselves, who said that their analysis was not meant to be a decisionmaking tool for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the right level of regulation.

In other words, the study is flawed because it fails to account for any benefits of regulation. So I want everybody to know that this correction about $1.75 trillion has been thoroughly debunked by not only CRS but other authorities as well.

Now, this debate follows a number of pieces of legislation that we're considering. It's sort of a regulation tidal wave--or anti-regulation tidal wave: H.R. 3010, Regulatory Accountability; H.R. 10, which we will see soon, the REINS Act; and H.R. 527, the bill before us now, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.

Now, it's strange to say that this trio of public safety-killing legislation would make it harder to control and make safe our products that we count on. Under the law presently, rulemaking must make an analysis for every new rule that would have a significant economic impact on small businesses. Among other things, the bill would repeal the authority that allows the agency to waive or delay this analysis in response to even an emergency. It's hard to imagine how the bill under consideration would make regulations more cumbersome, would take longer, would risk national emergencies, and would lose a lot of the safety and health protections that we now enjoy. I feel that there hasn't been a careful consideration of what the real final goal is.

The Wall Street Journal, which is no enemy of big business, said: The main reason United States companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand rather than uncertainty over government policies.

So even the business community recognizes that the big problem with our economy is not that rules are tying up businesses but that we don't have enough people buying, because they don't have enough jobs to create the demand. If you examine it carefully, as many on our Committee on the Judiciary have done, you will find that the safety standards of which we are really very proud are going to be compromised in a very embarrassing way.

Regulations don't kill jobs; they save lives.

There are plans underway--this is one of them--here in the House to undermine the regulatory process that guarantees the health and the safety of millions of Americans. I urge all of the Members of the House to carefully consider the direction of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from California, Judy Chu.

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

Members of the House, it's important for us to realize who else has difficulty in supporting a bill that ends up creating unsafe products, promotes dirty air, and other kinds of harms to our citizenry. The American Lung Association is opposed to H.R. 527. The Environmental Defense Fund is opposed to this bill. The National Women's Law Center does not support this bill. Public Citizen is opposed to it. The Union of Concerned Scientists is opposed to it. And, indeed, a total of more than 70 organizations have all written urging us to very carefully consider what we are doing here today.

It's absolutely critical, and it is very important that we understand that there is no evidence, credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. Now, this is great rhetoric, but we're passing laws here today.

The majority's own witness before the House Judiciary Committee agrees with us. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, stated in his prepared testimony that the focus on jobs can lead to confusion in regulatory debates, and that the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate. He can't figure it out, and he was a pretty good witness for our position that regulations have no discernible impact on job creation.

If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans back to work. The BlueGreen Alliance notes: Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect.

Economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a perfect example. The economy has grown 204 percent and private sector job creation has expanded 86 percent since it was passed in 1970. And so, my colleagues, regulation and

economic growth can go hand in hand. We recently observed that 40 years of success with the Clean Air Act has demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand.

What's in this bill is a provision that every regulation change would have to come back through the Congress. It would be unthinkable that we could add this to our schedule, especially if there was a health emergency that required a rapid passage.

So I want every Member of this House to examine the grossly different analyses that are being made here and come to your own conclusion. I think if you do, you will realize that regulations have no discernible impact on job creation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm glad my friend is still on the floor because he asked, what do the doctors have to say about this? The doctors oppose the bill. And I'd like to point out, the American Lung Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest do not agree with you, and they agree with our position on the bill.

In just a minute I'll be very pleased to.

The Environmental Defense Fund, the Friends of the Earth, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are all in agreement with us. And so I want you to know that the medical people that have spoken about this bill are not in support of it.

I will yield briefly to the gentleman.

Just a moment. These are not lobbyists. I don't know if these organizations have any offices here. But the Union of Concerned Scientists probably doesn't have any lobbyists. I doubt if the American Lung Association does.

I would, except that your side has far more time than my side does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too am prepared to close on this side.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have two starkly opposing views of what this bill does. I have over 70 organizations that are from the labor movement, from the health movement, from the science world, from the Women's Law Center, from the Union of Concerned Scientists all telling us that this is a very dangerous process that we're involved in, that the results wouldn't be that the authors of this amendment intended to harm people or that they intended to produce unsafe air products or that they were supporting making the air unbreathable, but that is the result of this bill.

It's been stated twice on the other side that we are accusing you of bad intent. I don't do that. I want you to be very clear. It's not a matter that your intentions are not honorable, but the results of a bill like H.R. 527 would create unsafe products. It would ultimately produce air that is more polluted than the air that we're dealing with now. It would delay the promulgation of regulations that we need. It is exactly going in the wrong way because we, as a matter of fact, need to have more regulation surrounding products, particularly children's toys. We want the air to be much better than it is.

And so I urge my colleagues to examine the premises starkly different than have been presented here today and to join us in turning back and sending back to the committee a bill that would make our health much more endangered.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady from New York.

My friend on the other side from Missouri, who is managing the bill, I was happy to hear you say that this measure that we are examining does nothing to hinder the rulemaking process. And I'd like to help you out in that area if I may because this expands in the bill the use of small business review panels to include rules promulgated by all agencies, and to include all major rules.

I would say to the gentleman from Missouri that right now there are only three agencies that are affected. What this does, my friend, is extend the review process to every agency. Do you recognize, sir, that there are over 50 agencies in the Federal system? And so for it to be thought that this isn't going to change much is a grievous mistake. And of course I am here to help you out, to the extent that I can.

The other thing that it does--and you think that this will not change the rulemaking process--is that this measure would force agencies to engage in speculative analysis, including an assessment of all reasonably foreseeable, indirect economic effects of a proposed rule.

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

I welcome the continuation of this discussion about an incredibly important proposal.

We gather here today to determine whether we should add one more amendment to the 27 amendments to the Constitution that have been enacted since the last part of the 18th century when our country was formed. I was reviewing something that a former chairman of our committee said in the 104th Congress, and I refer to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, who said in effect that he realized that the Republican Congress when he was there would not be able to balance the budget without using retiree funds in the Social Security trust fund. I think I'm being assured in this debate that that will not happen in the present time.

Here's what Henry Hyde said: ``If you exclude receipts from the revenue that are received by the Social Security System from computing the total revenues of the government, if you take it out of the equation, then the cuts that are necessary to reach a balanced budget become draconian. They become 22 to 30 percent, and you know that we cannot and will not cut programs that we want to subsist and continue by 22 to 30 percent.

``You have to compute Social Security receipts in determining the income of this government so that the cuts you make to balance the budget are liveable and not impossible.''

Henry Hyde was right then and his statement is correct now. Under the proposal that we are discussing today, our Nation's savings--the money taken out of every American's paycheck could be looted, in effect, to pay for other things and to balance the budget, and it would take the trust out of the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Ryan budget would cut Social Security's service delivery below current maintenance levels by more than $10 billion over 10 years, including a $400 million cut in 2012. This sort of drastic cutting will prove devastating to seniors as more aging boomers retire to rely on field office services, initial benefit claims, processing, disability determinations, and hearing decisions over the next 10 years.

So I appeal to the kinder nature of my friends in the House. Please recognize that Henry Hyde was correct then and he is correct now, that we cannot achieve what this amendment proposes to do without going into Social Security receipts. And I think that that would be objectionable and unwise on the part of all of us here, and that would be unacceptable to the citizens of our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, become the manager of this amendment from this point on.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, this balanced budget constitutional amendment is one that surprises me, and very little surprises me anymore. But for us to be seriously, on this day and this time, considering an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would destroy jobs, that would drastically cut Medicare and Social Security and give members of the Federal judiciary the right to raise taxes and

make spending decisions for us is relatively shocking to me, and I am very much opposed to it.

I want to engage my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, in an exchange of views on this, but let's start off the discussion with this reality. This is not 1995, and that's why so many people that supported the amendment then have changed their minds now, and they will explain this as they go along.

I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to yield to the gentleman from New York, former chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to recognize the minority leader of the House of Representatives who, ever since she has come to Congress, has worked drastically to save and build on Medicare, Social Security, and to create jobs, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a distinguished leader in the Congress, Bill Pascrell.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Judy Chu, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Marcia Fudge.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the indomitable gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former chair of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey, the gentlelady from California.

Mr. Speaker, Steny Hoyer has been working in leadership for many years. He is now our distinguished whip, and I recognize him for 5 minutes.

I grant the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I grant the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from St. Louis, Missouri, Lacy Clay.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

The gentlelady from Washington, I listened to her very carefully, and she has promulgated one of the greatest misunderstandings in this debate, namely, that the Social Security and Highway Trust Fund are not jeopardized by House Joint Resolution 2 because section 7 excludes repayment of debt principle from the definition of total outlays.

Now, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the balanced budget amendment could result in Medicare being cut by about $750 billion, Social Security almost $1.2 trillion, and the veterans' benefits $85 billion through 2021 if cuts were spread proportionately. So I hope that there will be fewer and fewer of my colleagues trying to assure us that this bill does not jeopardize those programs. This is from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Rob Andrews.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from North Carolina, David Price.

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

I hope that those words will help us in the supercommittee that the gentleman from Mississippi is working on night and day.

I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott, the former subcommittee chair of the Crime Subcommittee and a former member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kathy Castor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield to Jesse Jackson, Jr., a distinguished Member from Chicago, Illinois, as much time as he may consume.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side, please?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to ask the speaker who just finished, if I could gain his attention for a moment. I thank the gentleman for coming back into the well.

Does the gentleman agree with me, in examining this bill, that this bill risks default by the United States by requiring a supermajority to raise the debt limit, which is not the case now?

I yield to my friend.

Did the gentleman say yes or no to my question?

That a supermajority is not required to raise the debt limit under this bill?

I yield myself an additional minute, and I yield to my friend.

I want to thank my colleague for answering the question.

I would like now to turn to the gentleman who represents the majority, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

I would like to ask him if he is aware of the fact that H.J. Res. 2 would require a supermajority to raise the debt limit.

I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Did the gentleman answer me with a ``yes''?

Did the gentleman understand the question?

Was the answer ``yes'' or ``no'' to my question?

Then let me ask my colleague this question: Does it presently require a supermajority to raise the debt limit?

Thank you. It isn't. And there would be in this bill, would it not?

And the gentleman supports a supermajority to raise the debt limit?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield myself an additional 3 minutes and continue to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.

I would yield time to the gentleman from Illinois.

I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott.

Could I conclude on this side by asking my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if he shares the view offered by Mr. Scott?

Could I get some time from the other side to continue this discussion?

The time is already allotted for tomorrow. The time we use tonight will not be put on tomorrow. We have divided the time up, so you have a few minutes left if the gentleman cares to share it.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes, the time allotted us for tonight.

I think the instructive discussion that we've had here tonight illustrates an irreconcilable problem with the requirement that a supermajority is necessary under H.J. Res. 2 to raise the debt limit. It's frequently difficult enough to raise the debt limit with a simple majority, so I'm sure that everyone in this Chamber will realize, by raising the requirement by a considerable figure, it is going to make it nearly impossible to raise the debt limit.

We've just gone through a summer of problems of raising the debt limit by a simple majority. Now, tonight, we are told that we're going to make this a constitutional proposition, which will make it even more difficult.

Just for the record, for the last time, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia for an explanation:

Would you explain to me how raising the debt limit to a supermajority is going to facilitate a more progressive or operative Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

We have no more time.

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

Members of the House, the measure that we have under consideration today is a very curious one in that there is some misunderstanding of what the constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public is really all about.

I would begin our discussion pointing out that under the proposal before us, a concealed firearm permit issued by any State would be valid in every State that allows a concealed carry provision. So, for example, a visitor to my home State of Michigan would be allowed to carry a loaded, hidden weapon in public, even if he has not met the minimum requirements to do so mandated by our State law.

Different States have enacted different requirements for carrying concealed weapons within their borders. And although Federal law prohibits individuals with Federal convictions from possessing a weapon, 38 of our States have chosen to deny concealed carry licenses to individuals with convictions for certain misdemeanor offenses.

I would like to start our discussion off with the fact that there are so many members of law enforcement, so many members of the government, so many members of our editorials--please consider with me, my colleagues in the House, that every major law enforcement organization in the United States of America opposes the measure that is on the floor today, H.R. 822. Every single organization. These organizations include the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which includes the 56 largest cities in the United States of America; the Police Foundation; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

We have letters from 600 mayors of the cities in the United States. The National Network to End Domestic Violence has sent us letters. There have been editorials in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Petersburg Times, and they have all submitted letters.

I conclude my opening remarks by observing that there is no constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public. One of the things I hope we will be able to persuade you on is that the Supreme Court case of 2008, entitled, District of Columbia v. Heller is the case that the majority of the Court ruled, and Justice Scalia wrote this decision, that while the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to use arms in defense of their home and bans on carrying in public were presumptively lawful, it went on to say that the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment, that the prohibitions were lawful; and Justice Scalia's majority decision in that landmark case rendered 3 years ago stated the Second Amendment is not unlimited and not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever or for whatever purpose. I cite the Supreme Court decision 128 2783 of 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the former chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to just say to my dear friend from Florida, Cliff Stearns, you cannot compare licensing concealed-carry permits to driver's licenses, and that's why this idea of yours, with all due respect, has never been passed by the Congress before. The reason is that no States have the same way to automatically check a driver's license for concealed-carry.

I yield myself 15 additional seconds.

You cannot compare a carrying concealed weapons check with a driver's license because they are checkable. A concealed-carry weapon, there are States that don't even permit the information to be revealed from their database. So you're making a huge error that I hope can be corrected.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I just want, when we decide how we're going to cast our vote on this bill, to realize you cannot compare a concealed-carry weapon permit with a driver's license. The States do not have the ability, they do not have the automated machinery to do that. Many will not even release this information; it's considered a private matter. Concealed-carry permit information cannot be revealed in many States.

I now yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Ladies and gentlemen, forgive my passion on the discussion of this subject, but almost 300 young people of African American decent are injured or killed by gunfire from age 15 to 24 every week.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a distinguished member of Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

There are, my colleagues, over 65 million handguns in the United States; and nearly 100,000 people in America every year are shot or killed with a firearm.

I now yield 2 minutes to our distinguished Judiciary colleague, a former magistrate from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in support of it and observe that last year, over 70 percent of Utah's concealed-carry permits were issued to nonresidents. I commend the gentleman.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I am in full support of the logical and rational approach that she is taking in supporting a database.

I plead with my colleagues to join us in a bipartisan sense to support an amendment that would create a comprehensive mechanism so that all permits and licenses for carrying concealed weapons would be available on a 24-hour-a-day basis. I congratulate the gentlelady on her amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Your experience in your State legislature and your legal experience really have impressed me that your amendment, and we haven't talked about this today on H.R. 822, is extremely important. I hope my colleagues will join with you.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I merely wanted to ask our distinguished colleague from Washington if I understood correctly that the GAO would conduct a study about the ability of the State and local law enforcement to verify the validity of out-of-state concealment after this bill is passed?

I yield to the gentleman.

I see. Could I ask the gentleman why we wouldn't conduct the study in front of the bill rather than after the bill?

Well, may I suggest that perhaps our responsibility as Federal legislators might be to determine the impact of this proposal on public safety before we pass it, not years later after we pass it.

Would the gentleman concede that that might be the more appropriate path that we normally take?

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my fellow colleagues to urge this Congress to protect our access to the ballot, which has come under assault in several states across America.

The strongest sound that exists in a democratic society is the one voiced during our elections. However, I am troubled that over 5 million Americans are at risk of having their votes suppressed by laws that have turned back the clock on significant freedoms and accessibility achieved in many states before the 2010 elections.

Today, I stand in strong opposition to legislative tools that aim to repress the most important right to civic engagement and empowerment, the right to vote.

The impact of recent voter suppression laws is spiraling out of control, as evidenced by recent current events. For example, a 96-year- old Tennessee woman was denied a voter ID under Tennessee's new law because she was unable to locate her marriage certificate--even though she produced everything from a copy of her lease, voter registration card, birth certificate and a rent receipt. After voting for over 70 years in all but two elections, this was the first time her right to vote was suppressed.

Even our Nation's soldiers and war heroes have been disenfranchised by some of these new laws. Recently, an 86-year-old World War II veteran had to pay for a voter photo ID, even though the state law required that the IDs be given free of charge. Another 91-year-old woman was reportedly unable to receive her ID because she was physically unable to stand in long and crowded lines at the DMV with her cane.

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison serve as a microcosm of college populations that now face extreme hurdles as their once- accepted student ID cards no longer qualify as acceptable forms of ID in several states. And news of a Florida teacher being unable to register several of her students--an act she customarily does every year as part of her educational curriculum on civic engagement highlights the civil penalties third party registrants face as they merely attempt to assist others become part of the political process.

This suppression is affecting all classes, races, and ages, and we owe it to the general public to join in their public outrage against these attacks, which threaten to move America backwards to a period in our history that was ugly, discriminatory and crippling.

At the core of all fundamental rights is the right to vote. As voting rights experts have noted, the recent stream of laws passed at the state level are a reversal of policies--both federal and state--that were intended to combat voter disenfranchisement and boost voter participation. That is why I sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee this week, asking that hearings be held to ensure that our federal laws in place to protect access to voting are being enforced.

Ensuring that every veteran, senior citizen, student--whether natural born or naturalized--has the right to vote should not be a partisan issue. It should be the very purpose of this Congress since it is a priority to our democracy. I urge every elected official who is a beneficiary of our electoral system, to support the protection of every American citizen's right to have access to voting.

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, October 31, 2011.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: We write to request a hearing to

address the wave of recent changes in state voting laws that

make it more difficult for Americans to cast a ballot. A

recent report released by the Brennan Center for Justice

entitled ``Voting Law Changes in 2012'' has concluded that

more than 5 million voters could be impacted by the recently

enacted legislation. The provisions that present the most

serious concerns include:

Provisions that limit voting by requiring the presentation

of photo identification:

Laws that exclude the most common forms, of identification

(e.g., student IDs and Social Security cards), yet offer no

alternate identification procedures for eligible voters.

Changes requiring proof of citizenship as a condition for

voter registration:

Limitations or outright elimination of early voting

opportunities.

Barriers to first time voters such as the elimination of

same day registration and limitations on voter mobilization

efforts.

These changes in state voting laws raise serious

constitutional concerns under both the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth

Amendment. For example, requiring citizens to expend

significant funds to obtain a photo

ID to vote runs afoul of the prohibition on poll taxes set

out by Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. The Supreme

Court in Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board noted that

elderly, persons born out of the state, persons with economic

limitations, homeless people, and even people with religious

objections to being photographed may be burdened by photo ID

laws. We are also concerned that these prohibitions violate

the spirit and the letter of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,

the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter

Registration Act.

The Brennan Center Report found that these changes in state

election regulations will have a particularly significant

impact on minority voters. The report concluded that African

American and Hispanic voters were more likely to take

advantage of early voting opportunities and register to vote

through the types of voter registration drives now curtailed

or eliminated by the new laws.

Most critically, the Report noted that many of the new

voter identification laws do not allow voters to present many

forms of identification frequently used by minorities, the

elderly, and the young. For example, the new Texas law allows

for the use of a concealed carry gun permit to vote, but

fails to recognize student IDs, Texas Veterans'

Administration identification and even Congressional

identification. Further, Texas citizens must also spend $22

to obtain a birth certificate or up to $145 to obtain a

passport to present the documentation necessary to acquire a

form of ID required to cast a ballot.

Numerous examples of the anti-democratic impact of these

new laws have already come to our attention. A 96-year-old

woman was denied a voter ID under Tennessee's new law even

though she has voted in all but two elections over the last

70 years and produced a rent receipt, a copy of her lease,

her voter registration card, and her birth certificate.

Because her birth certificate had her maiden name, Dorothy

Alexander, rather than her married name, officials demanded

her marriage certificate which she did not have. Another 91-

year-old woman in Tennessee was unable to receive her ID

because she was physically unable to stand in the long and

crowded lines at the DMV with her cane. Two days ago, we

learned of an 80-year-old United States veteran and retired

print shop worker who had to pay for a voter photo ID. A

young voting age citizen seeking a free ID in Wisconsin was

questioned by a Wisconsin DMV employee about how much money

he had in his bank account and how much activity his bank

account experienced. It has also been reported that in

Wisconsin, the state's DMVs have been charging citizens

improperly for an ID because employees were instructed not to

clarify for citizens that the ID's were free.

Assertions that these broad restrictions are needed to

counter pervasive voter fraud do not appear to be supported

by the evidence. For example, studies have found that only 24

people were convicted of, or pled guilty to, illegal voting

at the federal level between the two Presidential and

Congressional elections leading up to the 2008 elections.

Moreover, only 19 instances of ineligible voting were

determined at the state level.

The right to vote is the foundation of all our other

rights. In view of the gravity of this situation, we urge you

to schedule hearings soon to address an issue so critical to

our democracy. As voting rights experts have noted, the

recent stream of laws passed at the state level are a

reversal of policies--both federal and state--that were

intended to combat voter disenfranchisement and boost voter

participation. Ensuring the right to vote should not be a

partisan issue; rather it is the very linchpin of our

democracy.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.

Jerrold Nadler,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School Law

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1002, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, which aims to help consumers and cell phone companies, unfortunately ignores the interests of state and local governments. The bill prevents states from determining what and how much to tax certain activities within their borders.

True, increased taxes and fees on wireless services ultimately hurt consumers. Every penny matters and every tax increase can impact consumers' pocketbooks and their choices to spend on other goods and services.

Rather than taking up this bill, we should consider ways how Congress can help our state and local governments, many of which are barely staying afloat financially during the current economic climate.

These states and municipalities must balance their budgets while still providing essential police and fire services, assisting those in need, maintaining our roads and bridges, and ensuring an education for our children. Because of severely reduced revenues, many of our states are cutting their budgets and reducing funding for such essential services as law enforcement and education.

This bill will only reduce more future state and local government revenues. For that reason, state and local governments and employee unions oppose this legislation.

Instead, Congress can and should help our state and local governments. We could pass H.R. 2701, the ``Main Street Fairness Act,'' which I introduced earlier this Congress or similar legislation.

H.R. 2701 would ensure fairness in the marketplace between remote retailers and their brick and mortar counterparts. It would level the playing field for retailers by requiring remote sellers to collect the same sales tax that local retailers have to collect. Thus, mom-and-pop retailers would no longer be at a competitive disadvantage against online retailers. And, it would support our states by providing them the authority to collect very much needed sales taxes which they have not been able to collect from remote sellers.

I cannot support H.R. 1002 because it will prevent states from exercising their authority within their own borders.

Instead, we should support more balanced measures, such as the Main Street Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2011, I was absent and unable to vote on two amendments to H.R. 1904 offered by my colleagues Mr. Markey of Massachusetts and Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both amendments.

Mr. Speaker, last month, the President signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. I was a co-sponsor of a bipartisan amendment that added Section 37 to the House bill, which then passed the Senate and was enacted into law.

Section 37 is an important provision that clarified the procedure for filing patent term extension applications under the Hatch-Waxman Act. It codified a sensible decision by a federal district judge and was meant to end years of confusion about this issue that had threatened to stifle innovation.

Before the Senate voted on the House patent bill, an amendment was offered to strike Section 37. That amendment was fully debated and was defeated on a bipartisan basis. Last week, however, there was discussion of Section 37 on the floor of the Senate and it was suggested that Section 37 does not take effect for a year. But that is incorrect.

Section 37 explicitly says that it ``shall apply'' to applications and court cases that are pending on the date of enactment of the bill. To apply to pending applications and cases, Section 37 obviously had to be effective immediately. Section 37 says very clearly exactly what it applies to so the default effective date provision for the Act does not apply here.

During the entire debate over Section 37, not a single person suggested that Section 37 would not be effective immediately. In fact, everyone understood it would take effect right away and would govern currently pending applications and cases. The United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed with this interpretation. In fact, just last week, the Department of Justice explained in a court filing that this is the only possible interpretation of the law.

In the end, the amendment to strike Section 37 was defeated during Senate debate. It is too late now to re-write history. And it is clear that Section 37 explicitly says that it is to be effective immediately.