Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 237, I call up the bill (H.R. 3) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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. 3.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chief sponsor of H.R. 3, for his persistent leadership over the years on this issue.

Many Members and the American people have strong feelings about the subject of abortion, but one thing is clear: The Federal funding of abortion will lead to more abortions. For example, in 2009, there were only 220 government-financed abortions. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Federal Government would pay for as many as 675,000 abortions each year without the Hyde Amendment and other provisions that prevent the Federal funding of abortion.

The American people do not want federally funded abortions. A Zogby poll found that 77 percent of Americans feel that Federal funds should never pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the mother. That is the policy of the Hyde Amendment, which H.R. 3 would enact into law.

H.R. 3 does not ban abortion. It also does not restrict abortions or abortion coverage in health care plans as long as those abortions or plans use only private or State funds. This legislation places no additional legal restrictions on abortions. It simply protects taxpayers from having to fund or to subsidize something they morally oppose. H.R. 3 also is necessary to fix the recent health care law. Absolutely nothing in that law prevents the Federal funding of abortions under the programs it creates.

Neither Congress nor the administration should take the view that they know better than the American people what is good for them. Congress should pass H.R. 3 to codify the longstanding ban on the Federal funding of abortions.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and also chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the vice chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is also the chairman of the Republican Conference.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it represents a fundamental shift in the debate here in Washington. The question is no longer about how much to increase Federal spending as it has been these last few years. And it isn't even whether or not to cut Federal spending. Instead, the question is now by how much to cut Federal spending.

I know that in order to cut the budget, hard choices must be made. Unfortunately, this bill makes two incorrect choices.

First, H.R. 1473 rescinds $13 million from funding for the REAL ID hub. Second, the bill cuts $25 million from the exit portion of U.S.-

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, F. James Sensenbrenner, Ted Poe, Jerrold Nadler, Donna Edwards, Jose Serrano and I would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. I hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues.

Of the four House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all Private Bills are referred. Private Bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only.

Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were Private Laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 Private Laws, as compared with 434 Public Laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 Private Laws and 443 Public Laws--a better than three to one ratio.

Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935.

A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills; first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record.

This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and cold war flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 Private Laws, as compared with 594 Public Laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws.

Under rule XV, clause five, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House.

On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained. Bills un-objected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole.

On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection.

Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately.

Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors Committee, the system the House has established to deal with Private Bills.

The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any Private Bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Should any Member have a doubt or question about a particular Private Bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their staff, or from the Member who introduced the bill.

The amount of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement of March 31, 2011, the members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 112th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) legislative days, excluding the day the bill is placed on the calendar and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement.

This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended.

This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

I feel confident that I speak for my colleagues when I request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance considerations to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary.

Mr. Speaker, according to recent figures calculated by my Texas colleague John Culberson, an illegal immigrant apprehended by Border Patrol agents during the last fiscal year had an eight in ten chance of never being prosecuted.

Specifically, in Fiscal Year 2010, nearly 450,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Of this amount, only about 73,000 were prosecuted, roughly 16 percent. This means that 84 percent of illegal immigrants taken into custody were never prosecuted!

And while the Obama administration claims the border is more secure than ever, a recent Government Accountability Office report found that efforts by Border Patrol to stop illegal crossings were ``poor.'' In fact, it is estimated that there are three successful illegal crossings for every one thwarted. That means more than a million illegal immigrants enter the U.S. each year.

The border is never going to be secure until we enforce all of our immigration laws and turn off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration. Allowing millions to evade our laws is unfair and hurts American workers and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post are the winners of this week's Media Fairness Caucus ``Lap Dog Award'' for biased news coverage.

Most of the regular columns in these newspapers have a left-wing bias. Combined, they feature a total of 19 columnists who show a liberal perspective in their articles and only four who regularly offer conservative views. That's a ratio of almost five to one, liberal to conservative.

It's no surprise that the great majority of Americans say the media are too liberal rather than too conservative, according to a recent Gallup public opinion poll.

Columnists certainly are entitled to their opinions, but I hope the national media will look for opportunities to give Americans more balanced commentaries.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 394) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 394, the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers,

Courts Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, Courts Ranking Member Cohen, and former Courts Subcommittee Chairman Hank Johnson for cosponsoring the bill.

The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act brings more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statutes and facilitates the identification of the appropriate State or Federal court where actions should be brought.

Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating underlying litigation. The contents of this bill are based on recommendations developed and approved by the United States Judicial Conference to address the judiciary's concerns.

This legislation contains a number of revisions to Federal jurisdictional and venue law. Among the changes, the bill clarifies the definition of citizenship for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad; separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two statutes; and creates a general venue statute that unifies the approach to venue in diversity and Federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 394.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, ABC, CBS, and NBC are the winners of this week's Media Fairness Caucus ``Lap Dog Award'' for biased news coverage.

Undercover videos released earlier this month show employees of Planned Parenthood, a taxpayer-funded liberal group, giving advice on how to obtain abortions for underage girls and circumvent sex crime laws.

All three television networks ignored the controversy for an entire week. ABC and NBC still have not devoted any coverage to the story, according to a Lexis-Nexis search.

Can you imagine if it were discovered that a conservative group was willing to aid and abet the sexual exploitation of minors? It would be all over the news.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not ignore them.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 144 and 145, I was unfortunately detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 93, I call up the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include other materials on H.R. 514.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 extends the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act for only 90 days. I am disappointed that the Senate refused to agree to the 10-month extension approved by the House earlier this week. Repeated short-term extensions of these authorities create uncertainty for our intelligence agencies. They don't know if the tools they rely on to keep America safe today will be available to them tomorrow. That is why the House sought a 10- month extension, to allow sufficient time to reauthorize the law while providing greater certainty to the intelligence community.

With adoption of this amendment, the House and Senate will now have to move expeditiously to approve a Patriot reauthorization bill so we can avoid the need for another short-term extension. It is important that the House approves this 90-day extension today to keep the expiring intelligence-gathering provisions in place.

In a recent letter to Congress, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder said that ``it is essential that these intelligence tools be reauthorized before they expire'' and they ``have been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection operations.''

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned that ``the terrorist threat . . . is at its most heightened state since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.''

Just this week, the FBI announced that the probability that the U.S. will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction at some point is 100 percent. The head of the FBI's WMD Directorate said that the type of attack that keeps him awake at night is an attack by a so-called ``lone wolf.''

With the likelihood of a weapons of mass destruction attack at 100 percent, we cannot afford to leave our intelligence officials without the tools they need to keep America safe. The war on terror is not over, but the terrorist threat is constantly evolving. We must fully arm our intelligence community with the resources they need to prevent another devastating and deadly terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, since its enactment in 2001, the Patriot Act has been the object of so many false allegations and exaggerations that the myths have overshadowed the truth. It is time to dispel the myths once and for all.

Let's begin with the myth that national security officials do not need these provisions to protect us from terrorist attacks. This is demonstrably untrue. Numerous terrorist attempts in the last 10 years have been thwarted thanks to the intelligence gathering tools provided in the Patriot Act and other national security laws, and if Congress fails to extend these provisions set to expire on February 28, it will be on our shoulders if the intelligence needed to stop the next attack is not collected.

Opponents claim that these expiring provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This, too, is false. Each of the provisions at issue amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or

FISA. Enacted in 1978, FISA sets forth specific intelligence gathering procedures that do comply with constitutional protections and have been consistently upheld by the courts.

Let's also dispel the myth that these provisions grant broad- sweeping, unchecked authority for the government to collect information on innocent Americans. Again, this is absolutely untrue. These types of provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for years to apprehend typical criminals. Roving wiretaps are nothing new. Domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving authority for criminal investigations since 1986.

Section 215, business records, have more strict requirements than the grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. It makes no sense to let law enforcement officials use a tool to investigate a drug dealer, but then deny that same authority to intelligence officials investigating terrorists.

And contrary to claims by critics, there is oversight of these provisions. Both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business record requests, must be approved by a FISA judge. Both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, also are subject to rigorous minimization procedures. These procedures, also approved by a FISA judge, assure that only information that pertains to the investigation is actually collected. Finally, both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, prohibit the government from gathering intelligence on a U.S. citizen or legal resident who is exercising his First Amendment rights.

The third provision set to expire is the so-called lone wolf definition. As originally enacted, FISA authorized intelligence gathering only on foreign governments, terrorist groups or their agents. FISA did not allow the government to collect intelligence against individual terrorists. The lone wolf provision amended the definition of ``agent of a foreign power'' to close this gap.

An increasing number of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. are being carried out by self-radicalized jihadists who adopt an agenda as equally hateful and destructive as any terrorist group. The lone wolf definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence officials to respond to the modern- day terrorist threat. The lone wolf authority cannot be used against a U.S. citizen.

This temporary extension ensures that there are no gaps in our intelligence collection. Without an extension of these authorities, we will forfeit our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. A temporary extension of these provisions is the only way to provide House Members the time to study the law, hold hearings, consider amendments and conduct markups. We need to approve this temporary extension today, or we will make it harder to prevent terrorist attacks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend from Michigan and say, I believe I could find the time if he could find a way to give us a copy of the motion to recommit at this time.

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of a good-faith effort to consider that proposal by the gentleman from Michigan, I yield the gentleman 2 minutes of my time for his control.

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

Mr. Speaker, we must act now to keep these national security laws in place. Time is running out. We have only a few days left to do what we need to do to keep America safe. These are commonsense provisions that prevent terrorist attacks, protect the American people, and preserve civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense extension.

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

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

Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, and 2 years into the current administration, Washington policies have not rescued our economy from crisis. In fact, they have entrenched the crisis. American workers and American companies pay the price as Washington regulations stifle job creation and slow economic recovery.

The Judiciary Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over sweeping economic regulations, but it does have jurisdiction over something that sweeps with just as much force. That is the administrative law that governs how agencies must respond to Congress and what agencies must consider before they regulate at all.

The REINS Act enables us to reassert Congress' authority over the most burdensome regulations that our agencies churn out. These are major regulations--those that impose a burden of $100 million or more on our economy.

The REINS Act requires Congress, not an unelected agency head, to decide whether regulations with massive costs become the law of the land. The Judiciary Committee has already begun hearings on the REINS Act and intends to move quickly to mark up this legislation.

Small businesses are the heart of job creation. Rather than bend to small business' needs, Washington too often rigidly demands that small businesses bend to Washington.

Overbearing one-size-fits-all Federal regulations have long been the order of the day. Small businesses cannot bear their weight. Since small businesses are the engine of job creation, it is clear what suffers--that is, jobs.

This week, I introduced the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 to force Federal agencies to accommodate the needs of small businesses. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill, and it intends to mark up that bill soon.

Let's reform the Administrative Procedure Act, the fundamental charter for all agency rulemaking. While it is not time to retire the APA, it is past time to strengthen it with commonsense reforms. We should make permanent cost benefit analysis requirements that Presidents have developed through Executive orders. Practice has proved that cost benefit analysis improves regulatory effectiveness and lowers regulatory cost. But an Executive order, no matter how wise, can be revoked by the next resident of the White House.

Other vital reforms also must take place. Agencies' favorite and almost universal course under the APA is informal notice-and-comment rulemaking. This procedure is certainly convenient and it does have its place, but under its shelter, it has long been too easy for Big Government to impose hard-hitting rules without sufficiently vetting them. This should change. We should consider tougher requirements that agencies must demonstrate a need for regulations.

Congress and the courts provide daily proof that evidence tested with witnesses at hearings produces the best judgments. Why shouldn't agencies use formal rulemaking hearings to evaluate the need for major regulations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars?

We also should make sure the public has earlier opportunities to comment on potential agency action. Public input should come well before agency positions harden into settled, but often underinformed, judgments. Under traditional one-time notice-and-comment procedures, agency decisions are too often made before public comment even happens.

President Obama has embraced a number of these principles with both spoken and written words. So I hope we will have bipartisan support for our efforts to pass meaningful legislation that will help create jobs.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who is chairman of the Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle and to those who are watching this debate that both Supreme Court Justice Breyer and well-known and well-regarded Professor Larry Tribe have written supporting the constitutional basis of the REINS Act. It is clearly constitutional. It is clearly going to create jobs. By the way, that's as opposed to the new health care bill, which the CBO said yesterday was actually going to cost 800,000 jobs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding.

The source of the information that I have used and that Judge Poe has used in saying that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is from a report released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office, saying that the health care bill would cost 800,000 jobs.

The CBO, as we all know, is an independent, credible, outside agency upon whom we rely for information on a regular basis. For them to come out and say that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is, quite frankly, believable and the reason, I think, we can cite them as a credible source.

I can't explain the disconnect because I don't think there is a disconnect.

We can certainly supply you with the testimony that was offered by the CBO yesterday in which they said it would cost 800,000 jobs. We'll look for a copy of that testimony, or the other Judiciary staff members might be able to supply us with a copy of that as well.

I don't think there is a disconnect. I believe the CBO. I do believe that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my Texas colleague who just spoke that I know and appreciate how strongly she feels about saving jobs in Houston, creating jobs in Houston, as I do, too, but we heard yesterday from the CBO that this new health care bill is going to cost America 800,000 jobs. And it just so happens if you prorate that out, that would mean that the new health care bill will cost Houston, Texas, around 600 jobs, and of course, it

will cost other communities around the country jobs as well. So the best way to try to save jobs in Houston, the best way to try to prevent jobs from being lost in Houston, would be to vote to repeal the health care bill.

Now, the gentlewoman from Texas also raised the subject of immigration. I wasn't aware that that was connected to this bill, but I'm also happy to reply to her comments about that subject as well. Today in America, there are roughly 7 million people who are working illegally in this country. They are taking jobs that should go to the 26 million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed. So, once again, if we want to create jobs for Americans in this country, one way to do so would be to make sure that only legal workers are employed in this country, and we have ways to accomplish that end.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), who is the vice chairman of the Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes of the time that I have remaining to the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I just want to point out that the figure we have been using that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is not necessarily an old figure. Or maybe I should concede it's a day old, because that figure came from yesterday's testimony by the Budget Director in front of the Budget Committee. I said Budget Director. Let me read the statement:

``Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that ObamaCare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000 people.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here are excerpts from the exchange. In response to a couple of questions by Members of Congress, the last question was from Representative John Campbell of California, the Director of the CBO said in response to a question, ``Is it going to cost 800,000 jobs?'' his one-word answer was ``yes.''

So those are fresh figures, they are accurate figures, and I think we need to be very acutely aware of just how many jobs the new health care plan is going to cost.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the American people and American employers know what Washington has not learned: too many regulations impose too many costs and cost too many jobs. The Judiciary Committee is working hard on the reforms we need to tame Washington and unleash American businesses to create jobs. We should pass the REINS Act, pass the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, reform the Administrative Procedure Act and the practice of too many regulations with too many costs for too few benefits.

Madam Speaker, I think this debate really comes down to a very simple question. There are those who favor a government of regulations and there are those of us who feel that Congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations. Any Member of Congress who feels that Congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations, I believe, will support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.

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. 514 currently under consideration.

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

Next September 11 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. in history. America is fortunate not to have suffered another attack of such magnitude in the past decade, but we must not take this relative security for granted or let our safety become complacency.

America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their

goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats.

On February 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct ``roving'' wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. These types of provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for years to apprehend typical criminals. It is common sense to give our national security investigators the same tools to fight terrorists that our police officers have to combat crime.

The ongoing threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist groups continues. In the last few years, terrorists have attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit; to bomb New York's subway system; to destroy skyscrapers in Dallas, Texas, and Springfield, Illinois; and to detonate a car bomb in New York City's Times Square. Most of these plots were thwarted thanks to the Patriot Act and other national security laws.

The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions expire would leave every American less safe. We must continue these intelligence-gathering measures to win our fight against terrorists. And President Obama agrees.

In a letter to Congress last month, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder urged us to reauthorize the expiring provisions, noting that they are critical tools that ``have been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection operations.''

This bill reauthorizes the expiring provisions through December 8, 2011, the last day that the House of Representatives is scheduled to be in session. This extension serves two important functions. First, it ensures that these intelligence-gathering tools will remain available to national security investigators. And second, it provides Congress with the opportunity to engage in a thorough review of these provisions as we pursue and consider a longer reauthorization.

I urge my colleagues to support our ability to continue to protect Americans against terrorist plots and attacks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is currently the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and who previously, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee itself, was responsible for writing the Patriot Act provisions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been some criticism today that section 215, business records authority, gives national security agencies too much access to confidential records, but section 215 has more strict requirements than grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, which is not issued by a judge, a 215 order can only be used by a FISA court judge. Section 215 only grants terrorism investigators the power to get records held by third parties, such as a hotel or car rental records.

Also there has been criticism that section 215 violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, a request for business records held by a third party is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. The target of an investigation does not own the records and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy in them. Section 215 cannot be used to acquire records of U.S. persons based solely on First Amendment protected activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, extending the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act will ensure that America's law enforcement officials and intelligence agents are equipped to identify terrorist threats and prevent terrorist acts. The Patriot Act is an effective tool in the war on terror. As terrorists show no signs of ending their plots, neither should our laws that stop them be allowed to sunset. This temporary extension will facilitate further review and reauthorization of these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, this extension is supported by the Obama administration. I urge my colleagues to support this extension as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary. They were adopted by the Committee on January 19, 2011.

Members of Committee

one hundred twelfth congress

Lamar Smith, Texas, Chairman

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin

Howard Coble, North Carolina

Elton Gallegly, California

Bob Goodlatte, Virginia

Daniel E. Lungren, California

Steve Chabot, Ohio

Darrell Issa, California

Mike Pence, Indiana

J. Randy Forbes, Virginia

Steve King, Iowa

Trent Franks, Arizona

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Jim Jordan, Ohio

Ted Poe, Texas

Jason Chaffetz, Utah

Tom Reed, New York

Tim Griffin, Arkansas

Tom Marino, Pennsylvania

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina

Dennis Ross, Florida

Sandy Adams, Florida

Ben Quayle, Arizona

John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member

Howard L. Berman, California

Jerrold Nadler, New York

Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia

Melvin L. Watt, North Carolina

Zoe Lofgren, California

Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas

Maxine Waters, California

Steve Cohen, Tennessee

Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia

Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico

Mike Quigley, Illinois

Judy Chu, California

Ted Deutch, Florida

Linda T. Sanchez, California

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida

Rules of Procedure

Rule I.

The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of

the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittees with the

following specific additions thereto.

Rule II. Committee Meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the

Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on

Wednesday of each week while the House is in session.

(b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a

regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when,

in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor.

(c) At least 3 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal

holidays when the House is not in session) before each

scheduled Committee or Subcommittee meeting, each Member of

the Committee or Subcommittee shall be furnished a list of

the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon

at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject

to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to

by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or Subcommittee.

(d) In an emergency that does not reasonably allow for 3

days' notice, the Chairman may waive the 3-day notice

requirement with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority

Member.

(e) At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of a

meeting for the markup of legislation, the text of such

legislation shall be made publicly available in electronic

form.

(f) To the maximum extent practicable, amendments to a

measure or matter shall be submitted in writing or

electronically to the designee of both the Chairman and

Ranking Member at least 24 hours prior to the consideration

of the measure or matter. The Chairman may use his discretion

to give priority to amendments submitted in advance.

(g) Committee and Subcommittee meetings for the transaction

of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the

purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public

except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by

majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of

matters to be considered would endanger national security,

would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or

would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or

otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House.

(h) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by

the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any

Member, and a copy made available to each Member present.

(i) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the

full Committee or any Subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be

constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the

Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full

majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee

shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure

or recommendation from the Committee or Subcommittee, closing

a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a

subpoena.

(j)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairman may

postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on

the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting

an amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a

postponed request at any time.

(2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph

(1), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary

to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any

postponed record vote.

(3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question,

notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to

further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the

question was postponed.

(k) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be

published in the same manner as hearings before the

Committee.

(1) Without further action of the Committee, the Chairman

is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of

the Rules of the House of Representatives whenever the

Chairman considers it appropriate.

Rule III. Hearings

(a) The Committee Chairman or any Subcommittee Chairman

shall make public announcement of the date, place, and

subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any

measure or matter at least one week before the commencement

of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or

Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the Ranking

Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin

the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or Subcommittee so

determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for

the transaction of business, the Chairman or Subcommittee

Chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest

possible date.

(b) Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to

the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee

determines by majority vote to close the meeting because

disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger

national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate

any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the

House.

(c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence

before the Committee or any Subcommittee, a quorum shall be

constituted by the presence of two Members.

(d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be

allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until

such time as each Member who so desires has had an

opportunity to question the witness.

(e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the

Committee which are decided to be printed shall be published

in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record

inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the

record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of

Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a

Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify

the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication.

Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct

any errors other than errors in the transcription, or

disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the

record, and the appropriate place where the change is

requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the

Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another

congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall

be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the

publication of the verbatim transcript.

Rule IV. Broadcasting

Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or

any Subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings

shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still

photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed

pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure.

Rule V. Standing Subcommittees

(a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over such

matters as determined by the Chairman.

(b) There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the

Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows:

The Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative

Law shall have jurisdiction over the following subject

matters: Administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of

Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics,

bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships,

administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation

affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other

appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant

oversight.

The Subcommittee on the Constitution shall have

jurisdiction over the following subject matters:

constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, Federal

civil rights, ethics in government, tort liability, including

medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform

generally, other appropriate matters as referred by the

Chairman, and relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and

the Internet shall have jurisdiction over the following

subject matters: copyright, patent, trademark law,

information technology, antitrust matters, other appropriate

matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters:

Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole

and pardons, internal and homeland security, Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, prisons, criminal law enforcement, and

other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and

relevant oversight.

The Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement

shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters:

immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of

refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements,

claims against the United States, Federal charters of

incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, non-

border enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by

the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

(c) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority

Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting

Members, of each Subcommittee to which such Chairman or

Ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution

of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as

present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing

or meeting of such Subcommittee.

Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees

Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all

matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction.

Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and

meetings of their respective Subcommittees after consultation

with the Chairman and other Subcommittee chairmen with a view

toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and

Subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible.

Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports

No report of the Committee or Subcommittee which does not

accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House

shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or

Subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of

such report and given the opportunity to give notice of

intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting

views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in

which to file such views be less than three calendar days

(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the

House is not in session).

Rule VIII. Committee Records

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall

notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision to

withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall

be presented to the Committee for a determination on the

written request of any Member of the Committee.

Rule IX. Official Committee Website

(a) The Chairman shall maintain an official website on

behalf of the Committee for the purpose of furthering the

Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities,

including communicating information about the Committee's

activities to Committee Members and other Members of the

House.

(b) The Chairman shall make the record of the votes on any

question on which a record vote is demanded in the full

Committee available on the Committee's official website not

later than 48 hours after such vote is taken. Such record

shall identify or describe the amendment, motion, order, or

other proposition, the name of each Member voting for and

each Member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or

proposition, and the names of the Members voting present.

(c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any

amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee

or its Subcommittees, the Chairman shall make the text of

each such amendment publicly available in electronic form.

(d) Not later than 3 days after the conclusion of a

Committee meeting, the transcript of such meeting and the

text of all amendments offered shall be made available on the

Committee website.

(e) The Ranking Member is authorized to maintain a similar

official website on behalf of the Committee Minority for the

same purpose, including communicating information about the

activities of the Minority to Committee Members and other

Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation that repeals the Democrats' job-stifling, cost-increasing, freedom-limiting health care law.

This bill would repeal a requirement that every individual buy a certain kind of health insurance. The Congressional Research Service confirms that the Federal Government has never forced all Americans to buy any good or service--until now.

This mandate violates Congress' powers under the commerce clause if our Constitution of limited Federal powers means anything. It's a major reason to repeal the health care bill.

One particularly costly part of our health care system is the practice of so-called defensive medicine, which occurs when doctors must conduct tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required because of the threat of lawsuits. Taxpayers pay for this wasteful defensive medicine, which adds to health care costs.

The Democrats' health care law goes exactly the wrong direction. Incredibly, it contains a provision that prohibits any new limits on litigation from being enforced because it allows lawyers to opt out of any system that limits their ability to sue. This is contrary to the best interests of all Americans--except trial lawyers. The health care bill can only be read as an invitation to trial lawyers to sue medical personnel. That's another reason to repeal this health care bill.

The Democrats' health care law will produce more litigation and more costly health care. Those are two good reasons we should repeal it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and also a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is a senior member of Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who is also the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who is actually a member of three subcommittees of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is also chairman of the Intellectual Property, Competition, and Internet Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), former mayor of Corning and a new member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I only have one more speaker on this side and I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care bill squanders health care resources and taxpayer money by encouraging wasteful defensive medicine. It explicitly prevents States from making any effective legal reforms under its provisions, and expands opportunities for lawyers to sue doctors who did absolutely nothing wrong. And it limits the supply of doctors when patients need them most.

In fact, one particularly costly part of our health care system is the practice of so-called ``defensive medicine,'' which occurs when doctors are forced by the threat of lawsuits to conduct tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required. A survey released last year found defensive medicine is practiced by virtually all physicians.

Lawsuit abuse does more than make medical care much more expensive. It drives doctors out of business. Doctors who specialize in inherently high-risk fields are leaving their practices and hospitals are shutting down because their high exposure to liability makes lawsuit insurance unaffordable.

It can have deadly consequences. Hundreds and even thousands of patients may die annually for lack of doctors.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care law will produce more litigation and less effective health care. That is why it should be repealed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today we honor Congresswoman Giffords. The House stands together in support of her and in condemnation of a senseless attack that severely injured her and claimed six lives.

I have served with Representative Giffords on the Science Committee, and am grateful for this opportunity to speak about her character and professionalism.

Representative Giffords is a warm, friendly individual who is genuinely interested in others, and who always maintains an upbeat attitude.

She works hard to improve the lives of her constituents, and is engaged and energized about issues of concern to them. She also goes out of her way to be accessible, which is exactly what she was doing when this tragedy occurred.

The reprehensible attack that took place has united us as Members of Congress and reminded us that while the act of a lone gunman cannot always be prevented, we must make sure that justice prevails and that our democratic ideals remain secure.

We hope and pray for Representative Giffords' full recovery.