Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4213, the ``Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010.'' After weeks of needless delay, this legislation will ensure that the estimated $2.5 million Americans who lost their coverage will again have access to the lifeline provided by unemployment insurance and again be able to pay their bills and put food on their table. During this unfortunate period, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly told out of work Americans that the human dignity they seek is a luxury we cannot afford. Let me be clear: There is nothing luxurious about barely getting by--having to decide between your mortgage, your health, or your family's well being.

The opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous, cruel and out of touch. Many of the unemployed people in my district spent years working hard, paying their bills, and contributing to their communities. Through no fault of their own, they found themselves out of work.

Beyond voting for this bill, my Republican friends ought to take responsibility for their role in precipitating this economic disaster. It was they who pushed policies that promoted unfettered free trade, tax cuts for the rich, and the casino culture on Wall Street. The least they could do is vote with the Majority to minimize some of the pain they caused.

For the sake of human decency for our fellow citizens, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Madam Speaker, on July 19, 2010, I regret that I was not present to vote on H. Res. 1491, H.R. 5604, and H. Res. 1516.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all bills.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5604, ``The Surface Transportation Savings Act of 2010.'' By rescinding amounts authorized for certain surface transportation programs, our nation will save about $107 million and thus reduce our budget deficit.

This legislation would rescind millions of dollars in excess contract authority from programs including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt performance grants program, which according to the NHTSA, only three states are expected to qualify to receive an incentive grant this year. The amount rescinded is reduced as necessary to ensure that 28.5 million is still available to carry out safety belt grants programs in Fiscal Year 2010.

In addition, H.R. 5604 rescinds funds that The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) Act already provides funding for, including NHTSA's administrative expenses, transit formula and bus grant programs.

It is clear that the public is concerned about the current fiscal state of the federal government. An NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey conducted in May showed that the share of individuals rating ``the deficit and government spending'' as a top priority for the federal government to address has jumped since January from 13 to 20 percent-- second only to job creation and economic growth. According to Gallup, ``federal government debt'' now ties with terrorism for the top spot in perceived threats to our future well-being.

The public's attitudes reflect our need to tackle our nation's serious budget challenge and exercise fiscal belt-tightening where it makes sense. H.R. 5604 is one step towards that goal. It contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. This legislation is a small but necessary effort to help us gradually get our fiscal house in order.

With the Nation's budget deficit forecasted to swell 14 percent this year, largely due to the longest war in our history and unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, we must explore common ground to achieve fiscal responsibility. If we don't, then by the time our grandchildren or great grandchildren are in college, our debt will exceed our GDP.

I will continue to support smart measures designed to return our Nation to fiscal health

and strength as steadily and as sustainably as possible. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5604 to help reduce our budget deficit.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1516, which recognizes the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II. The Allies' victory in Europe in 1945 ended an era of unspeakable atrocities and widespread human suffering.

World War II was the largest war in history as nations around the globe mobilized 100 million souls to fight in the name of either the Allied or Axis powers. The battle between the two resulted in the most deadly war in human history: 60 to 70 million deaths, 45 million of whom were civilians. The United States lost 345,000 brave soldiers in both the European and Pacific theaters, which was second only to the Civil War in the amount of American blood spilled in war.

America rallied over 16 million citizens into uniform and its factories and farms provided the largest mobilized support network in the world. The war helped bring the country out of the Great Depression, and vitalized my own Detroit as the manufacturing industry expanded greatly during this period.

It is also worth noting that during this time, the United States, in its fight against racist and genocidal opponents, was forced to confront its own racism. In one of our most shameful acts, Japanese- Americans were interned at camps throughout the war while segregation continued to separate whites and blacks back home. Despite these sad examples of discrimination, Japanese-American, African-American, and Hispanic-Americans all proudly took up arms to defend their nation and demonstrate their loyalty. I have no doubt that their courage laid the groundwork for the victories for equality and civil rights for all that would follow decades later.

Madam Speaker, as we honor our World War II veterans, we must also recognize the incredible sacrifices made by those currently serving overseas. We must also not forget the values for which World War II was fought. Our level of international cooperation at the end of that war was a clear example of our commitment to diplomacy and peaceful resolutions. We have and always will be a Nation that supports liberty and justice for all.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 1472, ``Expressing support for designation of the week of September 13, 2010, as National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week.'' The future of this country depends upon the level of education we provide our citizens, and the foundation of a good education is the ability to read and write well. In order to remain competitive in this global economy, we must emphasize the importance of raising our nation's literacy and English language skills.

Madam Speaker, National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week brings public attention to the importance of adult education and family literacy. Adult education and family literacy are both significant factors in determining the country's future. For example, reading to children from a young age and the mother's level of education both impact a child's academic success. Statistics show those who are often unemployed, underemployed, receive public assistance, or incarcerated are those with low educational skills. By improving such skills we take a momentous step to correcting a large number of problems that our country now faces.

With this resolution, the Congress states it is never too late to improve one's literacy or educational skills. With this designation, we improve our nation's future prospects and the lives of its citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 126, recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title VI international education programs within the Department of Education.

Since the terror attacks of 9/11 it is indispensable that we continue to strive to develop leaders, educators, foreign policy experts and individuals in matters of world affairs through research and specialty training in international affairs. Moreover, it is imperative that we continue to expand educational programs that will create opportunities for greater diversity in our knowledge of other nations. Such advancements will further equip citizens and experts within the United States with the necessary tools to contribute to national security and world development.

Every day our world changes and Title VI has played an important role in helping the United States respond to these changing events in a culturally sensitive manner. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and support the goals and ideals of Title VI international education programs and recognize the need to continue development and promotion of these programs.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1855, the ``Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS Act''. It is an important piece of legislation, and I would like to thank Representative David Loebsack for bringing it to the floor. This bill, when passed, will help to encourage job advancement along with job growth.

By requiring the Secretary of Labor to award competitive grants that may reach totals of over $2 million that will spur job growth and in- house training, the SECTORS bill will help workers who have been hard hit by this recession. This federal-industrial partnership and the coordination with state and local institutions to improve economic and educational investment will ensure a better way forward for the American worker.

In the current job climate, it is not only the unemployed who feel the wrath of recession. There are many workers, in my district included, who continue to be outpaced by changing work environments. Many industries that employ thousands of workers do not have the money or the structure necessary to promote in-house training. These industries are homes to jobs that often have no hope of advancement, jobs that steer workers away from their families and into dead-end career paths.

This bill will help workers become acclimated to the changing environment. By promoting job training and job retention through federal grants, the SECTORS Act brings hope to the thousands of workers who may not know at the moment what their future will look like. It fosters the hope that has been so barren these last months and brings opportunity to the men and women who need it most.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, on July 19, 2010, I regret that I was not present to vote on H. Res. 1472, H. Con. Res. 126, and H. Res. 1219.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all bills.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2010, along with additional cosponsors. As a product of years of extensive consultation with both the law enforcement and civil rights communities, this legislation represents the most comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. The introduction of this legislation is a critical step in what should be a nationwide, bipartisan effort to end this divisive practice.

The debate over racial profiling has become a central element in a much larger history of adversarial relationships between the police and communities of color. Over the past two decades, the tensions between police and minority communities have grown as allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement agents, sometimes supported by data collection efforts, have increased in number and frequency. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ongoing immigration enforcement debate have only complicated the profiling issues that were traditionally centered on state and local law enforcement.

The arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and the passage of Arizona S.B. 1070 have crystalized the terms of the profiling debate and demonstrate that the combination of race and law enforcement represents a volatile mix across all strata of the minority community. 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.

When I first introduced the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1997, the racial profiling issue was relatively straightforward in political terms. Profiling was represented by the classic pretext traffic stop, where an African-American driver was pulled over for a minor traffic violation and then asked for consent to search their vehicle. Today, traffic and pedestrian stops have given way to airport passenger profiles and immigrant sweeps. For that reason, racial profiling legislation has evolved from a simple data collection bill to comprehensive multi-tiered legislation--including a private right of action and best practice grants--that is designed to address a more complex law enforcement landscape.

As we move forward, I believe it is important to remind Members of just how far we in Congress have come in developing a bipartisan consensus on the racial profiling issue. 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.

Data collected from Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Maryland, Maine, Rhode Island, California, West Virginia, and Oklahoma demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that African-Americans and Hispanics were being stopped for routine traffic violations far in excess of their share of the population or even the rate at which such populations are accused of criminal conduct. Similarly, Justice Department reports found that although African-Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched by law enforcement, they were much less likely to be found in possession of contraband.

Law enforcement officials have similarly evolved in their views. While some still take issue, many in the law enforcement community acknowledge that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin has eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. Rather than seeking to deny the concerns of minority community advocates, law enforcement officials have joined the effort to create solutions and build trust with their communities. As a result, more than 20 states have passed bipartisan legislation prohibiting racial profiling and/or mandating data collection on stops and searches, in addition to hundreds of individual jurisdictions which have voluntarily commenced to collect data programs.

Congress itself was actually poised to pass racial profiling legislation in the fall of 2001, with the express support of President Bush, before the terrorist attacks changed the legislative paradigm. In the wake of the attacks, however, 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. Consequently, they 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 enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by eliminating racial profiling through changes to the policies and procedures underlying the practice. First, the bill

provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates training on racial profiling issues and the collection of data on both routine and spontaneous investigatory activities, as a condition of receiving Federal law enforcement funding.

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, this country made clear through the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation that race should not affect the treatment of individual Americans under the law. 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. 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. Speaker, as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and a House conferee on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, I would like to highlight a few provisions of this legislation of particular jurisdictional importance to our Committee, and that our Committee was instrumentally involved in shaping. During the course of Congress's consideration of this legislation, our Committee carefully examined a range of legal issues posed, including issues of antitrust law, bankruptcy law, criminal law, administrative procedure, and judicial proceedings, and held two days of hearings last fall focusing on antitrust and bankruptcy law in particular. Below is a summary of some of the more significant of these issues and how they have been addressed.

Antitrust Law

One major impetus of this bill is to address the problem posed two years ago by financial institutions that were deemed ``too big to fail.'' The emergency efforts to deal with those institutions led to infusions of billions of federal dollars, and federal guarantees of billions more, putting the Treasury, and our nation, at significant risk.

But ``too big'' also places our nation at significant risk in another respect--and that is the risk of harm to competition, when a marketplace becomes concentrated in the hands of so few competitors that consumers no longer have meaningful choice, and the healthy influence of competition on price, quality, and innovation is lost.

It is therefore essential that the antitrust laws, the laws protecting our economic freedoms against monopolization, anticompetitive restraints of trade, and undue market concentration, remain in place. They are needed to ensure that the heightened regulatory supervision the new law contemplates, as well as our response to any future financial system emergency, do not inadvertently lead to an even more concentrated marketplace--with companies that are even bigger, with more market power, and with less incentive to be responsive to the consumers they are supposed to serve, and leaving less opportunity for new entry and innovation.

The final bill contains a number of provisions to ensure that the antitrust laws remain fully in effect.

Antitrust Savings Clause

First and foremost is the antitrust savings clause in section 6 of the bill. It is the standard antitrust savings clause found in other statutes. It applies to the entire Act, and all amendments made by the Act to other laws. The phrase ``unless otherwise specified'' is added in reference to four provisions in the bill. In two places--sections 210(a)(1)(G)(ii)(III) and 210(h)(11) of the bill--the standard pre- merger waiting period under section 7A of the Clayton Act is explicitly shortened. And in two other places--section 163(b)(5) of the bill, and the amendment to section 4(k)(6)11(B) of the Bank Holding Company Act made in section 604(e)(2) of the bill--there are cross-references to the exception to pre-merger review in section 7A(c)(8) of the Clayton Act that explicitly make that exception inapplicable.

The phrase ``unless otherwise specified'' refers only to those four specific provisions that explicitly modify the operation of those specified provisions of the antitrust laws in specified ways, and is not a basis for courts to consider whether any other provision in the bill might be intended as an implicit modification of how the antitrust laws operate. The savings clause is intended to make clear that it is not.

For example, in a number of places in the bill, there are provisions referring to ``Antitrust Considerations'' that various securities and commodities entities--including derivatives clearing organizations, swap dealers, major swap participants, swap execution facilities, clearing agencies, security-based swap dealers, and major security- based swap participants--are directed to take into account in formulating their operating rules. There are exceptions to these directives for situations in which the entity believes pursuing them itself is inconsistent with its other obligations under the relevant securities or commodities law. The fact that the entity is excused from the new directives, however, does not alter the application of the antitrust laws. Nor does the fact that the entity follows these directives in its own rulemaking supplant the operation of the antitrust laws.

In this regard, the rule of construction found in section 541 of the bill simply reaffirms, perhaps unnecessarily, for Title V of the bill what the antitrust savings clause already provides for the entire bill and all amendments made by it. In attempting to elaborate on the effect of an antitrust savings clause, it does not create a different rule, but merely reaffirms the general rule.

Moreover, an antitrust savings clause is itself merely a reinforcement of the well-established principle that, because the antitrust laws are ``a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition,'' Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1 (1958), ``the Magna Carta of free enterprise,'' Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004); United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 610 (1972), there is a strong presumption against their normal operation being superseded by some other statutory scheme. E.g., Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 409 U.S. 289, 302-303 (1973); Silver v. New York Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 357 (1963). Whether the antitrust laws reach particular conduct depends on whether the other statutory scheme is ``incompatible with the maintenance of an antitrust action.'' Ricci, 409 U.S. at 302; Silver, 373 U.S. at 358. The antitrust laws are superseded only ``where there is a plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions.'' Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264, 272 (2007); Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 422 U.S. 659, 682 (1975). The antitrust laws are displaced ``only if necessary to make the [other statutory scheme] work, and even then only to the minimum extent necessary.'' Ricci, 409 U.S. at 301; Silver, 373 U.S. at 357.

Pre-Merger Antitrust Review

Recognizing that a fully methodical pre-merger antitrust review may be in tension with the need for quick action to avoid systemic harm, the bill shortens the ``Hart-Scott-Rodino'' pre-merger waiting periods under section 7A of the Clayton Act, based on the procedure developed for reviewing sales of assets during a bankruptcy proceeding. This procedure expedites the initial review, while permitting the antitrust enforcement agency to extend the period when more information is needed to make its assessment. This expedited procedure is included in two places--in section 210(a)(1)(G)(ii) of the bill, for mergers of a covered financial company in receivership with another company, and in section 210(h)(11) of the bill, for mergers or sales of bridge financial companies.

The House bill had included, at the request of our Committee, a provision permitting the FDIC receiver to effectuate a merger immediately, without prior notice to the Attorney General or any pre- merger waiting period, if the Treasury Secretary determined that immediate action was necessary to preserve financial stability. This provision was not included in the Senate bill or the conference report. While express authority to act immediately is therefore missing, the Judiciary Committee hopes the antitrust enforcement agencies will work constructively with the Treasury Department to develop a mechanism for dispensing with the prior notice requirement and the pre-merger waiting period, or shortening them appropriately, when warranted by urgency and the danger posed to stability of the economy, keeping in mind that the antitrust laws authorizing challenge of anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions remain fully in force.

In this regard, it should be emphasized that the shortening of the H- S-R pre-merger antitrust waiting period, and even the possibility of permitting a merger to be effectuated as close to immediately as can be arranged, in no way alters the applicability of the other antitrust laws. If a merger raises significant competitive concerns, it can still be challenged after the fact under section 7 of the Clayton Act. And post-merger conduct that raises competitive concerns is fully subject to the Sherman Act. These laws are not amended by the bill; and

the antitrust further emphasizes that their operation is not affected in any way.

Similarly, the House bill had, at the request of our Committee, applied the expedited pre-merger review process not only to mergers, but to sales or transfers of financial company assets. While transfers within the financial company's own internal corporate structure, or to a temporary bridge company set up by the FDIC, would never trigger the H-S-R notification and waiting period, and even sales or transfers to outside third parties would trigger it only if the assets acquired exceeded $63 million in value, an acquisition of this type is as likely, if not more so, than a merger with the entire financial company. Our Committee thought it important that acquisitions of this type, when they occur, have the expedited process available, as well as the emergency process allowing acquisitions to be effectuated immediately.

The Senate bill limited the application of the expedited process to mergers, however, and the Senate approach was retained in the final conference report, which limits availability of the expedited review to mergers described in section 210(a)(1)(G)(i)(I), leaving out transfers of assets described in section 210(a)(1)(G)(i)(II). To the extent that subparagraph (G)(i)(II) may be read not only to cover transfers within the corporate structure or to the temporary bridge financial company, but also to include transfers to third parties, these transfers, to the extent they are at thresholds that trigger Hart-Scott-Rodino reporting, will not be able to take advantage of the expedited waiting period under section 210(a)(1)(G)(ii). Our Committee urges the antitrust enforcement agencies to use their existing authority to work constructively with the FDIC to establish an informal arrangement to enable these transactions to proceed in an expedited fashion where consistent with effective antitrust enforcement, keeping in mind, again, that the antitrust laws authorizing challenge of anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions remain fully in force.

Bankruptcy Law

One of the bill's centerpieces is a new emergency procedure for placing a financial institution into FDIC receivership when its insolvency poses imminent and significant ``systemic risk'' to the stability of the broader financial system and economy. Congress made a judgment to craft this procedure outside the Bankruptcy Code, rather than seek to adopt the Code to the additional needs of dealing effectively with systemic risk. While generally supportive of this judgment, our Committee has urged proceeding in keeping with two important objectives. First, that this new emergency procedure be authorized only for cases of genuine emergency, where a departure from the well-established procedures in the Bankruptcy Code is essential to broader financial and economic stability. And second, that even in the new emergency procedure, the well-developed bankruptcy principles of due process and equitable treatment of all affected parties be incorporated to the fullest extent possible.

Confining the Extraordinary Receivership Procedure to Extraordinary

Circumstances

As to the first objective, the House bill reaffirmed, at our Committee's request, the ``strong presumption that resolution under the bankruptcy laws will remain the primary method of resolving financial companies,'' and that the new FDIC receivership authority ``will only be used in the most exigent circumstances.'' The substantive essence of this presumption is reflected in several places in the final bill's new liquidation provisions.

In particular, section 203(a)(2)(F) requires that, in any recommendation to the Treasury Secretary that FDIC receivership be invoked, the FDIC and the Fed explain why a case under the Bankruptcy Code is not appropriate. Section 203(b)(4) requires that the Secretary have determined, in consultation with the President, that ``any effect on the claims or interests of creditors . . . and other market participants . . . is appropriate, given the impact . . . on financial stability in the United States.'' And section 203(c)(2) requires the Secretary to make an immediate report to Congress, within 24 hours, on specified considerations supporting the FDIC receivership invocation, including, in subparagraphs (E)-(I), several considerations regarding the effects of FDIC receivership as compared with bankruptcy procedure.

In addition, section 165(d)(4)(b) specifies that the resolution plans that large financial holding companies and nonbank financial companies will be required to submit to the Fed, as part of enhanced prudential standards, must be sufficient to result in orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of insolvency. Established bankruptcy procedure is thus reaffirmed as the preferred route even in the planning stages.

Our Committee expects these provisions to be cornerstones for ensuring that this extraordinary procedure will be invoked only when essential--when bankruptcy procedure is clearly not sufficient in light of the extreme urgency and overriding systemic risk.

Incorporating Key Bankruptcy Principles in the FDIC Receivership

Process

As to the second objective, the bill incorporates a number of key bankruptcy protections, first and foremost among them preservation and priority for specified kinds of claims against the financial company, and powers for the FDIC receiver to avoid transfers for the benefit of the United States and other creditors. The bill also incorporates a number of terms directly from the Bankruptcy Code. While we were not always successful in explicitly incorporating every useful Bankruptcy Code concept, many of the most important due process and equitable treatment considerations are reflected in some fashion.

For example, section 208 of the bill requires dismissal of a covered financial company's pending bankruptcy case upon appointment of the FDIC receiver. Subsection (b) provides that any assets that have vested in another entity automatically vest back in the covered financial company. We had expressed concern that this would prove not only unworkable in practice, but could undermine the effectiveness of the bankruptcy proceeding in preserving assets of the financial company, by creating uncertainty regarding any purchase of assets even in the ordinary course of business. Subsection (c) of the final bill clarifies that any order entered or other relief granted by a bankruptcy court prior to the date the FDIC receiver is appointed ``shall continue with the same validity as if an orderly liquidation had not been commenced.'' Our Committee expects subsection (c) to be construed so that payments made during the ordinary course of the financial company's business while it is a debtor in a bankruptcy case will not be subject to the automatic re-vesting. This is in keeping with other provisions of the bill, such as section 165, that are intended to encourage financial companies to be resolved through bankruptcy wherever possible.

At our Committee's urging, section 210(b) of the bill establishes priority of payment for various types of unsecured claims against a covered financial company for which the FDIC has been appointed as receiver under section 202, modeled on similar protection in the Bankruptcy Code. Subsection (b)(1)(C) accords third priority--after payment of the FDIC's administrative expenses as receiver, and any amounts owed to the United States (unless otherwise agreed to)--to employees with claims for unpaid wages, salaries, or commissions (including earned vacation, severance, and sick leave pay) up to a maximum $11,725 for each employee, earned within 180 days before the date of the FDIC's appointment as receiver. Also at the Committee's urging, subsection (b)(1)(D) accords fourth priority for certain contributions owed to employee benefit plans arising from services rendered within the same 180-day time frame. These provisions will ensure that American workers will be accorded the equivalent protections they have under current bankruptcy law with respect to payment priority for unpaid wages and employee benefit plan contributions.

At our Committee's urging, the House bill required the FDIC receiver to appoint a Consumer Privacy Advisor to assist with ensuring that the privacy of sensitive consumer information would be appropriately protected. A similar provision was added to the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, following revelations that Toysmart.com, an Internet retailer of educational toys had, after filing for bankruptcy, sought to sell its customer data base, including personal information about children who used its toys, despite its promise never to sell this information. This provision was not retained in the final bill; but the FDIC has advised our Committee that it is absolutely committed to safeguarding any personally identifiable information it acquires from a covered financial company for which it serves as receiver.

Practice of Law

The Constitutional freedoms and legal rights we enjoy as Americans are ultimately protected in our courts, through the advocacy of attorneys who are licensed to practice before them. In keeping with these critical responsibilities, the activities of these ``officers of the court'' are regulated by the States, through government bodies overseen by the State's highest court, with specialized expertise in the sometimes complex duties imposed by the code of legal ethics. Among the myriad activities engaged in as part of the practice of law are activities to assist consumer clients in resolving serious debt problems, including but by no means limited to representing them in bankruptcy proceedings.

Conceptually, the activities Congress intends to give the Bureau authority to regulate--``the offering or provision of a financial product or service''--are distinguishable from the practice of law. But because of the breadth of the authority being given the Bureau, including the definitions of ``covered person'' and ``financial product or service,'' and the complexities of the practice of law, there was concern about potential overlap. And giving the new Bureau authority to regulate the

practice of law could materially interfere with and jeopardize sensitive aspects of the attorney-client relationship, including the attorney-client privilege and work product protection that enable clients to obtain sound legal advice from their attorneys on a protected confidential basis.

It could also undermine the authority of the State supreme courts to effectively oversee and discipline lawyers. There are carefully developed ethical codes and disciplinary rules governing all aspects of the practice of law. Any regulation from a new source would unavoidably conflict with the existing rules and lines of accountability. And because one of the foremost, and at times most complex, ethical obligations is for an attorney to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law, there would be a significant likelihood of attorneys being impeded in meeting their obligations to their clients and to the legal system they are sworn to protect.

Even if the Bureau's authority could be reliably confined to legal representation in financial matters, the result would be material harm to consumer clients of bankruptcy lawyers, consumer lawyers, and real estate lawyers--the very consumers the Bureau is being created to protect. But the harm would inevitably be far broader, extending into unrelated aspects of legal practice.

For those reasons, our Committee was determined to avoid any possible overlap between the Bureau's authority and the practice of law. At the same time, our Committee recognized that attorneys can be involved in activities outside the practice of law, and might even hold out their law license as a sort of badge of trustworthiness. Although State supreme courts would have some authority to respond to abuses in even these outside activities, as reflecting on the attorney's unfitness to hold a law license (see Model Rule 8.4 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in virtually all States), their disciplinary authority is not necessarily as extensive in these outside areas. The Committee was equally determined that these outside activities not escape effective regulation simply because the person engaging in them is an attorney or is working for an attorney. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a senior Member of both our Committee and the Committee on Financial Services, and a House conferee, was instrumental in helping ensure that the final bill draws this distinction appropriately and clearly.

Accordingly, our Committee worked to make clear that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established in the bill is not being given authority to regulate the practice of law, which is regulated by the State or States in which the attorney in question is licensed to practice. At the same time, the Committee worked to clarify that this protection for the practice of law is not intended to preclude the new Bureau from regulating other conduct engaged in by individuals who happen to be attorneys or to be acting under their direction, if the conduct is not part of the practice of law or incidental to the practice of law.

Section 1027(e) of the final bill incorporates this protection. It excludes from Bureau supervisory and enforcement authority all activities engaged in as part of the practice of law under the laws of a State in which the attorney in question is licensed to practice law. To the extent that a paralegal, secretary, investigator, or law student intern is performing activities under the supervision of an attorney, and in a manner recognized under the laws of the relevant State as within the scope of the attorney's practice of law--and only to that extent--those activities also fall within this protection. As the commentary to Model Rule 5.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in virtually all States, makes clear, these legal assistants ``act for the lawyer in rendition of the lawyer's professional services . . . [and the] lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment . . . .'' Extending the protection to cover these legal assistance, under these conditions, is consistent with ensuring that the protection fully covers the practice of law as it is conventionally engaged in, while foreclosing any opportunity for an attorney to shield other commercial activities by engaging in them through surrogates.

The provision in the final bill includes indicia for determining whether an activity that constitutes the offering or provision of a financial product or service within the terms of the bill is part of or incidental to the practice of law, and therefore excluded from the Bureau's authority. First and foremost, the activity must be among those activities considered part of the practice of law by the State supreme court or other governing body that is regulating the practice of law in the State in question, or be incidental to those practices. As further protection against abuse, the activity must be engaged in exclusively within the scope of the attorney-client relationship; and the product or service must not be offered by or under direction of the attorney in question with respect to any consumer who is not receiving legal advice or services from the attorney in connection with it.

We would hope that this carefully considered statutory provision will also serve as a model for other federal agencies considering new regulations that might cover conduct engaged in by attorneys as well as others, so as to better ensure that important consumer protection objectives are achieved consistent with safeguarding the ability of our ``officers of the court'' to fulfill their ethical obligations under our legal system.

It is generally contemplated that the new Bureau will make rules regarding various aspects of its authority. Any determinations by rule, or otherwise, regarding what activities constitute the practice of law should be consistent with the views and practices of the State supreme court or State bar in question as to what activities it regards as part of the practice of law and oversees on that basis, giving appropriate deference to comments received from the State supreme courts and State bars, supplemented with further guidance as appropriate from the other indicia set forth in section 1027(e)(2).

Section 1027(e)(3) makes clear that existing federal regulatory authority over activities of attorneys, either under enumerated consumer laws as defined in the bill, or transferred to the new Bureau from existing agencies under subtitle F or H of Title X, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau title, is not diminished.

Administrative and Judicial Process

Throughout the bill are provisions authorizing administrative or judicial enforcement. Our Committee has endeavored, where possible, to have these provisions written in conformance with the standard modern formulations found in the Administrative Procedures Act and title 28 of the United States Code, in lieu of novel formulations, or formulations modeled on laws enacted in a bygone era, that have the potential to create unnecessary uncertainty and litigation over interpretation. We were not always entirely successful in this regard.

Among the changes made at our Committee's urging was revision of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new investigative authority to bring it closer into conformity with the Antitrust Civil Process Act, on which it is modeled; and revisions to the new authority for nationwide service of subpoenas by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure that the authority will be exercised consistent with due process.

Our Committee remains concerned about the use of the terms ``privileged'' or ``privileged as an evidentiary matter'' to mean confidential and protected from discovery. This inartful phraseology, which was removed from some parts of the bill but not others, could unintentionally raise questions regarding evidentiary privilege law, which under the Rules Enabling Act is left to State common law. In particular, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this bill in no way authorizes government officials or courts to demand that anyone furnish information that is protected by legal privilege.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor two students from my district who have been named as semifinalists of the Progressive Insurance DASH+ National Student Competition.

Abdul Hamka and Darius Wilbert of The Henry Ford Academy in Dearborn Michigan designed an eco-friendly dashboard for the Dash Plus National Student Competition. Hamka and Wilbert designed a dashboard that is able to communicate to the driver how they are impacting fuel economy and the environment. Abdul and Darius's panel connects multiple information sources that increase driver awareness. The dashboard can also calculate routes that have fewer hills and traffic lights, helping the driver reduce unnecessary acceleration and braking and in turn reduce overall fuel emissions. The dashboard is constructed out of emerging industrial-grade bio-plastics that are derived from vegetable oil, corn, soy, and algae. This gives the panel a reduced weight which in turn means less fuel consumption and a smaller carbon footprint.

Projects like the DASH Tech competition provide students with a platform to be innovative and put to use skills they learn while studying STEM fields. Madam Speaker, one out of every ten people in Southeast Michigan is an engineer. Helping to promote the new green economy will help drive job creation and innovation in Michigan. My constituents and I are proud of what Abdul and Darius have accomplished and we know that they will be industry leaders one day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act which would extend emergency unemployment compensation

and other benefits through November 30, 2010. Our government has an obligation to alleviate the suffering of millions of unemployed during the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Today, unemployment is at alarmingly high levels where in my home State of Michigan it is over 13 percent. The Federal Government has never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when the national unemployment rate was above 7.2 percent. However, Republicans in the Senate have blocked numerous attempts to extend the benefits and even if today's measure passes, the Senate will adjourn, causing thousands more to lose benefits. Furthermore, Republicans have stopped many other job creating bills citing budget concerns, even though they have unquestioned support for indefinite war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, which recently surpassed the one trillion dollar mark and championed tax breaks for the rich while the unemployed suffer. It appears the Republicans are willing to give a helping hand to every group except the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, the job market is in tatters and it has been found that for every job opening there are five applicants. We simply can no longer wait on extending these vital benefits. I urge my colleagues to support today's legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5503) to revise laws regarding liability in certain civil actions arising from maritime incidents, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, on April 20, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform sank the vessel, resulting in the death of 11 men and injury to at least 17 others.

We are honored to have four of the widows of the men here, including the father of Gordon Jones, Attorney Keith Jones; Mrs. Shelley Anderson; Mrs. Courtney Kemp; and Mrs. Natalie Roshto. They have joined us in the gallery to observe these proceedings. They were also at the Judiciary Committee hearings.

This April 20 disaster has now become the most massive environmental disaster in our Nation's history, poisoning widespread swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands, and wreaking economic havoc in the Gulf States. It has highlighted not only gaps in our ability to engage in and to regulate deepwater drilling, but also major legal gaps have been discovered in the applicable statutes that are adversely impacting victims.

Our measure from the Judiciary Committee focuses on repairing these flaws so that the victims of this disaster can get their treatment. We have found that the current state of law regarding these liability issues is outdated, unfair and operates against our national interests. The three key laws all date from the mid-1800s--the Death on High Seas Act, the Jones Act, and the Limitation on Liability Act.

The Death on High Seas Act does not allow recovery of non-pecuniary loss, which is in contrast to all State laws and to general maritime law.

The Jones Act allows recovery for a family's non-pecuniary loss if a seaman is injured but survives, but it denies the family that same recovery if he dies. Don't ask me how that ever got into law.

The Limitation on Liability Act, enacted in 1851, caps a shipowner's legal responsibility at the value of the ship and of its cargo no matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused.

The unfairness of these laws is grossly apparent, and it makes no sense. In my judgment, it is highly immoral. It is the Judiciary Committee's job to scan these ancient statutes and repair them. So that is what we have done. We have made a few changes. I would like to identify them, and we will have some of our other learned members of the committee go into more detail.

Take Gordon Jones, for example. Ironically, his youngest son was born just a couple of weeks after his death. They can only recover Gordon's lost wages, but they are not entitled to any nonfinancial benefits. That needs to be taken care of, and we will.

There are claims that have been made that the process was inadequate. The Committee on the Judiciary held on May 27 of this year a hearing on the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster. It lasted over 5 hours, and it covered 11 witnesses who discussed and addressed the laws that I have mentioned in this act before us. Then they held an extensive markup the following month, on June 23, at which time we debated a number of amendments and reported the bill. It was a bipartisan vote. Then, in the manager's amendment, we addressed some concerns that were raised by my colleagues on the other side. This bill focuses on fixing these gaps, and I am hopeful that we can move this bill as expeditiously as we can.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Sheila Jackson Lee, who is a senior member who has helped us craft the legislation in the manager's amendment. Along with her and our colleague from Florida, Corrine Brown, we have also been able to make some modifications that have been generally agreed to by many of the members on the committee. We have reached an understanding, although we have not developed statutory language.

Mr. Speaker, this disaster has now become the most massive environmental disaster in our nation's history, poisoning widespread swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands, and wreaking economic havoc in the Gulf states.

The disaster has highlighted not only gaps in our ability to engage in and regulate deepwater drilling, but also major legal gaps in the applicable statutes that are adversely impacting victims.

H.R. 5503 focuses on fixing these gaps, so that the victims of this disaster can get fair treatment. In short, we have found that the current state of law regarding these liability issues is outdated, is unfair, and operates against our nation's interest.

First, the three key laws in effect all date from the mid 1800's or early 1900's.

The Death on High Seas Act, enacted in 1920, does not allow recovery of non-pecuniary loss--in contrast to all States and to general maritime law.

The Jones Act, also dating from 1920, allows recovery for a family's non-pecuniary loss if a seaman is injured but survives, but denies the family that same recovery if he dies.

And the Limitation on Liability Act, enacted in 1851, caps a shipowner's legal responsibility at the value of the ship and its cargo, no matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused.

Second, the laws are grossly unfair. It makes no sense to allow the family of an individual who dies in a plane accident on the high seas to be eligible for non-pecuniary damages, while the family of someone who dies in a ship accident is not.

It makes no sense to allow the family of a victim of an oil explosion on shore to recover non-pecuniary damages, while the same victim in a Jones Act case could be limited to lost wages and funeral expenses.

It makes no sense to keep a Limitation on Liability Act designed to help U.S. shipping fleets in the 19th century, when the U.S. merchant marine is now practically non-existent.

And it makes no sense to allow a company to incur multibillion-dollar claims and then abuse the bankruptcy process to leave victims out in the cold.

The bill on the floor today reflects changes made in response to concerns raised about the legislation.

Specifically, concerns were expressed about possible unintended consequences of the class action changes, and that section was removed in its entirety.

Concerns were expressed about restricting enforceability of secrecy agreements, and that section was removed in its entirety.

What remains are the core provisions that are needed to help the victims of the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, including the families of the 11 men who died and the numerous workers who were injured aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

I want to remind Members that this bill is, above all else, about helping victims, particularly the victims of this oil platform explosion and spill.

One of these victims is Gordon Jones, who was killed aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

Gordon was married to Michelle Jones and had two children, Stafford and Maxwell Gordon, and is also survived by his brother and father.

Maxwell Gordon was born just a couple of weeks after his father died.

Under current law, the Jones family can only recover Gordon's lost wages, and are not entitled to any non-financial damages.

This bill would fix that for Gordon, the 10 others killed on the Deepwater Horizon, and others injured.

As Gordon's father, Keith, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on May 27:

``When Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she's not going to show them a pay stub. She will tell them how much their father loved them. . . .

``I want to say how offensive it is when the law recognizes only pecuniary loss in cases like these eleven deaths. . . . Please believe me; no amount of money can ever compensate us for Gordon's death. We know that. But this is the only means available to begin to make things right.''

This is not a complicated vote. It is about ensuring that BP and other corporations that caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill are held accountable under the law for all the harm their irresponsible behavior has caused these hardworking Americans and their families.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Before I recognize the next speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am sure my good friend Lamar Smith is not recommending that with all the tragedy and suffering that has occurred in this area of the country, that we go back and go over these same issues one more time. The laws are ancient. They are out-of-date. We had witnesses. We wrote a bill based on it. This process has been done numerous times.

I now with some pride yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

This is incredible. With all the suffering that has occurred, all the damage that has incurred, we now come here after more than 5 hours worth of hearings on this matter to say that the ship owners won't like the insurance rates, that they won't like that they may be liable, and that's what we're correcting. I deeply resent this kind of attack on a bill of this urgency.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the committee.

I yield myself 6 seconds.

I am so disappointed that my dear friends would even suggest that there's a defense for the oil companies, the shipbuilders, and the insurance companies in a situation like this.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Maxine Waters, a distinguished leader in the Judiciary Committee.

I am happy now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Dr. Judy Chu, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, Bruce Braley, a cosponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It's uncomplicated. It revises old law that's been discriminatory and left on the books. It ensures that BP and other corporate violators that caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion-resulting oil spill are held accountable under the law.

This is not going to hurt the victims. The victims came before the committee and testified in favor of this kind of relief. So for us now to think that we're inadvertently doing some harm to those who have lost their loved ones is untenable and uncontemplatable.

I urge that all of us cast as near unanimous vote as possible in support of this legislation and correct the injustices that have been caused by this incredible, extensive, and terrible accident.

And I include in my closing remarks the support of nine other organizations.

The International Cruise Victims Association

The National Center for Victims of Crime

The National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children

Public Citizen

Alliance for Justice

National Consumers League

Consumer Watchdog

Center for Justice & Democracy

Center for Biological Diversity

Friends of the Earth

U.S. Action

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5609) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit any registered lobbyist whose clients include foreign governments which are found to be sponsors of international terrorism or include other foreign nationals from making contributions and other campaign-related disbursements in elections for public office, as amended.

Madam Speaker, could I ask for regular order? We have had, I don't know how many--this could go on all night if the gentleman is just opposed to campaign finance reform.

No one disrespects the sincerity and abilities of my friend from California, who has raised these questions.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise their remarks and include extraneous materials.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, 1 week ago the House passed historic campaign finance reform that was designed to curb improper corporate and foreign influences on the American electoral system. Everybody in this House is in support of the attempts of this committee and the House Administration Committee to accomplish this aim, to rein in, to eliminate improper corporate and foreign influences on the American electoral system. There is not a Member in this House that is not in support of that. So this bill hones in on the most toxic foreign influences, countries whose governments the Secretary of State has determined sponsor terrorism.

H.R. 5609 amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to prevent any country specifically designated as a state sponsor of terrorism from hiring a lobbyist in an attempt to influence the laws and policies of the United States of America. By their actions, these states have forfeited many privileges of doing business in the United States. The business of government should be no different. We should not allow states that sponsor terrorism to be able to hire lobbyists to influence our lawmakers and our laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

First of all, I want to applaud the parliamentary wisdom of the distinguished gentleman from California, who supports the matter that is before the House, but he has very pointedly pointed out that the process, the procedure has not been appropriate from his point of view.

As he knows, we had a hearing on the constitutionality of Citizens United on February 3, 2010. But I concede to him and apologize that there was no markup, and I hope that that will assuage the gentleman's very particular objection to the process here.

Now, of course, some of the excellent points that he has raised really go to the rules of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

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

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