Floor Statements

I thank the ranking member for generously yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, here are a half dozen of many reasons to oppose this legislation. We should wait and gauge the impact of the $350 billion in TARP funds already approved before spending even more. Spending another $825 billion--$6,000 for every taxpayer in America--will inevitably hike inflation and increase taxes, further damaging the economy.

Much of the money will be used to bail out States that have overspent their budget. This rewards bad behavior. What happened to the ``era of responsibility?''

This is not free money. It's a nonsecure loan extracted from the American people. Let them keep the dollars and decide how to spend them. It would be far better to provide tax incentives and investment credits to the small businesses that create 70 percent of all new jobs in America. This massive monstrosity of spending is the wrong kind of change. It will only make the economic crisis wider, deeper, and longer.

Madam Speaker, yesterday we witnessed the hallmark of democracy of the peaceful transfer of power. And, like President Obama, we all wish our country a prosperous future.

Although the national media strongly criticized President Bush for the cost of his inauguration in 2005, such criticism has been predictably scarce for President Obama, even though his inauguration was more than twice as expensive as President Bush's. For example, a New York Times editorial in 2005 suggested that the war in Iraq should dictate restraint for President Bush's inauguration.

We now face two wars and serious economic challenges, yet the Times offered no similar criticism of yesterday's event. Expensive inaugurations are nothing new, and I am sure many who faced traffic congestion and long lines yesterday wished even more had been spent on this year's celebration.

But we need the media to be evenhanded in its treatment of Republican and Democratic inaugurations, not guilty of a double standard.

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

Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that it's good to be on the House floor with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to talk about the subject at hand. This bill commemorates the 80th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leader of a historic nonviolent revolution in the United States. Over the course of his life, he fought for equal justice and led the Nation toward racial harmony.

While advancing this great movement, Dr. King's home was bombed and he was subjected to relentless personal and physical abuse. Despite this violence, Dr. King responded in peace and with strong conviction and sound reason.

As a pastor, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement could have survived without the power of religious inspiration behind it.

From 1957 to 1968, Dr. King traveled over 6 million miles and spoke over 2,500 times about justice and equal freedom under the law. During that time, he led large protests in Birmingham, Alabama, that drew the attention of the world.

On August 28, 1963, Dr. King led a peaceful march of 250,000 through the streets of Washington, D.C. And it is here in this city where he delivered a speech that spoke for all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin. In his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King called the march the ``greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our Nation.''

``I have a dream,'' he said, ``that my four little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.'' Dr. King opened the door of opportunity for millions of Americans. He lived for the causes of justice and equality.

On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his hotel room in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. King was assassinated. But a single vicious act could not extinguish Dr. King's legacy, which endures to this day. Because of him, America is a better, freer Nation.

I urge all my colleagues to join us in celebrating and honoring the life of Dr. King on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of his birth.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this bill came up a little earlier than we expected and we are waiting for additional speakers to arrive on the floor, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Vern Ehlers.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his heartfelt comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, after an election, it's useful to take a brief look back before moving forward. According to the Nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, during the Presidential campaign, media coverage of Senator McCain was three times more negative than the coverage of Senator Obama. President-elect Obama won by about 7 percent. That means, if the media's one-sided coverage changed the minds of just 4 voters out of 100, the media, because of their bias, determined the outcome of the election.

Now that the election is over, will President-elect Obama get a free ride from his media allies?

One cable news host already is on record as saying it's his job as a journalist to ensure that this presidency is successful. The media can provide a valuable service, but we need to hold them accountable and need to insist on objective reporting.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons. In my role as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee I want to point out a few immigration provisions that undermine personal responsibility and burden American taxpayers.

In the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, required that legal immigrants wait 5 years after coming to the United States before receiving welfare benefits.

It's only fair that American taxpayers not foot the medical bills of foreign nationals who arrive with a sponsor's pledge not to become a ``public charge.''

H.R. 2, changes current law and allows immigrants to get medical benefits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

Immigrants, both legal and illegal, already have a federally mandated right to emergency medical care. That mandate has helped bankrupt hospitals all over the United States.

Federal law requires that the American sponsor of new immigrants sign an affidavit of support stating that they will be responsible for any public costs incurred by the immigrant. Unfortunately, those affidavits have never been enforced and immigrant sponsors know they will not be held accountable if the immigrants receive welfare and become public charges.

The 5-year waiting period for immigrants to receive government benefits is the last line of defense for the U.S. taxpayer. It should not be repealed or altered in any way

Prior to laws enacted in 1996, the cost of welfare for immigrants had jumped to $8 billion a year. The number of noncitizens on Supplemental Security Income increased more than 600 percent between 1982 and 1995. Both of those numbers will be much higher if H.R. 2 is enacted.

At a time when government spending is out of control, and when States, cities and American citizens are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we need is to change good policy and further burden U.S. taxpayers.

This legislation should be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 15, which I cosponsored with Chairman Conyers. This resolution provides continued authorization for an inquiry into whether U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous should be impeached.

The Constitution reserves the exclusive power of impeachment to the House of Representatives and the exclusive power to try all impeachments in the Senate. Any ``civil officer'' of the United States, including Federal judges, shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted of ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.''

Only 13 Federal judges have been impeached during the past 219 years of our constitutional history. The House has exercised this prerogative sparingly in deference to judicial independence, one of the cornerstones of our republic.

Chairman Conyers and I concluded last year that there is sufficient reason to initiate an impeachment inquiry regarding Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994.

The basis for this resolution was largely developed by a Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit. The findings of the Fifth Circuit were endorsed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, which notified the House of Representatives on June 18, 2008, of its determination that impeachment proceedings may be warranted.

The materials submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the Judicial Conference are expansive and thorough. This led us to begin an impeachment inquiry last Congress pursuant to H. Res. 1448. However, our work is not yet complete. The resolution before us today is nearly identical to H. Res. 1448 and allows us to continue our investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats have proposed changing House rules on motions to recommit. These changes are not about some arcane rule. They are about a pattern of behavior on the part of the Democrats that stifles democracy.

This abuse of power has become a habit with the Democrats. The Democrats brought legislation to the floor under closed rules 64 times in the last 2 years. This means there was no opportunity to offer amendments; 61 bills were brought to the floor with less than 24 hours to review the bill text. This breaks the Democrats' commitment to allow legislation to be reviewed for 24 hours before a vote.

House Democrats are discarding one of the Republican minority's only tools to help improve bills and promote better legislation, the motion to recommit bills promptly. This type of motion to recommit allows a majority of the House to say that a bill should be sent back to committee for more work.

For example, last year Republicans used this tool to guarantee second amendment rights for the people of the District of Columbia. A majority of Members supported this motion and voted to send the bill back to committee.

Why would the Democrats in the future want to ignore the views of a majority of House Members?

Mr. Speaker, changing House rules in a way that silences the voice of the people's elected representatives strangles democracy. Democrats should reconsider these undemocratic changes to House rules.

Madam Speaker, much of our economic crisis today is rooted in misguided policies of the past. Permitting home mortgages with nothing down was a disaster waiting to happen when home prices fell. Unfortunately, all the bad mortgages and the resulting credit crisis have dragged down our economy and threatened the financial well- being of all Americans.

If companies big and small cannot access funds they need to operate and pay employees, this will adversely impact the entire economy and punish hard-working Americans. If

credit to buy homes, cars and other purchases dries up, home prices will fall even further and loans will become even harder to get.

Many people felt the original proposal was unfair. It would have been far more unfair to do nothing and allow a recession to occur, which would hurt everyone. Changes were made to the plan to address those concerns. Measures were successfully included to ensure Wall Street pays its share and taxpayers are protected.

We were facing the economic equivalent of a cattle stampede. To stop a stampede, you have to act quickly and decisively and get ahead of the herd to turn it. This plan, while not perfect, does that.

This is not about bailing out Wall Street. It's about protecting American jobs, the financial security of families, and the economy of our Nation.

Since half of all households own stocks either directly or indirectly through 401(k) accounts, IRAs, and pension plans, we had to find a solution to this crisis.

The money in the compromise plan will be used to purchase the mortgage-related assets at the center of the problem. When the financial markets stabilize, many of those assets will regain their value and will be sold by the Federal Government to recover a substantial portion of the cost for taxpayers.

This plan will stabilize the economy, strengthen home values, and prevent a devastating recession. It's an investment in the future of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is a financial crisis or Presidential debate, the media just can't seem to help themselves. They always show a bias against Republicans. That is no surprise, since they make contributions to Senator Obama over Senator McCain by a 20-1 ratio.

The greatest threat our country faces is not an economic recession; it is a partisan bias. The media should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think. Otherwise, we will lose our democracy, which is a greater danger than the economy.

The media is hurting its credibility for the future. They should instead adhere to the highest standards of journalism and report the news fairly and objectively.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the 100th anniversary of The Christian Science Monitor newspaper on November 25, 2008.

Thanks go to Congressman Mike Capuano (MA), who agreed to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan resolution and whose district includes the Boston headquarters of The Christian Science Monitor. Rep. Capuano's public service is appreciated by all those who know him.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Tom Davis (VA) of the Government Reform Committee, who was an active supporter of this resolution. His energy and knowledge will be missed, since he is retiring at the end of this session.

Congressman Henry Waxman (CA), Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, offered his essential endorsement of this resolution. Without his assistance, this resolution wouldn't be on the floor today.

I happen to have a personal interest in commemorating the 100th anniversary of The Christian Science Monitor because I worked at the paper in Boston for two years shortly after graduating from college.

Starting out as a copyboy, I then became a clerk and eventually a staff writer for the Business and Financial page.

So I was able to witness the high standards of journalistic integrity maintained at The Christian Science Monitor, which has rightfully gained a reputation for fair and objective news reporting. The Monitor has earned that reputation because of its dedicated and committed editors, reporters and staff.

This resolution highlights some of the ways in which The Monitor serves as an exceptional newspaper.

Established by Mary Baker Eddy 100 years ago, The Monitor remains the oldest surviving paper in the U.S. founded by a woman.

Its mission was and continues to be ``to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.''

And the Monitor has won worldwide respect for its international news coverage and been awarded seven Pulitzer Prizes for excellence in journalism.

I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the 100th anniversary of The Christian Science Monitor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and now the ranking member of that subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a former chairman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee and now the ranking member of that subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose of S. 3325, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, or PRO-IP Act, is to improve the government's response to the threats posed by counterfeiting and piracy.

At the outset, I want to recognize Chairman Conyers, IP Subcommittee Chairman Berman, and IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Coble, each of whom helped to advance the House version of this legislation, H.R. 4279, which passed the House in May by an overwhelming vote of 410-11.

I also want to say at this point that I happen to agree with the concerns expressed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). And while I agree with their concerns, particularly their objection to the provision that was changed by the other body, I am still going to support this legislation as it stands and hope to make a change in the future that will address their concerns.

Over the past 25 years, perhaps no group of industries has been more responsible for the sustained growth in our economy than those who rely on strong patent, trademark and copyright protections. Today, our technology, entertainment, and productivity-based enterprises stand as pillars of our economic and export strength. They employ 18 million Americans and account for 40 percent of our economic growth.

The successes of our IP rights-holders--family-owned small businesses and Fortune 500 companies alike--make them prime targets for international pirates and counterfeiters. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, this criminal activity costs U.S. citizens up to $250 billion every year, and has contributed to the loss of up to 750,000 jobs.

The PRO-IP Act is a measure that is designed to respond to these challenges. The bill contains provisions that; one, strengthen our laws against counterfeiting and piracy; two, provide new resources to key agencies involved in the enforcement of IP rights; and three, require a new and unprecedented level of coordination and leadership on IP enforcement issues from the White House.

Mr. Speaker, while our government agencies are doing more today to protect IP than ever before, the reality is that we must do even more if we are to increase the cost of doing business for counterfeiters and traffickers, some of whom are connected to organized crime.

With competing priorities and limited resources, our government agencies must work in a cooperative and coordinated fashion to leverage our IP enforcement efforts. By statutorily elevating these issues to the White House level and requiring the continuous and systematic development of an unprecedented national strategy to target IP theft, the PRO-IP Act represents an important first step towards ensuring our government agencies work efficiently and in concert to develop a joint response to this pervasive threat.

Congress has a duty to ensure that IP enforcement is made a permanent priority of every administration. This

measure, while not containing all of the provisions that were in the House measure, is a first step towards achieving our goals.

By supporting S. 3325, the House will send a clear message to the White House and future administrations that there is a bipartisan and bicameral commitment to the protection of our vital national and economic interests. So I urge my colleagues to support S. 3325.

Mr. Speaker, child predators will stop at nothing to prey on innocent children. The Internet affords them not only a virtual world within which to lure children into meeting them but also significantly hampers the ability of law enforcement to identify and apprehend them.

The Internet is constantly evolving. A decade ago, email was the revolution that connected people in the workplace, on college campuses, and across the country. Today, chat rooms and social networking sites boast users in the millions from around the world and attract young children who may not be aware of the risks involved with sharing personal information online.

We were all shocked to learn last year that over 20,000 registered sex offenders were on commercial social networking sites. In response to media attention, these sites removed the sex offenders and continue to actively monitor their sites.

S. 431, the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act or KIDS Act of 2007, will help these sites and other Internet providers, as well as law enforcement officials, to identify sex offenders lurking on the Internet. The bill contains an important provision requiring sex offenders to update their registration information to include their electronic mail addresses, instant messaging addresses and other similar Internet identifiers.

The KIDS Act also provides a mechanism to allow social networking sites to check sex offender registries to prevent sex offenders from accessing the site.

The House passed similar legislation, H.R. 719, last year. However, many of these important provisions had been stripped from the bill before it was brought to the floor. I am pleased that S. 431 reinstates many of these provisions, most importantly, the requirement that sex offenders report their email addresses and other Internet identifiers.

S. 431 also incorporates a provision originally introduced by my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Randy Forbes, in H.R. 4094. This provision amends the Adam Walsh Act to revise the minimum standards for electronic monitoring of sex offenders. This important correction will improve the use of these monitoring devices under the Adam Walsh Act pilot program.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, credit goes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, for introducing this bill in the House and for advancing this piece of legislation to the point where we are considering it today.

Child pornography is a reprehensible, yet profitable, global criminal enterprise. And it is growing rapidly in technical sophistication in response to efforts to detect and disrupt these criminal operations. It is a despicable and vicious victimization of children.

The Internet is a virtual playground for sexual predators who satiate their desire for child pornography with relative anonymity. Law enforcement officials have identified nearly 500,000 individuals trafficking in child pornography over the Internet. However, due to the lack of resources at the Federal, State and local levels, law enforcement officials are able to investigate only about 2 percent of these child pornographers.

S. 1738, the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, will assist law enforcement officials with apprehending these dangerous predators. This legislation combines two House bills, H.R. 3845, the PROTECT Our Children Act and H.R. 3791, the SAFE Act, both of which passed the House last year with overwhelming support.

This legislation establishes a national strategy for child exploitation prevention and interdiction and provides additional funding for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. These multi-jurisdictional task forces are on the front-lines of combating Internet child pornography. State and local agencies will now be given much-needed resources to combat this growing problem.

S. 1738 also provides critical funding to expand computer forensic capabilities for child exploitation cases at the Regional Computer Forensic Labs across the country.

Finally, title V of S. 1738, which incorporates the provisions of the SAFE Act, will strengthen the requirements on Internet service providers to report violations of child pornography laws. It also enhances the ability of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to collect and report suspected instances of child pornography to law enforcement agencies across America and around the world.

The Internet has become a magnet for child exploitation and child pornography. This legislation will help deter it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on this bill, and I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee as well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), as well as my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), for championing this issue.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas again for his efforts on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, dangerous drug traffickers are surreptitiously moving tons of cocaine across our oceans and into America. Cocaine traffickers operate with stealth and are virtually undetectable thanks to their use of self-propelled submersible and semi- submersible vessels or SPSS.

These submarine-like vessels have unusual construction. They are typically less than 100 feet long with most of their bulk under water. They can carry up to five crew and as much as 12 metric tons of cocaine from the north coast of South America to the southeastern United States without refueling.

The U.S. Coast Guard has successfully apprehended two SPSS vessels in just the last few weeks. One carried seven tons of cocaine with a street value of $187 million. The second vessel seized was carrying 295 bales of cocaine.

However, under current law, it is not illegal to operate one of these vessels. Therefore, in order to successfully prosecute these criminals, the Coast Guard must obtain evidence of drug trafficking or other illicit conduct--a dangerous proposition on the high seas.

Coast Guard teams must physically board the SPSS, often in the dead of night, while it is travelling at up to ten knots. The teams must then risk their lives to apprehend the traffickers and seize the drugs aboard the SPSS.

And the drug traffickers know the law. They know that the Coast Guard must obtain evidence of drugs so they will often scuttle the

vessel and jump overboard--turning a criminal apprehension into a rescue mission.

This legislation removes this dangerous hurdle. By prohibiting the possession of SPSS vessels without nationality, we protect the safety of these Coast Guard teams while ensuring swift prosecution of the cocaine traffickers.

I wish to commend my colleagues, Mr. Lungren and Mr. Poe, for championing this important issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very similar to the legislation we passed in the House a week ago, H.R. 6855.

The bill addresses an issue affecting the safety of the Justices and other officials who work at the United States Supreme Court.

First, the legislation extends the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect Court officials off the Supreme Court grounds through 2013. The current authorization expires on December 29, 2008.

This provision is necessary and noncontroversial. Congress created the original authority in 1982 and has renewed it regularly. The last authorization was 4 years ago.

Failure to extend the authority places the Justices and other Supreme Court employees and officers at risk. In light of heightened security threats, it is vital that the Supreme Court Police be empowered to carry out this service without interruption. In fact, Justice Souter was attacked off grounds while jogging in May 2004, the same year we last extended the authority.

As with previous authorizations, it is contemplated that the authority extends to the immediate area in the District and surrounding environs. The Marshall Service would provide protection to the Justices when they speak or travel out of the D.C.-Virginia-Maryland metropolitan region.

Finally, the legislation prohibits Federal judges from accepting honorary memberships to clubs that are valued in excess of $50. The last item is the only distinction between S. 3296 and the House bill.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3296 acknowledges an unfortunate but realistic problem: sometimes the Justices must be protected off Supreme Court grounds. This is a legislative exercise that the Congress has regularly undertaken on behalf of the Court since 1982.

I urge the Members to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time as well.

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.