Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the bill we're considering today, the STOCK Act, would prohibit Members of Congress and other legislative branch employees, as well as executive and judicial branch employees, from using nonpublic information for personal benefit derived from an individual's position or gained from the performance of an individual's duties.

Today, we are amending the Senate-passed bill, S. 2038, with a substitute that makes some changes to the Senate text, such as regrettably eliminating the requirement that certain political intelligence activities be disclosed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. These intelligence firms obtain inside information from Members of Congress and their staffs, and then they sell that information to investment firms. The public should be informed of these types of contacts.

With this bill, our goal is to hold Members of Congress, as well as other government officials, to the same standard as those in corporations who have the duty not to trade on information that is not available to the general public.

Most Members of Congress believed that this type of activity was wrong whether explicitly prohibited by criminal law or at least subject to Ethics Committee sanctions. Most of us assumed that a Food and Drug Administration official could not call a stockbroker shortly before a blockbuster drug were to be approved and profit off of that insider knowledge. We just assumed that that was wrong. So this bill codifies what most of us thought was already in the law.

This is not a complicated issue. This is the same standard that applies to those in the corporate context. It is wrong to trade on nonpublic information for our benefit and to the detriment of the public. The public has the right to expect that the public interest comes first, and people should not have to worry about what may be motivating our actions as we make decisions that impact them.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), for their leadership in drafting and introducing the House version of the STOCK Act.

This legislation represents an appropriate acknowledgment of what most of us thought was already the law, that national government officials of all branches should not benefit financially from nonpublic information they learned by virtue of their positions, and so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducting a bill to consolidate programs at the Department of Justice in order to create an offset for the costs in another bill I previously introduced this Congress, the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security, ``CAMPUS,'' Safety Act. This consolidation bill is intended to allay the concerns some of my colleagues have expressed about the lack of an offset in the CAMPUS Safety Act. This bill will offset a majority of the costs of the the CAMPUS Safety Act, using the same offsets used in the Senate companion to the CAMPUS Safety Act, S. 1749, as introduced by Senator Mark Warner. When the CAMPUS Safety Act is considered, we will merge the two bills together for consideration.

In order to alleviate a majority of the costs of the CAMPUS Safety Act, this bill requires that the Office of Dispute Resolution of the Department of Justice and the jurisdiction and employees of that office be transferred to the Office of Legal Policy at the Department and funded through the general administration appropriation of the Office of Legal Policy. This was proposed in the President's 2012 budget and also by Senator Coburn in his ``Back in Black'' report. This bill also requires the Attorney General to implement policies that will result in at least $1 million in savings through consolidating ineffective or duplicative programs.

This bill is important because it helps to pay for the CAMPUS Safety Act, which is vitally important to our Nation's institutions of higher education. The CAMPUS Safety Act will create a National Center of Campus Public Safety, ``Center,'' which will be administered through the Department of Justice. The Center will train campus public safety agencies, encourage research to strengthen college safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. By having this information in one central location, institutions of higher education will be able to easily obtain the best information available on ways to keep campuses safe and secure and how to respond in the event of a campus emergency. This bill was introduced in the House in the 110th and 111th Congresses and passed both times by voice vote.

As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and a Member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I strongly urge my colleagues to sign on to the CAMPUS Safety Act to help schools keep their campuses safe and free from violence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for the opportunity to speak. And today I rise in opposition to an unfortunate trend that seems to be creeping up all over the country, laws that add unnecessary complications to the process of voter registration and the process of voting.

Now, some of these initiatives include photo ID laws, reduction in time to vote or to register to vote, laws complicating the rules for running voter registration drives.

Now, none of these little schemes prevent individuals from voting, but the unnecessary complications guarantee that many will not get their paperwork in on time and, as a consequence, many will not be able to vote. In some States, those few votes can make the difference in a presidential election.

Now, we need to protect the right to vote, not add unnecessary complications that will result in fewer people voting. But we see all over the country efforts to reduce the Election Day registration. In those States that have allowed it for decades, those who could have registered on Election Day will find that they cannot vote.

In States that allow early voting, we're seeing efforts to reduce the number of days of early voting, meaning that some people may not be able to get their votes in as they could have with the longer period.

In some States the rules for voter registration drives are becoming more onerous, so much so that groups that have traditionally conducted voter registration drives, such as the League of Women Voters, are having second thoughts about conducting those drives under the new rules, and that will mean fewer people will be registered to vote.

And many States are imposing for the first time a requirement that voters display a specific voter ID. This scheme that is so slanted that, as has been previously stated, some government-issued IDs are acceptable and some are not. Texas proposed to accept the concealed weapons permit as acceptable government-issued ID, but not student IDs from a State college.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem. There is no credible evidence that in-person voter fraud, which is the only kind of fraud that the photo ID would prevent, is any problem around the country. In fact, multiple studies have found that virtually no cases of in-person voter fraud can be found.

And the requirement of voter ID in subjecting people to that time and expense will guarantee that many will not get their paperwork in on time. There are complications that can occur when you're trying to get that paperwork done. Some of the elderly have

never gotten a photo ID and wouldn't know where to start. Many who are adopted may not know where to find a birth certificate. Many counties-- for the elderly people, some counties have lost their records and the records aren't available.

And it produces bizarre results, such as the nuns who were prohibited from voting because they didn't have photo ID, even though the election officials knew them personally.

In Virginia, we have an exception to the photo ID. You have to present a photo ID, but if you don't have one, you can sign an affidavit under pains of a felony and go ahead and vote right now. But unfortunately, even in Virginia they're trying to eliminate that exception and require people to go through the time and expense of getting photo ID if they don't have one.

Now, if we're going to look for problems in the voting process maybe we ought to look at Iowa that just certified, had announced that one person had won the Republican Caucuses one day and a couple of days later certified results that another one had won. And there are public reports that suggest that really nobody knows who won. I mean, if you want to look for some voter irregularities, maybe we ought to look at that.

Or maybe we ought to look at the candidate who tried to become a candidate on the Virginia Republican Presidential Primary this year. He has publicly stated that petition signatures submitted on behalf of his campaign, of those signatures, hundreds were, in fact, bogus. And if they had not been caught, he would have qualified for the ballot. But fortunately, it has been ascertained that so many were bogus signatures that he, in fact, did not qualify for the Virginia ballot.

But as we see all over the country, efforts to reduce Election Day registration and other forms of ease in voting are making it possible for many people to lose those rights. While the situations like Iowa and in Virginia, where it's clear that those situations need scrutiny, there is no evidence that in-person voter fraud is a problem anywhere in the United States.

Voting is not an arbitrary, inconsequential act. The cumulative effect of individuals voting elects our government officials who directly create our laws and policies. It is important that we ensure that every eligible voter is given the opportunity to vote, free from unnecessary barriers and schemes. Those schemes that erect barriers to the right to vote are unfair in our democracy.

And I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for giving us the opportunity to make these statements.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that we're choosing between 1 year and 2 months. The fact is that by rejecting the Senate bill, which would have created certainty for 2 months, we are instead replacing that with uncertainty that begins in 2 weeks. Going the direction we're going in, in 2 weeks we won't know what the situation will be for payrolls that start on the 1st of January.

A full-year consideration is not going to be achieved in the next 2 weeks. The doc fix we've been working on for years; unemployment compensation and tax policy we've been working on for a long time. The idea that we're going to appoint a conference committee and they're going to meet and agree and figure all of this stuff out in a couple of days, we tried that with the supercommittee. It didn't work. This little conference committee is not going to solve all of these problems in the next 10 days.

So we have a choice: 2 months of certainty or a few days of total uncertainty. Who knows what's going to happen.

Economists have said if we don't extend the payroll tax and unemployment compensation that it will have significant adverse effects on the economy.

So we should do this. We should do it for 2 months and work on it for 2 months, and hopefully we'll have a solution at the end of 2 months. We certainly won't have a solution at the end of 2 weeks.

So that's the choice.

When people talk about certainty, this is a group that talked about certainty and then changed the regulations on light bulbs that have been in effect for 4 years on a 2-week notice. Here we are with certainty for 2 months, and they say, well, uncertainty is a problem, so let's do it in 2 weeks.

Let's have some certainty, 2 months of certainty. Let's work on it, and we can get a full-year solution. We're not going to do that the way we're headed.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would adopt the Senate amendments, leave town, send the bill to the President and be finished with it rather than invite all of this uncertainty which is certainly going to befall us if we don't do that.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from South Carolina has indicated, we can have 2 months of certainty if we follow our lead. The Republicans have said that we'll get 1 year of extension if we follow their lead. By tomorrow afternoon, we'll see who's telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise, on behalf of Congressman Rob Wittman, Congressman Scott Rigell, and myself, to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have, for the fourth year in a row, distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Phoebus High School Phantoms football team had a remarkable season. On December 10, Coach Stan Sexton and the Phantoms won their fourth consecutive Virginia state football championship, defeating South County High School of Lorton 20-10 at Scott Stadium in Charlottesville, Virginia.

After overcoming injuries to finish 8-2, Phoebus High entered the postseason tournament as the number three seed. Led by Coach Stan Sexton, after a series of close games, including a come from behind fourth quarter win in the regional semifinals, and a 27-26 win in the state semifinals, Phoebus High entered the state championship game.

To cap what Coach Sexton could only call ``an unusual season,'' Phoebus High turned to their defense to bring home a championship. The Phantoms forced five turnovers over the course of the game on their way to a 20-10 win, and another state championship. The Phantom's excellence in football is characteristic of the quality of athletics on the

Lower Peninsula area of Virginia. Phoebus High School's championship this year marked the 13th time in the last fifteen years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football.

Although very accomplished in football, Phoebus High's legacy of excellence is not limited to the field of athletics. Under the Direction of Principal Robert Johnson, the Phoebus faculty seeks to inspire all students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities.

Phoebus has two innovative programs aimed at expanding the learning experience outside of the traditional classroom. One of them involves courses that prepare students for careers in technology. As host of the Hampton School Division's Information Design and Engineering Academy (IDEA), Phoebus offers magnet career classes in pre-engineering, design and information technology, and media technology and design. These courses provide the students a foundation to prepare for college classes and jobs in the technology sector. Phoebus is also home to the Blue Phantom Inn, a student-run restaurant that gives students an opportunity to develop their culinary arts skills. The restaurant program was nationally recognized in Southern Living magazine.

So we would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Stan Sexton, his coaching staff, the players on the Phoebus High School Phantoms and to all of Phoebus High School students, families, friends and fans, for their continued dedication to excellence in winning the Group AAA Division 5 Virginia High School League state football champions of 2011.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 313, a bill that does not make us any safer. In our zealousness to make drug laws as tough as possible, we are now considering an expansion of Federal criminal law to conspiracies to engage in drug activity that occur completely out of the United States.

The reason this bill has been introduced, as the gentleman from Texas has pointed out, is at least partly due to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2007 in the Lopez-Vanegas case. The court overturned the conviction of two people who formed an agreement in the United States to transport cocaine from Venezuela to France. The court ruled that current law only applies to conspiracies to distribute drugs in which some of the activity occurs in the United States. Under this bill, some of the conspiracies could be prosecuted even if the drug activity that is the subject of the conspiracy is not illegal where the transaction is going to take place.

For example, the use and the production and the distribution of marijuana for medicinal purposes are all legal in a number of countries, including Canada. Canadians and other citizens involved in legal medical marijuana programs in their countries could face

Federal prosecution if they visit the United States and engage in agreements here in the United States or advance or finance their businesses in Canada. They could be discussing legal transactions in Canada, but the activity is illegal in the United States.

So the agreement in the United States under this bill would constitute an illegal conspiracy, and it would be subject to all of the criminal penalties for drug transactions. In fact, someone would be better off just going to Canada and engaging in the legal drug activity rather than simply making arrangements for the activity by discussing it in the United States.

Unfortunately, the committee failed to adopt an amendment to exclude discussions of activity that may be illegal in the United States but would be legal everyplace that the transaction is to take place.

Now, if one believes that we do have an interest in covering some of these conspiracies under United States law, we should at least confine the law to cover large-scale trafficking. Unfortunately, the committee failed to adopt an amendment to do that, so even small transactions get caught up by this bill, transactions that are legal where they are occurring. And when they get caught up in discussing transactions that are legal where they take place, they're subject to draconian mandatory minimum sentences.

I would note that it is an unfortunate fact that, under our criminal law, we rely too much on mandatory minimums. This bill would subject even more people to them.

Mandatory minimum sentences have been extensively studied, and the conclusions on all of those studies show that the mandatory minimums are unjust; they cause prison overcrowding and are a waste of taxpayers' money. The Federal prison population is currently over 210,000 inmates, nearly a fivefold increase in just a few decades; and that explosion in population is due, to a large extent, to mandatory minimums.

Mandatory minimums do not account for the individual circumstances of the crime or the defendant. The judicial counsel has warned us that, if a mandatory minimum sentence is appropriate, it can be imposed without a mandatory minimum. But with the mandatory minimum, if it violates common sense, it has to be imposed anyway.

In the past few years, numerous high-profile conservative leaders have expressed opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Some of those conservative expressions came from the Americans for Tax Reform president, Grover Norquist; the American Civil Rights Institute president, Ward Connerly; National Rifle Association president, David Keene; and Justice Fellowship president, Pat Nolan, all of whom have called mandatory sentences into question.

This bill is seemingly an effort to leave no stone unturned in prohibiting any drug transaction from occurring anywhere, even if it doesn't impact the United States. There may be some parts of the bill that are worthwhile. It covers, of course, multimillion-dollar international drug conspiracies, but it also covers small transactions. And to the extent that people will be subject to long mandatory minimums for doing something that is legal, for talking about something that is legal where it is to take place, this bill makes no sense and should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

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

Just finally, we can cover the international drug conspiracies with a reasonably drawn bill. Unfortunately, this bill not only covers the international drug conspiracies, but also, as the gentleman from Tennessee has pointed out, those who are ensnared by doing things that are legal where they occur, but if you agree to do it in the United States, it is all of a sudden a drug conspiracy that'll subject you to all kinds of mandatory minimums.

I would hope that we would defeat this bill, start from scratch and draw a bill that covers what ought to be covered and leaves out what ought not be covered. Agreeing to go to Canada or go to Amsterdam to do something which is legal ought not be a criminal conspiracy in the United States.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will defeat the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will place over 40 chemical compounds on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act at a time when only eight of these substances can even be found in the United States. And it does so in a way that circumvents the normal process, that skirts scheduling substances, and does so without any scientific or medical research or evidence to support it.

Congress has a process for placing substances on drug schedules. The Criminal Code sets forth a process that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must engage in to determine the propriety of scheduling substances. The Secretary must conduct a scientific and medical evaluation and provide recommendations about whether the substances being analyzed need to be controlled. And this needs to be a scientific study, not a compilation of anecdotes.

In this there is a mechanism for addressing emergencies. In the case where the Attorney General on his own determines that there is an emergency, the Code provides that substances may be placed on Schedule I for up to 1\1/2\ years while the evidence is being developed to permanently schedule them.

Moreover, the Judiciary Committee during our consideration received numerous statements from pharmaceutical and medical researchers imploring us not to hamper their ability to determine possible medical uses of these substances by placing them on Schedule I, which makes it illegal to possess these substances without a permit even for research purposes.

This includes promising research on the cure for Parkinson's disease that would be compromised by this bill. Now, even with a permit, the restrictions placed on researchers once they are placed on Schedule I are unduly onerous. So there are legal uses of these substances.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress established a process for the Secretary and the Attorney General to do their due diligence and study the propriety of placing substances on Schedule I, we've had a very thoughtful process. And if we want to establish good crime policy, we need to follow that thoughtful process. H.R. 1254 circumvents that process. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1254.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleague that I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I had another speaker that arrived unexpectedly.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill circumvents the normal thoughtful process for scheduling drugs. Most of the drugs in this bill can't even be found in the United States. And to the extent there is an emergency and a need to place these on a schedule, the Attorney General has the emergency process where he can just put a drug on the schedule for a year and a half.

Medical researchers have asked us not to pass the bill because it will disturb promising research, particularly on Parkinson's disease, and so they have asked us not to pass this bill.

We should follow the thoughtful process for scheduling drugs and defeat this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot about the Members on the other side of the aisle trying to take credit for the fiscal responsibility in the 1990s. I think we need to review what actually happened during those years.

I came into Congress in 1993, and the first tough votes we had to cast were on the budget. We passed a tough budget. It passed by one vote in the House and a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President in the Senate. Not a single Republican voted for that tough budget. In fact, it's that budget that we are

talking about that laid the groundwork for the fiscal responsibility for the 1990s.

And on that vote, when the last vote was cast by Marjorie Margolies- Mezvinsky from Pennsylvania, the Members on the other side of the aisle did not congratulate her for casting the tie-breaking vote to pass the bill. They started chanting ``Bye-bye, Marjorie,'' and she was defeated with that vote in her next election. In fact, she was defeated along with almost 50 Members of the Democratic Party who voted for that budget.

In 1995, when the Republicans came in with a majority, they tried to dismantle the budget. And in fact, President Clinton vetoed all of those budgets that they had offered; and we shut down the government, rather than dismantle that plan. Finally, when the deficit had gone from $290 billion down to less than $25 billion, then the Members on the other side of the aisle joined on as we crossed the finish line.

Well, that's like showing up for the ribbon-cutting after you have voted against the stimulus bill. All of the tough votes had been cast. All of the hard work, all of the political damage had been suffered. And now all of a sudden, they want to come in and take credit. What they can take credit for is President Clinton vetoing their bills.

If you want to know what would have happened if they had been signed, we found out in 2001. Because as Chairman Greenspan had to answer questions as to what's going to happen if we pay off the national debt too quickly--we were on chart to paying off the national debt after the first tax cut--that was the last time you heard anybody talking about paying off the national debt.

Two tax cuts not paid for, two wars not paid for, prescription drugs not paid for, and now we find ourselves in the ditch.

Balancing the budget is arithmetic. You've got to pass some unpopular votes. You've got to raise taxes and/or cut spending, and you're going to make some political enemies doing either one.

This legislation doesn't help us make those tough choices. In fact, it makes it even more difficult. People say we need a constitutional amendment to force us to balance the budget. This legislation doesn't force us to do anything. It makes it more difficult. Read the bill. If we want to pass something--we had a hearing on it a couple of days ago when the former Governor of Pennsylvania said that the balanced budget provision in the Pennsylvania State Constitution was a good idea, and I asked him what provision in this legislation can be found in the Pennsylvania Constitution; none of them. None of the provisions of H.J. Res. 2 can be found in any State constitution other than the title. And so here we are talking about the title but not the provisions of the bill.

The major provision in this bill is a three-fifths requirement to pass a budget that's not in balance; which, incidentally, would cover every budget that we considered this year.

Now, I think it is fair to say that the most fiscally conservative budget on the table was the Republican Study Group that got a few votes, not anywhere close to a majority. And if that's your goal, why would raising the threshold from a simple majority that you couldn't even get up to three-fifths make it more likely that you could pass that tough kind of budget?

Once you have ascertained that even the Republican Study Group budget would require three-fifths, any budget, responsible or irresponsible, could pass with the same three-fifths. In fact, you could cut taxes with three-fifths. You could raise spending. You could have a totally irresponsible budget with three-fifths. So why is it more likely that you're going to be fiscally responsible with three-fifths when you've never been able to get even a simple majority, when three-fifths--last December we passed an $800 billion tax cut, putting us $800 billion further in the ditch. We got three-fifths for that, but try to get three-fifths for a meaningful deficit reduction plan.

This legislation will make it more difficult to balance the budget. All of this debate has been about the title, how nice it would be to balance the budget. But we ought to read the bill and point out that the provisions of this bill will actually make it more difficult, probably impossible, to ever balance the budget, and we will end up trying to get three-fifths vote, ending up with worse budgets than we would have under the present system.

Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this legislation have spoken at length about how nice it would be to balance the budget and how dangerous deficits are. The speeches, there are great speeches about the budget, but the one thing they have not talked about is how the provisions of this legislation will actually help balance the budget.

Now, we had a hearing earlier this month where the former Governor of Pennsylvania talked about the Pennsylvania balanced budget amendment and how their constitutional provision was such a good thing; but he had to acknowledge that other than the title, there is nothing in H.J. Res. 2 that can be found in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

We also found that the gentleman from Arizona had to acknowledge, after he talked about how good the balanced budget amendment works in Arizona, that Arizona was able to balance its budget only because federally borrowed stimulus money provided $6 billion to Arizona; $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in that State. And that wasn't enough. Arizona had to sell their State capitol and supreme court building. That's right, sold their State capitol and supreme court building and leased it back in order to achieve about a billion dollars worth of cash needed that year.

So we should be looking at the provisions of the legislation, not just talking about how nice it is to balance the budget.

One of the provisions is a three-fifths vote to increase the debt ceiling. Last August, the United States lost its AAA credit rating because it looked like we were not going to be able to achieve a simple majority. We should explain how it makes a lot of sense to make that spectacle an annual affair. I think most people would think it would be fiscally irresponsible to enact that provision.

Another provision is a three-fifths vote to pass a budget that's not balanced in a given year. That would cover every budget we considered this year, including the strongest deficit reduction plan, because those budgets are not balanced in the first year.

Now, strong deficit reduction is politically difficult because we're talking about arithmetic. You have to raise taxes and/or cut spending. Now, you can't get a simple majority; we can't even get a simple majority to do that, so why would anyone think that this legislation requiring a three-fifths vote would make it any easier. In fact, that same three-fifths vote will be sufficient to pass new tax cuts and additional spending, making the deficit worse. Last December we passed an $800 billion tax cut. We got three-fifths for that. But instead of discussing just the title of the resolution, we should be noticing that if this legislation were in effect in 1993, we never would have passed that budget.

We've heard people on the other side of the aisle taking credit for the hard work. I came in in 1993, and we passed a tough budget. There were tough votes. Fifty Democrats lost their seats as a direct result of those votes. The deficit was $290 billion at that time. In 1995 when the Republicans came in, they passed their little budgets; and rather than sign those budgets, President Clinton let the government get shut down rather than sign those budgets. If they want to take credit, they can take credit for President Clinton vetoing their budgets and shutting down the government.

In 1997, the deficit had gone from 290 down to less than 25 billion, and there were no tough votes on that. The budget was on the way to balancing itself if we hadn't done anything, and so we find out what would have happened if President Clinton hadn't capitulated in 1995.

In 2001, when the Republicans came in with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, we saw what happened. They passed two tax cuts, fought two wars without paying for them, prescription drugs without paying for them; and rather than, in 2001, when Chairman Greenspan had to answer questions like, What will happen when we pay off the national debt? Are we paying off the national debt too quickly?, it looked like we were on target by 2008 to pay off the entire debt held by the public. Those were the discussions.

The first tax cut was the last time you heard any of that discussion. And as a result of the two tax cuts, two unpaid-for wars and an unpaid- for prescription drug benefit, we ended up in huge deficits. The fact is the 1993 budget never would have passed if we had required a three- fifths vote.

Now we should be focused on the actual effects of the resolution. There's another provision, and that's the provision involving war.

All of the provisions of this budget can be set aside when a declared war is in effect or when the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security. That provision ought to scare every two-bit dictator around the world because if we're having trouble getting the three-fifths, all we've got to do is drop a bomb on them, and we can pass a budget with a simple majority.

But we ought to be focused on the provisions of the bill. How would the three-fifths vote, when we can't even achieve a simple majority, help balance the budget? It should be obvious that rather than just talking about how nice it would be to balance the budget, how do these provisions actually make that easier? I think the fact of the matter is if we adopt this resolution, it will be harder, if not impossible, to ever balance the budget, and that's why this resolution ought to be defeated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think one of the things we're forgetting is that during that spectacle last August, the United States lost its triple A credit rating, and it was a simple majority.

I just think you cannot make a serious case that it is fiscally responsible to increase the likelihood that we would go through that spectacle again.

The other is we talk about a simple majority for a balanced budget or a supermajority for an unbalanced budget. We forget that a serious deficit reduction is technically unbalanced and you need three-fifths to pass a deficit reduction plan. And if you have a question of three- fifths to pass a serious deficit reduction or new tax cuts and new spending totally irresponsible; and if we know we need three-fifths this year to pass a budget, deficit reduction, as you get closer and closer, how are you going to get those extra votes?

Now, the tradition has been you get those extra votes with a little pork here, a little pork there; and rather than buying enough pork to get to a simple majority, you're going to have to give away enough to get to a 60 percent. And so the question is whether the three-fifths vote will make it more likely that you're going to have a serious deficit reduction or a totally irresponsible budget.

In my view, I think the experience is it's hard enough to get a simple majority to pass meaningful deficit reduction. You will never get to three-fifths, so you get your new tax cuts. You get your new spending. I'm going to get another aircraft carrier out of it. I don't know what you want. But we need to get to three-fifths. You get it by more spending and more tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Can time unused tonight be carried over tomorrow?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 822 will harm public safety. That's why law enforcement organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, and many other law enforcement organizations oppose this bill.

This bill would allow people to use their concealed weapons permit in any State in the Union without regard to the standards and requirements of those other States. This bill even allows people who are ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in their home State to go out of State and get a permit and use that permit anywhere in the country except their home State.

Some States have minimum standards for those who may be eligible to carry a concealed weapon. For example, some States require firearms training and others deny permits to those who are under 21 or those with certain convictions for assaulting police officers, selling drugs to kids, sex offenses against children, or domestic violence. Standards such as these would be overridden by this bill because permits from States without these standards would have to be recognized.

Now, many States already recognize concealed weapons permits from other States. My home State of Virginia recognizes many States' concealed weapons permits, but it requires a 24-hour

verification. And for this reason, many States do not enjoy reciprocity with Virginia because 24-hour verification is not available. In fact, one State, Colorado, doesn't even maintain a statewide database, so there can be no out-of-state verification. As has been indicated, a driver's license, any time of day, you can verify the validity of a driver's license. But the concealed weapons permit, many States do not have 24-hour verification.

In overriding the ability of States to control the carrying of concealed weapons by nonresidents, this bill would create a situation where the weakest State laws essentially become the national law. We would be creating a race to the bottom with our public safety laws.

Consideration of this legislation has been a challenge because apparently many people in this body believe that if more people carried guns, the crime rate would go down. Reliable studies, however, point out that the possession of a firearm is much more likely to result in the death of a family member or a neighbor than being used to thwart a crime.

This bill will undermine public safety. We should let the States decide whether or not or under what conditions to allow people who are in their State to carry concealed handguns. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote against this legislation.

Madam Speaker, this bill undermines public safety, and that's why law enforcement organizations oppose the bill. It's said that this is no national law established by this legislation. That's right, because if there were a national law, there would be national standards. This is actually worse. The law, in effect, will actually be the law of the State with the weakest concealed weapons permits that will essentially become the law of the land, because you could use that permit in any State. This bill allows people who are ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in their home State to go to another jurisdiction and get a concealed weapons permit and use that concealed weapons permit anywhere in the country except their home State.

Now States have different minimum standards for concealed weapons, such as some require minimum training so that you know what you're dealing with. Others deny permits to certain sex offenders or domestic violence offenders. All of those minimum standards would be overridden by this bill because permits from other States will have to be recognized.

The basic controversy, Madam Speaker, presented by this bill is the question of what happens if more people carry firearms. Some people believe that if more people carry firearms, the crime rate will go down. The studies that I've seen conclude that if more people are carrying firearms, it is more likely that someone in their home or an innocent neighbor will be killed. That's more likely than the firearm being successfully used to thwart a crime.

We should not undermine public safety. We should allow States to set their own concealed weapons standards and defeat this rule, and if the rule passes, defeat the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Katherine Goble Johnson. Dr. Johnson, a retired 33-year employee of the NASA Langley Research Center is to be honored at a banquet on Saturday, October 29, 2011, and I would like to take a moment to recognize some of her numerous accomplishments.

Born in White Sulpher Springs, West Virginia, it was apparent from very early on that Dr. Johnson was driven to succeed. The local schools only offered classes to African Americans through the eighth grade, so Dr. Johnson's father enrolled her and her siblings in a school 125 miles from their home. Taking full advantage of this educational opportunity, Dr. Johnson graduated high school at the age of 14. Dr. Johnson then went on to study at West Virginia State College, now West Virginia University. In 1937 at the age of 18, she graduated Summa Cum Laude with majors in Mathematics and French. She continued her education at West Virginia University with further studies in Mathematics and Physics.

Dr. Johnson began her career in education as a teacher, a job that she held for seven years. She eventually relocated to Newport News where, in 1953, Dr. Johnson began her work at the NASA Langley Research Center, where she would go on to have a great impact on studies relating to various projects over the course of her career.

When hired in 1953, like almost all women at NASA, Dr. Johnson was hired to perform technical calculations. Women of African American heritage were typically assigned to all black ``computer pools.'' Within weeks of her entry in the NASA ranks, Dr. Johnson was asked to temporarily assist in the Spacecraft Dynamics Branch in the Flight Dynamics and Control Division. She never returned to her ``computer pool.''

Dr. Johnson went on to help calculate the trajectories flown by the 1969 Apollo spacecraft that landed on the moon and to coauthor 21 NASA reports and professional conference papers at a time when those who performed calculations were typically not named as participants. According to Dr. Johnson, even after computers began to be used to calculate the orbits of Mercury capsules, John Glenn called on her to verify the computers' calculations.

Throughout the course of her career, Dr. Johnson has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the NASA Lunar Orbiter Achievement Award, the NASA Apollo Team Group Achievement Award, three NASA Special Achievement Awards, an honorary Doctorate of Laws from the State University of New York, honorary Doctor of Science degrees from Capitol College and Old Dominion University, and she was honored by the National Technical Association as ``Mathematician of the Year'' in 1997.

Dr. Johnson has also been featured in various ``Who's Who'' lists throughout her career. She has been honored in the Philadelphia Electric Company's Exhibit honoring 24 black inventors and scientists at the Afro-American Historical and Cultural Museum, the Department of Energy's ``Black Contributor's to Science and Energy Technology'' list, and Time Life's Series entitled African-Americans: Voices in Triumph Leadership Volume.

A member and leader of many organizations, Dr. Johnson has served as Treasurer of the National Technical Association both on the local and national level, as President of the of the Lambda Omega Chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, and as a Trustee and Elder at Carver Memorial Presbyterian Church in Newport News, Virginia, where she continues to be a dedicated member.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Dr. Katherine Goble Johnson today for her service to the United States, to her community, and to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a storied institution of faith in the Third Congressional District. This year, St. Philip's Episcopal Church is celebrating its 150th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed church and its contributions to the greater Richmond community.

St. Philip's Episcopal Church was founded in 1861 as a mission of St. James Church by freemen/women and indentured servants of Virginia aristocrats and landowners. The congregation flourished during the following four years and provided a number of services to its members, including a school. Unfortunately, at the end of the Civil War in 1865, St. Philip's physical structure was destroyed in what the church describes as ``mysterious circumstances.'' The church persevered in spite of its overwhelming loss and continued to congregate in the homes of its members. In 1869, with the support of the Diocese of Virginia, St. James Church and the family of J.E.B. Stuart, the church was able to rebuild its physical structure.

In 1920, the church became a self-supporting Parish and since then has ventured to serve God, the community and the world. Over the years, they have been involved in various service projects including St. Francis Pantry, Girl Scouts, and Narcotics Anonymous. They have also been involved with Caritas, a volunteer organization providing food and shelter for the homeless, and Modern Maturity, an outreach program with a focus on providing recreation and fellowship for individuals who are at home during the day.

Today, St. Philip's prevails as the oldest and largest of the seven predominantly African-American congregations in the Diocese of Virginia. It also has the distinction of being the sixth oldest historically African American congregation in the Episcopal Church and was the first to.be founded in the South. Currently, St. Philip's consists of nearly 230 members.

As St. Philip's Episcopal Church gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on the future as it continues ``Celebrating, Living, Dreaming.'' I would like to congratulate Rev. Phoebe Roaf and all of the members of the St. Philip's Episcopal Church on the occasion of their 150th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

I rise in support of H.R. 2944, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2944, which will extend the United States Parole Commission's authority for an additional 3 years. The current authority is set to expire October 31, 2011.

Although Federal parole was abolished with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act effective November 1, 1987, those sentenced for an offense committed prior to the effect of the date of the abolition, and those sentences that have not yet been completed, remain eligible for parole.

Moreover, the Parole Commission has jurisdiction over other offenders, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice offenders and those under transfer treaties between the United States and other countries. Currently there are over 1,000 parole-eligible prisoners under the Commission authority.

The Sentencing Reform Act requires that release dates be set for all remaining offenders eligible for parole prior to the expiration of the Parole Commission. The Department of Justice is concerned that if the Commission's current authority is allowed to expire, Federal offenders who were sentenced for offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987, will begin to file motions for release under the Sentencing Reform Act, since the act requires such offenders to be given release dates 3 to 6 months prior to the expiration of the commission. We are now beyond that period at this point and no release dates have been set.

For this reason, it is important that we extend the U.S. Parole Commission's authority as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas, for his leadership.

I yield back the balance of my time.