Floor Statements

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is absolutely right. This is ``the rest of the bus.'' But it's going to be a little while before we realize whether we are on that bus or whether we've been thrown under it. Obviously, as Mr. Dreier called attention to it, this is the bill that we have today. None of us will make any pretense at all of having read it.

Now, I have been around long enough to know that things happen this way. The country is about to shut down tonight; the agencies are all prepared to close, and we can't have that. So we find ourselves confronted here today with this completed and going through this conference.

A lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief this morning, frankly, particularly the Federal workers and the rest of the country, that they are not going to be faced with a shutdown of Federal agencies.

But although we were able to avert that crisis today, this 2,000-page legislative package is not a cause for celebration--and I don't believe Mr. Dreier thinks it is either--but it is a demonstration of failure. As I have said, I have known cases and have been a participant in cases where things like this have happened before. But for a Congress that had promised at the beginning part of the campaign and what we were promised at the beginning of this term was that this would not happen anymore. Instead, it has happened over and over again. Over the past 12 months, we have witnessed the utter failure to responsibly legislate--a failure that has led to this massive bill that we are considering today.

You've heard all of this before, but in the fall of 2010 when the majority took over, Speaker Boehner said: We'll do away with the concept of comprehensive spending bills.

He's been around awhile too, and he knows that there are times when things happen that really don't fall in line with what we want. But nonetheless, he made that promise. Despite this call for a deliberate appropriations process, the House was recently asked to consider a $180 billion minibus, totaling 354 pages of legislation.

And today, less than 24 hours--we're about halfway, I think--we are offered a $1 trillion megabus appropriations bill. It was given to the Members of the House today, and we're asked to vote on that. We will, of course, do that because, as I've said, the looming layoff and shutdown of the Federal Government is something that we cannot stand at this juncture, or any other time.

So despite the earlier promises by the GOP to separate the controversial legislation from the must-pass bill, the megabus was delayed by a battle over controversial riders. We know this could have been done much sooner, but there were five riders that had to be resolved--everything from the reproductive rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to energy-saving lightbulbs.

Mr. Speaker, this House has spent more time debating lightbulbs than we have putting American people to work. It has really been an outrage--we have talked about this so many times before. But nonetheless, in all the contemplations, all the conference work, lightbulbs have survived. I know that's a sigh of relief to everybody in America who had no idea we were spending so much time micromanaging their lightbulbs.

But this is a sign, I think, of a larger failure, a failure of their vision of governing. It is a vision that we've gone through all this year that was based on brinksmanship and threats--an all-or-nothing game of chicken with their colleagues and the American people. And everybody is exhausted from, will we do it? Won't we do it? Can we do it? Must we do it? Part of that has resulted in a lessening of the credit rating of the United States of America for the very first time.

So instead of spending the year finding common ground with their Democrat colleagues, the majority spent the year advancing legislation to dismantle the EPA and to talk about lightbulbs and to open federally protected lands to foreign mining companies. I find in my constituency the idea that we were going to give land to Russia around the Grand Canyon to mine for uranium mind-boggling to people. We really ought to be worried about that. This is a very serious problem.

Instead of spending the year finding common ground, we have done nothing about that. So throwing bipartisanship to the side, the majority pushed forward with its ideological battles at the expense of the Nation's welfare. And what we see this morning is the result of their divisive efforts.

What we know is that a process that began with brinksmanship and threats, and ends with this 2,000-page, $1 trillion megabus crammed through the House as the clock hits zero is all we have. This is our chance to keep the government from shutting down.

With proper priorities and a serious effort to engage legislators from both sides of the aisle, we could truly have a process and a product that would make the American people proud. But that's not what we have here today, and it is not what has been done this year.

I hope sincerely, and I know that many people on both sides of the aisle hope sincerely, that as the calendar turns to 2012, we can put an end to the zero-sum leadership that has been provided and finally give the American people the responsible, bipartisan leadership that they want and deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 1 additional minute.

I would like to address the Speaker.

I do not. If I could be allowed to say something here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me say all I was trying to do after last month was to say that if Mr. Dreier's 16 minutes were not adequate for him, I would be pleased to yield him one of my 13. That was my aim there.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member of Appropriations, Mr. Dicks, who has worked so hard.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

We have no further speakers.

May I inquire if my colleague has any.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the martial law rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, there are no Democrats on this bill. I don't know what all this bipartisan talk is about. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) didn't even see it. None of us knew.

No. If you don't mind, I'd like to get through my speech. We've heard this all day.

I understand that there is great hope for a number of Democrat votes--and I don't know how that will turn out--but, frankly, I don't think that this bill will ever see the light of day anyway. There is not much support for it in the Senate, and the President said he won't sign it. So what I am hopeful for is that, when we really get down to business here, we can have a bipartisan bill. It is possible to do that. Just invite the Democrats to take part in it.

Let me make it clear that you cannot call anything ``bipartisan'' when there is not a single Democrat on it. Also, a motion to recommit is nowhere near a substitute bill, which we were not allowed to do.

Instead of extending tax cuts to the middle class and giving assistance to the unemployed, this majority is holding the middle class hostage in order to extract concessions for their friends in Big Oil. Furthermore, instead of asking those with the most to help those with the least, which is what we are supposed to do, today's bill asks millions of seniors to pay more for health care. In exchange, the majority will graciously continue the Federal unemployment insurance programs, although they are grievously cut; and 10 States will get waivers not to have to pay unemployment insurance at all. So that's a sort of Russian roulette idea.

They cut the maximum number of weeks as Christmas approaches, which is the time of goodwill toward men, women, and children who are out of work through no fault of their own. In a country where there are four persons applying for each and every available job, that gives us some idea of how dire it is to face this Christmas and the rest of this year without jobs.

Why can't the Grand Old Party help the middle class without demanding a quid pro quo?

Why can't they serve the middle class without playing Secret Santa for special interests like the Keystone XL?

In addition to the misguided brinksmanship of the majority, today's bill flies in the face of regular order and makes a mockery of the majority's CutGo rules for all bills. We've seen in the Rules Committee the fact that it has been waived many times today. It is waived yet again. And it says to the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office that they count the savings in this bill but not the cost. If only middle class families could use that kind of accounting.

This is hardly the deliberate and thoughtful legislative process that the majority promised us when they assumed office almost 12 months ago. So because of the rushed process and the legislative acrobatics used to mask the true cost of the bill, I strongly oppose today's rule and the underlying legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make an offer that no one can refuse or no one should refuse.

I'm pleased that the STOCK Act is something we can finally vote on today in this Congress. The STOCK Act has bipartisan support from 231 Members of Congress, a majority of the House, ranging from freshman Members to

senior Members from both sides of the aisle.

The bill has been around since 2006, and we do not need to study it another day. A critical part of the bill is the registration of the political intelligence industry. The burgeoning K Street industry gathers information from Members and staff in order to enrich their Wall Street clients, and it has been completely unregulated.

We will finally regulate, through the STOCK Act, this lucrative industry, and ensure that Members of Congress and their staffs come to Washington to serve their constituents and not fatten their own bank accounts. There are 535 of us privileged enough to serve in this Congress, and we must hold ourselves accountable to the highest standards.

The American people have shown an incredible interest in the STOCK Act. If you fail to vote for this motion today, you're going to tell them that you're not interested in their concerns. None of us on either side of the aisle want to do that.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of today's motion to recommit to pass this bill that has been around for years and needs passing very badly, and to hold ourselves accountable to the American people and to the letter of the law.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Madam Speaker, good afternoon.

Sexual assault in the military continues to be a serious problem. It impacts thousands of service women and men each year.

While I'm pleased with the recent improvements made by the Department of Defense, there remains much more to be done. It is vital that we do all we can to protect the men and women in the military who protect us.

I am very pleased that both the House and the Senate passed language improving the military's response to sexual assault in their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Earlier this week, I, along with Representative Turner and 45 colleagues, sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees asking them to strongly consider the House-passed provisions dealing with military sexual assault.

The language contained in the House version makes necessary improvements to protect our service women and men. Specifically, the House-passed language strengthens the rights of sexual assault victims by clarifying victim access to legal counsel, and record maintenance and confidentiality, which are critically important. It also ensures expedited unit or station transfer when a servicemember has been victimized.

Imagine being a victim of rape, which one young soldier told me about at a hearing, while serving in the military, and every morning she had to salute her rapist. That's what the members of our Armed Forces have experienced and will continue to experience if we don't do something to change that situation.

The House-passed language also stresses the need for the NDAA to include comprehensive training and education programs for sexual assault prevention within the Department of Defense. The Senate version does not include this protection, which is part of H.R. 1709, the Force Protection and Readiness Act, which I introduced earlier this year.

I am pleased this motion to instruct conferees on the NDAA recognizes the importance of this issue, and I ask the conferees to seriously consider including the strongest possible language to prevent and appropriately respond to incidents of sexual assault in the military.

I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there's a very dangerous and cynical game being played in the House. Americans need jobs now; and instead of spending our time on job creation, the majority continues to waste time focusing on bills like this one that make it easier for polluters to spoil our air and water; make it easier for big banks to take the kind of risk that brought on our recession; and make it easier for unsafe products from China to poison our children.

The majority seems to think if they repeat their message that Big Government is destroying jobs enough times, it will become true. But economic surveys and economists from the left, right, and center say it's all a made-up argument. Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, writes that ``regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

My friends on the other side of the aisle know this bill won't create jobs. And here's how we know. When the bill is considered for amendment, they will block an amendment that simply says if the independent experts conclude a rule will create jobs, it can go into effect without all these time-consuming extra steps. Why would we want to slow down a rule that could create tens of thousands of jobs? If this bill will create jobs, like the majority claims, what's the harm in saying the bill does not apply when it conflicts with the important goal of creating more jobs for Americans who are out of work? The majority cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

It has now been a full 336 days since Republicans took control of the House, and they have yet to put a real jobs bill on the floor. But as of today, they've made time for 23 bills that would roll back protections for public health and safety. They provided ample floor time to de-fund public radio; to make it easier for felons to carry concealed weapons; and to reaffirm our national motto, which did not need reaffirming; and, of course, did we want to micromanage light bulbs. Why? Does the majority really think these are pressing national issues that demand our attention when we should focus on jobs?

There's no doubt in my mind that in addition to making our workplace, food, water, and airplanes less safe, H.R. 10 would endanger our fragile economic recovery, impeding job creation. Having the right amount of safeguards against bad behavior is part of what has made this country so economically successful. We all know it was only after the financial sector was deregulated so much that we had a catastrophic housing crisis and the recession. Indeed, what regulation there was basically looked the other way. Indeed, in 2008 the Bush administration itself estimated that benefits to the economy for major rules outweighed the cost by at least 2\1/2\ to 1. Possibly as much as 12 to 1, they said.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not explain the violence this bill does to the process of passing the laws, the process executing the laws, and the important constitutional principle of separation of powers. The practical result of this bill's new, additional steps in the regulatory process would be to grind the wheels of government to a halt.

Our system of government already has checks and balances built in to make sure that the regulations do what Congress says they should. That is why we have oversight committees. After Congress writes the laws, there are numerous statutes and executive orders that ensure an open process as an agency writes the regulations, requiring them to listen to the stakeholders and the public, to conduct cost-benefit analyses, and justify every aspect of the proposed rule. Congress also continuously keeps an eye on the executive branch by exercising its authorization, appropriation, and oversight functions. Furthermore, entities whose activities are regulated have access to the courts.

When Congress last considered a nearly identical bill in the 1980s, now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who was then an associate White House counsel in the Reagan administration, criticized the legislation for ``hobbling agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules.'' He said that such a requirement ``would seem to impose excessive burdens on regulatory agencies.''

Justice Roberts was right then, and he's right today. Congress writes the laws. We rely on professionals and experts--doctors, engineers, microbiologists, statisticians, and so forth--to spell out the details of those policies so the law can be implemented and enforced in a way that makes sense.

If this bill is enacted, those decisions will instead be made by Members of Congress with no or little expertise in what they're talking about. In addition, with the staffs we now have, it would be an impossibility for us to able to do it. Americans are sick of Congress's political gamesmanship. The last thing they want to do is extend its reach into vast new areas of our government.

But the Rules Committee's primary responsibility in relation to H.R. 10 is to ensure the integrity of the legislative process in the House. In sending H.R. 10 to the House floor, the committee failed its responsibility. The sheer volume of additional measures the House and Senate would be required to consider should H.R. 10 become law is enough to force Congress to come back into the Capitol and work in shifts. Otherwise, we would never get it all done.

Even though President Obama's administration has promulgated new rules at a slower rate than the Bush administration did in his last 2 years, the 100 or so new major bills on our schedule would mean we would have to take up seven of them a day on every other Thursday just to try to get it done. Inevitably, we could not finish it all; and under this ridiculous bill, it means we would vote on the rest without debate.

If the Rules Committee had bothered to hold any hearings on the bill, maybe the majority would realize how drastically H.R. 10 undermines the deliberative process in this House.

Finally, I want my colleagues to know that this rule deems passage of a nongermane amendment that was written by Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee. The Republicans made an embarrassing discovery at the Rules Committee last week. They realized that the hundreds of new measures the House will consider under this bill would actually violate both their new CutGo rule and the pay-as-you-go statute that Democrats put in place. So the Republicans had a choice: they could either violate the budget rules a hundred times every year or just pass an amendment to make these embarrassing violations vanish. Which one do you guess they chose?

This rule includes a magic amendment that makes all the budget violations go away in a big ``poof.'' But here's the best part: They're using the famous deem-and-pass procedure, which means the mystery amendment will be automatically adopted and the House will never vote on the Ryan amendment.

I guess after all we've seen this year, it should not surprise me that last Tuesday the majority blocked our amendment to strip the special tax breaks from big oil companies supposedly because it was nongermane. That was Tuesday. On Thursday, they just ignored the germaneness rule for this budget amendment.

But, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we've had 336 days of Republican control of the House with no jobs agenda. It is imperative that we extend the payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits before Congress leaves Washington for the holidays. That is why I will amend this rule to require those

votes if we defeat the previous question.

So I'm urging my colleagues on the other side, please stop worrying about your campaign message and start getting the message: America's top priority is job creation.

Let's defeat this restrictive rule and get back to work on jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I would be happy to yield my colleague an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close as well.

Mr. Speaker, the majority's prioritization of special interests over the economy goes beyond their crusade against government protections for our clean air and water, and safe food and workplaces. Not only has the majority refused so far to pass an extension of the payroll tax holiday, meaning even though we're still struggling to recover from a recession, the average American family will see a $1,000 increase in their taxes come January.

They have also refused so far to extend unemployment benefits for the 2.1 million Americans whose benefits will run out in the coming months if Congress does not act. Congress has never allowed emergency extended benefits to expire when a jobless rate has been anywhere close to its current level of 8.6 percent.

Some Republicans like to argue that unemployment benefits give people a disincentive to work. But how are people supposed to take jobs that don't exist? Believe me, most of the people who are unemployed in our country right now would much rather get a job, but they can't find one. There are still roughly 6.5 million fewer jobs in the economy today than when the Great Recession started in 2007.

So we're supposed to let them and their children starve or face possible eviction or foreclosure? All of the money that the unemployed receive in benefits goes right back into the economy when they buy groceries, clothes, and health care. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that allowing these Federal unemployment benefits to expire would hurt consumer demand and, thereby, cost the U.S. economy 528,000 jobs.

And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that providing extended unemployment benefits is one of the most effective job creation strategies available during a period of high joblessness, stating, ``Households receiving unemployment benefits tend to spend the additional benefits quickly, making this option both timely and cost- effective in spurring economic activity and employment.''

The choices facing us today couldn't be any clearer. That's why, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on an unemployment benefit extension and that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year before we leave for the holidays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can do the right thing for working families and the millions of Americans looking for jobs.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate French Road Elementary School in Brighton, New York for recently earning its designation as a 2011 National Blue Ribbon School. The United States Department of Education grants this prestigious award to schools demonstrating a high level of academic excellence or where the achievement gap is shrinking. Secretary Arne Duncan describes National Blue Ribbon Schools as those, ``committed to accelerating student achievement and preparing students for success in college and careers.''

As one of only 315 schools across the nation to earn this honor, French Road Elementary School embodies the standard of excellence this award celebrates and is an example for others to emulate.

While nothing should diminish the hard work and talents of French Road Elementary School's individual teachers and students, Superintendent Dr. Kevin McGowan accurately stated that this honor reflects, ``the support of an incredible school community.''

Community is a central component of French Road Elementary School. Its students are not only encouraged to succeed academically but to be constructive members of their communities. In an era where school bullying is far too prevalent, French Road students start their day by reciting the school's Purple Hand Pledge. It reads, ``I will not use my hands or my words for hurting myself or others.'' It is a simple message that should be emphasized more throughout school communities around the country.

Articulating the school's underlying values, this pledge has helped to foster the strong sense of community found among these third, fourth and fifth graders.

For instance, when entering French Road's courtyard you will find students working side by side in the school's community garden to grow healthy, pesticide-free vegetables for each other's enjoyment and to supplement the cafeteria menu.

However, their sense of community extends beyond their school yard, classmates and immediate neighbors. Over the past 30 years, French Road students have raised $1,265,000 through the American Heart Association's Jump Rope for Heart Event, to benefit children across the country with cardiac abnormalities. During the 2010 to 2011 school year, these young philanthropists raised $75,489.29; $20,000 more than any other school nationwide. They have been the event's number one fundraiser for the past 12 years.

The administrators, teachers, parents and students of French Road Elementary School form a truly remarkable community deserving of this Blue Ribbon recognition. Its students move on with the necessary foundation to accomplish many great things, as well as the desire to leave their communities better than they found them.

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more proud to recognize this school in the United States House of Representatives and hope to help others follow in its footsteps.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, with millions of Americans out of work, job creation certainly should be the number one priority of this Congress. And yet, where are we today? We're not creating any new jobs here, but we're using the precious floor time considering a bill that attacks the rights of all American workers and has no chance of becoming law. That, unfortunately, is something we do week after week here.

As my colleagues have pointed out, rather than minimizing the delay in union voting procedures, today's bill mandates delay. The bill empowers employers to interfere in union elections by adding anti-union employees to voting blocs--gerrymandering the elections. That, by itself, should be enough to vote against this bill.

Letting an employer deny and manipulate union elections is a blatant attempt to put the fox in charge of the henhouse. It is a direct attack on the ability of workers to bargain collectively to protect their rights. And we've seen in America, with all the protests and uprisings, that American citizens don't like that so much.

Wherever you work, whether it's union or not, if you appreciate a 40- hour work week, sick leave and vacation days, safer working conditions, don't blame the men and women of the unions for the unemployment crisis that they didn't cause. Thank them for bringing those things to you. It was not a benevolent employer that gave you those. It was the union movement.

So rather than considering a bill to attack the American worker, we should be working together. As we plead on the floor day after day to create jobs for the American people, the situation grows more dire every day.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and see if we can get to work to really create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have pointed out, rather than minimizing undue delay in union voting procedure, today's bill mandates delay.

The bill would also empower employers to interfere in union elections by adding anti-union employees to voting blocks--gerrymandering union elections.

Letting an employer delay and manipulate union elections is a blatant attempt to put the fox in charge of the hen house. It is a direct attack on the ability of workers to unionize.

The truth is that unions continue to play an invaluable role in maintaining America's middle class--no small feat in the age of shrinking middle class incomes and rising inequality.

The proposed bill is yet another corporate favor that we are considering in this Congress. Its singular goal is to delay and ultimately prevent workers from exercising their hard won right to organize in the workplace.

In the last year, we've watched politicians in power try to strip thousands of Americans of their right to collectively bargain, and we've watched as those very same Americans have taken to the streets and gone to the polls to protect their rights.

The message from the American people is clear--they will not accept attempts to destroy the middle class and American unions. Neither will

Mr. Speaker, in the past few days, many Americans have contacted me through Facebook and Twitter with their thoughts, and their message was very clear: They want jobs, and they want them now. On behalf of these Americans, I urge the leaders of the House to respond by passing major legislation that will create high-paying jobs.

They write to me: ``I hope you mean living-wage jobs that are meaningful, filled with dignity, and generated locally.

``Job creation begins at home. Close the loopholes that send jobs overseas and make it tougher to bring the profits and products back here.

``An additional suggestion would be to fund a Works Program Administration modeled after the first one implemented by Franklin Roosevelt, a new deal for the new millennium.

``We need to stop the manufacturing drain going out of the country, revisit the WPA to jump-start the economy, and fix our aging infrastructure.

``Heck, we need someone to clean weeds out of sidewalks. We need an energy policy and concrete plans to accelerate the use of renewables. Too much of our fuel costs end up in our trade imbalance.''

These are the words from my constituents that I'm glad to share with you as we work very hard to get Americans back to work at meaningful jobs.

I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the House of Representatives-- another demonstration that the House has failed to meet its basic responsibility to the American people. The new budget year began over 6 weeks ago, but not a single routine appropriations bill, not a single one, has been enacted. Instead, we are considering a massive $100 billion hodgepodge of unrelated programs and agencies all crammed into a single bill that no Member of the House saw before this week.

In fact, most of the provisions in this bill have never been considered by the House at any time in any form. Let me repeat that. A massive $100 billion bill, most of which has never been considered by the House, brought up for a single, all-or-nothing vote under a completely closed process. And what's worse, we will be back here in a few weeks with another massive omnibus bill to keep the rest of the government open. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the House.

Fortunately, there is one hint of good news in this mess. The bill does

reject some of the absurd cuts proposed on the other side of the aisle. For example, the bill does not contain proposed cuts that would have denied 700,000 women, infants and children valuable nutritional supplements or defunded the COPS program.

But those welcome steps are not enough to make this a good bill. I am especially disturbed by the unwise and shortsighted cuts to programs important to America's role as a competitive global power. High-speed and intercity passenger rail, for example, gets no funding under this agreement. The bill allows the country to maintain Amtrak at its current state, but does nothing to help us keep pace with countries like China and Germany, who have already built a rail infrastructure that will expand their economies well into the 21st century. If our country hopes to remain a global superpower in the 21st century, we have to do more to invest in our country than the meager steps that we are taking today.

Especially in tough economic times like these, we need to rebuild our infrastructure, to be educating our children, and creating jobs for the millions of unemployed. Instead of the Band-Aid measure we are considering today, we have to truly begin to invest in our future and ensure that we not only survive, but that we thrive, in the century to come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Polis.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, although I'm encouraged that we were able to reverse some of the most severe cuts proposed, I am disappointed that our budget process has come to this, $100 billion packed with provisions that the House has never considered. Therefore, on process, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like the record to unequivocally show that I strongly support reauthorizing our Nation's Coast Guard but oppose final passage of H.R. 2838 due to the controversial ballast water discharge provisions that were included in the bill.

I represent a district in the Great Lakes region that contains over 60 miles of coastline on Lake Ontario, a body of water that sees its fair share of shipping. New York State is the entry point for commercial shipping into the rest of the Great Lakes from the Saint Lawrence Seaway and I have serious concerns about how and what international commercial shipping vessels discharge into New York waters on their way to the rest of the Great Lakes.

Each minute, 40,000 gallons of ballast water containing thousands of foreign bacteria, viruses, animals and plants, are discharged into U.S. waters. Globally, it is estimated that more than 10,000 marine species each day may be transported across the oceans in the ballast water of cargo ships. Ballast water has been identified as a common mechanism for the transfer of harmful invasive species that threaten the livelihood and recreation of the millions of residents who depend on them annually.

The Coast Guard is in the process of finalizing its rulemaking process for a national Ballast Water Discharge Standard (BWDS) that would act as a floor for regulation on this issue, not a ceiling, and would allow states to impose stricter standards if they determine their waters are at risk. Title VII of H.R. 2838 would preempt this process by setting a weak national standard for the regulation of ballast water discharged into U.S. waters and would prevent states from implementing stronger than national standards when necessary. During consideration of H.R. 2838, I offered an amendment to strike Title VII or H.R. 2838. While, the amendment failed by a vote of 161 to 237, it received strong bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, while I strongly support the Coast Guard, I cannot support legislation that restricts the ability of States to protect against the threat of invasive species. The ballast water provisions in H.R. 2838 restrict these very protections.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a serious piece of work for me today because less than a year ago, one of our colleagues from Arizona was shot in the head while she was trying to convene with her constituents outside a supermarket. The mayhem was awful. A little 9-year-old girl named Christina-Taylor Green, a baseball fan who just came to see her Congresswoman, was killed. And by all accounts, an extraordinary Federal judge named John Roll died as well as some of Gabby's staff. Numbers of people were wounded. And yet the only person ever considered by this House would be the guy and his right to have that gun. What about the rights for the rest of us? Are we going to have to learn to dance up and down the street to try to escape the bullets? What happens to us? What about an amendment for us to ensure that we can be safe?

The statistics of people now being killed in places of worship, the rising number of people in law enforcement who face unspeakable and awful things because we won't do our job here to disarm people who are mentally ill.

I would like to insert into the Record an article from the New York Times on how easy it is for felons, including the mentally ill, to regain their gun rights.

When are we going to reinstate in this House the automatic weapons ban, and why don't we outlaw guns that are so powerful that they serve no purpose at all in a civilized society? When will we allow the Federal authorities to computerize gun sale records so it is easier to hold guilty individuals responsible for their gun crimes?

In the age of iPhones and Androids, our police are tracing gun crimes with scraps of paper and handwritten notes. Surely that is a more important job for us to do here than what we're doing--to say you can carry a concealed weapon anywhere you want to go because that's who we are. Apparently, the Republican majority wants that.

Based on today's bill, they think it is more important to pass legislation that will make it easier to carry a gun to a public gathering, easier to carry a loaded weapon into NFL stadiums, easier to carry a gun to the grocery store on Saturday noon, or into your temple or your church. What in the world? How can we ever explain that to people who have had gun deaths in their family?

The horrible shooting of our colleague wouldn't have been stopped with the passage of today's bill, and no one is made safer by allowing guns into public space. And since last January, Congress hasn't considered a single piece of legislation that would make it harder for a mentally ill individual to get a gun. We have done nothing at all to make sure that another nightmare like the one in Tucson doesn't visit our country yet again, leaving innocent children, men, and women victims to a loaded gun. And yet the only person we care about here is the gun owner.

The only legislation we are considering will make it more convenient to carry your gun even in States that don't want it. Realizing this fact really puts the morality of this agenda into perspective.

This Congress should be considering legislation that will help the American people, not legislation that fulfills an ideological agenda, which is what we've been doing all year. I urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose today's legislation.

[From the New York Times, Nov. 13, 2011]

Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights

(By Michael Luo)

In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party

after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They

had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr.

Zettergren's girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr.

Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his

girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason

Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.

Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave.

After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the

temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic

handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson's hysterical fiancee, at

gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.

It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the

small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a

judge's ruling two months before, it would probably never

have happened.

For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing

firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history

of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous.

Yet Mr. Zettergren's gun rights were restored without even a

hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to

deny the application as long as certain basic requirements

had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time

retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for

safekeeping.

``If he hadn't had his rights restored, in this particular

instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other

person,'' said Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in Whitman County,

who handled the murder case.

Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit

their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons

across the country have those rights reinstated, often with

little or no review. In several states, they include people

convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder

and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has

found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to

reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in

many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started

allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements--part of

an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National

Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered

force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to

capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second

Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.

This gradual pulling back of what many Americans have

unquestioningly assumed was a blanket prohibition has drawn

relatively little public notice. Indeed, state law

enforcement agencies have scant information, if any, on which

felons are getting their gun rights back, let alone how many

have gone on to commit new crimes.

While many states continue to make it very difficult for

felons to get their gun rights back--and federal felons are

out of luck without a presidential pardon--many other

jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some,

restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as

they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is

left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the

process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent

felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period

before they can apply.

The Times examined hundreds of restoration cases in several

states, among them Minnesota, where William James Holisky II,

who had a history of stalking and terrorizing women, got his

gun rights back last year, just six months after completing a

three-year prison sentence for firing a shotgun into the

house of a woman who had broken up with him after a handful

of dates. She and her son were inside at the time of the

shooting.

``My whole family's convinced that at some point he'll blow

a gasket and that he'll

come and shoot someone,'' said Vicky Holisky-Crets, Mr.

Holisky's sister.

Also last year, a judge in Cleveland restored gun rights to

Charles C. Hairston, who had been convicted of first-degree

murder in North Carolina in 1971 for shooting a grocery store

owner in the head with a shotgun. He also had another felony

conviction, in 1995, for corruption of a minor.

Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington,

D.C., who has researched gun rights restoration laws,

estimated that, depending on the type of crime, in more than

half the states felons have a reasonable chance of getting

back their gun rights.

That universe could well expand, as pro-gun groups shed a

historical reluctance to advocate publicly for gun rights for

felons. Lawyers litigating Second Amendment issues are also

starting to challenge the more restrictive restoration laws.

Pro-gun groups have pressed the issue in the last few years

in states as diverse as Alaska, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee.

Ohio's Legislature confronted the matter when it passed a

law this year fixing a technicality that threatened to

invalidate the state's restorations.

Ken Hanson, legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms

Coalition, argued that felons should be able to reclaim their

gun rights just as they can other civil rights.

``If it's a constitutional right, you treat it with equal

dignity with other rights,'' he said.

But Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition

Against Gun Violence, contended that the public was safer

without guns in the hands of people who have committed

serious crimes.

``It seems that Ohio legislators have plenty of problems to

solve that should be a much higher priority than making sure

criminals have guns,'' Ms. Hoover said in written testimony.

That question--whether the restorations pose a risk to

public safety--has received little study, in part because

data can be hard to come by.

The Times analyzed data from Washington State, where Mr.

Zettergren had his gun rights restored. The most serious

felons are barred, but otherwise judges have no discretion to

reject the petitions, as long as the applicant fulfills

certain criteria. (In 2003, a state appeals court panel

stated that a petitioner ``had no burden to show that he is

safe to own or possess guns.'')

Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of

domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights

in the state--430 in 2010 alone--according to the analysis of

data provided by the state police and the court system. Of

that number, more than 400--about 13 percent--have

subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More

than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the

first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.

Even some felons who have regained their firearms rights

say the process needs to be more rigorous.

``It's kind of spooky, isn't it?'' said Beau Krueger, who

has two assaults on his record and got his gun rights back

last year in Minnesota after only a brief hearing, in which

local prosecutors did not even participate. ``We could have

all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn't

have guns.''

powerful lobby prevails

The federal firearms prohibition for felons dates to the

late 1960s, when the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin

Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, along with

rioting across the country, set off a clamor for stricter gun

control laws. Congress enacted sweeping legislation that

included a provision extending the firearms ban for convicted

criminals beyond those who had committed ``crimes of

violence,'' a standard adopted in the 1930s.

``All of our people who are deeply concerned about law and

order should hail this day,'' President Lyndon B. Johnson

said upon signing the Gun Control Act in October 1968.

Even the N.R.A. backed the bill. But by the late 1970s, a

more hard-line faction, committed to an expansive view of the

Second Amendment, had taken control of the group. A crowning

achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986,

which significantly loosened federal gun laws.

When it came to felons' gun rights, the legislation

essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun

restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a

felon's civil rights--to vote, sit on a jury and hold public

office--and the individual faced no other firearms

prohibitions.

The restoration issue drew relatively little notice in the

Congressional battle over the bill. But officials of the

federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms identified

the provision in an internal memo as among their serious

concerns. Some state law enforcement officials also sounded

the alarm.

When Senator David F. Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican,

realized after the law passed that thousands of felons,

including those convicted of violent crimes, in his state

would suddenly be getting their gun rights back, he sought

the N.R.A.'s help in rolling back the provision. Doug Kelley,

his chief of staff at the time, thought the group would

``surely want to close this loophole.''

But the senator, Mr. Kelley recalled, ``ran into a stone

wall,'' as the N.R.A. threatened to pull its support for him

if he did not drop the matter, which he eventually did.

``The N.R.A. slammed the door on us,'' Mr. Kelley said.

``That absolutely baffled me.''

Until then, the avenues for restoration had been narrow and

few: a direct appeal to the federal firearms agency, which

conducted detailed background investigations; a state pardon

expressly authorizing gun possession, or a presidential

pardon. Felons convicted of crimes involving guns or other

weapons, as well as those convicted of violating federal gun

laws, were expressly barred from applying to the federal

firearms agency.

By contrast, the restoration of civil rights, which is now

central to regaining gun rights, is relatively routine,

automatic in many states upon completion of a sentence. In

some states, felons must also petition for a judicial order

specifically restoring firearms rights. Other potential paths

include a pardon from the governor or state clemency board or

a ``set aside''--essentially, an annulment--of the

conviction.

Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio,

Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is

automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent

felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a

certain amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may

petition to have their firearms rights restored in states

like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including

Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that

specifically confer gun privileges.

Felons face steep odds, though, in states like California,

where the governor's office gives out only a handful of

pardons every year, if that.

``It's a long, drawn-out process,'' said Steve Lindley,

chief of the State Department of Justice's firearms bureau.

``They were convicted of a felony crime. There are penalties

for that.''

Studies on the impact of gun restrictions largely support

barring felons from possessing firearms.

One study, published in the American Journal of Public

Health in 1999, found that denying handgun purchases to

felons cut their risk of committing new gun or violent crimes

by 20 to 30 percent. A year earlier, a study in the Journal

of the American Medical Association found that handgun

purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor--not even a

felony--were more than seven times as likely as those with no

criminal history to be charged with new offenses over a 15-

year period.

Criminologists studying recidivism have found that felons

usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before

their risk of committing a crime equals that of people with

no records. According to Alfred Blumstein, a professor at

Carnegie Mellon University, for violent offenders, that

period is 11 to 15 years; for drug offenders, 10 to 14 years;

and for those who have committed property crimes, 8 to 11

years. An important caveat: Professor Blumstein did not look

at what happens when felons are given guns.

The history of the federal firearms agency's own

restoration program, though, offers reason for caution. The

program came under attack in the early 1990s, when the

Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, discovered that

dozens of felons granted restorations over a five-year period

had been arrested again, including some on charges of

attempted murder and sexual assault. (The center also found

that many of those granted gun rights were felons convicted

of violent or drug-related crimes.) In the resulting uproar

and over the objections of the N.R.A., Congress killed the

program.

A Superficial Process

In 2001, three police officers in the Columbia Heights

suburb of Minneapolis were shot and wounded by a convicted

murderer whose firearms rights had been restored

automatically in 1987, 10 years after he completed a six-and-

a-half year prison sentence and then probation for killing

his estranged wife and a family friend with a shotgun. (The

State Legislature had imposed the 10-year waiting period for

violent felons after it discovered what Senator Durenberger

had feared: that felons' gun rights would be restored

immediately under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.)

What happened in the wake of the shooting is emblematic of

how the issue has played out in many states, particularly

where the gun lobby is powerful.

Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime

firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that

for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would

also have to set up a process that held out a hope of

eventual restoration. They were unable, however, to get their

bills through the Legislature.

The issue was taken up the following year by Republican

lawmakers, but it became wrapped up in legislation to relax

concealed-weapons laws. Initially, a moderate Republican

introduced a bill with a 5- to 10-year waiting period for

regaining gun rights, but the waiting period was scrapped

entirely in the law, written by gun-rights advocates, that

was finally enacted in 2003. That law, which does not even

mandate that prosecutors be notified of the hearings,

requires judges to grant the requests merely if the

petitioners show ``good cause.''

``The decision was, we have good judges and we trust

them,'' said Joseph Olson, who helped write the statute as

president of the advocacy group Concealed Carry Reform Now.

One man who has benefited from a Minnesota judge's gun

rights ruling is William Holisky.

Mr. Holisky, an accountant who has struggled with bipolar

disorder and alcoholism,

had gone out only a few times with Karen Roman, a nurse he

had met online, before she broke up with him.

In August 2006, Ms. Roman was getting ready to work a night

shift, putting on makeup in the bathroom of her home in

Duluth, when she heard a truck pulling up and a loud boom.

Moments later, she heard another boom and glass breaking. She

hit the floor, calling out to her teenage son in the other

room to do the same as she crawled to the phone to dial 911.

The police arrested Mr. Holisky later that night for

drunken driving. Several months later, they charged him in

the shooting as well. He pleaded guilty to second-degree

assault with a dangerous weapon.

Around the same time, he also pleaded guilty to a felony

charge of making terroristic threats against an elderly

neighbor. The woman had reported to the police that someone--

she suspected Mr. Holisky--had left her a threatening and

obscene note. She had also reported a series of escalating

incidents that included harassing telephone calls, his

entering her apartment and someone's smashing her bedroom

window. Mr. Holisky also had a misdemeanor burglary

conviction from 2003, for breaking into an ex-girlfriend's

house, as well as another misdemeanor conviction for

violating an order of protection.

In Mr. Holisky's gun rights hearing in October 2010 in Two

Harbors, a small town on the north shore of Lake Superior,

Russell Conrow, the prosecutor in Lake County, argued that

Mr. Holisky had not yet proved that he could stay clean,

given that he had just gotten out of prison. Mr. Conrow also

pointed out that there were two active orders of protection

against Mr. Holisky.

``There were people still scared of him,'' Mr. Conrow said

recently.

For his part, Mr. Holisky took documents from the plea

agreement in his assault case, in which the prosecutor in

neighboring St. Louis County agreed not to oppose the

restoration of his firearms rights.

Mr. Holisky, who is 59, did not specify in his often-

rambling petition exactly why he wanted a gun. He described

his behavior in 2006 as an ``aberration.''

The county judge, Kenneth Sandvik, was set to retire in a

few months. He knew Mr. Holisky's family from growing up in

the community. Several weeks later, he ruled that Mr. Holisky

had met the basic requirements of the law.

In an interview, Judge Sandvik said he had given

considerable weight to the St. Louis County prosecutor's

agreement not to oppose the restoration of gun rights for Mr.

Holisky. But Gary Bjorklund, an assistant St. Louis County

attorney, said in an interview that he had been focused on

extracting a guilty plea that would send Mr. Holisky to

prison and had thought no judge would take a firearms request

from Mr. Holisky seriously.

Judge Sandvik acknowledged that he had not looked into the

details of Mr. Holisky's assault case, arguing that his job

had been only to review what the prosecutor had presented to

him.

``We're not investigators,'' he said.

The ease with which Mr. Holisky regained his gun rights

does not appear to be an anomaly. Using partial data from

Minnesota's Judicial Branch, The Times identified more than

70 cases since 2004 of people convicted of ``crimes of

violence'' who have gotten their gun rights back. A closer

look at a number of them found a superficial process. The

cases included those of Mr. Krueger, who criticized the

system as insufficiently rigorous after winning back his gun

rights in a perfunctory hearing, and of another man whose

petition was approved without even a hearing, even though his

felony involved pulling a gun on a man.

The ruling in Mr. Holisky's case prompted members of his

family to write a series of frantic e-mails to Judge Sandvik

and Mr. Conrow, warning of dire consequences.

It is not entirely clear whether Mr. Holisky, who did not

respond to several requests for comment, is legally able to

buy a gun at this point, because at least one of the

outstanding orders of protection, which expires next year,

appears to trip another federal prohibition. But Mr. Holisky

has been writing letters to relatives in Texas, threatening

legal action if they do not turn over his gun collection.

So far, they have refused.

A Killer's Successful Petition

Just as in Minnesota, violent felons in Ohio are allowed to

apply for restoration of firearms rights after completing

their sentences. The statute is similarly vague, requiring

only that a judge find that the petitioner has ``led a law-

abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely

to do so.''

Only a handful of county clerks in Ohio said they could

track these cases, producing records on several dozen

restorations. They included people who had been convicted of

first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, felonious

assault and sexual battery.

The case of Charles Hairston in Cuyahoga County stands out.

Mr. Hairston was 17 in January 1971, when he shot a man to

death in Winston-Salem, N.C. Mr. Hairston and a group of

neighborhood toughs had been preparing to rob a local grocery

store when the owner, Charles Minor, 55, closed up and headed

for his car.

``I am fixing to get him,'' Mr. Hairston told one of his

friends, according to witness statements to the police,

before he pulled the trigger on a 20-gauge shotgun.

Mr. Hairston spent 18 years in prison before being released

on parole in 1989. He moved to Cleveland and started working

in heating and cooling, a trade he had learned behind bars.

In 1995, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge for

allegedly grabbing and pushing his wife.

More seriously, later that year he was indicted on 60

counts of rape, felonious sexual penetration and gross sexual

imposition; prosecutors charged that he had forced sex upon

his stepdaughter, starting when she was 12. He was acquitted

of the most serious charges and convicted only of corruption

of a minor for one encounter at a motel for which prosecutors

were able to provide corroborating evidence beyond the girl's

detailed testimony.

Mr. Hairston, who denies the charges and is still fighting

the conviction, filed his first gun rights restoration

application in 2006 in Cuyahoga County but was summarily

denied.

When he filed a new petition two years later, a judge

thought he was ineligible and denied him again, though she

wrote in her decision that she did not believe Mr. Hairston

was likely to break the law again. But an appeals court ruled

that the judge had misread the statute, and sent the case

back for another hearing late last year.

The county prosecutor's office had vigorously opposed the

restoration from the beginning. But Mr. Hairston, who took in

several friends as character witnesses, told the judge he had

grown up in prison.

``Nearly 40 years ago, you know, I was a dumb kid,'' Mr.

Hairston said at his first hearing. He added, ``I am in a

situation now where if, God forbid, if someone was to come

into my home and attack me, my wife, there isn't a lot I

could say about it, there isn't a lot I could do.''

In the end, the judge, Hollie L. Gallagher, granted his

petition without comment.

Soon after the judge's ruling, Mr. Hairston obtained a

concealed weapons permit from a neighboring county and bought

a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun.

Returning to Crime

Erik Zettergren originally lost his gun rights in 1987

because of a felony conviction for dealing marijuana. A

decade later, the police went to his house after being called

by his ex-wife and discovered a cache of guns. He was

convicted of another felony, unlawful possession of a

firearm.

He relinquished his weapons to friends but eventually got

them back, sometimes hiding them in an old car in his

backyard, according to friends. Sometime after that, though,

he became worried that the police might come after him again

and turned over the guns--two long guns and a Glock pistol--

to a friend, Tom Williams.

``I kept them under my bed,'' Mr. Williams said.

In December 2004, Mr. Zettergren successfully petitioned in

Kittitas County--a three-hour drive from his home--to have

his gun rights restored. (Like Minnesota's, Washington's law

allows petitioners to apply anywhere.) Court records show he

did not even have a hearing. Instead, his lawyer, Paul T.

Ferris, who specializes in these cases, took care of the

matter.

Right away, Mr. Zettergren retrieved his guns from Mr.

Williams and soon obtained a concealed pistol license. He

made something of a sport of showing off his Glock to

friends. ``He was so proud of that thing,'' said Larry

Persons, a friend. ``He was flashing it in front of

everybody.''

Not long after, he would use it in the killing.

Washington's gun rights restoration statute dates to a 1995

statewide initiative, the Hard Times for Armed Crimes Act,

that toughened penalties for crimes involving firearms. The

initiative was spearheaded, in part, by pro-gun activists,

including leaders of the Second Amendment Foundation, an

advocacy group, and the N.R.A.

Although it drew little notice at the time, the legislation

also included an expansion of what had been very limited

eligibility for restoration of firearms rights.

``There were a lot of people who we felt should be able to

get their gun rights restored who could not,'' said Alan M.

Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, who was

active in the effort.

Under the legislation, ``Class A'' felons--who have

committed the most serious crimes, like murder and

manslaughter--are ineligible, as are sex offenders.

Otherwise, judges are required to grant the petitions as long

as, essentially, felons have not been convicted of any new

crimes in the five years after completing their sentences.

Judges have no discretion to deny the requests based upon

character, mental health or any other factors. Mr. Gottlieb

said they explicitly wrote the statute this way.

``We were having problems with judges that weren't going to

restore rights no matter what,'' he said.

The statute's mix of strictness and leniency makes

Washington a useful testing ground.

The Times's analysis found that among the more than 400

people who committed crimes after winning back their gun

rights under the new law, more than 70 committed Class A or

B felonies. Over all, more than 80 were convicted of some

sort of assault and more than 100 of drug offenses.

There were cases like that of Mitchell W. Reed,

disqualified from possessing firearms after a 1984 felony

cocaine conviction. He also has seven misdemeanor convictions

on his record from the 1980s, including for assault. In 2003,

he successfully petitioned for

his gun rights in Snohomish County Superior Court.

His wife, Debi Reed, went with him to the hearing and said

in an interview that she had been shocked at how easily his

rights were restored. He immediately bought a 9-millimeter

semiautomatic handgun.

The following year, she said, he beat her up for the first

time. In 2008 he became more angry and violent, she said, in

one instance putting a gun in her hand during an argument,

pointing it at his head and saying he was going to frame her

for murder. During another fight that year, he struck her

with a gun, giving her a black eye, and held a loaded gun to

her head.

Mr. Reed was ultimately arrested in 2009 and charged with

harassing and threatening to kill his wife's ex-husband.

While those charges were pending, he was arrested on second-

degree assault charges after he beat up and tried to strangle

his wife. The charging documents also mentioned the 2008 gun

episode. He eventually pleaded guilty to third-degree assault

and intimidating a witness, as well as fourth-degree assault

and harassment.

Jason C. Keller, disqualified because of a 1997 burglary

conviction, had his rights restored after a brief hearing in

2006. He waited a few years before buying a Hi-Point .40-

caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to his girlfriend at

the time, Shawna Braylock. But she did not trust him with the

gun because of his temper, making him keep it at his parents'

house.

In 2010, Mr. Keller left a Fourth of July party in the late

evening, picked up his gun and drove to the house of a woman

he knew. He fired several shots as she stood out front with

her 9-year-old son; her 6-year-old daughter was sleeping

inside. Mr. Keller pleaded guilty to drive-by shooting, a

felony.

In Mr. Zettergren's case, his friends said they were

shocked that a judge had restored his gun rights, because

they knew he was receiving disability payments, in part

because of mental health problems.

``Most of the people around here that knew him, knew that

he could be dangerous,'' said Darrell Reinhardt, one of Mr.

Zettergren's friends.

Mr. Zettergren's mental health issues, in fact, have been

at the heart of his efforts to appeal his convictions for

second-degree murder, second-degree assault and unlawful

imprisonment. He had been in counseling since 2000, and

several mental health experts had found he had post-traumatic

stress disorder and major depression, saying he had a ``very

high degree of psychological disturbance'' and suffered

frequent ``flashbacks and disturbing images,'' according to a

declaration from a forensic psychologist in one of Mr.

Zettergren's appeal briefs. The post-traumatic stress,

according to the psychologist, resulted from scenes he had

witnessed years before, including his mother's death by

electrocution and the shooting death of a friend.

None of this was reviewed by the judge who heard Mr.

Zettergren's gun rights petition.

Donna Bly, the mother of Jason Robinson, Mr. Zettergren's

shooting victim, considered suing the county for negligence

over the decision but could not find a lawyer to take the

case. She also tried bringing the issue up with a state

legislator but got nowhere.

``This man did not deserve to have his gun rights back,''

she said.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

The Republican majority has placed the House in a terrible bind this morning. They've taken a worthy bill to authorize the Coast Guard, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, and has tied it together with an unwise, unrelated, misguided bill that will severely limit the ability of States to fight the harmful invasive species that are destroying local ecosystems and disrupting local economies.

In the majority's Pledge to America, leaders of the House promised ``we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' This pledge is broken yet again today by this bill we are debating.

Ship-borne ballast discharge has introduced approximately 180 nonindigenous invasive species to the Great Lakes, lakes which comprise 20 percent of the freshwater on this planet. As long as I have been privileged to serve in Congress, Members on both sides of the aisle have vigorously protected these waters. In fact, during the debate on NAFTA, we discovered, along with our Canadian friends, that the Great Lakes water was to be sold in other trade agreements to other parts of the country that had shortages of water. We all banded together and had that part removed. We do have an obligation to save 20 percent of the planet's freshwater, which is becoming more and more scarce every day.

Nationally, more than 4,500 invasive species have been introduced to the Nation's waters. In total, they cost us billions of dollars on an annual basis. $5 billion alone has been spent to try to deal with the European zebra mussel, which we've barely made any inroads against. It has been introduced into the Great Lakes and can be found by the thousands throughout the lakes. They attach to the hard surfaces so thickly that they clog municipal water systems and electric generation plants, costing over $1 billion a year to control.

States know all too well of the dangerous threat of invasive species and are taking commonsense action; but today's bill destroys the effective work by taking away the right of the States to have control. We must allow States to have an equal voice in protecting their ecosystems and economies if we are truly to solve the threat of invasive species in our waters.

Despite the unique challenges facing each State, the majority is demanding that all States follow one set of Federal requirements. This approach is completely different from the one taken by the congressional Republicans when debating regulations that would affect mountaintop mining corporations, which is taking off the top of a mountain and throwing it down into a valley, oftentimes clogging up the water supply.

Earlier this year, the Republican majority passed H.R. 2018, which gave power to the States to decide whether or not they should follow the guidelines set forth by the EPA to regulate pollution from mountaintop mining; but when it comes to ballast water, suddenly we think that the Federal Government and not the States must have the final say.

This inconsistency and, obviously, this war against the EPA is causing great consternation in the country. The only consistent logic in their approach is that, in both instances, they are advocating the interests of the respective industries, not the interests of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

As am I; so I will close.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Kissell of North Carolina which would prohibit the Coast Guard from procuring items classified as textiles and apparel that are not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States. Republicans blocked this germane amendment last night in the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can help the American workers, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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