Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 466, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as amended.

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 Joint Resolution 2, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Americans want the Federal Government to stop excessive government spending and reduce the Federal deficit. The last time the budget was balanced was during the Clinton administration, when Republicans in Congress passed the first balanced budget in over 25 years. Meanwhile, the Federal debt has climbed from less than $400 billion in 1970 to over $15 trillion today.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has set the wrong kind of new record. The national debt has increased faster under his administration than under any other President in history. America cannot continue to run huge Federal budget deficits. Financing Federal overspending through continued borrowing threatens to drown Americans in high taxes and heavy debt, and it puts a drag on the economy.

The Federal Government now borrows 42 cents for every dollar it spends. No family, no community, no business, no country can sustain that kind of excessive spending. That is the road to insolvency. Unfortunately, this kind of bad behavior has gone unchecked for so long that it has become the norm. The Federal Government has been on a decades-long shopping spree, racking up the bills and leaving them for future generations.

We need a Constitutional mandate to force both the President and Congress to adopt annual budgets that spend no more than the government takes in. Only a balanced budget constitutional amendment will save us from unending Federal deficits.

Just as both parties have joint responsibility for the deficit, we must jointly take responsibility for controlling the deficit by passing the balanced budget amendment. We came very close to passing this balanced budget amendment in 1995, falling just one vote short in the Senate of the required two-thirds majority. In that Congress, the amendment was supported by Congressman Hoyer, now minority whip, Congressman Clyburn, now Assistant Democratic leader, and Senator Joseph Biden, now Vice President.

As then-Senator Biden stated in support of the balanced budget amendment, ``In recent decades we have faced a problem that we do not seem to be able to solve. We cannot balance our budget--or more correctly, we will not. The decision to encumber future generations with financial obligations is one that can rightly be considered among the fundamental choices addressed in the Constitution.''

Congress is way overdue to pass a balanced budget amendment, and the American people want it. Polls show that 74 percent are in favor of a balanced budget amendment. It took less than a generation for us to get into this mess, we need a fiscal fix that will now last for generations.

If we want to make lasting cuts to Federal spending, a constitutional amendment is the only solution. It is our last line of defense against Congress' unending desire to overspend and overtax.

Thomas Jefferson believed that ``the public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared.'' Jefferson wished ``it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' It is time that we listened to Thomas Jefferson and passed a constitutional amendment to end the Federal Government's continuous deficit spending. We must solve our debt crisis to save the future.

I want to thank Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, for introducing the version of the balanced budget amendment we are considering today and for his tireless work in support of the amendment.

Since the 1930s, dozens of proposals offered by both Democrats and Republicans have called for constitutional amendments to address Federal budget deficits. We have the opportunity today to take the first step toward making a balanced budget a reality by passing this legislation.

The American people have not given Congress a blank check. Let's demonstrate to the American people that Congress can be fiscally responsible and get our economic house in order. Borrowing 42 cents for every dollar the government spends and setting a new deficit record is not the road to prosperity. Let's put our country first and pass this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to say to the gentleman from Michigan who spoke earlier that I agree with him. Today is not 1995. In fact, the deficit is worse. Since 1995, the deficit has tripled. It's gone from $5 trillion to $15 trillion, which is all the more reason to support this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the sponsor of this resolution.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), a member of the Republican leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to point out for the record that all of the balanced budgets enacted during the Clinton administration were, in fact, proposed by a Republican Congress. I happened to be a member of the Budget Committee at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 822.

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

H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, was introduced by Mr. Stearns of Florida and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina and is cosponsored by 245 Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This landmark legislation recognizes the importance of the Second Amendment and makes it easier for individuals with concealed carry permits to travel to other States. Forty-nine States now allow concealed carry permits, and 40 of these States also extend some degree of reciprocity to permit holders from other States.

This bill simply applies the States' reciprocal agreements nationwide. This legislation requires States that currently allow people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other States' valid concealed carry permits, much like States recognize driver's licenses issued by other States. The bill recognizes the right of States to determine eligibility requirements for their own residents.

State, local, and Federal laws and regulations regarding how, when, and where a concealed firearm can be carried that apply to a resident will apply equally to a nonresident. For example, many States bar individuals from carrying firearms in a bar, at a sporting event, or in a State park. Under this legislation, all of these restrictions will apply to nonresidents as well.

H.R. 822 also addresses concerns regarding the ability of law enforcement agencies to confirm the validity of an out-of-state concealed carry permit. The bill requires a person to show both a valid government-issued identification document, such as a license or passport, and a valid concealed carry license or permit.

State law enforcement agencies can verify the validity of an out-of- state concealed permit through the Nlets system. Nlets is available to law enforcement officials in all 50 States 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Data from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report shows that right- to-carry States, or those that widely allow concealed

carry, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country.

Opponents of this bill have noted that some States would be required to recognize concealed carry permits issued by States with different standards of eligibility. However, 40 States already grant reciprocity to other States, including to States with different eligibility requirements. The States would not do this if different eligibility requirements were a concern.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by State boundary lines. Opposition to this legislation comes from those who believe concealed carry permit holders often commit violent crimes, which is demonstrably false, or from those who want to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. This legislation enhances public safety and protects the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 822.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the writer, author, and creator of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

H.R. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that Americans' ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights should not disappear at their State's border. The parade of horribles that have been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply not true. Federal law already prohibits felons, domestic abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. This legislation does not change that. If a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, they cannot carry a concealed weapon under this bill.

The arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation are against guns in the hands of violent criminals generally, not against legally permitted concealed weapons. Concealed-carry laws have shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a jurisdiction. H.R. 822 simply permits law-abiding Americans to take their Second Amendment rights with them when they travel.

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

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

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

This amendment undercuts the uniform eligibility standard that forms the foundation of this legislation. The underlying bill allows individuals with valid State-issued permits to carry a concealed firearm in all other States that also authorize concealed carry. This Second Amendment right to bear arms is, therefore, limited by this amendment.

Forty-nine States authorize concealed carry, and 40 of those States have reciprocity agreements with all or some of the other concealed- carry States. But these agreements vary from State to State, creating a patchwork of laws that limits reciprocity, creates confusion for gun owners, and undermines the Second Amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia keeps this patchwork in place by exempting States with reciprocity agreements from the bill. The amendment prevents individuals from taking advantage of nationwide concealed- carry reciprocity unless the State they reside in has a separate agreement with the State they wish to travel to.

While I appreciate my colleague's dedication to the concept of States' rights, I think it is misapplied to this legislation. H.R. 822 upholds States' rights in several important ways:

First, it does not apply to those jurisdictions that prohibit concealed carry, such as Illinois and the District of Columbia;

Second, the bill does not affect a State's right to set eligibility requirements for its own residents;

Third, H.R. 822 does not impact State laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried within the various States. All State, Federal, and local laws that prohibit, for example, carrying a concealed handgun in a public building or a place of worship apply equally to any nonresident concealed-carry holder; and

Fourth, this legislation does not create any authority for the Federal Government to regulate concealed-carry permits. No Federal agency has any role in the implementation or oversight of this bill which is left, rightfully, up to the States. But, most importantly, this bill respects and protects an individual's right to bear arms while they are traveling.

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment endows individuals with the right to keep and bear arms, and this right is based in large part on the right to defend one's self. Americans don't need to simply defend themselves in their homes. They must also be able to defend themselves outside their homes and while traveling to other States.

Eighty percent of violent crime occurs outside the home, according to the Justice Department. Americans cannot fully be empowered to defend themselves if they are prevented from exercising all their Second Amendment rights. H.R. 822 advances the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and I regret, I believe this amendment infringes upon that right.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The whole point of this bill is to allow those who have concealed- carry permits to freely carry their weapons into other States that also have and recognize concealed-carry permits.

If we were to accept this amendment, in my judgment, we would be infringing upon the Second Amendment. I feel that the Second Amendment should be enforced. We ought to interpret it broadly. We ought to allow individuals to take advantage of their Second Amendment rights, travel freely from one State to another without restrictions except for the restrictions that are required locally by their State and local governments.

I mentioned awhile ago that one recognition of State prerogatives that we have in the bill is that, for example, if one State does not allow individuals who have concealed-carry permits to go into a public building or a sports event or some other type of location, they are not going to be allowed to do so even if they have a concealed-carry permit from out of State.

So, once again, we need to respect the right that is given to us by the Second Amendment in a complete, full way. We need to allow individuals with concealed-carry permits to travel freely from State to State. This underlying bill does that, with one exception: the State of Illinois does not recognize concealed-carry permits. You would not be able to carry a weapon into that State. But except for that one State, we need to embrace the Second Amendment in every way that we can practically, recognize the Supreme Court has done the same thing, and allow individuals to travel with those concealed-carry permits.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

This amendment frustrates the basic purpose of H.R. 822. It requires that States pass legislation to implement the bill's provisions.

The Supreme Court, in two recent cases, has recognized a fundamental individual right to bear arms that is largely based on the right to defend oneself and one's family. Over 80 percent of violent crime occurs outside of one's home, according to the Department of Justice. This means that for the right to bear arms in self-defense to have any meaning, law-abiding citizens with permits should be able to carry firearms outside of their homes and sometimes across State boundaries.

Under current law 40 States have established a patchwork of reciprocal agreements that can be confusing for concealed-carry permit holders to navigate. H.R. 822 provides uniformity to our concealed- carry laws by creating nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry permit holders. By contrast, this amendment allows States to opt out of H.R. 822's Federal grant of reciprocity. And it provides that only States that choose to pass laws implementing the legislation must recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits. This amendment would, in effect, just continue the status quo and so would be of no help to individuals with concealed-carry permits.

Since 2004 police officers have enjoyed the right to use a concealed- carry permit to take a firearm across State lines. And, in 2010, President Obama signed legislation to include other law enforcement personnel who could take advantage of this ability. It is ironic that some of these groups now want to deny this same right to law-abiding citizens with concealed-carry permits.

According to a 2009 Zogby poll, 83 percent of those polled said they supported concealed-carry laws--83 percent. Over 4 million Americans across the country have qualified for a concealed-carry permit. They, most likely, endorse this legislation.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York's mentioning States' prerogatives, and I hope she will express the same sentiments about other pieces of legislation. H.R. 822 retains the States' ability to regulate firearms in their own States by making clear that all State regulations regarding how a firearm is carried continue to apply to both residents and nonresidents, and by keeping in place the State's own permitting process.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

This amendment allows States to prohibit nonresidents from carrying a concealed firearm if they did not take part in a firearm safety class that included a live-fire exercise as part of the permitting process. This amendment would, for the first time ever, insert the Federal Government into the State's concealed-carry permitting process. H.R. 822, by contrast, protects

each State's ability to set its own eligibility requirements for concealed-carry permits.

Thirty-seven States require some degree of firearms training. The gentleman from Georgia's home State, interestingly, does not require any training and, thus, under this amendment, its citizens would not be able to enjoy the Federal grant of reciprocity provided by H.R. 822.

The States carry out their training requirements in a number of ways. Some States allow applicants to certify their proficiency through classroom training, while other States recognize prior military or police service to meet these requirements. Virginia, for example, provides eight different ways to meet the training requirements.

This amendment is silent on a number of important issues. Is prior military or law enforcement service sufficient to meet the live-fire requirement? Does an applicant need to go through this training each time they renew their permit or is it sufficient to have completed a course the first time they applied? These ambiguities give us more reason to oppose this amendment.

We know that concealed-carry laws do reduce crime. A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect, murders fell by over 7 percent and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent, respectively. These findings have been confirmed by 18 other studies, but none have found that concealed carry increases crime.

The benefit of concealed-carry laws should not be measured only by the instances of self-defense, but also by the number of crimes that are prevented from occurring in the first place.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Georgia agrees with me that this amendment does insert the Federal Government into the States' concealed-carry permitting process. I would simply say that that admission and the fact that that is the case is enough reason to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

This is one of three amendments under consideration today that would allow the States to opt out of the nationwide concealed-carry system that H.R. 822 seeks to establish. This undermines the bill's goal of creating national uniformity in our concealed-carry laws.

This amendment provides that every State attorney general, head of police, and secretary of State must certify that the concealed-carry eligibility laws of every other State are substantially similar to their own before the State can participate in this legislation's grant of reciprocity. This is obviously intended to be overly burdensome both to those with concealed-carry permits and to the States themselves. It is also simply a way for State officials who do not support the Second Amendment right to bear arms to decide that their State will not recognize out-of-State concealed-carry permits.

The amendment also incorrectly assumes that there are critical differences between the States' eligibility requirements, which is simply not the case. Each State has a vested interest in making sure that those with a propensity towards violence are not granted a concealed-carry permit. Every State conducts a thorough background check so that unqualified individuals will not be able to carry a concealed firearm. The eligibility standards used by the States are more similar than not. The fact that there may be small differences among the States' eligibility laws should not allow a State to prohibit the exercise of Second Amendment rights within its boundaries.

Also, Federal and State laws governing the purchase of a firearm must be complied with before a person can even apply for a concealed-carry permit. In order to purchase a firearm or take advantage of the reciprocity extended by H.R. 822, a person convicted of a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor cannot legally purchase a firearm under Federal law. A person must also be cleared through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, before they can purchase a firearm.

Data from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report show that right-to- carry States, those that widely allow concealed-carry permits, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. This amendment allows the current patchwork of concealed-carry laws to continue and ignores the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if you respect and support the full right of individuals to enjoy the rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution to bear arms, you will oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, a former sheriff himself, for yielding me time; and I appreciate his offering this amendment, which requests a study by the Government Accountability Office on the ability of State and local law enforcement agencies to verify the validity of nonresident concealed- carry permits.

The study requested by the gentleman's amendment will provide additional assurance that nonresident permit information can be verified by law enforcement officers across the country.

I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post recently published a story about alleged questionable business practices by Koch subsidiaries dating back to the 1990s. The Post received criticism for the unbalanced and incomplete story on Koch Industries.

Patrick B. Pexton, Washington Post Ombudsman, stated ``I think The Post erred in republishing this story, or at least in the way it did. And when the Kochs complained to The Post after publication, The Post's response wasn't handled well.''

In addition, the Ombudsman goes on to state, ``. . . I think the story lacked context, was tendentious and was unfair in not reporting some of the exculpatory and contextual information . . . I think newspapers should always be provocative. But they should also be fair and provide context . . . The Post could have included a sidebar summarizing and linking to the rebuttals. It could have called Koch directly--it didn't--and put its comments in the sidebar.''

I hope that the Washington Post will be more thorough and accurate in its reporting in the future.

Under clauses 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. SMITH of Texas: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1981.

A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

child pornography and child exploitation offenses; with an

amendment, (Rept. 112-281, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than

December 9, 2011.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) both for yielding me time and for introducing this resolution.

There are few things Congress could do that would be more important than passing this resolution. It reaffirms ``In God We Trust'' as the official motto of

the United States. It provides Congress with the opportunity to renew its support of a principle that was venerated by the Founders of our country and by its Presidents on a bipartisan basis.

In our Declaration of Independence, the Founders declared: ``We the Representatives of the United States of America appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World do with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.''

George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, declared, ``Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; this event is in the hand of God!'' James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, declared while he was President ``a day of thanksgiving and of acknowledgements to Almighty God.'' Madison said in his declaration that ``no people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and of the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States.''

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote, ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their own only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?''

More recently America's Presidents have reaffirmed the same principles. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``In teaching this democratic faith to American children, we need the sustaining, buttressing aid of those great ethical religious teachings which are the heritage of our modern civilization. For not upon strength nor upon power, but upon the spirit of God shall our democracy be founded.''

President Kennedy said, ``The world is very different now, and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.''

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln counseled Americans to have ``a firm reliance on God, who has never yet forsaken this favored land'' and recognized that it is God's pleasure to ``give us to see the right.'' And Ronald Reagan told the American people, ``We are a Nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free.''

Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), now it is our turn to show that we still believe and recognize these same eternal truths. We can do that by approving a resolution that will allow today's Congress, as representatives of the American people, to reaffirm to the public and the world our Nation's national motto, ``In God We Trust.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2944) to provide for the continued performance of the functions of the United States Parole Commission, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and 11:30 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, Americans say the national media are biased, untrustworthy, and too liberal, according to separate polls released recently by Gallup and the Pew Research Center. Gallup found that only 1 in 10 Americans now have a great deal of trust in the national media. A majority say the media are biased. And by a margin of more than 3-1, Americans think the media are too liberal rather than too conservative.

Pew found that 1 in 4 Americans think that news organizations, in general, get the facts straight. That's a 14 percent decrease from 4 years ago. And almost 8 in 10 Americans say news organizations favor one side over the other.

Mr. Speaker, if the media want to restore the public's trust, they should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 741 I inadvertently missed the final passage of H.R. 2401, the ``Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation'' (TRAIN Act) on Friday, September 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, liberal media bias gives Democratic candidates an extra 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election, according to a study by UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose. For example, Professor Groseclose found that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama with 56 percent of the vote.

In his new book, ``Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,'' Professor Groseclose writes, ``While the job of a journalist is to shine light on facts, they use a prism, bending the light and causing it to make a left turn. The end result is that we, the readers and viewers of the news, are more likely to see facts from the left side of the spectrum.''

As we approach another important election year, the national media should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2944) to provide for the continued performance of the functions of the United States Parole Commission, and for other purposes.

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 H.R. 2944 currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on October 31, the authorization for the United States Parole Commission will expire. H.R. 2944, the United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2011, extends the Commission's authorization for an additional 3 years.

I thank Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Bobby Scott, who is here on the floor today, for joining me in sponsoring this legislation.

The Parole Commission is an independent agency within the Department of Justice that supervises Federal offenders who are eligible for parole.

In 1984, Congress abolished Federal parole and replaced it with a determinate sentencing system. Federal offenders who were sentenced prior to November 1, 1987, were grandfathered under the parole system. The Parole Commission has been kept in place since then on a temporary basis to continue supervision of these Federal offenders.

In an effort to lower local crime rates, the District of Columbia followed the Federal example and also abolished parole. Under the new D.C. system, the D.C. Superior Court imposes a term of incarceration and supervised release.

Congress subsequently expanded the jurisdiction of the Parole Commission to include both parole and supervised release offenders from the District of Columbia. The group of offenders the Parole Commission was originally intended to supervise, Federal offenders who are eligible for parole, is a finite number of offenders that is growing smaller every year.

Today, however, the majority of the Commission's workload concerns the District of Columbia offenders. Like the population of Federal offenders eligible for parole, the parole-eligible D.C. offender population is also declining over time, although at a slower rate than Federal offenders. However, because all incoming offenders are now sentenced under the new law, the D.C. supervised release offender population is increasing.

At some point in the future, no Federal offenders will remain under the Commission's jurisdiction. At that time, Congress should assess the need to continue a Federal Parole Commission within the Justice Department.

In addition to extending the Commission authorization for 3 years, H.R. 2944 requires the Commission to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee within 180 days of enactment. The commission last provided such a report in 2006.

H.R. 2944 requests the Commission to provide a variety of information relating to each category of offenders under the Commission's jurisdiction for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. The report asks the Commission to provide the projected number of Federal offenders who will be under the Commission's jurisdiction as of October 31, 2014, the date this authorization is set to expire. The report also requests an estimate of the date on which no Federal offenders will remain under the Commission's jurisdiction.

This report will inform Congress about where the Commission's resources are being directed, and enable us to decide whether any changes to the Commission are necessary to reflect its decreasing Federal parole responsibilities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2189) to encourage States to report to the Attorney General certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

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 H.R. 2189 currently under consideration.

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

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 directed the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect data on deaths that occur at two stages of the criminal justice system: deaths that occur in the process of arrest and deaths that occur in jails and prisons. The provisions of that Act expired in 2006.

H.R. 2189 reauthorizes this data collection program. It further directs the Attorney General not only to collect the data, but also to study the data to determine how to reduce deaths in custody in the future.

The bill also extends the reporting requirements to deaths that occur in Federal custody. And it ensures that those States that make a good faith effort to report this data to the Attorney General will not lose 10 percent of their Federal justice assistance funds if their data submissions are untimely.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that between 2001 and 2006 there were over 18,000 state prisoner deaths. There were an additional 7,000 local prisoner deaths between 2000 and 2006.

More than nine out of every 10 State prisoner deaths were the result of illness or suicide, and eight out of 10 deaths at the local jail level were from those same causes. Although illness-related deaths have increased slightly in recent years, the homicide and suicide rates in the State prisons have dramatically decreased over the last 25 years.

The collection of this data will help Federal, State, and local governments examine the relationship between deaths in custody and the proper management of jail and prison facilities. It will also provide important information to Congress on any need to improve Federal custody procedures.

Because the Bureau of Justice Statistics has continued to collect the information even though the prior law has expired, this bill will not impose any new costs on the agency.

The House passed similar legislation in the 110th and the 111th Congresses with overwhelming bipartisan support. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for introducing this bill and for his interest and knowledge of the subject. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, for 2 years, 14 million Americans have been out of work. Yet illegal workers hold 7 million jobs. It is inexcusable that American workers have to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs.

Congress has the opportunity to open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all U.S. employers to use E-Verify. This program checks the Social Security numbers of new hires. E-Verify is free, quick and easy to use. Individuals eligible to work in the U.S. are confirmed 99.5 percent of the time.

The public also supports E-Verify. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 82 percent of likely voters think businesses should be required to use E-Verify to determine if a new employee is in the country legally. This is one of the most important job creation bills Congress should pass and the President should sign.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 398) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active-duty service abroad in the

Armed Forces, the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status, and for other purposes.

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 H.R. 398, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, which provides relief to military servicemembers serving overseas who marry foreign spouses.

Our Nation's military should not have to worry about red tape while they are abroad protecting our freedoms. When a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident marries a foreign spouse, that spouse becomes a conditional permanent resident. After 2 years, the couple files a petition with the Department of Homeland Security for the removal of the conditional status. If the petition is successful, the immigrant becomes a permanent resident.

The petition generally must be filed before the second anniversary of the spouse's becoming a conditional permanent resident.

Upon the filing of the petition, DHS interviews the couple to determine whether there was any marriage fraud. The interview must be conducted unless DHS waives the deadline for the interview or the requirement for the interview.

This timetable is reasonable under normal circumstances. However, what happens when the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse is serving overseas in active duty status in the Armed Forces?

It would certainly be a disruption to the military to have a member of the Armed Forces deployed overseas travel for a personal interview with DHS. Our military's focus should be on defending freedom, not bureaucracy.

While it is true that DHS can choose to delay this process in appropriate circumstances, this bill's provision should be standard policy while the spouse is serving abroad. Of course, the petition and interview would still take place when the spouse is no longer on active duty.

This bill is good for our military, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1933) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the requirements for admission of nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage areas, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1933, as amended.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this legislation on behalf of myself and Representatives Cuellar, Hinojosa, Roskam, and Rush.

A number of American hospitals have great difficulty attracting nurses. These include hospitals that serve mostly poor patients in inner-city neighborhoods and some hospitals in rural areas. For example, St. Bernard Hospital in Chicago is the only remaining hospital in an area of over 100,000 people and almost all of its patients live in poverty. St. Bernard almost closed its doors in 1992 primarily because of its inability to attract registered nurses.

Congress passed the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act in 1999 to help hospitals like St. Bernard. It created a new H-1C temporary registered nurse visa program with 500 visas available each year that allowed nurses to stay for 3 years.

To be able to petition for a foreign nurse, an employer had to meet four conditions. First, the employer had to be located in a health professional shortage area; second, the employer had to have at least 190 acute care beds; third, a certain percentage of the employer's patients had to be Medicare patients; and fourth, a certain percentage of patients had to be Medicaid patients.

The H-1C program adopted the protections for American nurses contained in the expired H-1A nursing visa program. For instance, a hospital had to agree to take timely and significant steps to recruit American nurses. Also, hospitals had to pay the prevailing wage.

The H-1C program contained new protections such as requirements that foreign nurses could not comprise more than one-third of a hospital's registered nurses. The H-1C program was extended in 2006 but expired in December of 2009, though many nurses still remain on 3-year visas issued before that date.

Sister Elizabeth Van Straten, president of St. Bernard Hospital, wrote to me last December that ``because of the sunset, in combination with the extended approval period for green cards, nurses are now forced to leave our institution, and the rate of loss continues to increase. This loss cannot be sustained. As the only hospital serving one of the most difficult sections of Chicago, and perhaps the entire country, we need the extension of the visa program to survive.''

I introduced H.R. 1933 to help St. Bernard and other, similar hospitals. The bill reauthorizes the H-1C program for another 3 years. The number of visas that may be issued in each fiscal year cannot exceed 300. An alien may be admitted for 3 years, and this stay may be extended once for an additional 3 years.

The H-1C program ensures continued care for patients in inner-city and rural communities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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