Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 338, the Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013. This bill is simple and straightforward. It amends the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam in this act.

Currently, the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act makes it illegal to knowingly ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute, or purchase 10,000 or more contraband cigarettes that do not have a State or territorial tax stamp. The act similarly applies to the sale of contraband smokeless tobacco

in excess of certain specified quantities. With respect to both activities, the act authorizes the imposition of criminal penalties and fines.

As drafted, however, the bill does not apply to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. Thus, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is prohibited from investigating Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act violations in those territories. H.R. 338 will cure this obvious oversight.

Mr. Speaker, cigarettes are believed to be the most illegally trafficked product in the world. In 2006 alone, more than 10 percent of worldwide sales, or 600 billion cigarettes, were counterfeited.

Contraband cigarettes actually present numerous issues. Legally manufactured cigarettes are diverted from legal trade channels in the underworld for resale, evading the imposition of appropriate taxes, costing territorial governments a significant amount of cigarette excess tax revenue each year. They also facilitate unfair competition that hurts the bottom line of legitimate businesses.

Counterfeit cigarettes are also not subjected to any manufacturing safeguards, therefore presenting the potential for products containing toxic ingredients that can seriously jeopardize the health and safety of the smoker.

The lower price also facilitates easier affordability for our youth, resulting in addiction at earlier ages. The illicit trade therefore adds steadily to the health care costs of worker productivity losses and the growing death from tobacco use. Currently, the use of tobacco claims 5.4 million lives a year. This number is projected to rise to 8 million by 2013.

For these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 338 and thank our colleague from American Samoa, Delegate Faleomavaega, for his leadership in spearheading this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the delegate from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm proud to join the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan, who were leaders in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006. They were there and have been fighting the battle for voting rights for a long time. The leadership in reauthorization was obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, a right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. The Supreme Court noted in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964 that no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.

From its initial passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress has relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting to justify the continued need for remedies imposed by the expiring provisions. In the original enactment of the Voting Rights Act and its subsequent reauthorization, Congress has made sure that voting rights remedies are proportionate to the problems Congress sought to secure.

In the reauthorization process in 2006, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan made sure that we listened to each and every witness. They had long hearings and heard all kinds of different schemes to undermine the right to vote; and in the end, we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act.

As a result of the Voting Rights Act, since 1964--it was passed in 1965, but since 1964, the number of Black elected officials has increased from a nationwide total of 300 in 1964 to over 9,000 today. The Congressional Black Caucus grew from three prior to the Voting Rights Act to 43 today.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, my home State, there were no African Americans in the General Assembly in 1965. Now there are 18 members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus. Clearly, these numbers show that many of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act have made a difference.

Section 5 is one of the Voting Rights Act's most important provisions. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit planned changes in their election laws to Federal officials for prior approval. They have to show that the change does not have a discriminatory effect or intent.

The jurisdictions covered by section 5 were selected the old fashioned way: they earned it, by implementing poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandered election districts and other schemes.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to section 5. In Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge will be to try to eliminate the requirement for covered jurisdictions to secure that pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. They are arguing that the current evidence of racial discriminatory practices in covered jurisdictions is inadequate to support section 5; but the record of section 5-based objections has shown that section 5 is needed.

Since 2006, when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, more than 750 objections have been lodged by the Department of Justice to changes in election procedures through the pre-clearance provision in section 5, finding that those 750 changes violated the Voting Rights Act. Those are changes in election laws that the jurisdictions knew they had to submit to Justice.

Now, just exactly what kind of changes would they have enacted if they hadn't been required to pre-clear their new laws?

Their bipartisan congressional report in 1982 warned that without this section discrimination would reappear overnight. That's because without this section there would be no effective deterrent in passing discriminatory laws.

Section 5 offers a type of relief that is not available in any other provision of the act. Without section 5's relief, jurisdictions with a history of discrimination could pass discriminatory changes in their election laws, and then the victim of the discrimination would bear the costs of litigation and bear the burden of proof to overturn the law.

If overturned, finally, then they could do another scheme and the process would start all over. If those impacted negatively by the discriminatory laws could not raise the money, then they're just stuck with the discriminatory plan.

Now, a lot of these plans are inflicted on small counties where people just do not have the resources to launch expensive, complex litigation. And so it is unfair to impose on them the burden of protecting their voting rights when you know from history that the covered jurisdictions have a history of discrimination.

Now, one of the problems with the elimination of section 5 is that once the small counties raise all the money, get to litigation, finally get a final judgment, and overturn it, the perpetrators of the scheme already would have achieved their goal. They got elected. They were able to represent the area and cast all the votes. And then in the end, when they're finally caught discriminating, they get to run as incumbents, with all the advantages of incumbency. The magic of section 5 is that the illegal scheme never goes into effect to begin with.

Now, there is a provision, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, for covered jurisdictions to bail out if they feel they have stopped discriminating. But all they have to do to bail out is first prove that they haven't gotten caught discriminating in 10 years.

Now, the process is simple. For those who have attempted to bail out, they've been able to bail out. There is no barrier, essentially no barrier, to bailing out from under the provisions of section 5, other than the fact that you couldn't have been caught discriminating in the previous 10 years.

Striking section 5 will essentially turn our country to a pre-1965 election

system. Mr. Speaker, at a time when America has staked so much of its international reputation on the need to spread democracy around the world, we must ensure its vitality here at home and preserve section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for all of his leadership in voting rights and civil rights over the years.

Mr. Speaker, our right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. In passing the Voting Rights Act, Congress relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting.

Section 5 is one of the act's most important provisions. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit planned changes in their election laws to Federal officials and judges for prior approval. The areas covered by section 5 were covered the old-fashioned way--they earned it--by implementing poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandered election districts, and other schemes.

If the Supreme Court invalidates section 5 in its upcoming decision in Shelby County v. Holder, it would essentially allow jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to implement any discriminatory voter scheme and to then place the burden on the victims to raise the money to bring a lawsuit and to, meanwhile, suffer under the discriminatory scheme until the Court rules. Then, without section 5, those same jurisdictions could create another scheme and repeat the whole process.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when America has staked so much of its international reputation on the need to spread democracy around the world, we must ensure its vitality here at home and preserve section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which would add ``houses of worship'' to the list of eligible entities that can receive direct government assistance from FEMA. While the devastation caused to many communities after Hurricane Sandy is severe, and while I empathize with the desire to assist all who have suffered severe losses, direct government funding for houses of worship, whether for building or rebuilding, remains unconstitutional.

The establishment clause in the First Amendment protects religious freedom by preventing the government from endorsing and funding any one religion--or all religions. And while well intended, this bill would violate years of precedents interpreting the establishment clause.

In Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, a 1973 case which upheld the principles of Everson v. Board of Education, from 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court held that no taxpayer funds could be used for maintenance and repair of facilities in which religious activities take place, explaining:

If the State may not erect buildings in which religious

activities are to take place,

it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they

fall into disrepair.

Accordingly, longstanding precedent specifically holds that taxpayer funds cannot go to construct, rebuild or repair buildings used for religious activities. The type of buildings that this bill seeks to make eligible for direct government funding--houses of worship--are inherently used for religious activities and the bill would have the effect of unconstitutionally funneling taxpayer money for religious activities.

Other cases have also upheld the precedent established in Everson v. Board of Education and have further clarified the application of the establishment clause to cases of direct religious funding. In Tilton v. Richardson, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a government subsidy used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was constitutional but only if the buildings were never used for religious activities.

In Hunt v. McNair, 1973, the Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina law which established an ``educational facilities authority'' that issued bonds to finance construction and renovation of facilities at educational institutions was upheld because it included a condition that government-financed buildings could never be used for religious worship or instruction.

All of these cases firmly establish that it is constitutionally impermissible for the government to provide direct subsidization of religious institutions for the construction, repair or maintenance of any building that is, or even might be, used for religious purposes. Houses of worship clearly fall within this category of buildings and based on a long line of Supreme Court cases cannot be publicly funded and cannot be recipients of direct grant funding.

Now, there are constitutional ways to assist churches along with other community organizations. Loan programs, such as the government- sponsored small business loan programs available to any business in a community, could also be used by churches. Such loan programs have been upheld as constitutional so long as they are both neutral on their face and in their application and so long as their purpose is not to aid religious institutions specifically.

In Mitchell v. Helms, 2000, the Supreme Court held that loan programs for religious institutions are allowable in some cases. However, such programs are distinguishable from grants and are further distinguishable from the direct funding of church facilities that are, or may be, used for religious purposes. The opinion included that:

Of course, we have seen special establishment clause

dangers when money is given to religious schools or entities

rather than indirectly.

Justice O'Connor noted the Court's ``continued recognition of the special dangers associated with direct money grants to religious institutions.'' Now, therefore, H.R. 592 clearly violates the principles prohibiting direct government grants to religious institutions. It also violates any possible exemption that could be available under the theory of neutrality--the standards in this bill applicable to houses of worship are different from the standards for other entities.

While I'm in favor of constitutionally permissible ways to assist churches that have been damaged by natural disasters, this bill clearly does not do so in a constitutionally permissible way; and for this reason, I must oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to instead work together to ensure that all entities affected by Hurricane Sandy can be assisted in an expeditious and constitutionally permissible manner.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.

Re Oppose H.R. 592, the so-called Federal Disaster Assistance

Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more

than a half million members, countless additional activists

and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide dedicated to the

principles of individual liberty and justice embodied in the

U.S. Constitution, we are writing to urge you to vote ``No''

on H.R. 592 when the measure comes up on the suspension

calendar on Wednesday. This bill, which would authorize FEMA

to provide houses of worship with direct grants of taxpayer

funds, would flout longstanding constitutional law and harm

religious liberty.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment

was devised to prohibit ``[t]he imposition of taxes to . . .

build and maintain churches and church property,'' because

such funding is an affront to ``individual religious

liberty.'' Accordingly, longstanding Court precedent

specifically holds that taxpayer funds cannot go to

construct, rebuild, or repair buildings used for religious

activities--which clearly includes houses of worship. The

Court has never retreated from this bedrock Establishment

Clause principle. In fact, the Supreme Court continues to

recognize ``special Establishment Clause dangers where the

government makes direct money payments to sectarian

institutions,'' which is exactly the use of taxpayer funds at

issue here. And in a variety of bills over the past several

decades, Congress has prohibited the use of funds to

construct buildings used for religious purposes. Indeed, in

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress again

recognized this prohibition and limited green construction

funding to buildings in which secular activities take place.

Under current policy, houses of worship may obtain

government loans--just not direct grants--to rebuild. All

for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations--including

houses of worship--are eligible to participate in the SBA

Disaster Loan Program. Houses of worship, therefore, are not

without government help to rebuild. Moreover, houses of

worship are not the only non-profit facilities that would

otherwise be ineligible for direct grants for reconstruction.

Only non-profits with facilities used for emergency,

essential, and government-like activities are eligible for

grants. Thus, FEMA grants are not the same as ``general

government services,'' like police or fire, which are

available to every business, nonprofit, private residence,

and house of worship. To say that the policy is unfair or

that houses of worship are treated unequally--singled out

among all other non-profits--therefore, is untrue.

Although houses of worship may serve a central role in the

lives of their congregants, it is impossible to see how the

prayer and worship conducted in these sacred buildings is

equivalent to the essential, government-like activities in

facilities that would be eligible for government grants. It

would be a dangerous precedent to equate religious worship

with the vital services government provides. And while houses

of worship may host educational and social activities, only

community centers that are open to the general public on a

nondiscriminatory basis, serve the entire community (not just

congregants), and are used for a range of different

activities are eligible for a FEMA grant.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush

administration directed that houses of worship would remain

ineligible for FEMA funds. The Bush administration respected

longstanding Supreme Court precedent and continued to adhere

to this constitutional requirement. Churches, synagogues,

mosques, and temples were damaged in Katrina just as they

were in Sandy. As an organization whose offices were closed

for weeks as a result, we very much understand the serious

difficulties faced by people who were impacted by superstorm

Sandy--so many of our friends and colleagues in New York and

New Jersey continue to deal with its aftermath. But, the harm

would be compounded if this misfortune were used as a reason

to erode fundamental religious liberty protections enshrined

in the First Amendment.

Religious liberty is one of our nation's most fundamental

values and it starts from the principle that religion thrives

when both religion and government are safeguarded from the

undue influences of the other. Barring federal funds for the

rebuilding of houses of worship is not discriminatory or

hostile to religion--it is one of the most fundamental ways

we have to protect and defend religious liberty for all.

Indeed, the Establishment Clause protects religious freedom

by preventing the government from endorsing and funding any

one religion--or all religions.

Because H.R. 592 would flout longstanding constitutional

law and harm religious liberty, we urge you to oppose the

measure and vote ``No'' when the measure comes up on the

suspension calendar on Wednesday.

Please contact Legislative Counsel Dena Sher if you have

questions or comments about our concerns.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy,

Director, Washington Legislative Office.

Dena Sher,

Legislative Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security (``CAMPUS'') Safety Act of 2013. The CAMPUS Safety Act previously passed the House of Representatives by voice vote as a standalone bill in the 110th and 111th Congresses and was included in the House-passed versions of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008 in the 110th Congress and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 in the 112th Congress. It is my hope that the CAMPUS Safety Act will be signed into law during the 113th Congress.

The purpose of the legislation is to enable our institutions of higher education to more easily obtain the best information available on how to keep our campuses safe and how to respond in the event of a campus emergency. The bill creates a National Center for Campus Public Safety (``Center''), which will be administered through the Department of Justice. The Center is designed to train campus public safety agencies in state of the art practices to assure campus safety, encourage research to strengthen college safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. The Director of the Center will have authority to award grants to institutions of higher learning to help them meet their enhanced public safety goals.

Over the past few years we have seen numerous tragedies occur at colleges and universities, including the disastrous events that occurred at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University and more recently at Old Dominion University that took the life of Congressman Elijah Cummings' nephew. Unfortunately, these events were the first of their kind at their schools and there was insufficient knowledge on how to prevent the tragedies or how to most effectively respond in their aftermath. While there is growing awareness that such threats are possible anywhere, many schools still have not developed safety protocols that would prepare them to maximize the prospects of preventing such tragedies or to effectively respond to them should they occur despite sound prevention efforts.

Our nation's colleges and universities play a large role in the development of our next generation of leaders and we should assist them in their efforts to keep our campuses and our students safe. The Clery Act already requires schools to have safety plans in order to participate in the Title IV deferral student aid programs; unfortunately there is no one place for schools to obtain reliable and useful information. It makes little sense to require the thousands of institutions of higher education to start from scratch and individually go through the cost and effort to develop comprehensive plans. Instead, they ought to be able to obtain guidance and assistance, including best practices, from a ``one stop shop'' like the Center.

The CAMPUS Safety Act will help institutions of higher learning understand how to prevent such tragedies from occurring, and how to respond immediately and effectively in case they do. Although this bill was originally drafted in direct response to the Virginia Tech shootings to specifically assist college and university campuses, I should note that in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, public elementary and secondary schools and their governing agencies will be able to access the informational and training benefits of the Center.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation to ensure that our institutions of higher education have access to the information necessary to keep their schools safe.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object-- and I will not object--I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas and his colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe) and our colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their hard work on this bill, which would make funding for the testing of DNA rape kits and eliminating the rape kit background more possible. A lot of people will be made much safer because of this, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

I withdraw my reservation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2076. The House originally passed this bill in September of 2001 by an overwhelming vote.

H.R. 2076 gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the specific statutory authority to respond to requests from State and local law enforcement agencies for assistance in investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in public places and in investigations of mass killings and attempted mass killings.

The House-passed version of the bill only applied to the FBI providing assistance. The Senate amended the bill to include all DOJ and Department of Homeland Security law enforcement agencies. Therefore, under the version of the bill before the House today, the Department of Justice's agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, Marshal Service and ATF, would be able to provide assistance, as would the Department of Homeland Security's law enforcement agencies, such as Secret Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, if requested by local and State law enforcement agencies.

These Federal agencies do not currently have the specific statutory authority to assist in the investigations of mass killings or attempted mass killings occurring in venues such as schools, colleges, universities, non-Federal office buildings, malls and/or other public places.

In particular, while the FBI continues to receive requests for such assistance from State and local law enforcement, and the FBI often does assist in such circumstances, there is presently technically no Federal statute that directly provides jurisdiction to the FBI to respond to such requests. Legislation granting the proposed investigative authority would allow these Federal agencies to provide State and local law enforcement with the assistance, if requested, even when the violent act does not technically violate a Federal law.

Unfortunately, due to the tragic shooting and killing of 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, the consideration of this bill is timely. Of course, we should pass the bill today so that the President may sign it into law. But, Madam Speaker, while we must take steps to assist in the investigation of such incidents, it is even more critical that we prevent them from occurring in the first place. Proposals to do that include not only legislation involving gun safety, but also

legislation such as the Youth Promise Act, which would provide funding for comprehensive juvenile justice initiatives, or additional funding for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, or the Campus Safety Act, which are all pending, as well as increased funding for mental health services and school counselors.

We simply must do all we can to protect our citizens, and these proposals must be enacted as soon as possible. But with respect to H.R. 2076, the bill before us today, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 2076.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Thank you. And I apologize, I was not aware that I had additional speakers.

I yield such time as he may consume to the former chair of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I would just like to again compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership on this. A lot of communities will benefit. I thank him for that work.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 6029, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012. The House passed this legislation by voice vote in August, and the Senate recently passed a bill with amendment by unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6029 will increase the maximum fines that may be imposed for engaging in the Federal offense of economic espionage. The crime of economic espionage consists of knowingly misappropriating trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that the offense will benefit a foreign government.

As reported by the U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator, economic espionage is a serious threat to American businesses by foreign governments.

Economic espionage represents a significant cost to victim companies and threatens the economic security of the United States. This crime inflicts costs on companies, such as the loss of unique intellectual property, the loss of expenditures related to research and development, and the loss of future revenues and profits. Many companies are unaware when their sensitive data is pilfered, and those that find out are often reluctant to report the losses, fearing potential damage to their reputations with investors, customers, and employees.

The pace of the foreign collection of economic information and industrial espionage activities against major United States corporations is accelerating. For example, in fiscal year 2011, the Justice Department and the FBI saw an increase of 29 percent in economic espionage and trade secret theft investigations compared to those in fiscal year 2010.

Details related to recent Federal investigations and prosecutions suggest that economic espionage and trade secret theft on behalf of companies located in China is an emerging trend. For example, at least 34 companies were reportedly victimized by a set of attacks originating in China in 2010. In the attacks, computer viruses were spread via emails to corporate employees, allowing the attackers to have access to emails and sensitive documents.

Foreign hackers constantly target U.S. companies in such ways in order to get every piece of competitive intelligence information they can. We simply cannot allow this to continue to happen. In response to this growing threat, in her 2011 annual report, the U.S. Intellectual Property Coordinator called upon Congress to increase the penalties for economic espionage, and this bill is consistent with that recommendation.

I would like to commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this bill, particularly the gentleman from Texas, the chair of the committee, Mr. Smith; the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); the incoming chair of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte); and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who all worked very diligently on this bill. I also want to recognize the leadership of Senator Leahy.

I urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 6029, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 6621 because the measure improves the America Invents Act--the most significant reform to the Patent Act since 1952--that was signed into law by President Obama last year. Earlier this month, the House passed H.R. 6621 by a vote of 308-89. The Senate subsequently passed the legislation with an amendment by unanimous consent. Now that the America Invents Act is law, our focus should be on how it can be improved, which is why I support H.R. 6621, because it accomplishes that very goal in several respects.

To begin with, H.R. 6621 clarifies and improves the provisions to help implement the America Invents Act. The bill clarifies provisions dealing with patent term adjustments, derivation proceedings, inventor's oath, and the terms of the Patent Public Advisory Committee.

The Senate amendment to this bill makes one change to the House- passed bill by removing the provision requiring the Patent Office to prepare a report on pre-GATT patent applications that have now been pending before the Patent Office for over 18 years. Although this provision has been removed, we must continue to study ways to improve the patent system and make sure that there are not delays to receiving patent protection.

The bill clarifies the act's advice of counsel section as it applies to civil actions commenced on or after the date of this legislation's enactment. This is important because the original bill created a new section 298 of title XXXV that prevents the use of evidence of an accused infringer's failure to obtain advice of counsel, or his failure to waive privilege and introduce such opinion, to prove either willfulness or intent to induce infringement. The provision, however, failed to specify when the new authority would go into effect, and it would be unfair to apply the new rule retroactively to pending cases which anticipate using such evidence.

In addition, H.R. 6621 makes a series of other technical clarifications to the act. In some, the bill makes necessary constructive technical corrections to the America Invents Act and avoids including any substantive revisions to the act.

It is my hope that the Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of the act into the next Congress and consider ways in which it can be further improved. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012, or Katie's Law, has laudable goals of helping to prevent violent crime, exonerating the innocent, giving our police access to cutting-edge forensic techniques, reducing the cost of criminal investigations, and giving victims of violent crime and their families the answers and closure they deserve. All of this can result from the enhanced DNA collection provided for in this bill.

I voted for Katie's Law last Congress, and the goals of Katie's Law are goals that I wholeheartedly support, but unfortunately, right now is not the time to pass the law. This bill would enable the Attorney General to provide grant money to States if they implement a process for DNA testing upon arrest and preservation of the DNA profile.

The last time I voted for the bill, or one similar to it, I viewed the collection of arrestee DNA as essentially the same from a constitutional point of view as the collection of fingerprints, which are collected and preserved in a database for arrestees, whether there is a conviction or not. Since then, however, serious questions have been raised about the constitutionality of arrestee DNA collection and the preservation of that information in a database where there has been no subsequent conviction.

These constitutional questions are currently before the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in that case in November, and we're taking this bill up now before the Supreme Court has had a chance to hear the case and issue its decision. In just a couple of months, the Supreme Court will have decided the King case, and we'll know whether

or not it's constitutional to preserve this data and how the States can collect it from people upon arrest and what to do with that information. With the decision at hand, we can then craft a program that encourages States to implement DNA collecting and testing systems that fully comply with whatever the Supreme Court rules in the King case.

Whereas I believe that the Supreme Court will find this proposed bill constitutional, it just makes sense that we wait until the decision is rendered before we pass the bill. For that reason, I will oppose the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, a former prosecutor and valued member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman has the right to close, and I would yield him time if he has any concluding comments. He apparently doesn't have any further comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3642, the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act, will help ensure that American businesses can effectively protect their trade secrets. This legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent last month, and we are proud to be passing it today.

S. 3642 responds to a recent Federal court decision that exposed a gap in Federal law. In April of this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Federal statute prohibiting the theft of trade secrets does not apply to computer source code in some circumstances.

In the Aleynikov case, the defendant, a computer programmer who worked for Goldman Sachs, electronically copied and remotely stored thousands of lines of source code from the company's internal, high- frequency trading system and then downloaded that code to his new employer's server after leaving Goldman Sachs.

The transfer of the source code would potentially save up to $10 million and 2 years of programmers' time for the new employer and would eliminate some of the competitive advantage Goldman Sachs achieved by developing their own trading program.

Federal law prohibits the conversion of any trade secret that is related to or included in a product that is produced or placed in interstate or foreign commerce. Because the code that was stolen is a component of an internal computer system, the court found that it is not covered by the statute because it was not produced for, or placed in, a product in interstate or foreign commerce.

This bill will close the gap exposed in that case by clarifying that the statute applies to both products and services which are used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce.

Congress needs to act quickly to enhance the ability of American businesses to safeguard the proprietary information they develop to gain a competitive advantage. This is particularly important as our country's economy is increasingly knowledge- and service-based.

We must ensure that our statutes designed to prohibit the theft of trade secrets appropriately cover the range of intellectual property generated and used by our businesses.

This bill is an important step to accomplish this goal, and I commend the senior Senator from Vermont, the chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Mr. Leahy, for his leadership on the bill; and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so it can be sent directly to the President's desk to be signed into law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act, will help ensure that American businesses can effectively protect their trade secrets. This legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent last month and I am proud to support it today.

S. 3642 responds to a recent federal court decision that exposed a gap in federal law.

In April of this year, the SeCond Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal statute prohibiting the theft of trade secrets does not apply to computer source code in some circumstances.

In the Aleynikov case, the defendant, a computer programmer who worked for Goldman Sachs, electronically copied and remotely stored thousands of lines of source code for the company's internal, high- frequency trading system and then downloaded that code to his new employer's server after leaving Goldman Sachs.

The transfer of the source code would potentially save $10 million and two years of programmers' time for the new employer and would eliminate some of the competitive advantage Goldman achieved by developing their own trading program.

Federal law prohibits the conversion of any trade secret that is related to or included in a product that is produced or placed in interstate or foreign commerce. Because the code that Mr. Aleynikov stole is a component of an internal computer system, the court found that it is not covered by the statute because it is not produced for, or placed in, a product in interstate or foreign commerce.

S. 3642 would close the gap exposed in the Aleynikov case by clarifying that the statute applies to both products and services which are used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce.

Congress needs to act quickly to enhance the ability of American businesses to safeguard the proprietary information they develop to gain competitive advantage. This is particularly important as our country's economy is increasingly knowledge and service-based.

We must ensure that our statutes designed to prohibit the theft of trade secrets appropriately cover the range of intellectual property generated and used by our businesses.

This bill is an important step to accomplish this goal, and I commend the gentleman from Vermont, Senator Leahy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today so that it can be sent to the President's desk to be signed into law.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6223, a bill that would expand upon a small, but important provision in our immigration laws and alleviate one barrier often faced by certain persons applying for naturalization.

Under our immigration laws, a lawful permanent resident who is applying to become a U.S. citizen generally must reside continuously in the United States for 5 years. Persons who are naturalizing by virtue of their marriage to a U.S. citizen or battered spouses or children may naturalize after a 3-year period of residence. A person must also be physically present in the United States for at least one-half of that time.

In 2007, Congress enacted a law to ensure that when a person works as an interpreter or translator in Iraq or Afghanistan for the U.S. chief of mission or the Armed Forces--either directly or by contract--that time should count toward the ``continuous residence'' requirement for naturalization.

This makes sense. Why should we penalize a lawful permanent resident for choosing to provide critical translation or interpretative services in Iraq or Afghanistan by saying that the person failed to reside continuously in the United States?

Today's bill builds on that commonsense provision in law in three ways:

First, it eliminates the geographical restriction in current law and says that time spent providing qualifying services to the U.S. chief of mission or Armed Forces anywhere in the world should be considered for naturalization purposes. Lawful permanent residents provide important services to our government all around the world, and it makes little sense to limit the provision only to service in those two countries.

Second, the current law applies only to the work of translators or interpreters, but lawful permanent residents assist our chiefs of mission and Armed Forces in a variety of important ways. To the current list of qualifying jobs, this bill adds certain high-level security- related work.

Finally, although the provision in current law only allows the time abroad not to count as a break in the ``continuous residence'' requirement for naturalization, this bill would allow the time also to count toward the ``physical presence'' requirement.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work on the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3486 because it will decrease the barriers that U.S. innovators and businesses confront when they pursue patent protection in foreign countries. Specifically, the legislation will standardize the application procedures of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and will make them consistent with The Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs known as The Hague Treaty and the Patent Law Treaty.

The bill implements The Hague Treaty and Patent Law Treaty, which were ratified by the Senate unanimously on December 7, 2007. Unfortunately, neither of these treaties have yet to take effect in the United States because we have not passed implementing legislation. This bill addresses this problem in the following respects.

To begin with, the bill standardizes the application procedures so they're consistent with the procedures in other countries that are signatories to the treaties. Under current law, U.S. designers must file separate applications in each jurisdiction where they want to receive rights. This procedure is burdensome, complicated, and often involves several languages. Under this measure, the U.S. creators of industrial designs will be able to use a simplified application system by filing a single English language international design application with the Patent and Trademark Office. This modification will not affect the standard for attaining a design patent, but it will aid small companies in seeking to expand their businesses overseas by streamlining the application process. Additionally, the bill will extend the term of the design patent from 14 years to 15 years, which will benefit U.S. patent holders.

Second, the bill implements provisions under the Patent Law Treaty that revive applications which have been unintentionally abandoned.

Finally, by implementing the Patent Law Treaty, several hurdles which disadvantage American businesses will be removed. Implementing the Patent Law Treaty will amend patent application procedures for filing dates, fees, surcharges for fees, as well as for oaths, declarations, and claims submitted after the filing date. These modifications should save innovators precious resources.

In conclusion, the bill would benefit our Nation's economy by helping

American innovators and businesses better protect their inventions overseas.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates outdated references in the U.S. Code that stigmatize individuals with mental illness issues. This legislation easily passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support.

The bill eliminates the word ``lunatic'' from several sections of the United States Code in order for our Code to reflect meanings which are much more appropriate and up to date in the 21st century.

In the past, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have worked together to address similar terms in the Code which negatively describe individuals with mental health issues. For example, in 2010, Rosa's Law passed in Congress with bipartisan support and was later signed into law. The law replaced parts of the Code containing the phrase ``having mental retardation'' with the phrase ``having intellectual disabilities.''

The term ``lunatic'' holds a place in antiquity and should no longer have a prominent place in our U.S. Code. Although the bill does not replace the word with another term, it follows the precedence of Congress to study semantics and continuously improves the status and appropriateness of our Nation's laws by addressing pejorative terms.

I applaud the bipartisan group of Senators--Senators Conrad, Crapo, and Johanns--for their work on this legislation. In addition, the bill shares strong support among our Nation's leading mental health advocates.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we would like to discuss the fiscal cliff and our position on the ongoing negotiations.

We didn't get here, Madam Speaker, by accident. I was elected in 1992. In the 1993 budget, we addressed fiscal responsibility by passing the Clinton budget. It was very controversial. In fact, it only passed by one vote of the House, and the Vice President had to vote in the Senate to break the tie. That budget put us on a trajectory toward fiscal responsibility.

That was interrupted by a controversy in 1995, when the Republicans, using the votes on that budget, picked up a majority in the House and tried to dismantle that budget. President Clinton allowed the government to get shut down rather than dismantle the budget. That budget stayed into effect until 2001.

In 2001, Chairman Greenspan was answering questions like: Are we paying off the national debt too quickly, and should we pay off the national debt? The projections were that, by 2008, the entire national debt held by the public would be paid off with no money owed to China, Japan, or Saudi Arabia. We would have paid off all of those debts. All the money would have been back in the trust funds by 2013.

That's where we were beginning in 2001, but the Republicans talked people into thinking that you could pass tax cuts without paying for them, massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. There were two wars not paid for and a prescription drug benefit not paid for. All of that surplus evaporated, and now we find ourselves deeply in debt. Rather than paying off the debt, we have more than doubled the debt.

Now it's obvious we have to do something about it, and the Congressional Black Caucus is willing to do its part within certain parameters. This is the Congressional Black Caucus position on going forward:

Excessive partisanship and a lack of willingness to compromise has led us to this moment where tough choices must be made to prevent our Nation from going over the fiscal cliff, but one thing is clear: The path to fiscal sustainability must not be made on the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable communities.

As President Obama and congressional leaders continue to negotiate ways to avoid the fiscal cliff, the Congressional Black Caucus will adhere to the following principles in considering its support of any agreement:

First, we must protect our social safety net. Social Security should be completely off the negotiating table since it does not contribute to the deficit. Additionally, the Congressional Black Caucus will specifically oppose any plan that changes eligibility for Medicare.

Investments in job training, education, health care, transportation, and infrastructure should not be cut to pay for the extension of any of the Bush-era tax cuts. These vital government investments are critical to our Nation's short-term recovery and long-term economic prosperity.

The Simpson-Bowles Commission set a goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. Considering that goal, $1.5 trillion in cuts have already been agreed to through the spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Non-defense discretionary spending, as a percentage of GDP, is at a 50-year low. Additional savings through reductions in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should also be recognized. So we've gone a long way in recognizing the $4 trillion goal.

The wealthiest Americans disproportionately benefited from the Bush- era tax cuts and the Federal Government's 2008 bailout of some of the largest firms on Wall Street. Revenue increases and allowing the Bush- era tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans must be part of any agreement.

The Congressional Black Caucus supports extending the middle class Bush-era tax cuts, but any extension must be paid for in ways that are consistent with these principles. We should not agree to the extension of any tax cuts without knowing how we will pay for them. We cannot allow an extension of tax cuts now, only to discover that they'll be paid for by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other critical social safety net programs later.

The Affordable Care Act should not be on the negotiating table. The program does not add to the debt and must be protected and fully implemented as planned. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from health care reform, and millions of Americans stand to gain access to affordable health care insurance in 2014.

Emergency unemployment insurance must be extended. Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance generates $1.55 in economic activity. Unemployment benefits are the most effective fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and put people back to work. Our economy is slowly recovering from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and 2 million workers would be stripped of their emergency unemployment compensation if no action is taken by the end of the year.

Earlier this year, the Congressional Black Caucus offered an effective alternative budget that addresses the sequester and fully pays for an extension of Bush-era middle class tax cuts without cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the social safety net, while also ensuring that we invest in our children, our communities, and our economy.

We can get this done if we do this consistent with the Congressional Black Caucus principles. The vulnerable will not be hurt. We're close, but we cannot agree to any kind of scheme that puts us in a situation where we extend tax cuts now and then later find that we're going to pay for them on the backs of the most vulnerable in our community.

I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, a very active member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Moore.

When you're talking about the budget, there are two sides of the ledger. If you spend more, you should tax more. If you have less in taxes, you have to have less in spending. That's how you balance the budget.

One of the problems we've had for the last few years is people think you can have a tax cut and don't have to cut anything. In the discussion of how much tax extension you can afford, that discussion is almost unrelated to the spending cuts. If you want to extend more tax cuts, then you have to cut more spending. People talk about it like they're unrelated. They say you can cut it off at $500,000, rather than $250,000. If you extend more tax cuts, you have to cut almost 10 percent across the board in non-defense discretionary spending to make up for the lost revenue.

At some point, people should conform their statements to fundamental principles of arithmetic. This is what we've gotten away from. This is what the Congressional Black Caucus budget does. It names how you can come up with the revenue. It names specifically revenue: the Buffett rule, the surcharge on millionaires, investment income like regular income, and naming specific corporate loopholes that can be closed. We show how you can easily come up with the amount of money that's left in the $4 trillion after the trillion and a half in cuts and after the war savings and after the expiration of the upper income Bush-era tax cuts. We can fill the gap.

If you don't want to do it that way, then name the spending cuts. This is where the trouble is. We've heard all this about reducing the size of government with unspecified cuts. That sounds good, until you start specifying.

The last time Republicans had a budget that reduced the size of the government, they cut almost $300 million out of Embassy security. That's what they mean by reducing the size of government. Usually what they mean is Social Security and Medicare, but whatever they mean, name it. We don't want to be in a position in which we've extended tax cuts and then come back next year and say, Oh, now we're broke, and we've got to cut Social Security and Medicare. If that's what you're going to do with a tax cut, then let's consider that as we decide if we want that tax cut or not. I think most people would say, if your goal is cutting Social Security and Medicare, we don't need a tax cut that bad. As a matter of fact, that's how the scheme works. The only way you can cut Social Security and Medicare is to get people to go for the tax cuts now and then come back and say you're so broke and we need so much money that the only place you can get it is from Social Security and Medicare.

So let's get this up front. Let's do it all at once. We know what tax cuts are going to be extended, and we know how they're going to pay for them. We're not going to get tricked later on by people coming up saying that we've got to cut Social Security and Medicare because we extended the tax cuts. This is one of the problems we get into. They will not name the programs that are going to get cut. When they talk about corporate loopholes, they don't say what they are.

If you look at the budget and if you take out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense and if you just look at what's called the nondefense discretionary budget, that's about--I'd say in round figures--$400 billion. If you're trying to get $4 trillion in cuts in 10 years, that's $400 billion a year. You would have to eliminate government. There would be no Embassy security, no FBI agents, no food inspection, no Federal prisons, no Head Start, no education, no FEMA, no transportation. I mean, nothing, nothing.

You would have to eliminate everything in order to fund a total extension of the tax cuts. Now, obviously, that's not going to happen.

Obviously, if you extend the tax cuts without offsetting it with other revenues, you've got to go into Social Security and Medicare. When they talk about reducing the size of government, that's why they can't tell you what they're going to cut, because they can't cut that much. When they say they're going to close the corporate loopholes, they can't name them because the corporate loopholes don't add up to enough. When you start talking about Head Start and the legal aid and all those, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We're trying to get to trillions.

It is generally the practice that we would extend emergency unemployment compensation for longer than normal, which is every time the rate gets high and when it's an emergency, so it's not offset. That is the usual situation.

The problem with this recession is that a disproportionately high portion of the unemployed or long-term unemployed--the people who have been unemployed for a long time--are experiencing even insult to injury because a lot of employers are discriminating against people who do not have jobs. If you apply and don't have a job, they will not consider your application. If you have a job, then they will consider you. So, if you've been without a job for a long time and are still trying to get a job, it's even harder for you to get a job. Now, those people have traditionally worked. They're hardworking Americans who want a job, are looking for a job. Unfortunately, the economy is such that you've got three or four people looking for every job that's out there. So, whatever happens, a lot of people are going to be left out.

And meanwhile, the question is: What happens? If you provide unemployment compensation for them, one of the things that happens is they spend that money into the economy as soon as they get it.

So it is one of the most effective things. If you put $1 into unemployment compensation, economic activity is about $1.55. If you give a $1 tax cut on dividends, the economic activity is about 15 cents because the people getting that benefit will just spend what they ordinarily spend. They may pay off a credit card, they may save some money, but they're not going to spend the money. You want the money in the hands of people who will actually spend it if you want the economy stimulated.

People talk about increasing the age of Social Security or the cost-of-living increase. The first question is whether or not you're going to cut Social Security. And then if you decide to cut Social Security, there are different ways of doing it, some more painful than others. But the first question is: Are you

cutting Social Security? And part of that question is why. If none of the tax cuts get extended, at this point you've got too much money. You've got more money than you need on the table. So the only reason you're even discussing a cut in Social Security is because you want to extend the tax cuts.

Now, I think most people when they're faced with the choice, do you want Social Security to be a piggy bank, every time we're running short in the budget you're going to cut a little Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, are you going to make that a little piggy bank every time you have a budget problem, and if you're going to extend tax cuts, are you going to pay for them out of Social Security, I think most people would want us to leave Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone. Leave it alone. And if you've got enough money for the tax cuts, fine. But do not extend tax cuts and think you're going to pay for it and people are going to like you paying for it out of Social Security and Medicare.

And that's really the choice we have, because the entire discussion about Medicare is only necessitated by the fact that people are trying to extend these tax cuts. And if you extend the tax cuts, then you have to pay for it. And we're talking arithmetic. If you extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts, the only place you can reasonably get it, Social Security and Medicare, unless you're going to raise some other taxes to offset it.

The Congressional Black Caucus has taken the position that we don't want any tax cuts that are paid for if you have to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the social safety net, or investments in our future like education and research and infrastructure. We don't need tax cuts that badly. We need those investments more than we need tax cuts.

So when you start talking about the different ways of cutting Social Security, we need to make sure that it's in the context, that we're talking about cutting Social Security in order to preserve the tax cuts.

They would get a tax cut on their income up to $250,000. Their income over $250,000, they would not enjoy the Bush-era tax cuts. They would be paying the same taxes they were paying when the stock market was--during the Clinton administration, when the stock market almost quadrupled. The Dow Jones Industrial Average almost quadrupled. Under the lower tax rates under the Bush administration, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was incredibly worse at the end of his 8 years than it was in the beginning. Quadrupling under Clinton; worse under Bush than it was in the beginning. Of course, job creation, record under the Clinton administration when you had the higher rate; under the Bush administration, the only measure you're looking at it, is it or is it not the worst since the Great Depression.

Obviously, those who are paying the high rate actually have more of a financial interest in the stock market, because the little bit of tax increase we're talking about, they will more than offset that by the stock market going up like it did under the Clinton administration. If you look at the taxes they saved under Bush, if they could have gotten the returns in the stock market like they did under Clinton, they would have gotten 10 to 20 times more returns in the stock market than they paid in little taxes.

You're exactly right. It probably would not result in any change in the withholding because of that little bit of money, and they would have all of the tax cuts up to the first $250,000, and they would pay a slightly additional tax on the additional $2,000.

One of the things that we need to point out is that with the stagnant economy, most workers haven't gotten a cost-of-living increase in a long time. If we can improve the economy, if we had a little more money and could create jobs and improve the economy such that employers think that people might actually walk off the job and go get another job, they are more likely to get a cost-of-living increase. That cost-of- living increase is more than the additional taxes that we're talking about in most cases.

That's exactly the problem. When you start talking about reducing the size of government with unspecified cuts or revenue increases, not rate increases but revenue increases, whatever that means, without specifying, we don't even know whether it is arithmetically possible. But if it is arithmetically possible, what we suspect is that it is going into things like the deduction you get on health care. You don't have to pay--if you get health care insurance, you don't have to pay income tax on that. The mortgage deduction, charitable deductions, the kinds of things that we probably wouldn't want to cut in order to fund some tax cuts, but the Congressional Black Caucus did talk about deferral of overseas corporate profits. If you eliminate that exemption, that's about half a trillion. A 5 percent surcharge on millionaires, that's about half a trillion. The financial speculation tax, when you buy stocks and trade stocks and bonds, you pay a little one-quarter of 1 percent charge on that. Now, before the discount brokers, people would be paying 1 or 2 percent, not just a little quarter of a percent. So that is certainly something that could be done. Limit the deductibility of corporate debt interest. That's about three-quarters of a trillion. Treating investment income like regular income, that's almost a trillion.

I mean, there are a lot of things that we can do to add up to get to the little bit of money we need left. Negotiating prices on pharmaceuticals under Medicare.

About $500 a month more for health care than they're paying now. That was the plan.

Well, one of the things that ObamaCare did was to provide, for those on Medicare, you get your annual checkups with no copay and cancer screening, no copays and deductibles. We're closing the doughnut hole.

Under the Romney plan, because they're paying providers more, your copay part of that provider fee is more, so your copays and deductible would be more. That's for people over 55. People already on Medicare would pay more under the alternative than they're paying today.

If you're under 55, you're at your $500 a month, every month, trying to make your health care, because the thing is

that if Medicare is saving money, and the health care costs do not go down, then somebody's got to pay the difference. Adding insult to injury to that, you have corporate profits, dividends and commissions and everything else being siphoned off. So you not only have to pay the health care costs; you have to pay enough to cover the corporate profits. And so that's where senior citizens would be paying $500 a month, $6,000 a year more.

There's a provision in the prescriptive drug benefit that passed about a decade ago that prohibits HHS from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceuticals. Now, the VA can negotiate prices; Medicaid can negotiate prices. But somehow, somebody, I don't know who, nobody's taking credit for it, it just kind of ended up in there, prohibits HHS from negotiating drug prices. So when a company says this is what we want, it is illegal for HHS to point out that you're charging everybody less, you charge in Canada less--how about giving us a little savings--that's illegal. Whatever they want, that's what they get.

Well, the Medicare Advantage gives you slightly enhanced benefits under Medicare, and it was provided by Medicare. And what the private sector says is: we could provide those same services for a lower cost; and if you let us get in at 95 percent of what you're paying, everybody wins, because we're saving money. That's a phantom saving, but that was the original deal.

By the time--in the prescriptive drug benefit, we're paying about 115 percent more than the average. And all we're doing is saying, well, let's just pay the average.

The insurance companies do have an advantage in their costs because there are ways of attracting a healthier clientele, so their costs would be lower, not because of efficiency, but because they skewed a better, healthier clientele and that's how they save money.

But what we did was reduced their profit margin to the point where they have to be at least as efficient as Medicare, not getting a bonus, which didn't help anybody.

And that is exactly what we did. Much has been made of the $716 billion that was saved in Medicare. The corporate subsidies was part of it, efficiencies were part of it, but not a dime in benefits was adversely affected. In doing that, we also extended the solvency. Medicare goes broke, was going broke, in 4 years. Now it's 12 years.

Under the alternative plan, during the campaign, it would be back to 4 years. So seniors would be paying--seniors on Medicare now would be paying more. Seniors, younger people when they get to Medicare would pay a lot more, and it goes broke quicker. That was what we were fighting. And the President was reelected, and so Medicare will not be attacked.

But, again, when you talk about additional Medicare cuts, we're just not cutting in the abstract. Those cuts are necessary because people want to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. If you do not extend the tax cuts, you do not have to discuss any cuts in Medicare.

These savings are designed to help pay for tax cuts; and people need to make the choice, recognize the choice. Do you want to cut Medicare in order to preserve some tax cuts? I think a lot of people would say leave Medicare alone.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, the gentlelady pointed out that bad things happen if we go over the cliff. Bad things are going to happen if we get serious about deficit reduction. The only way you can deal with deficit reduction is to raise somebody's taxes or to cut somebody's spending. It's going to be unpleasant. Until you recognize that arithmetic reality, we're not going to make any progress.

You're not going to be popular doing deficit reductions, but we have choices

to make. We can do this without cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, the social safety net, or investments in our future. We have a list of ways of doing it, with specifics. Now, we're willing to compromise, of course, but you can't compromise by reducing the size of government with unspecified cuts. Until you specify them, you can't have a discussion. You can't have unspecified revenues that don't involve rate increases when we don't know what you're talking about. We can't compromise on that because there is no proposal to compromise.

We need specifics. We cannot allow people to try to get past a scheme where you extend the tax cuts at a huge price and then come back next year and try to pay for them and notice that you're so broke you have to cut Social Security and Medicare. If that's your plan, let's get it all up front: we're going to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to provide for some tax cuts. I think most people would say, no, leave Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone. If you've got some money left over from tax cuts, fine, but we do not want Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be cut in order to provide for tax cuts.

When you start talking about, well, increase the age or reduce the COLA, those are just ways of reducing benefits. So we need to make that threshold statement that we're not going to allow Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to be used to pay for any of these tax cuts, and we will not allow a scheme to take place where we all agree on some tax cuts first, and then find out that because of the size of the tax cuts we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. Let's figure this all out at once. It can be done. There are some tough choices that have to be made, and the Congressional Black Caucus has shown how those choices can be made, with specifics, in their various documents.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have this moment to discuss the Congressional Black Caucus position on the fiscal cliff, and I yield back the balance of my time.