Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks in opposition to the Republican bill that weakens protections for violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.

Today, I stand with my Democratic colleagues and victims of domestic violence across our Nation in strong opposition to the H.R. 4970, the House Republican alternative to Violence Against Women Reauthorization bill. This bill severely undermines vital protections available to victims of violence and places these victims in danger of continued abuse.

Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence. Each year across this Nation, thousands of women, children, and men who fall victim to domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking no longer have to live in fear because of important victim protections under this law. This Republican alternative bill threatens to dismantle this progress by deliberately placing domestic violence victims from LGBT, immigrant, tribal and other marginalized communities in harm's way.

While my Republican colleagues may think many of these discarded provisions are unnecessary, there is ample proof that they are sadly mistaken. Just last year, cases of LGBT domestic violence had increased by 38 percent. Of those who sought help, 44 percent of LGBT victims were turned away from traditional shelters. As for Tribal victims, Native American women face the highest rate of domestic violence in the U.S.--three and a half times higher than the national average. Proposed changes to current VAWA protections for immigrant survivors create an even larger obstacle for immigrant victims seeking to report crimes and increase the danger to immigrant victims by eliminating important confidentiality protections. These changes threaten to undermine current anti-fraud protections in place while rolling back decades of Congress's progress and commitments towards the protection of vulnerable immigrant victims.

Let's be clear, VAWA should not be used as a vehicle to pass immigration policy measures that are not germane to its purpose. VAWA has always been focused on protecting victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and trafficking and this should not change. In just one day, over 5,363 victims and their children receive services at domestic violence programs in California. On that same day, however, over 924 requests for services go unmet, largely due to lack of resources. This alone is proof that we need to expand the VAWA's programs and services and not eliminate them.

I'd like to thank Representative Scott for his leadership on this issue. I'd like to thank Chairman Bachus for his support for all of the work that has gone into flood insurance reform.

I rise today in support of H.R. 5740, the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2012. But more than anybody, I'd like to thank Representative Biggert for her hard work on this bill and flood insurance reform, and I'm pleased to cosponsor this legislation.

While this bill, by no means, is a substitute for the comprehensive set of reforms included in H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act, a bipartisan bill which passed the House last year, I believe that we must act to pass this bill so that the flood insurance program does not lapse.

The flood insurance program provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners. Unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the program at risk. The program lapsed three times in 2010. These lapses meant FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. Given the current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the flood insurance program is hampering that market's recovery and must be addressed.

The current authorization for the flood insurance program expires on May 31. The next day, hurricane season begins. It is irresponsible to have our Nation's homeowners vulnerable to flooding at any time, but to allow such a lapse during hurricane season is especially troubling.

Even though this bill only extends the program for 30 days, I hope that this brief window will give our counterparts in the Senate enough time to pass their flood insurance reform bill so that this program has all of the resources it needs to fully serve homeowners and the communities in which they live.

I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill in the hope that the next flood insurance bill we vote on is a comprehensive reauthorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 5326 would fully fund the Department of Justice's financial and mortgage fraud enforcement activities as well as the new Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group.

In announcing this initiative during the State of the Union, President Obama said that the new unit will ``hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.'' President Obama recognized that additional resources were needed to prosecute crimes against homeowners and mortgage investors.

Since the start of the financial crisis of 2008, there have been 3.5 million foreclosures. While it's clear that there was extensive fraud in the origination and securitization of mortgage loans, these cases were complicated and time consuming. Without a coordinated task force with significant resources, the greatest crime in the history of our housing market will go unpunished. However, so far, the RMBS Working Group is off to a slow start.

The RMBS Working Group cochair, New York Attorney General Schneidermann, all but affirmed my concerns when he essentially admitted to the Congressional Progressive Caucus during a special public forum that the RMBS Working Group does not yet have the resources it needs to establish a robust infrastructure commensurate with the charge of investigating the 2008 financial crisis.

To fund this effort, the President requested a $55 million increase in the budget for the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to help facilitate an increase in staffing for the RMBS Working Group. However, as noted in the Minority Views, H.R. 5326 only provides a small portion of the increase that's needed. So I have worked to find additional funds from within the NASA appropriations that I don't anticipate

will endanger any program. Considering the retirement of the space shuttle program and a shift in NASA's priorities, I believe we should use the funds in these accounts to help bring justice to defrauded investors, homeowners, and consumers.

My amendment pulls from NASA Aeronautics' budget of $569.9 million in appropriations--a fair target since NASA only requested $551.5 million. I am making up the other portion of the funds needed to neutralize the impact on budgetary outlays by pulling $38 million from NASA's Space Operations' $3.9 billion in appropriations.

In subtracting from these accounts, my amendment would increase the FBI's budgets by $9 million, increase DOJ's legal activities appropriation by $13.5 million, and increase the appropriations for U.S. Attorneys by $21.5 million, all in efforts to fully comply with the Obama administration's $55 million request.

The FBI needs the funding to increase its capacity to investigate financial and mortgage fraud schemes. The requested 40 new agents and four forensic accountants will create two hybrid squads to target the most significant, complex financial crimes, and remaining resources will be allocated to FBI field offices to increase financial and mortgage fraud efforts.

The criminal division within DOJ needs additional resources to prosecute the most significant financial crimes--including mortgage fraud, corporate fraud, and sophisticated investment fraud--coordinate multi-district financial crime cases, and assist U.S. Attorneys offices in financial crime cases with significant money-laundering and asset- forfeiture components.

The civil division within DOJ needs funding to expand civil enforcement efforts to continue to obtain recoveries from individuals and companies who have defrauded the government by violating the terms of Federal contracts, grants, loans, and subsidies.

The Civil Rights Division within DOJ needs funding to expand civil enforcement efforts, including investigations of predatory lending, pricing discrimination, matters involving allegations of potentially fraudulent behavior.

And lastly, the U.S. Attorneys need additional resources to expand criminal investigations and prosecutions of mortgage fraud.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Korean American Day, I would like to recognize the 109th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States and the achievements of the Korean-American responsible for bringing both this day and the importance of the contributions of Korean-Americans to light, Dr. Byung Wook Yoon.

In 2003, Dr. Yoon, then President of the Southern California Centennial Committee of Korean Immigration to the United States, began the campaign to establish a national Korean American Day. In 2004, when Dr. Yoon became president of the Korean-American Foundation, he formed the National Committee of Korean American Day. Under his leadership in 2005, the committee claimed victory when the U.S. Senate (S. 283) and U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 487) passed resolutions supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day and establishing an annual celebration recognizing the many contributions of Americans of Korean descent to the life and cultural fabric of the United States.

Aside from spearheading the campaign to establish Korean American Day, Dr. Yoon has accomplished a great deal in his lifetime. He is the recipient of the Presidential Award from the Republic of Korea, the Grand Award for World Korean Day from the World Korean Interchange and Cooperation Association, and the Grand Award for Korean American Day from the Korean-American Foundation. Dr. Yoon was also selected as one of the one hundred honorable Korean immigrants to the United States by the Korean-American History Museum.

All his life, Dr. Yoon has demonstrated his leadership and dedication to the Korean-American community through his support of non-profit and service organizations. For example, he is responsible for community oriented service projects such as Korean-American Respect for the Environment, KARE, and has served as the Honorary National Chairman of the Korean-American Foundation USA. He has also served three times as Chairman of the Korean Institute of Southern California.

On behalf of all of my colleagues within the U.S. House of Representatives I would like to honor Dr. Byung Wook Yoon for his outstanding work in raising awareness to the many contributions Korean- Americans have made in every facet of American society. In honor of Dr. Yoon's work, I introduced H.Res. 599. The resolution honors him for his outstanding service on behalf of the Korean American community. The resolution reads:

Whereas on January 13, 2012, the Korean American community

in the United States celebrated Korean American Day initiated

by Dr. Yoon.

Whereas this year marks the 109th anniversary of the first

Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States.

Whereas in 2003, Dr. Yoon, then President of the

Southern California Centennial Committee of Korean

Immigration to the United States, began the campaign to

establish a national Korean American Day.

Whereas in 2003, the Korean American Foundation was founded

as the successor of the Centennial Committee of Korean

Immigration with the goals of fostering pride in Korean

cultural heritage and traditions as well as establishing

Korean American Day.

Whereas in 2004, Dr. Yoon became president of the Korean

American Foundation, forming the National Committee of Korean

American Day, successfully campaigning for the passage of

legislation recognizing Korean American Day on the Federal,

State, and local levels.

Whereas on October 20, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed S. Res.

283, ``Recognizing the contributions of Korean Americans to

the United States and encouraging the celebration of Korean

American Day'.'

Whereas on December 13, 2005, the U.S. House of

Representatives passed H. Res. 487 ``Supporting the goals and

ideals of Korean American Day'', recognizing the many

contributions of Americans of Korean descent to the life and

cultural fabric of the United States.

Whereas Dr. Yoon is the recipient of the Presidential Award

from the Republic of Korea.

Whereas Dr. Yoon received the first Grand Award for World

Korean Day from the World Korean Interchange and Cooperation

Association.

Whereas Dr. Yoon was honored with the first Grand Award for

Korean American Day from the Korean American Foundation.

Whereas Dr. Yoon was selected as one of a group of 100

honorable Korean immigrants to the United States by the

Korean American History Museum.

Whereas Dr. Yoon obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Political

and Diplomacy Science from Korea University and a Master of

Arts in Journalism and Communication from Brigham Young

University.

Whereas Dr. Yoon received honorary doctorates from Yuin

University and the World Mission University.

Whereas Dr. Yoon's professional career has included serving

as a correspondent to the United States for the Seoul

Kyunghyang Daily Newspaper as well as a Founding Director of

Business and Trade for Wilshire State Bank in Los Angeles,

California, and has also served three times as Chairman of

the Korean Institute of Southern California.

Whereas Dr. Yoon authored the ``Korean American Legacies:

Challenges and Responses'', a source of inspiration for

current and future generations of Korean Americans.

Whereas over many years, Dr. Yoon has demonstrated his

leadership and dedication to the Korean American community

through his work and support of numerous nonprofit and

service organizations, including creating KARE (Korean

American Respect for the Environment), and serving as the

Honorary National Chairman of the Korean American Foundation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Korean American Day. I would like to recognize the 109th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States and the achievements of the Korean American responsible for bringing both this day and the importance of the contributions of Korean Americans to light, Dr. Byung Wook Yoon.

In 2003, Dr. Yoon, then-president of the Southern California Centennial Committee of Korean Immigration to the United States, began the campaign to establish a National Korean American Day. In 2004, when Dr. Yoon became president of the Korean American Foundation, he formed the National Committee of Korean American Day. Under his leadership in 2005, the committee claimed victory when the United States Senate and U.S. House of Representatives passed resolutions supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day and established an annual celebration recognizing the many contributions of Americans of Korean descent to the life and cultural fabric of the United States.

Aside from spearheading the campaign to establish Korean American Day, Dr. Yoon has accomplished a great deal in his lifetime. He is the recipient of the Presidential Award from the Republic of Korea, the Grand Award for World Korean Day from the World Korean Interchange and Corporation Association, and the Grand Award for Korean American Day from the Korean American Foundation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, ranking member, and a gentleman who has provided superb leadership in opposition to H.R. 5.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, poorly titled Protecting Access to Healthcare, the so-called PATH Act, an unconstitutional, Big Government bill that violates the 10th Amendment and states' rights.

At the very start of the 112th Congress, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle declared that all business conducted in the House would be consistent with the Constitution. Yet if you read the constitutional authority statement attached to H.R. 5, the Republican sponsors seem to believe that the Commerce Clause magically creates a path for Congress to mandate nationwide caps on punitive damages in all medical malpractice lawsuits. The Republicans are telling all Americans, no matter how severe the injury or egregious the mistake by the doctor, hospital or drug manufacturer, that their losses are going to be capped at $250,000.

And with all due respect to the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Gingrey, who introduced H.R. 5, even his own State supreme court has found caps on punitive damages to be unconstitutional. In 2010, the Georgia supreme court unanimously struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. The Georgia court determined that a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages violates the right to a jury trial as guaranteed under the Georgia Constitution.

Section 110(a) of H.R. 5 would impose an even lower cap on damages in Georgia, effectively overturning the court's decision by an act of Congress. The section reads:

The provisions governing health care lawsuits set forth in

this Act preempt, subject to subsections (b) and (c), State

law to the extent that State law prevents the application of

any provisions of law established by or under this Act.

In addition to Georgia, other States like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wyoming

and Kentucky whose State constitutions specifically prohibit damage limitations will have their constitutions overruled by Congress.

For Members who have for years now questioned the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, you need but take a look at H.R. 5. H.R. 5 goes far beyond anything passed by the Democratic majority. If you don't believe me, just listen to Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips. In slamming H.R. 5 he wrote:

Whether you think tort reform is a good idea or not, it is

an issue that belongs to the States, not to the Federal

Government. Tort law has always been governed by the States.

Now, I didn't say that, Mr. Conyers didn't say that, and Ms. Jackson Lee didn't say that. None of those who have been over here this evening opposing H.R. 5 and laying out the facts and the consequences of H.R. 5 said this. Let me repeat. I am quoting Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips:

Whether you think tort reform is a good idea or not, it is

an issue that belongs to the States, not to the Federal

Government. Tort law has always been governed by the States.

Even some of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have expressed concerns. Congressman Poe, Republican from Texas said:

I believe that each individual State should allow the

people of that State to decide--not the Federal Government.

If the people of a particular State don't want liability

caps, that's their prerogative under the 10th Amendment.

Well, let's listen to what Congressman Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, said:

The right of the States for self-determination is enshrined

in the 10th Amendment. I am reticent to support Congress

imposing its will on the States by dictating new State law in

their own State courts.

To my conservative colleagues in this Chamber, don't be tricked. Don't be fooled. H.R. 5, simply and clearly put, violates states' rights. Reject this unconstitutional piece of legislation, protect States' constitutional rights to set tort law and just vote ``no'' on

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Chairman Bachus, Chairman Garrett and, certainly, Ranking Member Frank for their assistance and support on this bill. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our committee, passing many of the provisions in the bill with strong bipartisan majorities.

H.R. 3606 is an omnibus package of small business capital formation bills, some of which we already passed through the House back in November. I was pleased to work with Representative McCarthy on a provision now included in the bill to amend securities law in order to remove the prohibition on general solicitation, or general advertising, for the Office of Securities made under rule 506 of regulation D if those securities are only sold to accredited investors.

Last year, I worked with Representative McHenry to add critical investor protection provisions to this crowdfunding bill, which previously passed the House and is now included in this package. I was also pleased to support the provision from Representative Schweikert to allow companies to raise more funds through the Regulation A process and another provision to raise minimum shareholder thresholds at which companies must register their securities with the SEC.

On the title of this bill, which deals with the emerging growth companies, the IPOs, I support the goal of this legislation, and I hope that many of the amendments offered today on this title are accepted, including my own, which is dealing with the provision of research. Again, I am supportive of this legislation, but I think that more investor protection provisions are needed.

Why did we work together to get this legislation passed?

We worked from both sides of the aisle because we are all concerned about job creation and access to capital. We have gone through a recession in this country, starting with the loans that were made in the subprime market in 2003 to 2007. We almost reached a depression, and we destroyed the housing industry in this country. So we are all working to try and not only get the housing industry revitalized, but we are also working to make sure that our small businesses have access to capital and, thus, job creation.

I am very pleased that we were able to work together on this legislation despite the fact that what Mr. Frank brought to our attention today is the kind of effort that could interfere with attempts to have bipartisanship on some of these legislative attempts that we have made. What Congressman Frank brought to our attention was that title VI of the bill, a provision that was drafted by Representative Himes, with the support of Republicans, seems to have been bare minimally reworked and rebranded as a Representative Quayle bill.

While I support the provision, I think that taking Mr. Himes' work product undermines the spirit of bipartisanship and the cooperation that was otherwise demonstrated by this bill.

Do I like every one of these bills 100 percent? No, I don't. I have some concerns and I have some questions. I even have some uncertainty when we talk about crowdfunding. I want to make sure that we're protecting the investors. I want to make sure that the proper research is isolated from the underwriters who have connections to those people that they're writing the bills for.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

To sum up this bill, it will make it just a bit easier for some companies to raise funds in our capital markets, enabling them to grow their businesses. But make no mistake, I believe that this Congress still needs to do more on jobs. In addition to these legislative changes that enable capital formation, we need to keep teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job; extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers; and revitalize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures.

A truly comprehensive approach is needed to get Americans working again, and I hope my colleagues are willing to work with me on these issues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

To the Members of this House and to those who are listening to this debate, you've heard this described as a jobs bill. In my earlier remarks, I, too, described this as a jobs bill. You've heard us talk about job creation, access to capital, ways by which we can support small businesses in general but IPOs in particular. You heard us talk about crowdfunding and creative means by which we can help to invigorate this economy. And so certainly this is a jobs bill. But then you heard some reference to the President's jobs bill by our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, who talked about a comprehensive approach.

Make no mistake, this jobs bill is important, and I certainly hope that it will help to stimulate the economy in ways that all of us thought that it could. However, when you take a look at this compared to the President's comprehensive legislation, then you understand what Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about.

Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about the President's comprehensive jobs bill that would do some very important things. It talked about job sharing. It will make sure that our teachers and our firefighters are kept on the job. It talks about school construction. It talks about aid to community college and comprehensive efforts to provide tax credits for small businesses.

So, you see, we would like everybody to understand that we're not abandoning a comprehensive effort to do real job creation and access to capital and support for small businesses. We're trying to take every opportunity, every step, as it has been mentioned time and time again.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Continuing the comparison between the two efforts, as has been said over and over again today, we certainly have joined in a bipartisan fashion to move this bill. Even though I am not sure and some of our Members are not sure that everything that's in all of these bills is what we absolutely understand and we're willing to say we know that it will help, it will help to deal with this economy in ways that we want it to, but we are willing to take a chance. We're willing to try.

Now, when you compare this with the President's comprehensive jobs bill, then you can see this is only one effort; and in comparison, it's a small effort in comparison to what the President has proposed. And so, let us not forget, we still have work to do. We still have to be concerned about the unacceptably high unemployment rate. As we speak today, the unemployment rate is still in excess of 8 percent.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like for us all to recognize that we are taking a step that we are constantly accused of not being able to do, and that is move something in a bipartisan fashion.

I'm appreciative for my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who have been so cooperative, and I'm appreciative for the leadership that has been provided on this side of the aisle. But we still must remember that unemployment is unacceptably high. We must remember that we must have a comprehensive approach. We must remember that the President has presented us with a comprehensive, realistic approach by which we can stimulate this economy, create jobs, support education and our schools, and help the unemployed in ways that they are desperately waiting for.

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I offer my amendment today in the spirit of improving the underlying bill in the area of investor protection with regard to the provisions of research provisions in title I.

First, my amendment attempts to mitigate against potentially damaging conflicts of interest between the people who will profit from an emerging growth company's IPO and the people who write research about such IPOs. This amendment provides that if a broker or a dealer is underwriting an IPO and also providing research to the public about that IPO, those research reports need to be filed with the SEC and underwriters need to be held to stricter liability for their comments.

Second, this amendment provides that if emerging growth companies are communicating orally or in writing with potential investors before or following an offering, they need to file those communications with the

May I inquire as to how much time I have left.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Chairman, I join with Mr. Capuano in saying that we don't normally agree with the Chamber of Commerce. As a matter of fact, this may be the first time that I've agreed with the Chamber of Commerce. But you have also the Council of Institutional Investors that is warning us about this research problem that we have unless we clear it up.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate your organizing the time for us to come to the floor and speak about our friend, Donald Payne. We are all so sad, and we are going to miss him, but we also know that the service that he gave to this country, even long before he came to the Congress of the United States, and the service that he has given to this country since being a Member of Congress, is unmatched by any Member of Congress.

Donald Payne was a true servant who not only served his State of New Jersey, but Donald Payne was someone who took care of his district. When I take a look at all of the capacities that he served in in the State of New Jersey, I am just in awe, counting Democratic chairman, executive of the Prudential Insurance Company, vice president of Urban Data Systems, educating the New York and Passaic public school districts, a former national president of the YMCA, chairman of the World Refugee and Rehabilitation Committee--it goes on and on and on. And he brought with him to Congress the same attitude, the same commitment to service.

Since his service in Congress, of course, he left us as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. He served as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus immediately prior to my being elected to the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I learned a lot from his service about how to chair the Congressional Black Caucus.

Don Payne was known for several things but certainly known and respected for his commitment to education, closing the achievement gap, making sure that we expand opportunities for the least of these with Pell Grants, making sure that he reduced the interest rates on some of the loans, the Stafford loans, for example. He was known because he understood that as a public policy maker he could influence education in this country, and he certainly did that.

I also would like to point to his record of achievement serving as the chair of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he was the expert, unmatched. As a matter of fact, Donald Payne traveled to Africa, East Africa, West Africa, throughout his career, and he knew all of these countries on the continent, and he knew the leaders, past and present.

As a matter of fact, Don didn't wait for a codel of a lot of people to be organized to go to a troubled spot. Don would get on the airplane by himself, a one-person codel, and travel, set up his own meetings with the leaders of those countries, talk with them about what was taking place in those countries and get such an understanding of what needed to be done. He coupled all of this with the history of the countries of Africa.

Don was an educator, he was a teacher, he was a historian. So he knew a lot about the backgrounds of these countries because he had studied that. When he coupled that information with what was going on at the present time that he was visiting and working on issues in those countries, he made it all come together, and he helped us all to understand. He was our go-to person on Africa for sure.

When we wanted to know what was going on--and some people who were not that involved in foreign affairs and in Africa, they just followed his vote. When they looked upon that panel, they looked at how Don Payne was voting, and then they followed his leadership.

We are going to miss that leadership. We are going to miss this dedication. We are going to miss this mild-mannered man who loved his job, who loved his district. I'm always going to remember that he invited me to his district on several occasions. I went up with Don, I campaigned with him. I went about the community. He introduced me to the ministers, and he was well respected and loved in his district.

Of course, we all know why, because he was dedicated to the district, and he did so much for the district. The district is going to miss Don Payne. It will be hard to match the work that he did and his success and his achievements. We're going to remember each time we're involved in some of the same issues that Don was involved in. We're going to ask ourselves, what would Don have done, and we're going to follow the thinking of Don Payne on those issues.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.

This legislation will simply wipe out all of the credit-hour and State authorization program integrity rules. These rules are so important and crucial because this is what prevents the widespread rip- off, fraud, and abuse in this industry.

H.R. 2117 would repeal the Department of Education's State authorization regulation, which gives States the ability to enforce their right to require that all colleges operating within their jurisdictions be authorized to do so. Without this State authorization rule, States have no way of knowing which colleges operate within their State unless they operate on physical campuses.

The State authorization rule simply requires that, as a condition for a receipt of Federal aid, colleges verify that they have authorization from the States in which they operate and are in adherence to their State education laws.

This legislation also aims to overturn the rule creating a sweeping Federal definition of credit hour. Currently, there is no common understanding of what colleges mean when they use the word ``credit.''

The most egregious result of this provision's repeal is the abuses of for-profit colleges, like the American Intercontinental University, who has been charged with inflating their credit hours to a point when they offered nine college credits for courses that were only 5 weeks long.

The Federal definition of a credit hour is imperative to directly address colleges that have been inflating their credits to acquire more Federal student financial aid dollars.

This rule will also help mitigate the widespread problems students face in transferring credits from one institution to another by articulating a more precise measure of educational concept attainment represented by credits a student earned.

This program's integrity rules have been put in place to ensure that all students receive a fair shake in their quest to obtain a higher education. Instead of working against the Department of Education and Secretary Duncan, policymakers should be working with them to implement these rules in a sensible way, not trying to repeal them altogether.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening with private postsecondary schools is the next biggest scandal. You think the subprime meltdown was big, when American taxpayers find out how much of their tax dollars are being ripped off by these private postsecondary schools who have a Joe Blow school for computer learning with no computers, teachers who are not accredited, credit hours that are distorted, and students who don't get trained, don't get education, can't transfer anything, and end up with a lot of debt, I ask you to please reject this legislation.

I have the greatest respect for the legislator who's introduced this, but this is wrong. This is a rip-off, and we should be against it.

Mr. Conyers, I want to thank you for not only granting me this time but for being my friend for many years. It is odd for me to be on the opposite side of you. This may be the first time, certainly, in my career that we have ever disagreed on anything.

Mr. Sensenbrenner is correct in that this will be the only time we will probably come together around an issue, but we've been together on this one for a long time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012. This legislation on which I joined with Representative Sensenbrenner will restore the property rights of all Americans and prevent the Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government from using economic development as a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain. Economic development condemnations have all too often been used by powerful interest groups to acquire land at the expense of the poor and politically weak.

As the dissent in the Kelo case pointed out:

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public

benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of

private property render economic development takings ``for

public use'' is to wash out any distinction between private

and public use of property. The beneficiaries are likely to

be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power

in the political process, including large corporations and

development firms. As for the victims, the government now has

license to transfer property from those with fewer resources

to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this

perverse result.

Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued ``the burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly and economically disadvantaged.'' Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a ``license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests.''

The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011 will discourage eminent domain abuse by denying local governments that take private property for economic development access to Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years.

One of the basic constitutional functions of American government is the protection of private property rights. H.R. 1433 will protect homes, communities, churches, and other privately owned property from predatory takers under the guise of ``economic development.''

Private developers and local governments that have a genuine project should be able to acquire the land or property they need through legitimate, voluntary purchases. If the project really is more valuable than the current use of the same land, then they should be willing to negotiate with property owners who are willing to sell.

Eminent domain abuse impacts both urban and rural communities, and it is past time that Congress acted affirmatively to protect the private property rights of all Americans, who all too often are not evenly matched to challenge private companies in lengthy litigation. Where the Supreme Court created ambiguity with its Kelo ruling, Congress must be clear: There should never be a legal question concerning the rights individuals have to be secure in their homes and communities.

With that, let me just wrap this up by saying I have been engaged for the past several years with the subprime meltdown in this country that caused so many families to be in foreclosure, and I have been engaged on that subject because I consider the home the most precious asset, the most precious possession that any American can have.

And so whether it's trying to protect people who got involved in mortgages that they did not understand, mortgages where they were suckered into signing on the dotted line because we had exotic products that had been put into the marketplace which caused them to lose that home, or whether it is the pure question of eminent domain, property ownership is the basis of our American government and protected, should be always, by the Constitution and the Members who are elected to come to Congress to uphold the Constitution and protect our citizens.

And so today I join with Congressman Sensenbrenner and others on the opposite side of the aisle in ways that I don't normally do, and probably won't have the opportunity to do for a long time to come, but today is important. We join together in the interest of American citizens who simply want to be able to own their home without their government intervening in their lives and taking their property and saying they are doing it in the name of economic development.

As the Member of Congress who represents Los Angeles International Airport, also known as LAX, I know we need a multiyear FAA reauthorization.

LAX is the world's sixth busiest airport. LAX creates an estimated 59,000 jobs in or near the airport and has a total annual economic impact estimated at $60 billion.

In 2008, 60 million passengers and 1.8 million tons of freight and mail passed through LAX. All of this economic activity depends upon the FAA and the work that it does every day to guarantee a safe and efficient air travel system. My district also includes the Western- Pacific Regional Office of the FAA in Hawthorne, California, where dedicated FAA engineers and program managers plan improvements of airport operations.

I'm extremely disappointed that this bill contains changes to labor laws affecting the dedicated workers at our Nation's airlines and railroads. This labor provision increases the percentage of employees who must express interest in having an election regarding union representation from 35 percent to 50 percent. This provision was included without consultation of the workers who will be affected and without a vote on the House floor. It is unfortunate and divisive, and there is no reason for it to be in this bill.

Last August, the FAA was forced to shut down many of its operations because the House of Representatives refused to pass a simple bill to extend its funding reauthorization. As a result, 4,000 FAA employees were placed on furlough. Those affected included many of the FAA's engineers, scientists, research analysts, administrative assistants, computer specialists, program managers, environmental protection specialists, and community planners. These government workers were being forced to live without pay for 13 days and were unable to do their jobs developing our air traffic infrastructure and serving the flying public.

I would like to support this bill, but this is problematic; and I reserve my comments further on this bill.

Madam Speaker and Members, I came to the floor to address this issue. Despite the fact that I understand that it's kind of a good political issue in an election year where many people will use this to say I'm saving the government money and I'm keeping those folks on welfare who don't deserve government support anyway from using this money or this EBT card to have access in ways that will allow them to be in and take advantage of casinos and strip joints, et cetera, and it's a very sexy argument and it looks good and you'll get a lot of play off of it, so I understand that coming to the floor to protect the poor and the most vulnerable is not popular, but think about it, just think about it.

Many of you come from districts where there are liquor stores. These are small businesses, and most of these liquor stores now serve more other products than they do liquor. They have milk; they have juice; they have bread; they have meats. They have the kinds of things that many of these poor families need and they buy at liquor stores.

Why do they buy them at liquor stores? Because they're in these food deserts that you have heard the First Lady talk about, areas all over this country, whether it is rural or whether it is urban, where they don't have grocery stores. They don't have the big chains. All they have are these small business that are liquor stores who carry all of the products that a family could use to feed their family, not just liquor.

And so I would ask you to take a real close look at this and at least exclude the liquor stores. These small businesses are very important all over this country. Yes, they sell liquor. Many of us don't like the idea that even in some of these places there are problems, but the folks who go there don't have to buy liquor. If there are problems at any of these liquor stores, local law enforcement should do its job.

And so when you include liquor stores, all you're doing is attacking some small businesses who are providing foodstuffs--not just liquor, but foodstuffs; not only in inner cities, but in rural communities--that families need. So this is punishment, this is being very harsh on the most vulnerable people in our society to include liquor stores in this group of stores that you would not like to have the welfare recipients use.

Again, I could go along with strip joints; I could go along with casinos. But as I travel across the country, I cannot go along with excluding liquor stores from being able to provide food that's needed to these poor families that live in these food deserts where there are no grocery stores, no chains, no other place for them. And when they have transportation problems, it really does wreak havoc on them trying to get even to a place where they could buy food.

So if you would understand that and work to try to make sure that this doesn't stay in here, I would appreciate it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

It is very helpful. With the liquor stores, they help to stimulate the economy. They sell all of these foodstuffs. They hire a few people. Some families have three and four family members.

So, yes, I would ask that you exclude liquor stores from this consideration.

There's some confusion about what is excluded or included. As I understand it, a liquor store that just sells just juice or milk would not be considered a store that sells food.

Is that correct? Is that your understanding?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Milk.

Reclaiming my time, that is not my understanding, and I would hope we could work together.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Milk is included in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman and Members, this bill is just another attempt to dismantle health care reform. Last year, House Republicans passed H.R. 2 to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. The landmark health care reform law that was enacted almost 2 years ago is what I'm referring to.

The Affordable Care Act has already made a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. Let me just recount for the Members of this House what the Affordable Care Act has done and is doing.

It prevents insurance companies from dropping people because they get sick. It prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. It allows young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26. It provides free preventive care to seniors under Medicare. It is phasing out the ``doughnut hole'' and helping seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs. Finally, it provides tax credits to help small businesses purchase health insurance for their employees.

When H.R. 2 failed to move in the Senate, House Republicans began passing bills to dismantle the Affordable Care Act piece by piece and inch by inch. They passed H.R. 1213, which repeals funding for the organization of health benefit exchanges, marketplaces where American families will be able to choose an affordable health care plan. They passed H.R. 1214, which repeals funding for the construction of school- based health clinics. They passed H.R. 1216, which repeals funding for the training of primary care physicians.

Now they're trying to repeal the CLASS Act. The CLASS Act is the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, and it establishes a program to facilitate access to long-term health care services. Who can be against that? The CLASS Act is a voluntary program to provide participants with a cash benefit that can be used to purchase a variety of long-term care services, such as home modifications, accessible transportation, personal assistance services, homemaker services, respite care, home health aids, and nursing support. The program would be funded entirely by the premiums paid by those who choose to participate.

House Republicans' CLASS Act repeal also repeals funding for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Health Information. The clearinghouse provides online information about long-term care costs and planning options.

Our Nation is indeed facing a long-term health crisis. People are living longer. As a result, there's a growing need for long-term care for elderly and disabled Americans. There are 10 million people who need long-term care in the United States today. That number is expected to grow to 15 million in the year 2020. There are an estimated 52 million unpaid caregivers providing long-term care services in American homes today. American families are paying more than $50 billion every year on out-of-pocket expenses for long-term care. These families need options, and they need our support.

The CLASS Act does not need to be repealed. If House Republicans believe this program should be fixed, then they should try to fix it. However, they have not even attempted to improve this program or develop other options to make long-term care services available to American families who need them.

It is long past due for House Republicans to stop trying to dismantle health care reform and start working with us in a constructive, bipartisan manner to improve our Nation's health system. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support solutions to America's long-term care crisis. Ladies and gentlemen, what we are discussing today is precisely what Occupy Wall Street was all about. It's about what are we going to do to deal with that 99 percent out there who simply need some safety nets that their government could easily assist with.

Health care is a problem in this country. Not everyone can afford it, and I would ask my colleagues to take the politics out of this issue. The American public needs this health care reform. And the Occupy Wall Street people who are out there simply sent a message to say, okay, America, stop being simply on the side of the 1 percent, look at the 99 percent. I would urge my colleagues to do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.

This bill would severely undermine workers' rights to organize and, if implemented, will eventually silence and end unions as we know them.

Congressman George Miller was correct in referring to this bill as the Election Prevention Act. H.R. 3094 would require the National Labor Relations Board to hear useless and trivial appeals from companies in order to stop elections. This is an outright assault on middle class workers and the families they support.

The middle class is in decline. A CBO report found that between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent of earners experienced income growth of 275 percent. That's the top 1 percent, while the middle-income earners saw only 40 percent in growth over the same period. Statistics like these are startling and paint a distinct picture of this country as one that is quickly evolving into a two-tiered society with no room at the top at all for the middle class.

The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is nothing more than an outright assault on the middle class. If this misguided and dangerous legislation is passed, you will see an even more rapid decline of the middle class in our country. I urge all Members of the House to rebuke this misguided legislation and instead focus on policies that will encourage and facilitate job growth.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Chairman Bachus, Chairman Garrett, Congressman McCarthy, and Ranking Member Frank for their assistance and support with this bill. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our committee, passing it on a voice vote.

H.R. 2940 amends the Securities Act of 1933 to remove the prohibition on general solicitation or general advertising for offers of securities made under rule 506 of regulation D, if those securities are only sold to accredited investors. In other words, investors will be able to advertise their private, unregistered securities offerings if those securities are only sold to accredited investors.

As you know, accredited investors are individuals, companies, or organizations that generally have the sophistication needed to make complex financial decisions. These folks are thought to need less protection than average retail investors.

Because this lifting of the ban on general solicitation and advertising would only apply when securities were sold to accredited investors, I am sympathetic to the goals of the gentleman from California's bill.

The current ban on general advertising has been interpreted to mean that companies can only raise capital from investors with whom they have had a preexisting relationship. This requirement would hamper their ability to obtain capital and it's, therefore, appropriate to modernize this provision.

However, during the hearing on this bill in September, the North American Securities Administrators Association and others noted that one problem with the original bill was that it would be difficult to limit the sale of these securities to only accredited investors when issuers advertise to everyone, particularly since accredited investors were able to self-certify their status.

An amendment I offered in subcommittee, which was accepted, directs the SEC to write rules requiring issuers to verify that purchasers are accredited investors. I think this will substantially improve the potential fraud issues identified by the State regulators.

Given this improvement, I'd like to offer my support for this legislation. This bill will make it just a bit easier for some companies to raise funds in the private market, enabling them to grow their businesses.

But make no mistake. I believe that we still need to pass the American Jobs Act in order to truly get people back to work in this Nation. In addition to this small change to enable capital formation, we need to keep teachers, police officers and firefighters on the job, extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers, and revitalize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. A truly comprehensive approach is needed to get Americans working again. And I hope my colleagues are willing to work with me on passing the American Jobs Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am very pleased that we have bipartisan support for this legislation. It has been stated over and over again that access to capital is extremely important to our businesses, and small businesses in particular.

Mr. Speaker and Members, we talk a lot about our support for small businesses; but I know there's a long way to go in order to make sure that they have not only access to capital, but we have one-stop shops and other kinds of efforts that will help them not only to grow their businesses and expand their businesses but to hire people. And really, that's what this is all about.

This is about how do we stimulate our economy, how do we get it working, how do we create jobs. This is one way that we can do this.

While we're talking about small businesses, let me remind you that, in the American Jobs Act that is being debated by this Congress, we have similar efforts for small businesses. We have tax credits for small businesses; we have tax credits when they hire workers, when they hire veterans. So I am very pleased that both sides of the aisle are showing more and more support. These small businesses need this capital to acquire inventory. Many of them need to get up to speed with their computer equipment to be able to market their services, their goods, and their products. As we do this, let us keep in mind that this is one aspect of how we stimulate the economy, of how we grow our small businesses, of how we give support to them.

Let's look at the other ways we're talking about stimulating the economy. Don't forget that many small businesses will benefit from the repair of our infrastructure. Just think about it. When we're repairing our roads and our bridges and our water systems, small business persons will have many

opportunities to grow their small businesses, whether or not they are wholesalers and people in the middle who will be providing supplies and materials to those contractors or whether or not they are subcontracting for some aspect of this development and growth and repair of our infrastructure. So we're on the right track here when we talk about assistance to small businesses and job creation, but let us open up our minds and really think about how the infrastructure repair will certainly be a big boon for small businesses.

I can point to other things in the American Jobs Act. Just think about the construction and repair of our schools. We have schools that still need a lot of repair. They don't have science labs. The laboratories and much of what is involved in the whole construction of schools is very much needed. Again, our small businesses will benefit from this. Just think about it. When they go to their local boards of education and when they get involved in supplying goods and services as we repair these schools and build more schools, that's how you stimulate the economy. You cannot separate small businesses from jobs. Small businesses create jobs. Jobs allow people the ability to spend money and to stimulate our economy.

I am just so pleased that we see bipartisan support in the effort for small businesses. Let's not stop here. Let's keep going. Let's keep creating these opportunities so that we can say that we're a country that not only respects small businesses but that we're going to put our money where our mouths are, and we're going to give them the opportunity again to create and grow and expand.

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