Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the national unemployment rate above 8 percent for over 40 months. The President promised that his $800 billion spending bill would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, the spending bill only added to the deficit, which has doubled under this administration.

More than 12 million Americans are out of work, 700,000 more than when President Obama took office; and the median income of American families has dropped too.

The President's economic policies have failed, and his regulatory policies have made the economy worse. A recent Gallup poll found that among the 85 percent of U.S. small businesses that are not hiring, nearly half cited ``being worried about new government regulations'' as the reason.

President Obama has turned America into a regulation Nation. A Heritage Foundation study found that in his first 3 years in office, President Obama implemented 106 major rules that imposed $46 billion in additional annual regulatory costs on the private sector. That's a new record.

The President promised in his 2011 State of the Union address to fix ``rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses,'' but he has gone in the opposite direction. We need to encourage businesses to expand, not tie them up with red tape.

Today, Congress continues to fight the constricting red tape that comes from Washington by offering commonsense solutions that deserve bipartisan support. And that's what we do today.

Members of the Judiciary Committee introduced three of the titles in the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Mr. Griffin's Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act gives small businesses a much- needed break from new regulations that cost the economy $100 million or more until the unemployment rate stabilizes at 6 percent.

The Freeze Act is narrowly tailored to stop unnecessary economically significant regulations. It contains reasonable exceptions, such as health and safety, criminal or civil rights laws, trade agreements, and national security. The Freeze Act gives job creators confidence about future regulatory conditions, which will encourage them to make the investments that will jump-start our economy.

The RAPID Act, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), helps to create jobs as it streamlines the Federal environmental review and permitting process. It draws upon established definitions and concepts from existing regulations and even from the administration's own recommendations.

Employers and investors can't move forward without necessary permits and without confidence in the process. The RAPID Act establishes reasonable, predictable deadlines for agencies to complete the permit review process and for lawsuits to be filed afterwards.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, introduced by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), ends the abuse of consent decrees and settlements to require more regulations.

For many years, regulatory advocates and agencies have used consent decrees and settlements to establish new rules in secrecy, outside the regular rule-making procedures that provide for transparency and public participation. The ``sue and settle'' approach has enabled agencies to impose higher costs and avoid accountability since they can claim ``the court made us do it.''

Mr. Quayle's legislation makes sure that the public and those affected by regulations have a say in these decrees and settlements. It also requires greater judicial scrutiny and helps to prevent an outgoing administration from unfairly setting its successor's agenda through consent decrees. These and all of the titles of the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act provide needed relief to small businesses.

Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. This legislation frees up businesses to spend more, invest more, and produce more in order to create more jobs for American workers. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

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

I have no idea whether we have more or fewer regulations than other countries. I do know this: we have far more regulations today than we had 3 years ago. And I also know that the Obama administration has set a new record in the number of expensive, unnecessary regulations that it has suggested and implemented.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee.

If the gentleman would yield to me, I would be happy to try to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to a question that the gentleman from Michigan posed a few minutes ago.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to include for the Record an article from earlier this year that appeared in The Economist magazine. This is a magazine that is one of the oldest, most respected sources of news and analysis, and it is favorably disposed toward the Obama administration. But it published an article detailing how the Obama administration systematically manipulates the cost-benefit analysis in agency rulemaking.

This manipulation deliberately inflates benefits and minimizes the cost, the article says. The Economist goes so far as to call the administration's cost-benefit analysis ``highly suspect'' and ``subject to the whims of the people in power.''

[From the Economist, Feb. 18, 2012]

Measuring the Impact of Regulation

The rule of more--Rule-making is being made to look more beneficial

under Barack Obama

Washington, DC: In December Barack Obama trumpeted a new

standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule,

he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths,

heart attacks and asthma cases. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up to $90

billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr.

Obama took a swipe at past administrations for not

implementing this ``common-sense, cost-effective standard''.

A casual listener would have assumed that all these

benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury

explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths,

heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary

benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from

concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the

principal target of the rule: namely, fine particles.

The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem

arcane, but matters a lot. When businesses complain that Mr.

Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers

respond that those costs are more than justified by even

higher benefits. His Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out of the

federal apparatus, reckons the ``net benefit'' of the rules

passed in 2009-10 is greater than in the first two years of

the administrations of either George Bush junior or Bill

Clinton.

But those calculations have been criticised for resting on

assumptions that yield higher benefits and lower costs. One

of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary

benefits, or ``co-benefits'', such as reductions in fine

particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury.

Mr. Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been

included in regulatory cost-benefit analysis. The logic is

sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to

save money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get

more exercise. Both sorts of benefit should be counted.

The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-

benefits play in assessing Mr. Obama's rule-making. Fully

two-thirds of the benefits of economically significant final

rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to reductions in

fine particles brought about by regulations that were

actually aimed at something else, according to Susan Dudley

of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under

George Bush (see chart). That is double the share of co-

benefits reported in Mr. Bush's last year in office in 2008.

If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it would

surely be more transparent and efficient to target them

directly. As it happens, federal standards for fine-particle

concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely claims

additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well

below levels the current law considers safe. That is dubious:

a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of

such low concentrations.

Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is

its heavy reliance on ``private benefits''. Economists

typically justify regulation when private market

participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity,

generate costs--such as pollution--

that the rest of society has to bear. But fuel and energy-

efficiency regulations are now being justified not by such

social benefits, but by private benefits like reduced

spending on fuel and electricity.

Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit

analysis but Ms. Dudley's data show that, like co-benefits,

their importance has grown dramatically under Mr. Obama. Ted

Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes that private

benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and shorter

refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in

lifetime benefits claimed for last year's new fuel-economy

standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for

92% and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency

standards for washing machines and refrigerators

respectively.

The values placed on such private benefits are highly

suspect. If consumers were really better off with more

efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a

prod from government. The fact that they don't means they put

little value on money saved in the future, or simply prefer

other features more. Mr. Obama's OIRA notes that a growing

body of research argues that consumers don't always make

rational choices; Mr. Gayer counters that regulators do not

make appropriate use of that research in their calculations.

Under Mr. Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance

the benefits of rules but also reduce the costs. John Graham

of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr. Bush, cites the

new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that

electric cars have no carbon emissions, although the

electricity they use probably came from coal. They also

assume less of a ``rebound effect''--the tendency of people

to drive more when their cars get better mileage--than was

the case under Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the

opposite bias: understating benefits and overstating costs.

At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to

reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had

fewer years left to live; it eventually backed down. Mr.

Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the

risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more

horrifying way to die than others.

More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such

controversies. Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a

liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done

through the creation of a non-partisan congressional

oversight body using the best evidence available to vet

regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets

fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to

see if the original analysis behind them was still valid.

Rule-making would still require judgment, but it would be

less subject to the whims of the people in power.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of the legislation we consider today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of the RAPID Act, which is a part of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, which is a part of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

I support this legislation to repeal the new health care law, which will shrink jobs, increase taxes and limit Americans' freedoms.

Although the Supreme Court has delivered its decision on ObamaCare, it is the people whose verdict counts the most, and the American people have consistently rejected this costly and ineffective government takeover of the health care sector. They realize that the law fails our families, drives up the cost of health care, undermines the doctor- patient relationship, tramples on the religious liberties of millions of Americans, and vastly expands the role of the Federal Government. After the Supreme Court decision, we now know that ObamaCare is a massive tax hike on the middle class.

While the Supreme Court may have declared the law constitutional, that does not mean it is good policy for the American people. ObamaCare forces millions of Americans to abandon their current health care plans and to give up the physicians of their choice. A recent Reuters poll found that 56 percent of respondents oppose ObamaCare and that 61 percent oppose the individual mandate. With the costs and massive middle class tax increase this law imposes, these polls, frankly, are not a surprise. This massive tax hike on the middle class must be repealed. Only when ObamaCare is fully repealed can we enact real reforms that reduce health care costs without restricting the rights of Americans.

One reform Congress should consider to lower costs is medical liability reform. Medical liability reform will reduce the cost of health care by decreasing the waste in our system caused by defensive medicine. This practice occurs when doctors are forced by the threat of lawsuits to conduct tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required. According to a Harvard University study, 40 percent of the medical malpractice lawsuits filed in the United States lack evidence of medical error or of any actual patient injury. Many of these suits amount to the legalized extortion of doctors and hospitals. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that lawsuit abuse reform would save taxpayers $48 billion over the next 10 years.

The American people do not want ObamaCare. As their Representatives, we must repeal ObamaCare and enact real health care reforms that lower costs, increase access to health care, and preserve the fundamental freedoms of all Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), who is a distinguished and senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a respected member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who was a distinguished jurist before he became a Member of Congress, and then a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close on this side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, former CBS producer Greg Kandra recently highlighted the continued existence of the national liberal media's bias.

As a result of the national media's use of selectively edited clips to push its liberal agenda, he stated that he has ``grown weary trying to defend'' the national media. Kandra declared that he cannot and will not defend his former colleagues against claims of liberal bias.

He writes that the national media has ``successfully eroded any confidence'' the public has in the news. And that the national media has ``done a [great] job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the underpinnings of democracy, a free press.''

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans' confidence in the national media is at an all time low. Americans' lack of confidence in the national media will continue until the national media provides the American people with fair and objective coverage of the news.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2061) to provide for an exchange of land between the Department of Homeland Security and the South Carolina State Ports Authority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on S. 2061 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to transfer property located in South Carolina and owned by the United States in exchange for property owned by the South Carolina State Ports Authority.

The Department will acquire land that is important to the continued operation and development of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's maritime academy. The State of South Carolina will acquire land that will allow the South Carolina State Ports Authority to develop an access road to Interstate 26.

This exchange would have already occurred, but the Department of Homeland Security Secretary lacked the authority to engage in the transfer of real property. This bill gives the Secretary the necessary authority to facilitate this transaction. This is a commonsense solution that will benefit both the State of South Carolina and the United States.

This bill and the underlying land exchange is supported by the Governor of South Carolina, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent last month.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5889) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for protection of maritime navigation and prevention of nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5889, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I introduced this legislation to implement certain provisions of four multilateral counterterrorism treaties that will make America and the world safer.

The significance of this legislation and the bipartisanship demonstrated to get this bill to the House floor is evidenced by those who have joined me as original cosponsors--Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Scott.

Terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction do not recognize international boundaries. The treaties that this legislation relates to are important tools in the fight against terrorism. Each one builds on an existing treaty to which the United States is a party. Implementation of these treaties will enhance the national security of the United States.

This legislation modernizes and strengthens the international counterterrorism and counterproliferation legal framework. The treaties in this legislation complement important U.S. priorities to prevent nuclear terrorism, counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and counterterrorism initiatives.

Acceptance of these treaties will reinforce the United States' leadership role in promoting these and other counterterrorism treaties and will likely prompt other countries to join. The treaties are widely supported by the U.S. Departments of State, Justice, and Defense. This legislation strengthens current law and related jurisdictional provisions.

Acceptance of the underlying treaties benefits the United States in many ways. For example, parties to the underlying treaties are required to criminalize certain acts committed by persons who possess or use radioactive material or a nuclear device, and parties are obligated to extradite or prosecute alleged offenders.

As they relate to maritime terrorism, the underlying treaties would treat vessels and fixed maritime platforms as a potential means of conducting terrorism activity and not just as objects of terrorist activity.

The previous administration strongly supported approval of these agreements, which have already received Senate advice and consent. The current administration wants to advance this legislation so that the United States maintains its leadership role in counter-nuclear proliferation efforts and terrorism prevention.

Advancing this legislation strengthens international cooperation and information sharing as it relates to international terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4223) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit theft of medical products, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4223, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Large-scale medical product theft is a significant problem in today's society. Medical products require special care and maintenance. When medical products are stolen, thieves resell them. When these drugs are not stored or handled properly, they can lose their effectiveness and cause further injury to medical patients.

Current law does not recognize the added importance of medical products. These products are often essential to a person's health and can be lifesaving.

Under federal law, those who steal a truck full of insulin intended for diabetics would be sentenced to the same extent as those who steal a truck full of car tires.

In 2009, an organized ring of criminals stole 129,000 vials of insulin worth approximately $11 million in North Carolina. A few months later, the FDA received a report that some of the vials had been reintroduced into the supply chain when a diabetic patient reported to a medical center in Houston, Texas, with an adverse reaction after use of insulin from the stolen lot.

The FDA issued a warning that the insulin had likely not been kept refrigerated correctly and could still be in the market. The spoiled product was ultimately found in pharmacies in 17 states. At least 2 additional patients experienced adverse reactions. While some arrests have been made, over 125,000 vials of insulin still remain unaccounted for.

Shipments of drugs that treat kidney failure, ADHD, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis and ovarian cancer were stolen in three separate incidents between 2008 and 2009.

The prescription drugs, worth over $3 million, were taken during a distribution center break-in and in two separate trailer break-ins. The FBI made an arrest in only one of the three incidents, and the criminal was convicted.

H.R. 4223, the SAFE DOSES Act, modernizes and strengthens the criminal code in order to deter and punish those who steal pre-retail medical products. Enhanced penalties not only make people think twice before they steal medical shipments, but also provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to obtain cooperation to bring down criminal organizations.

The SAFE DOSES Act enables authorities to better target the multi- dimensional criminal enterprises that carry out these thefts and recognizes the health risks created by the improper care and handling of sensitive medical products.

This bipartisan bill helps to ensure that life-saving drugs remain in the hands of those trained to handle them, and do not continue to pose a threat to public safety. I commend Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner for his work on this legislation and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and also the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4018) to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4018, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

H.R. 4018, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2012, amends an existing program within the Justice Department that administers benefits to certain public safety officers killed or disabled in the line of duty.

I commend Representative Michael Fitzpatrick for his leadership on this issue and am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

The bill makes changes to the class of beneficiaries as well as some common-sense, cost-saving reforms to the program.

Congress originally passed the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, PSOB, in 1976. This program evolved from concern that State and local public safety officers and their families were not being provided with adequate death benefits. And that the low level of benefits might impede recruitment efforts and impair morale.

Originally, the PSOB program provided only death benefits to the survivors of officers killed in the line of duty. It was later expanded to provide benefits to officers disabled in the line of duty and education benefits to the spouses and children of officers killed or disabled in the line of duty.

Congress has amended the PSOB program many times since its inception. Some of the changes have resulted in inconsistencies within the law or have unintentionally resulted in a delay in the PSOB benefit process.

For example, each PSOB claimant must be examined by an impartial medical examiner who then advises the Justice Department regarding their decision to award benefits. But the PSOB statute and its regulations require that the medical examiner be hired from the city where the officer was killed or injured.

This causes significant delays and adds expense in processing PSOB claims and in administering the overall program.

The Department spends significant time and resources to find a medical professional who is familiar with the PSOB program and its requirements. That medical professional must also be available and agree to perform the necessary medical exam. This process can take weeks, if not months, to complete.

This bill provides a solution to this inefficiency. It allows the Department to develop and draw from a pool of trusted, qualified medical professionals to perform the necessary examinations across the country. This is similar to how the PSOB program authorizes their hearing examiners.

This simple change saves valuable time and taxpayer dollars. It also ensures that the public safety officers and their families receive these much-needed benefits more quickly.

H.R. 4018 also clarifies who are eligible beneficiaries when an officer is killed in the line of duty. Currently, the payment of benefits is often postponed, sometimes for years, while the issue of who is the proper beneficiary is litigated.

This bill creates a new category of beneficiaries, ``adult children of deceased public safety officers,'' to clarify eligible beneficiaries in certain cases where there are none. These cases include when a public safety officer's children are all adults, there is no surviving spouse, no applicable designation of beneficiary is on file with the public agency, and the officer's parents are deceased.

The PSOB benefits can currently be awarded to police officers, firefighters, chaplains or certain members of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who serve a public agency.

But PSOB benefits are not currently authorized for volunteer emergency medical personnel. This bill fixes this inequity in a narrow way that when combined with savings from other efficiencies made by the bill, does not result in additional expense to the taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from Georgia has yielded back his time; if so, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 683) expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 683 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for introducing H. Res. 683, expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I know, through conversations with several of my colleagues, including the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Berman, that this is an important resolution for them and their constituents.

The resolution concerns laws passed by the House of Representatives that restricted the civil rights of certain individuals in the United States based solely on the ethnicity of those individuals. Specifically, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress passed, and Presidents signed, laws that restricted the rights of people of Chinese ethnicity.

For instance, in March 1882, the House of Representatives passed the initial Chinese Exclusion Act that denied Chinese people the right to be naturalized as American citizens. And in April 1892, the House of Representatives passed the Geary Act, which reauthorized the Chinese Exclusion Act for 10 years and denied Chinese immigrants the right to be released on bail upon application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Laws that deny certain civil rights to individuals legally in the United States are inconsistent with the values on which this country was founded. I thank the gentlewoman from California for working with me to refine the text of this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers on this side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3668) to prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania and Ms. Linda Sanchez of California for their work on this issue. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Similar legislation sponsored by Senator Leahy was approved by the Senate last March by voice vote.

This bill enacts penalties for trafficking in counterfeit drugs similar to those for trafficking in military goods and services, as established in the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress passed last December.

Counterfeit military goods affect the credibility of the supply chains that support our national defense, and counterfeit drugs call into doubt the credibility of America's pharmaceutical legal drug supply. In both situations, the significant and multiple dangers to the public demand enhanced penalties.

Counterfeit drugs are fake drugs. They may be contaminated, contain the wrong ingredient or no ingredient at all, or have the right active ingredient but the wrong dose. They are intentionally packaged to convince the consumer they are genuine. Counterfeit drugs are illegal and can be harmful to a person's health and even deadly.

Counterfeit drugs present not only a financial loss to the manufacturer or mark holder, but also a real health risk to consumers.

While current law technically includes counterfeit drugs, the law does

not expressly prohibit trafficking in counterfeit drugs and carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.

Late last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned consumers and health care professionals about a counterfeit version of Adderall that is available for sale on the Internet. Approved for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, this medication is a prescription drug classified as a controlled substance, a class of drugs for which special controls are required for dispensing by pharmacists. The FDA's preliminary laboratory test revealed that the counterfeit version of this drug contained the wrong active ingredients. The counterfeit product contained none of the four active ingredients found in the genuine medication. In fact, it contained two different drugs found in medicines used to treat acute pain.

Rogue Web sites and corrupt distributors now prey on the fears of Americans when medicines are in short supply. Drug shortages have increased in frequency and severity in recent years and adversely affect patient care. An unfortunate and potentially deadly side effect of drug shortages is counterfeit drug trafficking.

Last February, the FDA warned health care professionals and patients about a counterfeit version of Avastin, a cancer treatment. Tests revealed the counterfeit version did not contain the medicine's active ingredient. This may have resulted in patients not receiving needed cancer therapy. Several medical practices in the United States may have purchased the counterfeit drug from a foreign supplier. The FDA requested that the medical practices stop the use of any remaining products from this supplier. Unfortunately, in this case alone, there were dozens of cancer patients who may never know that they did not receive lifesaving cancer drugs. Instead, they got a useless counterfeit drug, a drug counterfeited and sold only for the purpose of financial gain. These recent situations prove that those who traffic in counterfeit drugs should be subject to enhanced penalties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last month, 43 Catholic institutions across America joined together to defend the First Amendment and filed a total of 12 lawsuits against the administration in order to protect their right to freedom of religion on behalf of all Americans.

This is the most significant religious lawsuit in U.S. history, and Christian leaders all across America have joined in support of these Catholic institutions. Despite the unprecedented and historic nature of this event, the national media largely ignored it.

The Catholic institutions filed the lawsuit due to new ObamaCare regulations that force some religious institutions to pay for coverage of antiabortion drugs, regardless of the employer's religious and moral objections.

How can the liberal media ignore 12 different lawsuits being filed in Federal courts that each charge the administration with violating the First Amendment right of freedom of religion?

The liberal national media continues to show their bias by their scanty coverage of this historical event.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Franks for introducing the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, also called PRENDA. This legislation prohibits abortions based on the sex of the unborn child.

The bill also prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of funds for such purposes and prohibits the federal funding of abortions based on sex.

As the New York Times has reported, ``There is evidence that some Americans want to choose their babies' sex'' through abortions.

U.S. Census numbers and national vital statistics show that certain communities achieve unnatural sex ratios at birth that are statistically impossible without medically assisted sex-selection, with the cheapest option being abortion.

These sex-selection abortions discriminate strongly against females and are overwhelmingly opposed by the American people. According to a recent Charlotte Lozier Institute poll, 77% of those surveyed support a law that bans abortion in cases where ``the fact that the developing baby is a girl is the sole reason for seeking an abortion.''

Regardless of one's views on abortion generally, everyone should be able to agree that no abortions should occur based on the sex of the unborn child.

It is time to end the practice of using sex as an excuse for abortion. I thank Chairman Franks again for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee herself, for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 4970, and I want to again thank my colleague from Florida, Sandy Adams, for her work on this legislation.

H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, provides funding for VAWA grant programs for 5 years at the same levels as the Senate-passed bill. There are only a few minor differences between this House bill and the Senate bill.

H.R. 4970 doesn't include language to provide special protected status to certain categories of people because they are already covered under VAWA. H.R. 4970 doesn't include language to allow Indian tribes to prosecute non-Indians because that is unconstitutional. H.R. 4970 does include provisions that prevent fraud and abuse in the immigration process.

This bill authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for valuable services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Those who have supported VAWA in the past should be eager to support this legislation today.

Violence against women doesn't occur along party lines, and neither should reauthorization of these programs. Instead of working with Republicans in a bipartisan effort to protect women from domestic violence, rape, and stalking, some Democrats have chosen to place partisan posturing above the urgent needs of victims of violence.

If Members choose to oppose this bill for political reasons, that's their decision; but there is no good reason to oppose this bill for substantive reasons. A vote against this bill, in my judgment, is a vote against common sense and a vote against helping abused women.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor a great Texan, Mr. Thomas W. Luce III, for his years of leadership and contributions to improving our public schools, strengthening higher education and supporting business and economic growth.

Mr. Luce was a founding and managing partner of the law firm of Hughes and Luce, LLP until his retirement from the firm in 1997. In addition to his active law practice, Mr. Luce has served on the boards or as guest lecturer at a number of schools of higher education, including the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, and Southern Methodist University.

Mr. Luce also has been appointed five times to major posts by Texas governors, including Chief Justice pro tempore of the Texas Supreme Court. He is perhaps best known for his role as the Chief of Staff of the Texas Select Committee of Public Education, which produced one of the first major reform efforts among public schools in 1984.

Mr. Luce served on the Dell Inc. Board of Directors from 1991 to 2005, until he was appointed United States Assistant Secretary of Education for Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development by President George W. Bush. He then served as Chief Executive Officer of the National Math and Science Initiative, Inc. from 2007 to 2011.

In addition, following his resignation from the Department of Education, Mr. Luce rejoined the board of Dell Inc. He is the longest serving outside board member of this Texas-based company and will leave the board when his term ends on July 13, 2012.

During his time on the Dell Board of Directors, Mr. Luce served on all four board committees and oversaw a period of rapid growth for Dell, a great American success story. In 1991, Dell reported $890 million of revenue and debuted on the Fortune 500 rankings the following year. Today, Dell is a $62 billion company and ranked No. 41 on the Fortune 500 list.

Michael Dell, founder, chairman and CEO of Dell, said, ``Tom is a great friend and trusted advisor to us all here at Dell, and it's been a true privilege to know him and benefit from his wise counsel for so many years. During his long service as a member of the Dell Board, Tom has contributed to our success in countless ways and has helped shape the strategies that have allowed us to develop and deliver the very best in technology solutions to our customers. On behalf of the global Dell team and my fellow Board members, it is my distinct honor to thank Tom for his commitment to our country and to Dell, and to wish him the very best in everything the future holds.''

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Luce and thanking him for his service to our country and his business leadership. We wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, according to the American Enterprise Institute, the labor force participation rate has dropped to its lowest level in 30 years. The only reason the unemployment rate fell slightly to 8 percent is because another 522,000 adults quit looking for work and are no longer counted.

Of course, it's no surprise that the liberal national media attempted to spin the numbers. Bloomberg dismissed the lack of new jobs as being a ``rounding error.'' Time magazine described the negative reports as being ``statistical noise.'' The liberal media fed this narrative with misleading statements like the economy is ``gaining steam,'' as The New York Times headlined the news, or that the economy was on a ``hiring surge,'' as the Associated Press claimed.

The liberal media show its bias when it ignores the President's failed promises and failed attempts to create jobs.

Americans are concerned about the lack of jobs and deserve the facts. When will the national media put their responsibility to the people ahead of protecting the President?

Madam Speaker, the American workforce is increasingly mobile. Fifty years ago, most people worked in the communities in which they lived. Today, many more Americans travel to other states for work.

The complexity and variation among state income tax laws is a burden on interstate commerce. In some states, for example, a non-resident employee must pay income tax if they work there for only one day. But in other states, income tax liability is not triggered until the 60th day.

Under this current patchwork system, employees who travel out of state for work must file tax returns in other jurisdictions even if their ultimate tax liability to a state is a few dollars.

In addition to burdening our interstate employees, different state income tax laws require employers to comply with a wide variety of tax withholding laws. Many of those employers are small businesses who can least afford these administrative costs.

This bipartisan bill, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, is sponsored by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, Howard Coble. I also appreciate Congressman Hank Johnson's cosponsorship of this legislation.

This bill simplifies state income tax policies without infringing on the rights of states to set their own tax rates. The bill provides that a state may not impose its income tax on non-resident employees unless they earn wages in the state for more than 30 days. The employee would still owe an income tax to their state of residence for wages earned during the first 30 days they work in a non-resident state.

This bill eases the burden that the current patchwork of state income tax laws places on traveling employees and small businesses. So rather than increasing the expense of navigating the maze of tax rules, businesses can use their resources to invest in creating jobs for American workers.

Finally, the bill we consider today reflects a few changes that were made at the request of state taxing authorities. I am pleased that the sponsors of the legislation were able to work cooperatively with all interested parties to bring a compromise version to the floor.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.