Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, losing a great jazz artist is always hard for those of us who love the art form. The joy these musicians bring into our lives--the technical skill and virtuosity they allow each of us to witness--is never easily replaced. But it is especially hard when we lose someone who we not only admired as an artist, but who we were fortunate enough to call our friend. This past week we lost Mr. Gerald Wilson, who I had known for many years, and who had just turned 96 on September 4, 2014.

Mr. Gerald Wilson was to me not only an icon in the Jazz community-- having served as a National Endowment for the Arts Jazz Master--he was a fellow Detroiter. His penultimate masterpiece, Detroit, captured in all its glory the vibrant spirit of the town that made the 20th Century possible, as well as the promise the future holds for our great city.

For seven decades, Gerald Wilson was a force on the jazz circuit where he played, conducted, and arranged with his own band and with names we all know: Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Benny Carter, and Ella Fitzgerald. In addition to his talent as a performer and composer, he served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, taught for many years at universities in California, and most importantly--was a loving husband and father.

Just a few years ago, he was the headliner at a concert I promoted as part of an annual leadership conference held in Washington, D.C., where we celebrated his 92nd birthday. Though I am heartbroken to see him go, I know that I am--and we all are--fortunate to have had the chance to know him, see him, and hear him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I strongly oppose H.R. 5272. This, in all honesty and candor, is one of the most mean-spirited and anti- immigrant pieces of legislation I have seen in all of my years in the Congress.

Now, the main reason, of course, is that it would unfairly harm current and future DREAM Act kids. The majority have been clear about their intent with this bill: No DREAMers.

This legislation is designed to prevent young people who have lived here most of their lives and are members of our communities from benefiting from deferred action. It would foreclose the administration from focusing resources on identifying and removing individuals such as criminals and gang members from our communities. And even worse, the legislation would mean that the hundreds of thousands of young people who have already benefited from deferred action, who are contributing to our economy, participating in our communities, and obtaining an education could be deported in less than 2 years. And that is why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, have already registered their strong opposition to the bill.

I am confident that there are many more who would oppose this legislation because it seeks to roll back protections supported by civil rights organizations, religious organizations, college and university presidents, labor unions, and national educational organizations.

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

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutieerrez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

How much time remains on either side, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are ready to close on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 676, which would authorize the Speaker to file suit against the President of the United States for failing to enforce the Affordable Care Act, which has been attacked more than 51 times unsuccessfully in the House.

Now, why do I oppose this seriously flawed measure? One, the fact that it addresses a nonexistent problem. Two, it violates constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power principles. And three, it diverts Congress from focusing on truly critical matters that require prompt legislative responses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter received only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to H. Res. 676 is likely to fail.

July 30, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner, We write as law professors who

specialize in constitutional law and federal courts to

express our view that the members of the House of

Representatives lack the ability to sue the President of the

United States in federal court for his alleged failure to

enforce a federal statute, even if an Act of Congress were to

authorize such a suit and especially without such legislative

authorization. Never in American history has such a suit been

allowed. In fact, in many cases, the United States Supreme

Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit have held that members of Congress lack

standing to sue in federal court. An entire House of Congress

is in no stronger a position to sue. Moreover, this is

exactly the type of political dispute which courts have found

to pose a non-justiciable political question and that should

be resolved in the political process rather than by judges.

In Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), members of Congress

sued to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item

veto. The Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and

said that the members of Congress ``have alleged no injury to

themselves as individuals, the institutional injury they

allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed, and their

attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this

form is contrary to historical experience . . . . We

therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do

not have a sufficient `personal stake' in this dispute and

have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have

established Article III standing.''

After Raines v. Byrd, it is clear that legislators have

standing only if they allege either that they have been

singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to

other members of their bodies or that their votes have been

denied or nullified. This is consistent with a large body of

lower court precedent, primarily from the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that

requires a showing of nullification of a vote as a

prerequisite for standing. The Court of Appeals has stated

that a member of Congress has standing only if ``the alleged

diminution in congressional influence . . . amount[s] to a

disenfranchisement, a complete nullification or withdrawal of

a voting opportunity.'' Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697,

702 (D.C. Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds,

444 U.S. 996 (1979); see also Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d

190, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

It is just for this reason that the House of

Representatives as a body, like its members individually,

lacks standing to sue. The claim that the President has not

fully enforced provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or

other laws, does not amount to a ``disenfranchisement, a

complete nullification, or withdrawal of a voting

opportunity.'' Congress retains countless mechanisms to

ensure enforcement of a law, ranging from use of its spending

power to assigning the task to an independent agency.

On many occasions throughout American history, the Supreme

Court has seen the need for the federal judiciary to stay out

of disputes between the elected branches of government. That

is exactly the lesson that the proposed lawsuit would ignore.

Thus the suit likely would be dismissed both for want of

standing and because it poses a non-justiciable political

question. As Justice Scalia pointed out years ago, courts

frequently fail

to review actions or inaction by the Executive when a

decision involves ``a sensitive and inherently discretionary

judgment call, . . . the sort of decision that has

traditionally been nonreviewable, . . . [and decisions for

which] review would have disruptive practical consequences.''

Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 608 (1988) (Scalia, J.,

dissenting). The question presented here poses the very

essence of what the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.

186, 217 (1962), said is a political question because of

``the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy

determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;

or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent

resolution without expressing lack of the respect due

coordinate branches of government.'' The idea of a judge

telling a President how to exercise his discretion in

enforcing a law cuts at the heart of separation of powers and

thus presents a question non-justiciable in the courts.

Under long-standing practice and precedents, disputes, such

as this one between members of the House of Representatives

and the President, must be worked out in the political

process, not the courts.

Disclaimer: institutional affiliations are for

identification purposes only.

Erwin Chemerinsky,

Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law;

Janet Cooper Alexander,

Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law, Stanford Law School;

Peter Edelman,

Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;

Lawrence Lessig,

Roy L. Furman Professor of Law, Harvard Law School;

Burt Neuborne,

Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, New York

University Law School;

Kermit Roosevelt,

Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School;

Suzanna Sherry,

Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law, Vanderbilt

University Law School;

Charles Tiefer,

Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law.

To begin with, H. Res. 676 seeks to solve a nonexistent problem because the President has, in fact, fully met his obligations to fully execute the laws.

Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a major new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation.

Indeed, in the case of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, the administration acted pursuant to statutory authorization granted to it by Congress.

Section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue any rules necessary for the enforcement of the Code, including the provisions that enforce the employer mandate.

Exercising discretion in implementing a law is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is inherent in the President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute laws.

This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care Act. The President's decision to extend certain compliance dates to help phase-in the Act is not a novel tactic.

Yet, even though not a single court has ever concluded that reasonable delay in implementing a complex law constitutes a violation of the Take Care Clause, the Majority insists there is a constitutional crisis.

In addition, a suit initiated under H. Res. 676 would itself be unconstitutional and would violate separation of powers principles.

This is because such a lawsuit would essentially allow federal courts to second-guess decisions by the Executive Branch in how it chooses to implement a policy.

The federal judiciary, under the political question doctrine, avoids answering such questions precisely because a court is not appropriate forum to resolve issues of complex policy.

Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Congress could satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution that must be met in order to enforce the Take Care Clause.

To meet those requirements, a plaintiff--under the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd--must show, among other things, that it suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

Injury amounting only to an alleged violation of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law--which is what this resolution contemplates--is not judicially cognizable for Article III standing purposes.

This is in stark contrast to cases where Congress has sought to protect a fundamental power, like its subpoena authority.

In subpoena enforcement cases, courts have found standing for one House of Congress to sue because a specific legislative prerogative was at stake, constituting a sufficiently concrete injury to Congress to confer Article III standing.

Article III's standing requirements enforce the Constitution's separation-of-powers principles. Congress cannot simply legislate away these constitutional standing requirements.

Finally, H. Res. 676 is obviously just pure political theater that distracts the public from the fact that this Republican-controlled House has failed to address a whole host of critical issues.

These include immigration reform, extending unemployment insurance, enhancing environmental protections, ensuring worker safety, and helping those who are financially struggling.

Coincidentally, H. Res. 676 shares a number with H.R. 676, the ``Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,'' which I introduced in February of 2013.

H.R. 676 would create a publicly-financed, privately-delivered health care system that would greatly improve and expand the already existing Medicare program.

My legislation would ensure that all Americans have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income or health care status.

Instead of discussing this and other critical matters, today we continue to waste precious resources on a patently unconstitutional measure that would authorize a lawsuit destined to fail.

We owe it to the American people to address real, not imaginary, challenges facing our Nation, including enhancing health care for all Americans.

I would also note that the litigation referred to by the gentleman from Texas that I was involved in eight years ago involved a situation where the House and Senate passed different versions of the same budget bill that was signed by the President. That was brought in our individual capacity as Members, not the House as a whole, and did not involve the use of additional taxpayer funds. The resolution before us today is of course an entirely different matter.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I rise today to celebrate the 49th anniversary of the Medicare bill. The impact of Medicare on the lives of millions of Americans over the past 49 years has been extraordinary. As a result of this program, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans have lived longer, more productive, and healthier lives.

I am very fortunate and honored to be able to say that I was one of the few Members still here who cast a vote for Medicare in 1965. Earlier that year, I joined with the gentleman from California, Cecil King, and I introduced, as my very first piece of legislation, a bill that would have provided health care under Social Security and an increase of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I said at that time:

Our senior citizens have far too long been neglected in

this, the most prosperous society on Earth. Many of them,

after leading productive lives prior to their twilight years,

have been so overburdened with medical costs that they have

been denied the rewards that should come with retirement.

I am proud to say that in my nearly five decades since the enactment of Medicare, the program has accomplished its mission of providing retirement security for America's seniors and care for those suffering from disabilities and debilitating diseases; yet Medicare continues to face threats from some of the same opponents that have opposed its enactment back in 1965.

They continue to seek to cut Medicare's guaranteed benefits and push seniors into private plans, which value profits over health outcomes.

Today we present another path forward, one in which Medicare's benefits are protected by expanding health care security and insurance coverage to more Americans, not fewer.

Since 2003, I have introduced H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which would create a national publicly funded, privately delivered single-payer health care system. Studies have shown that enacting H.R. 676 would save nearly a half trillion dollars by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private health care system.

Another $100 billion would be saved by using the purchasing power of the Federal Government to reduce pharmaceutical prices to the levels that exist in other industrialized nations.

Lastly, by slowing the growth of health care costs, H.R. 676 would save $5 trillion over the next decade, thereby ensuring that the guarantee of affordable public health insurance will be there to be enjoyed by future generations.

And so for all of these reasons, H.R. 676 is one of my most important pieces of legislation in my way of thinking,

and I am proud that it now has 60 cosponsors. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) for being the 60th sponsor. But I would be remiss if I did not reiterate my strong support for President Obama's landmark health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act's results speak for themselves. As of this month, the percentage of uninsured Americans is now the lowest on record. The Affordable Care Act has protected as many as 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions from being denied health care coverage or being charged higher premiums. It has provided free preventive health care services such as mammograms, birth control, and immunizations to the 100 million Americans who are on private insurance or Medicare. Around 60 million Americans have gained expanded mental health benefits. And since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, almost 8 million seniors have saved nearly $10 billion on prescription drugs as the health care law closes Medicare's doughnut hole.

But, as with any complex law, implementation can be difficult and there will be unforeseen issues. Those issues have been seized by some opponents against expanding health care who hope to eliminate health insurance for those who cannot afford it. This is unacceptable.

While we must continue to defend the Affordable Care Act, we must also work to ensure that any future changes to the Affordable Care Act take us in the direction of the universal health care enjoyed by virtually all of the citizens of other industrialized countries.

I hope Members of Congress and the American public will join me to fight for a day when, in the wealthiest country on Earth, no one has to suffer and die unnecessarily because their health care system prioritizes corporate profits over their health.

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

Mr. Speaker, July 25, 2014 marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Legal Services Corporation, a private, nonprofit corporation tasked with ensuring equal justice for all Americans who are unable to afford legal representation. The creation of LSC was long-championed by President Richard Nixon who ultimately signed its enabling legislation on July 25, 1974 with bipartisan support from the Congress. Federally-funded, LSC awards grants to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district and the U.S. territories.

LSC-funded legal aid programs provide vital civil legal assistance to the needy, including women seeking protection from domestic abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, seniors defending against consumer scams, and individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits.

Unfortunately, because of a decrease in its federal funding over the last several Congresses, LSC-funded programs have had to turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients seeking assistance. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater. We should do more to support this vital program and protect our fellow Americans.

As President Nixon said in support of his legislation creating LSC, ``[W]e must provide a mechanism to overcome economic barriers to adequate legal assistance.'' On this 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, we should recommit ourselves to the founding principle and continue to ensure that LSC can fulfill its critical mission through sufficient funding.

I commend LSC and its grantee programs for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel and for continuing its mission of equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, water is a human right. I applaud the recent decision to suspend Detroit's water shutoffs for 15 days to enable residents to demonstrate financial hardship. This is a first step in preventing a regional public health crisis and protecting the basic rights of Detroit residents.

I submit the following editorial from the Detroit Free Press, which makes the case that recent water-shutoffs, which have been implemented with little or no warning to households, are wrong-headed and shortsighted.

[From the Detroit Free Press, July 21, 2014]

Ending Detroit's Water Shut Offs a Good Start

On Monday morning, the Detroit Water and Sewerage

Department announced that it's calling a 15-day halt to an

aggressive shutoff campaign that has left an unknown number

of Detroiters without water.

It's a start.

The department has about 137,000 delinquent residential

accounts totaling about $75 million, and about 10,000

delinquent commercial accounts worth about $23 million.

Folks who can pay should pay what they owe. But department

officials have to accept that some Detroiters just can't

pay--and further, that the department itself has created an

expectation in customers juggling bills that it's OK to

prioritize other debts. If the water department's goal is to

get, and keep, delinquent customers current on bills, ramping

up shutoffs with no warning to ratepayers was a wrong-headed,

shortsighted way to proceed.

After weeks of public protest, harsh words from the United

Nations, the federal judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy

and this newspaper's Editorial Board, the department seems to

get it.

Department officials say they plan a citywide advertising

blitz, complete with outreach to community groups and

churches. That's excellent news, but outreach must be paired

with concerted efforts to match impoverished residents with

financial assistance to pay up and stay current.

The department should also consider income-based partial

amnesty for ratepayers who are truly unable to catch up, or

comparing data with social service agencies to identify

customers who are in need of assistance.

The department must also identify vacant, abandoned homes

and target those first. There's little excuse for cutting off

water to families as a cost-saving tactic when empty

buildings are flooding.

We've been told, confidently, by the folks in charge that

no one who honestly cannot afford to pay is being deprived of

service; that's overconfidence at best, and outright

dishonesty at worst, as documented in Free Press reporter

Patricia Montemurri's story about conditions in the city this

weekend.

Some adherents of the department's shutoff campaign have

dismissed fears that disconnection from clean water and

modern sanitation could lead to a public health crisis,

noting that the vast majority of delinquent account holders

pay up promptly and have water restored. But let's consider

the reality of this situation: If just 10% of the ratepayers

currently delinquent are unable to pay to have service

restored, we're talking about more than 10,000 residents.

It's terrible public policy.

All of this against the backdrop of the city's bankruptcy,

and the department's efforts to clean up bad debt in an

attempt to make a regional water authority more attractive to

suburban county executives. (Though let's also keep in mind

that aides to Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson

wrote in a February report to the Oakland County Commission

that ``stoppage of water and sewer service for tens of

thousands of fiscally distressed members of the system is

unacceptable policy and one the Oakland County executive will

never support.'')

Detroit is a poor city. About 38% of residents live in

poverty. Our unemployment rate is twice the national average.

It's time to talk about what our goals are, and rethink how

we deliver water.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes Nos. 428-432, I am not recorded because I was absent from the House of Representatives due to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

On rollcall No. 428, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 429, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 430, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 431, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 432, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, today marks what would have been the 96th birthday of Nelson Mandela, one of the great liberators in human history and an enduring international symbol of peace, integrity, humility, resilience, and courage. While we lost Madiba in December, his ethos of nonviolence and his unyielding quest for justice continue to guide and inspire people throughout the world.

After 27 years imprisoned on Robben Island and decades of devoted campaigning to overturn hateful racist policies, Nelson Mandela succeeded not only in unravelling apartheid but also in shepherding his nation through an extraordinary peaceful democratic transition. The people of South Africa--and people of all races, ethnicities, and nationalities around the world--are forever grateful.

More than two decades ago, just months after his release from prison, I had the honor of first meeting Mandela when he visited Detroit to organize for his ascendant political movement in South Africa and speak with the great American civil rights hero Rosa Parks. I was astounded not only by Mandela's insight but also by his kindness and humility. Just four years later, I was delighted to travel to South Africa to attend his inauguration as President of South Africa.

Today, his birthday, is recognized globally as ``Nelson Mandela Day,'' an occasion established by the Mandela Foundation in 2009 to commemorate his life and to underscore the notion that a single person can--through commitment and character--yield extraordinary positive change. Today, in my hometown of Detroit, Michigan, thanks to the work of the Friends of Detroit City Airport Community Development Corporation and Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, a portion of Atwater Street from Civic Center Drive to Bates Street will be renamed ``Nelson Mandela Drive.'' A commemorative ceremony will highlight the extraordinary achievements of Mandela and ways that community members can continue to fulfill his revolutionary vision of justice and nonviolence.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), rise in support of this bipartisan legislation for several reasons.

To begin with, section 119 of the Copyright Act expires on December 31. It is particularly important for unserved households, namely, customers who can't receive an over-the-air-signal of a local network. Thus, if Congress fails to act, millions of Americans stand to lose access to their broadcast television service.

H.R. 4572 responds to this problem, in pertinent part, by extending for 5 years the section 119 license authorization, thereby ensuring continued service to millions of Americans.

The other reason that I support this bill is that it is a good example of how Congress can work on a bipartisan basis and produce legislation offering effective solutions.

There are many issues regarding the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors that would benefit from similar efforts by stakeholders working together to see if consensus can be obtained. In particular, I have long argued that content creators should be compensated appropriately for their works. Negotiations in the free market can often best ensure that artists and content creators are fairly compensated. In some cases, we have seen consumers pulled into the middle of such negotiations. No one wants this to happen. It is not good for consumers, nor is it good for the parties involved.

Finally, this legislation comports with two important guiding principles: consumers should be protected, and competition should be safeguarded.

All of us consumers benefit from increased competition because it typically facilitates lower prices, while also generating more innovation, variety, and options. Consumers want the flexibility to watch programming on their choice of television sets, phones, and tablets, no matter where they are.

We should also recognize that many consumers very much value local news and sports programming and the need for local channels to deliver community service and emergency information. Thus, we should continue to consider ways to increase programming options for subscribers to cable or satellite television.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, when a municipality files for bankruptcy, its employees and retirees who have devoted their lives to public service--such as police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers and office personnel--risk having their hard-earned wages, pensions and health benefits cut or even eliminated.

This is why I am introducing the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Municipal Bankruptcies Act of 2014.'' This legislation strengthens protections for employees and retirees under chapter 9 municipality bankruptcy cases by: (1) clarifying the criteria that a municipality must meet before it can obtain chapter 9 bankruptcy relief; (2) ensuring that the interests of employees and retirees are represented in the chapter 9 case; and (3) imposing heightened standards that a municipality must meet before it may modify any collective bargaining agreement or retiree benefit.

While many municipalities often work to limit the impact of budget cuts on their employees and retirees, as was recently demonstrated in the chapter 9 plan of adjustment recently approved by Detroit's public employees and retirees, other municipalities could try to use current bankruptcy law to set aside collective bargaining agreements and retiree protections.

My legislation addresses this risk by requiring the municipality to engage in meaningful good faith negotiations with their employees and retirees before the municipality can apply for chapter 9 bankruptcy relief. This measure would also expedite the appellate review process of whether a municipality has complied with this and other requirements. And, the bill ensures employees and retirees have a say in any plan that would modify their benefits.

Section-by-Section Explanation

Sec. I. Short Title. Section 1 of the bill sets forth the

short title of the bill as the ``Protecting Employees and

Retirees in Municipal Bankruptcies Act of 2014.''

Sec. 2. Determination of Municipality Eligibility To Be a

Debtor Under Chapter 9 of Title II of the United States Code.

A municipality can petition to be a debtor under chapter 9, a

specialized form of bankruptcy relief, only if a bankruptcy

court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the

municipality satisfies certain criteria specified

in Bankruptcy Code section 109. In the absence of obtaining

the consent of a majority of its creditors, section 109

requires the municipality, in pertinent part, to have

negotiated in good faith with its creditors or prove that it

is unable to negotiate with its creditors because such

negotiation is impracticable.

Section 2(a) of the bill amends Bankruptcy Code section 109

in three respects. First, it provides clear guidance to the

bankruptcy court that the term ``good faith'' is intended to

have the same meaning as it has under the National Labor

Relations Act at least with respect to creditors who are

employees or retirees of the debtor. Second, section 2(a)

revises the standard for futility of negotiation from

``impracticable'' to ``impossible.'' This change ensures that

before a municipality may avail itself of chapter 9

bankruptcy relief it must prove that there was no possible

way it could have engaged in negotiation in lieu of seeking

such relief. Third, the amendment clarifies that the standard

of proof that the municipality must meet is ``clear and

convincing'' rather than a preponderance of the evidence.

These revisions to section 109 will provide greater guidance

to the bankruptcy court in assessing whether a municipality

has satisfied the Bankruptcy Code's eligibility requirements

for being granted relief under chapter 9.

Bankruptcy Code section 921(e), in relevant part, prohibits

a bankruptcy court from ordering a stay of any proceeding

arising in a chapter 9 case on account of an appeal from an

order granting a municipality's petition to be a debtor under

chapter 9. Section 2(b) strikes this prohibition thereby

allowing a court to issue a stay of any proceeding during the

pendency of such an appeal. This ensures that the status quo

can be maintained until there is a final appellate

determination of whether a municipality is legally eligible

to be a chapter 9 debtor.

Typically, an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision is

heard by a district or bankruptcy appellate panel court.

Under limited circumstances, however, a direct appeal from a

bankruptcy court decision may be heard by a court of appeals.

Until a final determination is made as to whether a

municipality is eligible to be a debtor under chapter 9 of

the Bankruptcy Code, the rights and responsibilities of

numerous stakeholders are unclear. To expedite the appellate

process and promote greater certainty to all stakeholders in

the case, section 2(c) of the bill allows an appeal of a

bankruptcy court order granting a municipality's petition to

be a chapter 9 debtor to be filed directly with the court of

appeals. In addition, section 2(c) requires the court of

appeals to hear such appeal de novo on the merits as well as

to determine it on an expedited basis. Finally, section 2(c)

specifies that the doctrine of equitable mootness does not

apply to such an appeal.

Sec. 3. Protecting Employees and Retirees. The chapter 9

debtor must file a plan for the adjustment of the

municipality's debts that then must be confirmed by the

bankruptcy court if it satisfies certain criteria specified

in Bankruptcy Code section 943. Section 3 of the bill makes

several amendments to current law intended to ensure that

interests of municipal employees and retirees are better

protected. With respect to plan confirmation requirements,

section 3 amends Bankruptcy Code section 943 to require

consent from such employees and retirees to any plan that

impairs--in a manner prohibited by nonbankruptcy law--a

collective bargaining agreement, a retiree benefit, including

an accrued pension, retiree health, or other retirement

benefit protected by state or municipal law or as defined in

Bankruptcy Code section 1114(a).

Such consent would be conveyed to the court by the

authorized representative of such individuals. Subject to

certain exceptions, section 3 specifies that the authorized

representative of individuals receiving any retirement

benefits pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is the

labor organization that signed such agreement unless such

organization no longer represents active employees. Where the

organization no longer represents active employees of the

municipality, the labor organization that currently

represents active employees in that bargaining unit is the

authorized representative of such individuals.

Section 3 provides that the exceptions apply if: (1) the

labor organization chooses not to serve as the authorized

representative; or (2) the court determines, after a motion

by a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, that

different representation is appropriate. Under either

circumstance, the court, upon motion by any party in interest

and after notice and a hearing, must order the United States

Trustee to appoint a committee of retired employees if the

debtor seeks to modify or not pay the retiree benefits or if

the court otherwise determines that it is appropriate for

that committee be comprised of such individuals to serve as

the authorized representative.

With respect to retired employees not covered by a

collective bargaining agreement, the court, on motion by a

party in interest after notice and a hearing, must order the

United States Trustee to appoint a committee of retired

employees if the debtor seeks to modify or not pay retiree

benefits, or if the court otherwise determines that it is

appropriate to serve as the authorized representative of such

employees. Section 3 provides that the party requesting the

appointment of a committee has the burden of proof

Where the court grants a motion for the appointment of a

retiree committee, section 3 requires the United States

Trustee to choose individuals to serve on the committee on a

proportional basis per capita based on organization

membership from among members of the organizations that

represent the individuals with respect to whom such order is

entered. This requirement ensures that in a case where there

are multiple labor organizations, the committee fairly

represents the interests of the members of those various

organizations on a proportional basis.

Finally, section 3 of the bill imposes a significant

threshold that must be met before retiree benefits can be

reduced or eliminated. Current law has no such requirement.

In a case where the municipality proposes in its plan to

impair any right to a retiree benefit, section 3 permits the

committee to support such impairment only if at least two-

thirds of its members vote in favor of doing so.

Mr. Speaker, utility companies provide many basic and life-saving services, such as electricity to light our homes, water to drink, and gas to heat our homes. Sometimes, however, individuals, through no fault of their own, struggle to pay for these services often in the face of devastating medical debt, job loss, or economic disruption caused by divorce. While resorting to bankruptcy provides some relief from financial distress, current law permits utility companies to force these debtors to pay security deposits for continued service even if they were current on their bills before filing for bankruptcy or if they promise to be current on their bills after bankruptcy. Utility companies typically insist that debtors pay at least two months or more of their average bills as a deposit--in addition to requiring that they remain current on their utility bills after bankruptcy--in exchange for the utility continuing to supply service.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, enacted in 1998, established a temporary moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxation of the Internet as well as new taxes on Internet access. This moratorium is due to expire on November 1 of this year.

Since 1998, Congress has extended the moratorium on three occasions. Unfortunately, however, H.R. 3086, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, responds to the impending expiration of the moratorium by making it permanent and ending the act's grandfather protections for States that impose such taxes prior to the act's enactment date.

The approach taken in H.R. 3086 is problematic for a number of reasons. First, Congress, instead of supporting this seriously flawed legislation, should really be focusing on meaningful ways to help State and local governments, taxpayers, and local retailers. The House can do that by addressing the remote sales tax issue.

In addition to extending the expiring moratorium on a temporary basis, the House should take up and send to the Senate legislation such as the Marketplace Fairness Act, which was mentioned earlier today on the floor of the House by the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). That bill incentivizes remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes as well as require States to simplify several procedures that would benefit retailers. Such legislation would enable States and local governments to collect the over $23 billion in estimated uncollected sales tax each year.

The measure would also help level the playing field for local retailers--who must collect sales taxes--when they compete with out-of- State businesses that do not collect these taxes. Retail competitors should be able to compete fairly with their Internet counterparts at least with respect to sales tax policy. The House should do its part and adjust the remote sales tax disparity before the end of this Congress.

In addition, this legislation will severely impact the immediate revenues for the grandfather-protected States and all States progressively in the long term. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates that this bill will cost certain States ``several hundred million dollars annually'' in lost revenues.

Indeed, the Federation of Tax Administrators estimates that the bill will cause the grandfather-protected States to lose at least $500 million in lost revenue annually. These States include Texas, which would lose $350 million a year in revenue; Wisconsin, which would lose about $127 million per year; Ohio, which would lose about $65 million per year; and South Dakota, which would lose about $13 million per year.

Further, this bill would become effective during the mid-cycle for the grandfather-protected States. Because these States have to balance their State budgets, they will need to cut spending or raise taxes to balance their budgets.

Should this become law, State and local governments will have to choose whether they will cut essential government services--such as educating our children, maintaining needed transportation infrastructure, and providing essential public health and safety services--or shift the tax burden onto other taxpayers through increased property, income, and/or sales taxes.

Meanwhile, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the permanent moratorium will deny the non-grandfathered States almost $6.5 billion in potential State and local sales tax revenues each year in perpetuity. H.R. 3086 will burden taxpayers and services while excluding an entire industry from paying their fair share of taxes.

Finally, the bill ignores the fundamental nature of the Internet. The original moratorium was intentionally made temporary to ensure that Congress, industry, and State and local governments would be able to monitor the issue and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new technologies and market realities.

The act was intended as a temporary measure to assist and nurture the fledgling Internet that back in 1998 was still in its commercial infancy. Yet this bill is oblivious to the significantly changed environment of today's Internet.

The bill's supporters continue to believe that the Internet still is in need of extraordinary protection in the form of exemption from all State taxation. But the Internet of 2014 is not the same as its 1998 predecessor. Today's Internet is considerably different in terms of both the types of accessibility and the accompanying technology.

The Internet then was access primarily a slow, unreliable dial-up service. But now technology has provided many types of methods to access the Internet, and we can anticipate that

the Internet and its attendant technology will continue to evolve. By permanently extending the tax moratorium, however, Congress severely limits its ability to revisit it and to make any necessary adjustments.

Simply put, a permanent moratorium is unwise, and so I urge my colleagues to think about this carefully and oppose H.R. 3086.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Judy Chu, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlelady.

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

I want to conclude by pointing out that we might be going in the wrong direction with this misguided legislation. It will devastate State revenues, especially those States currently protected by the grandfather clause, and force State governments to eliminate essential governmental programs and services and burden taxpayers.

Furthermore, 11 national organizations are concerned with the fiscal impact on our State and local governments: the National Governors Association, the National Association of

Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and 15 other labor organizations: the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the UAW, SEIU. Fifteen national labor organizations and 11 national, local, and State government organizations all join with us who are urging my colleagues to reject this seriously flawed legislation.

Please join us in making sure that we, the people, prevail on this measure in the House of Representatives.

I yield back the balance of my time.

List of Opponents of H.R. 3086

There is a long list of opponents of this bill. These

opponents are concerned with the fiscal impact on our state

and local governments. Opponents include such state and local

groups as--the National Governors Association, the National

Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the

U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Federation of Tax

Administrators, the League of California Cities, the

California State Association of Counties, the International

City/County Management Association, the Government Finance

Officers Association, the National Association of

Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, and the Multistate

Tax Commission.

Also opposing this bill are labor groups such as--the

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American

Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Federation of

Government Employees (AFGE), the Communication Workers of

America (CWA), the Department for Professional Employees

(DPE), the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF),

the International Federation of Professional and Technical

Engineers (IFPTE), the International Union of Police

Associations (IUPA), the National Education Association

(NEA), the Services Employees Union International (SEIU), the

United Auto Workers (UAW), and the United Food and Commercial

Workers International Union (UFCW).

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, if there is one simple lesson that we can take away from our involvement in conflicts overseas, it is this: beware of unintended consequences.

As was made vividly clear with the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistance or the hyperweaponization of a conflict can have destabilizing consequences and, ultimately, undercut our own national interests.

It is for this reason that I offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), and others to prevent funds in this bill from being used to transfer man-portable air defense systems, known as ``MANPADS,'' to parties in the Syrian civil war. MANPADS, also known as ``shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles,'' can be fired at an aircraft by individuals on the ground, and they can be easily hidden or transported in the trunk of a car.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

U.S. and Israeli officials have feared that they could be

used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners.

Leaders of the Syrian opposition movements have told The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets that they are actively seeking the transfer of MANPADS from the U.S. and our allies and that U.S. officials continue to consider these requests. I urge the support of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

In reclaiming my time, I thank both of the floor leaders for their support.

Madam Chair, I want to make clear that this amendment will simply ensure that no funds may be made available under this bill for the transfer of these devastating and highly mobile weapons to any party in the Syrian civil war. So, regardless of one's opinion about U.S. intervention in foreign conflicts, this prudent and responsible amendment deserves our support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, and the other sponsors of this amendment for their continued leadership on the effort to roll back dragnet surveillance of United States citizens.

Last month, a broad, bipartisan majority passed H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act. That bill rightly ends domestic bulk collection.

But, as I said then, ending bulk collection is only part of the work that must be done to fully reform government surveillance.

This amendment closes the ``backdoor surveillance'' loophole--through which the government queries U.S. person information without a warrant.

This amendment also prohibits the government from mandating the creation of vulnerabilities in commercial products and services for later exploitation.

Together, these changes end two demonstrated threats to our privacy and civil liberties--without any measurable loss to our national security.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a trailblazer in business, music, and philanthropy from the great City of Detroit: Mr. Don Davis.

Mr. Davis--who passed away on Thursday, June 5--at the age of 75, was the CEO of the First Independence Bank as well as a Grammy-winning record producer and a celebrated musician. He brought both joy and prosperity to his community and to all those around him.

Mr. Davis started his career as a session guitarist for Motown in the 1960's and eventually rose to become owner of the legendary studio known as United Sound. While his musical career spanned numerous studios and labels, Mr. Davis's musical legacy will forever be associated with Motown. This musical legacy includes guitar work in Barrett Strong's ``Money (That's What I Want)'' and Mary Wells' ``Bye Bye Baby''. Since its founding, Motown has been a cultural cornerstone of the United States, and it has been an honor to call Mr. Davis--one of Motown's original musicians--a friend.

As a Detroiter and a public servant, I have admired Mr. Davis not only for his music but also for his trailblazing accomplishments in business and philanthropy. After retiring from his career as a professional guitarist in 1970, he founded what would become Michigan's only African-American owned and operated commercial bank: the First Independence Bank. Over time, this institution would rise to become the 12th largest African-American owned bank in the nation, holding nearly 5 percent of all assets in the nation's African-American banking community.

Mr. Davis never saw business as a means to advance personal interests. Instead, he led his business to maximize the expansion of economic opportunity for underserved people. He was a fervent believer in bringing entrepreneurial prospects and quality jobs to people in desperate need. A renaissance man, Mr. Davis brought the passion he displayed as a Motown musical artist to the fields of finance and economic development.

I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of my dear friend, Mr. Don Davis. He will live

on through his exceptional music and his extraordinary investments in the Detroit community.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment fights foreclosures by limiting payment of the FHA insurance claims in cases in which borrowers have not been through the full FHA loss mitigation process.

Our Nation's foreclosure crisis is not only an economic calamity, but it is also a social and public health calamity as well.

While we all know that foreclosures cause downward spirals in property values and tax revenue, new research has shined a light on foreclosures as a cause of massive and debilitating anxiety and illness.

According to a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health, foreclosures have even been a likely cause of an increase in suicides in America. I offer this amendment today to help end the terrible scourge of foreclosures.

When the Nation's largest banks--Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase--sell delinquent FHA-insured loans into the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program, HUD pays them the outstanding balance of the loan. Only the loans that have fully complied with HUD's foreclosure provision and loss mitigation requirements are supposed to be sold through the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program. Yet, many of the loans banks are selling through the program have not met this standard.

I with great pleasure yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment would help ensure prudent oversight over the program so that only loans that have truly met all of HUD's loss mitigation requirements are sold through the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program.

I hope my colleagues on the other side will join us in supporting this very commonsense amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Madam Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Madam Chairman, my initial response to the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman is that this is already in the law. To argue now that a modification of it is inappropriate I do not think should allow this point of order to be sustained.

The amendment is a straightforward attempt to ensure that our Federal agencies are in full compliance with their own codes of conduct related to foreclosure prevention. These foreclosures and evictions are not only responsible for massive anxiety, but also for downward spirals in property values.

My response to the point of order is that this provision is totally in order and that the point of order should not be sustained.