Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3630, ``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011.'' This legislation sends the wrong message at the worst time for Americans. As we approach a new year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have once again targeted millions of seniors and middle class families for cuts without asking essentially anything of millionaires and billionaires.

They have singled out Medicare premium increases that permanently increase seniors' costs by $31 billion. The bill also, when you look at it carefully, spends $300 million on a special interest provision that helps a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting billions from community hospitals.

Republicans have targeted the unemployed, slashing 40 weeks of unemployment insurance, impacting millions of families still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Twenty-two jurisdictions with the highest unemployment rates would be hit the hardest: Alabama, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. The result would be that in the state that Mr. Camp and I come from--Michigan--the bill would cut unemployment insurance to 46 weeks.

Essentially the sacrifice will be borne by middle class and low income Americans, as the wealthiest among us have not been asked to join in this shared sacrifice. Not even after the wealthiest 1 percent saw their incomes nearly triple in the last three decades while salaries for middle class families barely budged.

There are more than four unemployed Americans for every job opening. Never on record in our Nation's history have there been so many unemployed Americans out of work for so long. There is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans are clearly out of touch with the needs of American families.

I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. Every American deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a successful business and I know we are all committed to that right and will not rest until all Americans have access to economic opportunity.

According to a report released by the Department of Labor late this afternoon, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a result of the GOP bill compared to a continuation of current law. In the State of Texas alone 227,381 people will lose their sole source of income by the end of January.

This bill stands as a shining example of not keeping a pledge given to the American people. A little over a year ago, Republican leadership released to the public their Pledge to America in which they told the American people that they would ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. [Further] Instead, [Republicans] will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' This is what my colleagues stated less than one year ago. But before this body today they have presented us with a package that is the exact opposite of that pledge. This bill is riddled with provisions that I cannot support. I will not support needlessly adding to the burdens already being borne by hard working Americans. This is an inconsistent message being given to the American people. The Republicans need to honor their pledge to the American people.

This bill will reduce the current Payroll Tax Cut by 2 percent and addresses the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) for two years, providing a 1 percent update for both 2012 and 2013 and resulting in a scheduled 37 percent cut in 2014. It extends the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program until January, 2013 but lowers the amount of time benefits are provided from 99 weeks currently to 59 weeks.

It also includes permanent provisions allowing drug testing of applicants and would allow states to require a high school diploma or being enrolled in classes for a GED to be eligible for benefits. The bill offsets the costs of these extensions by significantly increasing both the amount of Medicare premiums paid by high-income beneficiaries and the number of beneficiaries required to pay these higher premiums, and by cutting Medicare provider rates.

In addition, it prohibits immigrants without social security numbers from receiving the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. It further offsets the bill by freezing federal employee pay for an additional year through 2013, and increases fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lenders. It also includes frequency Spectrum sales to help offset the cost of the bill, but with provisions related to net neutrality included in the language.

H.R. 3630 is a direct assault on the jobless. This legislation sends the wrong message at the worst time for Americans who are looking for employment, who are concerned about losing their homes and who are doing everything in their power to feed themselves and their families, and their neighbors.

If we allow these unemployment insurance benefits to expire in the next 17 days--there will be millions of people who will not be able to pay their mortgage or their rent in January and could find themselves homeless by February.

We are throwing millions of Americans out of their life boats, into an ocean without a life preserver. This is senseless. If those benefits run out, millions of people who've lost their jobs could see their sole source of income end in January. And this could have an effect on the larger economy.

While the bill extends the payroll tax deduction, it limits the availability of federally funded unemployment assistance, and includes punitive provisions for the least skilled jobless workers.

If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to people in communities all across this Nation at this time, it would be unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the state of Texas continues to have the largest year-over-year job increase in the country with a total of 253,200 jobs. However, there are still thousands of Texans like thousands of other Americans in dire need of a job.

The bill being brought to the Floor by my Republican Colleagues does not adequately address the needs of the unemployed.

The plan put forth by my Republican colleagues has provisions to slash the duration of federal unemployment benefits by 40 weeks. Since 2008, federal programs expiring in January have provided up to 73 weeks of compensation for workers who use up 26 weeks of state benefits.

In addition, the version heading to the House Floor would slash an additional 20 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation and it would let states reduce benefits even further. It would also impose a uniform federal work search requirement and disqualify high school dropouts not actively pursuing GEDs and millionaires from receiving benefits. The unemployment reforms, sweeping as they are, may be lost amid other features of the Republican package.

A worker advocacy group recently described the drug testing element as the ``most disturbing'' part of the Republican unemployment reforms. ``Devising new ways to insult the unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best restore the nation's economy to strong footing and the discussion over how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work.''

The requirement to insist that to qualify for benefits that a person has earned should require a GED or a high school diploma will have a negative impact on minorities.

The labor force participation rate for persons without a high school diploma is 20 percentage points lower than the labor force participation rate for high school graduates.

Nationally, approximately 70 percent of all students graduate from high school, but African-American and Hispanic students have a 55 percent or less chance of graduating from high school.

Only 52 percent of students in the 50 largest cities in the United States graduate from high school. That rate is below the national high school graduation rate of 70 percent, and also falls short of the 60 percent average for urban districts across the Nation.

What is needed is job training programs that are funded rather than penalties for those who for a multitude of reasons have not attained a high school diploma or GED.

Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility payments must be paid. Most people use their unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one is getting rich from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit checks are solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and other necessary things many individuals with no other means of income are not able to afford.

Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401Ks have been tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, preventing and prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national tragedy. In the City of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.6 percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed.

Indeed, I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my constituents who are unemployed that there will be no further extension of unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means to survive.

Currently, individuals who are seeking work find it to be like hunting for a needle in a hay stack. For every job available today, there are four people who are currently unemployed. You can not fit a square peg in a round hole and point fingers at the three other people who when that jobs is filled is left unemployed. Lets be realistic there are currently 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when this recession began.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I almost don't know where to start. Let me, first of all, indicate my privilege to be yielded the hour as the representative of the minority leader and also to indicate my privilege to discuss some of the issues of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been a leader, along with our chairman, Emanuel Cleaver, and our officers and those of us who have worked on these issues, on the question of jobs for America.

I almost don't know where to start. First of all, let me say happy holidays to my colleagues and, in this season of giving and joy, acknowledge how special a time it is for families to come together.

I do want to start on some of the comments of my friend and colleague from Texas. I am delighted to have him acknowledge that we cannot condemn one faith as it relates to the harm that terrorists desire to do against us. It's important to also note that there are some distortions in the comments about terrorism and in the President's position and the administration's position.

I think it is important to acknowledge that the war against those who will do us harm is not about points; it's not about partisanship; it's not about one-upmanship; it's not about what one administration has done better than the other.

I am very grateful to the men and women in our intelligence community and to the men and women in the United States military and to those who are engaged in homeland security that we have not had a terrorist act of the proportion of 9/11 on our soil since 9/11. There are no doubts of the many threats that have been interjected and stopped, and it's important for my colleagues to understand that.

I am a senior member on the Homeland Security Committee. Tragically, I was appointed to the select Committee on Homeland Security and traveled with one or two Senators, people in the other body, to Ground Zero. When I arrived, it was early enough that one of the rescue missions was continuing. One could see the smoke billowing out of the ashes; and as we visited the board that still had loved ones about whom people were asking, Have you seen my father or my son?, it was a potent message for those of us who are committed to securing the homeland.

The chairperson for a period was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Chairman Thompson. He serves now as the ranking member of the committee. He has always chosen to be bipartisan. And over the last week, we joined in a bipartisan hearing with the Senate, Senator Lieberman in the other body, Senator Collins, and the chairperson now, Chairman King, on the question of the potential danger of our military and military bases. In that hearing, no one quarrelled with the responsibility to identify those who would go against our military on domestic soil or how we would address the question.

But it is important to note that I stand here and refuse and reject the labeling of one faith as a faith of terror. I have been in so many different mosques and among so many different groups of Muslims who practice Islam who have rejected those horrible acts.

One cannot challenge the pathway that President Obama has taken or not view it as a pathway that has saved lives. In particular, there is documentation that the last administration, after a period of time, indicated that they didn't know where Osama bin Laden was. It was not their focus. They knew that the country was safe, but they were not looking for Osama bin Laden. Frankly, in the period of time of President Obama's tenure, he has gotten the imam in Yemen, the American citizen imam that was in Yemen who was a part of the inspiration of Major Hasan, who perpetrated the terrorist acts in Fort Hood in my State, the State of Texas. We have intervened in several terrorist threats and attacks, the Times Square bomber. If my recollection serves me well, I think, also, the Christmas Day bombing; that might have been a little bit before that.

We have, in essence, taken out a number of high-target threats to America's security. We have, in fact, with the intellect and genius and with the order of the President of the United States, President Barack Obama, in a very dangerous mission, the Navy SEALs secured and brought to his end Osama bin Laden. A very dangerous mission, a very controversial mission, but there had to be a Commander in Chief that ordered it. So I take issue with the comment that this President has not been vigilant in protecting the homeland.

Any number of us who serve on Homeland Security know that we can always be better and can always work on issues to, in fact, secure-- more than secure. But as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I've watched as our Border Patrol has surged to 18,000. As we have utilized resources on the border, the numbers of those coming across the border illegally have dropped. As we try to be constructive in arguing for comprehensive immigration reform, I have seen a number of responses that would cause me to disagree that this administration has not been vigilant.

And even today, as we are speaking to the President of Iraq, arguments are being made to ensure the evenhandedness of Iraq's behavior and their treatment of individuals in Iraq, dealing with those who are at Camp Ashraf, but, more importantly, our ongoing relationship with Iraq and our ongoing relationship with a very vital region where there are allies like the King of Jordan, allies that we've been friends with, that it is important that we maintain a certain type of demeanor. And, clearly, suggesting that a two-State solution is not viable or the Palestinian people are not real, they're made up, is an outrageous position to take for any public political person that would rise and ascend to leadership, whether it is in the Congress or in the Presidency of the United States. I could not, not just respond to charges of inadequacy by this administration.

I have served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was privileged to have served, and, likewise, being a member of the Homeland Security Committee and serving as the ranking member on Transportation Security and fighting to enhance security measures, more personnel, better training, responsiveness to those who are patted down and go through aviation security, making it fair but yet making it responsive to the nuances and new ideas of terrorists who want to do us harm. Mr. Speaker, it's important that we acknowledge fairness, balance, and that we continue to pray every day for our men and women who are on the front lines, for our intelligence community, for those who are thinking every moment, under this administration, successfully, on addressing that question.

I am here, however, to raise the question of our concerns of the American people that are outside the circle of homeland security and address the day-to-day needs of those who are fighting against poverty, losing their quality of life.

In a discussion that has been going on and on and on and has a simple answer: Just do it; just do it. But yet we are stuck here on December 12--I have no quarrel with that because it is our responsibility to be here until we get the job done, but I would encourage those who are listening and our colleagues to work in a bipartisan way. But I would also encourage you to call us at (202) 225-3121 and ask us to get the job done fairly, one that is rational and reasonable. Is it going to pass the other body? Is the President going to be able to sign it? Is it going to help the vast numbers of people?

As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we knew that jobs had a devastating impact on this country, the lack thereof. We know that there are unemployment numbers throughout our communities in some pockets of the United States--in some States, there is double-digit unemployment amongst all population groups. In the African American population, it is a consistent double-digit unemployment. Those of us who participated in the Congressional Black Caucus Jobs Fair throughout the many cities, we saw thousands standing in line for jobs. At a recent jobs fair at the Fallbrook Church in Houston, Texas, hundreds were in line for jobs. In a city that has done fairly well, it is not good enough.

This is a crisis, Mr. Speaker, and the Congressional Black Caucus introduced legislation that would emphasize that jobs are a must--a crisis--and must be passed. We all joined in the resolution introduced in the summer months. We all got on that resolution, that we must do everything we can to create jobs, and we introduced a ``for the people'' job creation bill and worked on initiatives to deal with that.

Now, let me tell you where we are. Right now, we are addressing this question this week. Now, I have no qualms that this is about 2 weeks before Christmas, a holiday that many celebrate, and the holidays of other faiths are also celebrated around this time, where all families come together. Hanukkah. No matter what faith you may be, if you are in America, you come toward your family in America. Where our soldiers are--even though many are coming home, many of our soldiers are scattered around the world. I would almost suggest to you that somebody's family member who happens to be related to a member of the United States military may even be unemployed or they may be a worker who is crying out for the payroll tax relief.

So I have soldiers up for my colleagues to see, and I have some happy faces for my colleagues to see.

And I have another poster for my colleagues to see. It is important that we connect not just to our neighbors but also to realize that our soldiers have family members that would benefit from the payroll tax. There's a happy family right there. They would benefit from the payroll tax if their family members are here in the United States while they are abroad serving this country. That's why I have these pictures here. Let's make it real.

In addition to all those who are working, there are people who are related to these who have taken the oath to be able to say that we are fighting on behalf of this country, your freedom and your justice, justice and equality, and we are fighting, and we believe it is important that they are fighting for us, they are positioned and posted around the world, and that we be serious about the needs of their family members; a payroll tax relief that put $1,400, $1,000 to $1,400 to $1,500 in the pockets of 160 million Americans, some of whom, as I've said--I don't want to be redundant, but I want to say it over and over again--are related to the very men and women we admire, the very men and women that we admire: husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, grandparents, sons, and daughters of people here in the United States who are now on the front line in many places around the world. Some will be coming home for the holiday season, as the President has ordered troops out of Iraq.

What will they come home to?

And so here's our answer. They will come home to legislation that I believe has passed the Rules Committee that unfortunately does not speak to the emergency and the crisis of what we are facing.

I don't know whether or not my colleagues can see this, but here's a picture of the unemployed. Unemployment is not a respecter of region, not a respecter of race. I've indicated there are high numbers in the African American community, but people are unemployed across America. It's the highest unemployment we have had in long years.

Rather than calling it a crisis, of which it is, where 6 million people will lose their unemployment insurance, this House will now debate a bill that has already been acknowledged that it will have no legs in the other body. It won't get anywhere near being heard or seen. This is a crisis. I think there's about 19 days before December 31, if I'm calculating correctly. It is a crisis, and yet we bring to the floor the legislation that has already had the lights turned out on it, while people are suffering. Have you heard that? The fiddlers are fiddling while Rome is burning.

Here's a picture of the unemployed.

And the bill has extra policy issues: drug test the unemployed, make them get a GED, job training. I'm all for all of the efforts of job training and GEDs. We should try to do a polling of the unemployed. I'd venture to say many a college graduate, many of them just graduated in 2011 and cannot get a job, I don't think they want to go back to get a GED. I think that is behind where they are.

Drug testing will cost $25,000. How often are we doing it? Every week when they pick up their check? Mothers and fathers who are trying to make sure that they pay their mortgage, maybe never taken a drug in their life, subjected to drug testing? Policy being done in the middle of a crisis?

So, Mr. Levin of the Ways and Means, our ranking member, had a commonsense approach. His commonsense approach was he declared unemployment an emergency, 6 million people about to go over the dam, sinking the ship, burning their house. It's an emergency. Six million people are, if you will, about to go under. It's an emergency.

Why couldn't we have a bipartisan agreement on that? Why do we have a bill with a long litany of to-dos for the unemployed? Has anybody done any research to find out whether or not these people are in need of GEDs or been out of work for however long because of their own fault?

The law clearly states that no unemployment insurance is denied that you are able to get unless you have been charged with misconduct or fraud or something else that pertains to you getting the unemployment insurance.

Friends, what is the definition of insurance? You pay for it while you work. You pay for insurance. You pay for unemployment insurance. You pay for car insurance, insurance on your house. It's insurance. You had to pay for it to get it. If you are getting unemployment insurance, you had to work to get it.

Why are we all these burdens?

Let me put up this little picture, to add insult to injury.

This bill would cut 40 weeks from the duration of the Federal unemployment compensation and allow States to drug test. And we had some comment about--random comments about people applying for jobs and couldn't pass a drug test or something thereof. Well, let the individual businesses test individuals who are applying for jobs. They can handle it. I've heard that businesses are not hiring people; they're holding onto their cash. So these random comments that are being made are not legitimate. They are making comments that people couldn't pass a drug test at a business. If that's the case, let the business continue to drug test. It has nothing to do with individuals who worked and paid for insurance and now we want to deny them and add a burden to the State, the government, to drug test. It is perfectly well for an employer, which many employers do, to individually drug test on their own clock, their own bill, their own tab.

As I said, under present law, you cannot deny insurance for reasons other than on-the-job misconduct, fraud, or earning too much money from part-time work. That is it. How dare we suggest that we have deadbeats--who are looking for work every day. Where did this scheme come up from?

Here's a man who lives in Minneapolis. His name is Dean. He's watching Congress anxiously. He said he lost

his job as a marketing director for a mutual fund company in July, meaning his 6 months of State benefits will expire at the beginning of January. If Congress doesn't strike a deal, he will be ineligible for the additional weeks of Federal benefits given to long-term joblessness since 2008. He said he would be willing to do anything to keep the money flowing if he hasn't found work by then.

It's a little bit ludicrous, but this man is so desperate he'll do anything. How do we insult the American public who paid for unemployment insurance, and we want this person to be insulted for no reason, no documentation whatsoever.

Here's what happens if we don't--two things, one, the payroll tax extension and the unemployment insurance. One, on the payroll tax, 400,000 jobs will be lost, and we will give in to 300,000 of the 1 percent for 160 million Americans who will not get the payroll tax relief of $1,500. One million new jobs could be created thanks to the extension, versus losing 400,000 jobs. How easy is it? A surtax on 300,000 Americans starting in 2013 and finishing in terms of the payback in 10 years. We've heard over and over again by the 1 percent, many of them saying they don't mind the extra burden. That's a proposal that I offered and that the ranking member had as part of his proposal.

I met with doctors. They are concerned about their Medicare reimbursement. And in this instance, the proposal by the Democrats, which includes Mr. Levin, would have fixed the doctors' reimbursement with the war savings. A reasonable way to go. Payroll tax, quickly finished, surtax on 300,000 folks starting in 2013, we'd be able to put between 1,000 and $1,500 in your pocket. The relatives of all these folks that you've just seen, the relatives of all the folk that we love who have taken an oath to protect us, among many other Americans, would be able to benefit. You just heard the story of Dean. I would imagine that Dean is similar to many others.

The second thing we need to do is the unemployment insurance--3.2 million Americans were pulled out of poverty in 2010 thanks to unemployment benefits. Remember now, you have worked, that's how you get unemployment benefits. I don't know where this GED comes from, but I know they'd be glad to get a GED if they needed it. And we can do that in regular order. Let's pass a jobs bill with training, and I'll tell you about two amendments that I have introduced jointly with Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Towns of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The number of job seekers who will lose benefits if Congress fails to extend emergency unemployment, 2.2 million; 700,000 newly created jobs will be lost. Can anybody explain to me why we have this bill that has already been cast aside as going nowhere? Absolutely nowhere. The Republican bill will come on the floor, and we will find that we are stuck with not an answer for the people like Dean, for the families that you've seen in this photograph, or the thousands who came to the jobs fair that was held by the Congressional Black Caucus, or the jobs fair that I held in my district, where respectively 5,000 and 8,000 persons came in the middle of this jobs crisis about 2 years ago. There are States that are likewise in a deep pickle of not being able to continue the benefits of some who are suffering.

So as I said, let me repeat it again, Senator Reid has already said, will not pass the Senate and will not be signed into law by the President. But let me go on to tell you why. A bill that I believe was passed out of the Rules Committee, solely a Republican bill, with opportunities for us to have come together on these two crises, show the American people in this spirit of giving that we are going to live to fight another day in 2012 and really work to get this done for people who are desperate, literally desperate. But here is what we're doing. The Republican bill requires millions of seniors to pay more for health care, Republicans who are refusing that surtax on the 300,000 wealthiest of Americans. I've already mentioned that it cuts the unemployment benefits for people who have lost work through no fault of their own.

Again, call this Congress at (202) 225-3121, and tell any Member of Congress whether or not you were fired because of your own fault--and still trying to get unemployment insurance. Let us hear from those voices who have lost a job or are not employed because of no fault of their own. What about an individual who said he was hired, he got laid off, he got hired again and got laid off again?

We know in this season of giving we have hired, got about 80,000 jobs that have come from some of the mail houses and retailers, but it still hasn't cut into some who are desperately unemployed.

And then it imposes new limits on unemployment compensation, as I indicated to you, restricting benefits. It violates the bipartisan debt limit agreement, statutory PAYGO and GOP's own CUTGO. We have not had any documentation from CBO that it meets any standards of whether or not it increases the deficit. We are hearing that it increases the deficit. If we could declare the unemployment insurance as an emergency, we would void that particular problem. Would you not think, reasoned colleagues, that the helping of 6 million people to literally keep a roof over their head and their children, is clearly, if you will, an emergency? Helping the families of our soldiers that are around the world? Some laying on their beds where they're injured, some now going through therapy, some now going through the treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. If one of their family members is unemployed, isn't that an emergency? I'm not sure what we are thinking here.

Increases taxes on working families by forcing large end-of-the-year health care payments. Let me just say, my friends, some of this no one even understands. That's why it should go through the regular order. What is regular order? Hearings, legislation, we debate it, and we vote on it. One of the major insults is it reduces preventative care. It takes billions of dollars out of preventative care. When we have encouraged Americans to get health care at the front end and not get treatment in the emergency rooms with skyrocketing health care, there is no doubt we have literally just cut it, and reduces Medicare and Medicaid. In some of my congressional districts, it will literally shut down physicians who are dealing with the poorest of the poor, close hospitals, close clinics, because these individuals have no other way. Shut the CHIPS program down, the Children's Health Insurance Program tied to Medicaid. It seems to me that we are not being rational.

It takes away EPA rules that deal with trying to clean the air on behalf of the American people. Unfortunately, can't seem to find common ground.

I want to repeat one point again. Forty weeks are being cut from the lifeline of those who need unemployment insurance. This is the deal that our Republican friends have crafted in order to allegedly put a bill on the floor of this House. Taking the lifeline, taking the rescue rope, taking the floor from the feet of unemployed. Just imagine a drowning man or woman, and a ship comes by, and it simply stares as they go down once, twice, they are screaming life raft, life raft, just a life raft. Just imagine, and the ship keeps sailing and shouts back, I don't think it's an emergency. Keep paddling. Are you sure you didn't get in this water at your own fault? Keep on paddling. That's what this bill does to millions of Americans by cutting eligibility from 99 weeks to 59 weeks and, in fact, suggesting that unemployment at this rate is not an emergency.

Let me tell you about Ohio. It is among other States with at least an 8.5 percent unemployment rate that will be hit the hardest by this proposal. These States would likely lose 40 weeks, as I indicated, of insurance. And the way this bill is written, the unemployment compensation provisions in total equate to an increase of Federal spending by $34.2 billion over 10 years.

Let me say that again. The hawks, the fiscal hawks, the folk who've been joining in at the microphone and accusing this administration of reckless spending when we literally stopped the bleeding in this economy and job creation surged in November into December, when we've seen the markets do a little better, none of this we consider nirvana, but we see the movement.

Now we have our friends committing themselves to spending $34 billion rather than acknowledging that if you're unemployed and you can't even access a loaf of bread, that you have an emergency.

Forty-six million Americans on SNAP, on food stamps, many in parking lots in front of grocery stores waiting for that supplement to get into their account so they can go and buy food for their children.

What else does this bill have? Eleven riders. As I indicated, enroll in GED, and many other riders that have to do with regular order. It sounds complex, but what that means is letting the bill go through committee and having us discuss it, maybe putting together an omnibus bill. That could be bipartisan. But now we want to hold hostage the unemployment insurance benefits.

Medicare extensions, this bill averts the schedule 27.4 percent cuts to physician payments. By increasing the payment rate by 1 percent in 2012 and again in 2013, the two years of stable Medicare payment rates would be the most certainty physicians have had since 2004. However, the riders are unacceptable to hospitals. It is going to dramatically impact hospitals. It reduces payments to hospitals by drastically cutting payments from valuation and management services by $6.8 billion. These services are among the most common outpatient services provided in hospitals.

It cuts Medicare bad debt payments; currently reimburses 70 percent to 65 percent; and 60 percent in 2014 and 55 percent in 2015. They are closing hospitals, literally closing hospitals in poor areas. Other health care-related riders include relaxed restrictions on many other issues that are not good.

This bill attempts to ensure that welfare funds cannot be accessed in a number of places. I might really agree with them, but it's a rider that has a serious problem.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me, when we are making work. What does ``make work'' mean? Making work means that we are going through an exercise of 90 minutes of debate, which I believe may come shortly, and an eventual passage I believe of this legislation. Some have some points in it that might be relevant to some of us in different regions. However, I believe I can get to the same spot in regular order.

I am looking at legislation that can turn some of the profits that come from my region into coastal restoration and to provide for reduction of the debt. I hope there is a bipartisan response to that. Mr. Speaker, that is okay to do in regular order--meaning, having hearings, introduce the bill, let your colleagues debate it and understand it. But to throw this kitchen sink on the floor of the House when people are asking for a life raft is just to see how long we can hang out here, just see how long we can hang out.

I am all about getting a GED. I'm all about improving graduation rates of our students all across America. It's too low as we speak. But that is not the issue for this legislation. The issue is the life raft. It is to note that personal and family savings for many are exhausted.

Let me tell you something that has not been diminished. Newspaper articles suggest that the purchase of luxury items--jewelry, et cetera--is booming. It means that there is a group of prosperous, wonderful Americans who are having a heck of a good time. And I am neither envious or in any way want to criticize those purchases, but that is why the surtax is reasonable because I believe those Americans are willing to experience the benefit of this great country, the opportunity to live in a safe and secure Nation that has democracy and equality which allows them to prosper and to be part of saving their fellow Americans.

Are we conscious of World War II when we were asked that very question? For those who could not serve, every American had a role-- working in factories willingly, enthusiastically. They understood the burden, the benefit, and the sacrifice.

Why in the world, when luxury items are flying off of the counters, would we be concerned. One of the issues is that we would be attacking small businesses. No, we would not. It is very difficult to, in essence, find small businesses that are at the $1 million mark. And so that seems to be an argument that is taken to a new level of understanding. I believe it will be a fair response.

Amendments that we offered in the Rules Committee, which I did, also make sense. We talked about, again, the surtax. We talked about looking at some flexible ways of getting additional income on financial transactions. I talked about an urban jobs-training program--one of my amendments, as I indicated, Mr. Towns, Mr. Cleaver and Jackson Lee, that had to do with partnershipping with the Urban League. I work very closely with the Houston Area Urban League. They are excellent in job training, to be able to go into these hard-to-serve areas where unemployment is double digit and has been for a number of years.

If we're just going to have the kitchen sink, let's add a responsible provision that really addresses job training, that really talks to the needs of job training. Why not do that? We offered that amendment in a bipartisan spirit. Let us partnership with a proven entity, the National Urban League, that could in fact help us with job training around America. And so understanding how jobs are created seems to have alluded this legislation.

I'm reading from a report by the Urban Institute that found--IMPAQ International, IMPAQ International and the Urban Institute found that unemployment insurance benefits the economy, reduced the fall of the GDP by 18.3 percent.

This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. This is documented. That's why we think it's a crisis and we should just pass it under emergency legislation, which is allowed.

Unemployment insurance kept the GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010; and, as I said, it kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter. And at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by unemployment insurance, lowering the unemployment rate by 1.2 percentage points.

Stand in a line trying to find a job. Some people say it's like finding a needle in a haystack. Listen to the painful stories of people who've not been able to find work.

As I stand here on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would almost venture to say that a person who worked who may be presently unemployed and still eligible might be living in their car, might just be living in their car. And here we are, fiddling while Rome is burning. I can't imagine.

Two things we want to do--payroll tax and unemployment insurance--and we've got a whole litany of throw the kitchen sink on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, a bill that is 300 pages long, jeopardizing the lives of children. We've lost some jobs, 7 million since 2007. There are a number of other elements that we could be working on.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pass a Make It In America initiative. We have enough time. I'd like to pass a major manufacturing initiative so that America begins to make things again, that we begin to redevelop our steel industry so that we would never find a bridge built with steel from China and workers from China.

I believe that we should be collaborative. There is a worldwide economy. We're interrelated, but I believe in doing it from strength. So I think it is enormously important that we spend our time doing something that might draw bipartisan support, actually creating jobs, asking our banking friends why they have $64 trillion on their books and what's happening to homeowners who are attempting to access these dollars for refinance or home builders who have turned this economy; or why are we allowing housing stock to just sit and not finding a way to provide more dollars for neighborhood stabilization so that occupiers who have been driven to the wall don't have to do what some friends are doing out west--take up residence because they're unnecessarily being foreclosed on, some of whom probably are unemployed.

Do you consider that an emergency, that we have driven Americans to taking houses and taking their homes?

This is not the America that our ancestors sweated to build. This is not

the America that the turn of the century caused an Industrial Revolution, making us the builder and producer of the world, that saw us turn out the necessary weapons of World War II. This is not that America, that we have people who are in the streets today asking why they have no relief, why they're unemployed, why they're a recent graduate from the Nation's colleges and yet cannot be employed.

That's why I'm here on the floor. That's why the Congressional Black Caucus put forward major legislation to help suggest that there is a way through. There's a way through. Our chairman sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging the administration to deliver targeted solutions to address job creation in American communities with the highest unemployment. We were broad based, including those that include African Americans, but target the highest numbers.

Does anybody remember Presidential candidate, former Attorney General Robert Francis Kennedy that went into Appalachia in 1968 and acknowledged some of these poor pockets of poverty?

Does anyone acknowledge the number of children that are impoverished in the United States? Has anyone done an overview of the pockets of poverty because manufacturing plants have closed in our Rust Belt?

Well, we initiated the effort to target those who are most in need. None of that is in this bill, the kitchen sink. We suggested nine job creation proposals that would target the most vulnerable communities. We want to give people a second chance.

Remember the lifeline, and the ship just passing by as a hand goes down once, twice, and, yes, a third time. You hear that voice shouting, Are you in the water, because it's your own fault?

We believe we should do something about it. There are more job fairs and town halls to come. Many Members are holding them on their own. And so we've focused on trying to help those vulnerable, the most vulnerable.

How did we get to where we are today? And why are we in the midst of a quarrelsome debate that will not get us anywhere?

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the leadership to come together. Every time we travel home we hear the same thing, and I might venture to say from Democrats and Republicans. They egg us on. We know you can do it, because this body, this democratic body is the oldest democracy. We've lived by a Constitution that says, among other things, that we deserve due process, that there should be no discrimination, that we have the right to vote, many privileges that other nations do not have.

Can we imagine ourselves now, the last waning hours, to have a kitchen sink bill that has no room for success in the other body, and it is hours, minutes, seconds before the person drowns? How do we throw away all these jobs?

Now, somebody would come back to me and say, We have this bill. And I've just answered why this bill is flawed: cutting 40 weeks off of someone who is drowning in unemployment insurance; refusing to discuss a reasoned way to do the payroll tax cut, which is, taking the top 1 percent in a reasoned surtax for 10 years only starting in 2013; cutting seniors' Medicare benefits in this bill, throwing them under the bus; making sure that the unemployment benefits are bogged down with provisions that should be put in a bill.

And it should be documented that we have a problem of drug addicts who are unemployed who have paid into the insurance. Answer the question whether private businesses cannot do their own drug testing, which they have done all along to weed out individuals who may be seeking jobs. Document that people are home who are unemployed just taking drugs that may not be prescription drugs and not looking for employment. I've not seen them. I just want to have somebody come to the floor of the House, submit a document, give me a report that States all around the country are seeing people drag themselves up getting their unemployment check that are undeserving because they're on drugs.

What did I say, Mr. Speaker, you are deserving because you worked. And the law says misconduct, fraud, or other reasons dealing with those issues is the only reason to deny an unemployment check.

So I think it is important that I leave with a call of reason and to, in essence, make sure that our friends can have a sense that this is the wrong direction to go. Families like those of these soldiers; Americans in hamlets across this Nation far and wide; young people that are 2011 college graduates that we've encouraged to finish their education loaded with debt, having secured loans; families loaded with debt, homes on the verge of foreclosure, people who every day of their life worked; children whose families counted on them for little jobs that they might have tried to get. Some did get them. Certainly these are not the children that the former Speaker of the House suggested are poor and have no record or history of seeing anybody going to work. Certainly that's untrue.

In fact, if they're poor right now, they may be of a parent that worked who's been unemployed for a long period of time. They watched that parent go to work. They probably are watching that parent cry in pain because of the plight that they're in right now.

So I want my friends to know that we should not be playing at this. We should be taking this seriously. We already know that we will have a degree of war savings, and I'm looking at these numbers now. We have spent $802.3 billion for the Iraq war, $472.6 billion ongoing on the Afghan war, a lot of money. We will have some savings from the Iraq war.

We could in a bipartisan way address the question of the pained family member, the person that might be living in their car because of the plight of unemployment for a long period of time and needs the 99 weeks. We could address the question of poverty. The largest number of children are impoverished. We could work on making sure that children are able to reach the highest level of education.

We could, in essence, try to be part of the solution by helping to create jobs by introducing a major legislative initiative on job creation such as manufacturing here at home: buy American; make it in America. We could ensure that the government continues to buy American, recognizing that we have many friends around the world. I don't think that there would be any problem with us doing that.

We could stop burdening seniors. We could pass this payroll tax. Let me remind you the unemployment could be done under an emergency, the payroll tax could be done simply by taxing the wealthiest of Americans for a 10-year period. Does that sound simple? And that it is.

We could not eliminate the child tax credit. We could not stop people from receiving benefits by a long list of to-do's. We could not jeopardize States that have an 8.5 percent unemployment rate like Ohio that are desperately running out. We could be the kind of America that Tom Brokaw spoke of in ``The Greatest Generation.'' We could answer that with the idea that the young people that are here today are beginning to build their own story of greatness, and be empathetic and sympathetic to their plight with degrees and no jobs, or maybe they had jobs during the summer and maybe they're at home with parents who are unemployed, just piling on top of themselves, just one bad luck after another.

So I'm calling upon my colleagues to find a pathway of agreement to look at what we have done in the Congressional Black Caucus, to look at the amendments that were introduced, one finally including studying whether or not this bill that comes to the floor will impact the elderly and minorities in a disproportionate way. That amendment I offered as well--Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Towns and Jackson Lee. Fair, simple amendments.

I can only call upon the good graces of this Nation, the good graces of Members of Congress, the recognition, my friends, that our job, our responsibility is to shed ourselves of the crisis of partisanship, the shackles of partisanship, and be more concerned with the pain of the American people, the fact that they don't have any time to wait, to going back and forth and going back and forth, send it to the House, fiddle around, then send it to the Senate, fiddle around, and then it comes back again. The President's suggested a veto, a one-upmanship.

Who will win while Rome burns?

While the people that we love, family members that some of us even know of, we face the same human conditions

that all of America faces. I'm sure one Member of Congress will tell you of somebody in their family that is on hard times. This is not to benefit us but it is to bring about compassion and understanding for someone close to us.

So we can just get that compassion and understanding if we can just experience what a democracy is all about, a democracy that has lived and survived for 400 years, an economy that has thrived, that has given people an equal opportunity, that has said you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps, and then recognize that we're saying to America that we don't have that dream for you anymore. That we're just going to slash and burn. We're not going to be fair. We're going to throw States in a condition where they cannot overcome. We're not going to honor our commitment to our soldiers, providing for them and their families.

All we're going to do is to constantly be engaged in partisanship and disagreement.

Mr. Speaker, my time has ended. It is a clarion call for coming together in the American way. I know we can do it, and we can pass a fair, clean unemployment extension and payroll tax for the American people and my friends to my right that we all love and admire.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of extending unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.

The American people are relying upon Congress to stand up for them when they need us the most. Now is not the time to take a vacation, go home to our families, and watch as our unemployed constituents suffer through holidays.

The bill being brought to the Floor by my Republican Colleagues does not adequately address the needs of the unemployed.

The plan put forth by my Republican colleagues has provisions to slash the duration of federal unemployment benefits by 40 weeks. Since 2008, federal programs expiring in January have provided up to 73 weeks of compensation for workers who use up 26 weeks of state benefits.

In addition, the version heading to the House Floor would slash an additional 20 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation and it would let states reduce benefits even further. It would also impose a uniform federal work search requirement and disqualify high school dropouts not actively pursuing GEDs and millionaires from receiving benefits.

The unemployment reforms, sweeping as they are, may be lost amid other features of the Republican package.

A worker advocacy group recently described the drug testing element the ``most disturbing'' part of the Republican unemployment reforms. ``Devising new ways to insult the unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best restore the nation's economy to strong footing and the discussion over how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work.''

The requirement to insist that to qualify for benefits that a person has earned should require a GED or a high school diploma will have a negative impact on minorities.

The labor force participation rate for persons without a high school diploma is 20 percentage points lower than the labor force participation rate for high school graduates.

Nationally, approximately 70 percent of all students graduate from high school, but African-American and Hispanic students have a 55 percent or less chance of graduating from high school.

Only 52 percent of students in the 50 largest cities in the United States graduate from high school. That rate is below the national high school graduation rate of 70 percent, and also falls short of the 6o percent average for urban districts across the Nation.

What is needed is job training programs that are funded rather than penalties for those who for a multitude of reasons have not attained a high school diploma or GED.

Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility payments must be paid. Most people use their unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one is getting rich from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit checks are solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and other necessary things many individuals with no other means of income are not able to afford.

Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, preventing and prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national tragedy. In the City of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.6 percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed.

Indeed, I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my constituents who are unemployed that there will be no further extension of unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means to survive.

Currently, individuals who are seeking work find it to be like hunting for a needle in a hay stack. For every job available today, there are four people who are currently unemployed. You can not fit a square peg in a round hole and point fingers at the three other people who when that job is filled is left unemployed. Let's be realistic, there are currently 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when this recession began.

Although according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the state of Texas continues to have the largest year-over-year job increase in the country with a total of 253,200 jobs, there are still thousands of Texans like thousands of other Americans in dire need of a job.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 909 which is on the Waxman Amendment to the bill H.R. 1633, I was detained with official matters pertaining to my office and failed to make the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

I thank the gentleman.

I think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what is being asked of this body. I believe it is a nullification of the Constitution, which I like to carry, and the very distinct definition of the three branches of government and their responsibilities.

Frankly, our friends are trying to equate this Congress and its do- nothing record to the work of the executives, and now to create a do- nothing pathway for the rulemaking process which, as I've indicated on many of the bills that have already passed, there is a Federal court process for anyone that wants to challenge the process of rulemaking or whether or not due process has been denied. So I'd actually say that what we have here is a complete shutdown of the Federal Government, for it is asking this Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval for any major rule to be passed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to you what would happen: Warnings on cigarette packages would no longer exist; Medicare payments for those lying in psychiatric hospitals would not be able to be paid; and the emissions standards for boiler pollutants, hazardous pollutants out of industrial, commercial, and institutional emissions would go flat; and we would have a nation that small businesses, I believe, would argue would also be a distraction from the work that they do.

It is interesting that my friends would want to use the backs of small businesses to pretend that they are protecting them. First of all, if they look at their facts, they will note the Obama administration has passed less rules than the Bush administration.

As I indicated, they will also note that the 111th Congress passed more constructive bills to help small businesses than this Congress could ever do, and the fact that they would note that it has been recorded that this Congress is the largest do-nothing Congress that has ever existed. It would be helpful if we could pass the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, allow them to infuse dollars, 1,000 or $1,500, into the small businesses of America.

I will tell you that my small businesses will celebrate that. In visiting a medical clinic owned by a doctor that had thousands of feet that he wanted to rehab and expand, he said that payroll tax that was part of the jobs bill that the President wanted to pass through this do-nothing House of Representatives would have helped him greatly.

Then we have millions of Americans, 6 million, who are trying to get unemployment insurance. Here we are down to the last wire telling those in this blessed holiday season, whatever your faith, that you have to wait at the door and, in fact, there may not be any room at the inn for 6 million who don't have their unemployment insurance.

I don't want to shut down the government.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I don't want to shut down the government. I want a government that works. Rulemaking is not the demon here; and the process of rulemaking, if you read it, provides the input and assessment of those who are concerned.

What this does is involve the President, the Congress, in a scheme that is so dilatory that we will never do any work in this Congress. I beg of you to defeat this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to debate H.R. 10 Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.

In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as a member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.

If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule, it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields. Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to effect the change that Americans want. For example extending unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet, here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our economy.

There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing (on H.R. 3010 a bill based on the same false premise) clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''

If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans back to work. For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes: ``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''

Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure ``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #6, to H.R. 10, ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny'' (REINS). This bill amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs. Under current law Congress can provide oversight and disapprove of a promulgated bill.

My amendment would exempt all rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how protect our nation. Continuing to make advance in Homeland security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face.

The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the protection of our cyber security.

In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States.

We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, manageable, and cause the least possible damage.

Like other national security challenges in the post 9/11 era, the cyber threat is multifaceted and without boundaries. Some cyber attackers are foreign nations that utilize their military or intelligence-gathering operations, whereas others are either operating alone or are connected to terrorist groups. In addition, there are cyber threats that are international or domestic criminal enterprises.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to US-CERT has increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 2009 (over a 400 percent increase).

The four most prevalent types of cyber incidents and events reported to US-CERT during FY 2009 were malicious code; improper usage; unauthorized access and incidents warranting further investigations (unconfirmed malicious or anomalous activity).

Critical infrastructure in the Nation is composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.

With cyberspace as their central nervous system--it is the control system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential to both our economy and our national security.

In light of an attack that threatens the United State's cyber protection, Homeland Security officials may need to issue emergency regulations quickly. Attacks can be sent instantly in cyber space, and the protection of our critical infrastructure cannot be mitigated by cumbersome bureaucracy.

As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

Take for example U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which identifies prosecutorial discretion as ``the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual.'' When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it ``essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.''

In the civil immigration enforcement context, prosecutorial discretion may take the form of a broad range of discretionary enforcement decisions, including: focusing enforcement resources on particular administrative violations or conduct; deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest for an administrative violation; deciding whether a suspect will be detained or released on bond; and granting deferred action, granting parole, staying a final order of removal, or other alternative to obtaining a formal order of removal.

Let me be clear; prosecutorial discretion is not amnesty; it is done on a case by case basis to ensure that the limited resources ICE has to work with are put toward removing those who pose a threat to the safety and security of the American people. Allowing ICE to

identify and focus on priorities strengthens immigration enforcement by targeting the right individuals.

Furthermore, ICE Director John Morton issued a memorandum in March of 2011 that outlined the enforcement policies for the agency. Among the priority enforcement cases were aliens posing a risk to national security or public safety, recent illegal entrants, and those who are fugitives or have a history of violating U.S. immigration law.

Director Morton's memorandum indicates that prosecutorial discretion is by no means widespread, blanket amnesty for undocumented aliens; it is a law enforcement method used by many agencies, including ICE, under Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, prosecutorial discretion allows ICE to allocate its resources to ensure their enforcement efforts provide for the safety and security of the nation. Why would this rule need additional scrutiny?

And another major impact rule deals with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule the final rule will provide DHS with an average of $209 million in FY2010 and FY2011 annual fee revenue, based on a projected annual fee-paying volume of 4.4 million immigration benefit requests and 1.9 million requests for biometric services, over the fee revenue that would be collected under the current fee structure. The increased revenue will be used to fund the full cost of processing immigration benefit applications and associated support benefits; the full cost of providing similar benefits to asylum and refugee applicants; and the full cost of similar benefits provided to others at no change. These are the sorts of rules that are going to be needlessly hindered by this Legislation.

Again, instead of focusing on jobs we are focusing on regulations that Congress already has the power to review and prevent its implementation if and when necessary.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

On any given day the city of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to ensure that regulations that save lives that are promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

I am pleased to join my dear friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, in offering this amendment as the Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment.

I hold a sign that, I think, speaks to the gist of this amendment, ``Make It In America.'' A number of us have been on the floor of the House on a regular basis talking about creating jobs and about making it in America. My good friend from Texas just passed an amendment without opposition, and I see no reason why the Jackson Lee-Johnson or Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment cannot be accepted in the very same way.

Bruce Bartlett, one of the senior policy analysts in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, observed that regulatory uncertainty is a canard, an invented canard, that allows those who use it to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of opportunism because regulations don't stop you from creating jobs. In actuality, they provide cleaner air; they provide clean food; they provide the opportunity of a roadmap so that small and large businesses can do their work.

The Clean Air Act is a shining example. A lot of regulations came out of the Clean Air Act. Given that the economy since the Clean Air Act was passed

in 1970 under Richard Milhous Nixon, a Republican, it shows that the economy has grown 204 percent and that private sector job creation has expanded 86 percent.

I would ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the Johnson- Jackson Lee amendment. Let's make it in America. Let's ensure there is a regulatory process that exempts any regulation that creates jobs. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment #2, that I offered along with my esteemed colleague Mr. Johnson, to H.R. 10 Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). Our amendment would exempt the Office of Management and Budget once it is determined that the rules they offer will result in net job creation.

REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.

In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.

If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule, it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields. Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to effect the change that Americans want. For example extending unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet, here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our economy.

As we consider REINS, it is important that we not forget that federal agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure that proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted.

For every proposed regulation, agencies are required to issue notice of proposed rulemakings to the industry and market over which they regulate. Those entities then comment on the rules, and they go through many rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.

Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of judicial review. Arguably, rules and regulations issued by Federal agencies go through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and passed by Congress.

Implementing this rule would put a tremendous burden on Congress, and to be frank, as members elected by our constituencies to represent their interests, our time could be utilized in a much more effective manner.

Instead of debating about oversight authority that Congress already has, we should be focusing on the issues that most concern the American people, particularly, creating jobs. As our country rebounds from one of the most severe economic downturns in our history, it is imperative that we make decisions that will enable our economy to grow and, most importantly, create jobs. We should be using our judgment in a manner that would create American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken immigration system. We should be working to implement an orderly process for immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves documentation, and complements our enforcement efforts to make them more effective.

Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is alive and thriving.

America is a free enterprise society, and small businesses are part of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast portion of Americans. We should be ensuring that any consolidation taking place in the marketplace does not push out small businesses and render them unable to compete.

In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are being cut as a result of last year's United-Continental merger. As we face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of mergers such as United-Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no more precious jobs are being lost.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers-- especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return outsourced jobs to American soil.

Bottom line, Congress has a large responsibility. We carry on our shoulders the needs of the American people. Our time here is valuable and our work load is great. We should not further burden this body with the work that an entire branch of government has already been commissioned to do, especially since Congress still has oversight authority.

For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole should be our priority.

There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''

If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans back to work. For instance, According to the BlueGreen Alliance, notes: ``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''

Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure ``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.

The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed ``[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for not hiring.

At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business investment.''

A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''

The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''

Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses, observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk and more costs onto us from big corporate actors . . .

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs and get our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free reign to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''

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

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

What America wants and what I believe is important to the institution that we have such great respect for is for Members to work together. There are a number of amendments that were allowed by the Rules Committee, and I thank them; and the idea should be that these amendments improve a bill.

It is obvious that I disagree with this bill because I think it will literally shut down government. If you cannot pass simple bills that have been passed out of the House of Representatives to the other body and they have not yet passed, we've finished one year of the 112th Congress, how do you think we can manage what is called major rulemaking? Eighty different rules would have to be approved by the President, the House, and the Senate. Literally, the American people would be held hostage.

So this amendment is a cooperative amendment. I think it makes the bill better. The reason why, we have our soldiers, most likely on the front lines of Afghanistan. On account of a heinous act of terrorism on 9/11, our soldiers were dispatched to defend this Nation in Afghanistan. In doing so, they had as their backup the Department of Homeland Security, a Department whose responsibility is to secure

the homeland. Simply ask the 9/11 families how serious it is to secure the homeland.

My amendment would simply say that Homeland Security regulations or regulations dealing with securing the homeland, making America safe, would be exempt from this dilatory, long-winded process of approval. We need urgency when we speak of securing the homeland.

For example, it is well known that we deal not only with a terrorism potential from around the world, but it is also possible to have a catastrophic event that deals with a domestic terrorist attack.

I cannot believe that my colleagues would not want to act in a bipartisan manner and, in particular, with the REINS Act that requires a voted-on resolution of approval, otherwise the security amendment does not go into place. I cannot believe that we would not in a bipartisan way accept the Jackson Lee amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I think he plays right into the reason why he should join me and make this a bipartisan amendment.

Frankly, I don't think we would want to throw out or delay any process of rulemaking dealing with securing the homeland. I think when the gentleman was citing licenses, he was speaking 9/11. It is now 11 years, and we have passed a number of rulemakings that have improved securing the homeland. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I'm quite aware of the progress we've made, such as not having to address that kind of, if you will, mishap--more than a mishap--but that kind of lack of communication that we had on 9/11.

The point I want to make is our soldiers are on the front line in Afghanistan. They are asking, as someone would say on the playing field, Have you got my back? The Department of Homeland Security is that Department created from the Select Committee on Homeland Security which I was on, now in the Homeland Security Committee, to in fact provide for the security of the Nation. With that in mind, I think it is untenable to think of thwarting that process.

What we have here in the REINS Act is truly the REINS Act. It is a stranglehold on moving the Nation forward on good regulations, clean air, clean water, but in this instance securing the homeland. I believe that having the President, the Senate, and the House come together in a reasonable period of time to approve a rule dealing with securing the homeland while soldiers are on the front line defending us is an atrocious position to put the securing of the Nation in.

Let me just say this, Bruce Bartlett is a Republican. He said that the regulatory uncertainty that Republicans talk about is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. That's from a Republican.

The question is let's separate the special interests. The REINS Act is here. They have the majority. More than likely it will pass. But they're going to ignore our war and our fight to secure the homeland.

Here on the front line, what are we doing? We're putting a stranglehold on the rulemaking that will come forward that's attempting to help the American people. If we have to do something for the Transportation Security Administration and the security checkpoints and we need a rule, it's going to be held back because of this process.

I ask for the support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman very much and thank him for his leadership on this issue. And reading these passionate letters, I don't know how anyone could bring us to the brink of disaster where we find ourselves today.

I just want to read from the U.S. Department of Labor a simple sentence that I think speaks volumes:

``The unemployment insurance system helps the population most directly affected by recessions, those who have lost jobs through no fault of their own.''

Mr. Levin, you have heard my colleagues speak of the double-digit unemployment in distinctive populations,

the young, recent college graduates, African Americans and Latinos who remain at the bottom of the heap, but who are looking for jobs every day. I am reminded of a job fair at the Fallbrook Church in Houston, Texas, where throngs came seeking opportunity and basically refuting the commentary of one Presidential candidate no longer in the race, Mr. Cain, who said if you're broke and if you're unemployed, it's your fault.

And now the front-runner, Mr. Gingrich, says that poor children have no role models, their parents don't get up and go to work, they have not seen anybody go to work. How outrageous to speak about those who have lost their job, their children are poor, and they would blame the victim.

So I think it is crucial that we pass this legislation; and we have never, Mr. Levin, not passed this legislation when unemployment in our country has been near 9.1 percent. It is not 9.1 percent, but it's very well near there.

And unemployment benefits will keep us from losing over 500,000 jobs. It will also help some of the bankrupt States. There are States that are, in fact, looking to $5 billion in tax hikes on employers in nearly two dozen States. These solvency provisions will stop putting $5 billion in tax hikes on employers in nearly two dozen States, as well as provide $1.5 billion in interest relief.

Some of these very Members who may be objecting to this, debating about it, come from States that are themselves facing a question of solvency because of the unemployment insurance.

Where is the life raft, if you will? Where is the helping hand? Where is the rescue for the people who are desperate?

You might not be able to see this, but it's a very small picture of a person living in a disastrous home impacted by Hurricane Ike. There was some decision about some funds going there in Houston, Texas, today. I'm not happy with the meager distribution to help people like this. They're not getting all the money that they need.

I can assure you if they're living in some homes like this, many times they may also be unemployed. So they're living in devastated housing in many instances. They are in need of food on their table. They are likewise trying to provide for their children, and they don't have the resources.

Please do.

First, you read about a mother and her child that has to move back into their family's residence, or her parents' residence. These are now senior citizens.

Then you tell me about someone who's actually going to be homeless. Then we hear about a person that's degreed, has the ability to contribute to the engine of this economy in science, and they're unemployed. And then if you would, Mr. Levin, just look, I'm on the floor with Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman from California, and we use this to show how flat-lined our working and middle class have been in terms of the growth of their income; and we see the top percent of wealth right here shooting up to an enormous amount--that is the blue line. This is how the wealthy have progressed and grown.

And then we hear our friends saying the poor little rich person, where the very rich person in this group, because I'm not involved in class warfare, is saying we understand and we're willing to have the burden of sacrifice with the benefit of living in this great country.

And so when we look at this wealth, think about this woman who is saying she is near homelessness and think about the 160 million Americans that if we do not do a payroll tax cut; but think about, most of all, the 6 million Americans who will be left to homelessness in contrast to the enormous wealth that is on this poster board and the meager proposal of surtax on the 1 percent for 10 years, starting in 2013, to pay this off and to keep solvent Social Security. It is unbelievable that we would not rush to do this as we are nearing the holiday season.

I am just noting for you, Mr. Levin, just to say that the powerful, passionate letters that you have read are volumes in terms of those who are seeking our help.

And for anyone that has been to Occupy Houston or Occupy Wall Street or Occupy any city, if they talk to the people individually, they will know that these are simply hurting Americans who have lost their jobs who are seeking to come and seek opportunity. They want to work; and everyone that I have spoken to, the lady who is here with this home, 56 years old, I know that whether she's employed or not, the condition of her home suggests that she is in need. And the homeless persons, because they have no job, are in need.

I don't believe that the wealthy that are speaking on this particular poster board would argue about the solution that you have come to and that you are advocating and that those who are writing in are saying, they are asking, just give me a lifeline and help me to survive.

I am prepared to stay here, Mr. Levin, as you have indicated, to make sure that we do right by the people who are so much in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of extending unemployment insurance. We must not go home for the holidays if we cannot agree to extend unemployment insurance.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, preventing and prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national tragedy. As of today, in the City of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.6 percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed.

Indeed, I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my constituents whom are unemployed that there will be no further extension of unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means to survive.

If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.

The American people are relying upon us to stand up for them when they are in need. This is not a time to take a vacation, go home to our families, and watch our unemployed constituents suffer through holidays.

Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility payments must be paid. Most people use their unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one is getting rich from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit checks are solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and other necessary things many individuals with no other means of income are not able to afford.

Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.

Currently, individuals who are seeking work find it to be like hunting for a needle in a hay stack. For every job available today, there are four people who are currently unemployed. You can not fit a square peg in a round hole and point fingers at the three other people who when that job is filled is left unemployed. Let's be realistic there are currently 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when this recession began.

Although according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the State of Texas continues to have the largest year-over-year job increase in the country with a total of 253,200 jobs.

There are still thousands of Texans like thousands of other Americans in dire need of a job.

Madam Speaker, I want to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the ranking member, and my colleague from Missouri, and to echo the comments of Mr. Conyers on his father, but also the stellar work that he is doing. As a member of the delegation, we can always count on Missouri to test the Constitution and to ask the United States to do what is right.

I am rising to support this compact. Frankly, I want to really embrace it because it is maybe one aspect of legislation, Madam Speaker, that we are actually bipartisan and supporting it without hesitation.

I, frankly, believe that the Federal Government should not overreach as it relates to compacts that have been between States. But I do think that regulation is key and crucial to give States extra leverage.

So let me congratulate Mr. Clay. And I look forward to supporting this legislation.

I will add, as well, that when I think of bonds, I think of opportunities for building, using resources to restore. And by the very nature of that, Madam Speaker, we're talking about creating jobs.

So I add another applause to this particular legislation coming out of the Judiciary Committee because, for once, among many bills that we have been debating from the Judiciary Committee, this bill might enhance opportunities for jobs. I think of bonds. I think of jobs. I think of utilization of funds from bonds as they mature. And this is a good thing.

I'm sad to say that in the course of the time that we've spent, maybe over the last 3 weeks, when we could have actually engaged in reasonable debate on how we raise the payroll tax, how do we extend the payroll tax cut, and how do we extend the unemployment benefits, we have not been able to do that.

So let me just share my assessment of the folk who are needing unemployment benefits. Personal savings have gone. Family savings have gone. They've exhausted the 401(k)s and they have tapped every other fungible amount of dollars that they might have, maybe even to the kiddie's saving account that started with 25 cents, leaving many individuals in this harmonious, humble holiday time, desperate, desperate for a job, desperate for assistance, desperate for being able to pay their mortgage, desperate for paying their rent.

Madam Speaker, maybe we should also say, desperate in getting one more allotment of food stamps. Maybe we're not aware that there are 46 million families on food stamps, and most of them wait all the way to the exhaustion of those food stamps; find themselves, before the next opportunity for food stamps, literally drinking water, making tea, and eating crackers. There was an expose on this just recently on one of our cable stations, families waiting until 12 midnight to watch and see if their account has in it the amount of money they needed to enter a grocery store to feed their children.

I don't believe that we can leave this sacred and august institution without, one, providing relief on extending the payroll tax cut, giving $1,000 and $1,500 to the American working class. And clearly, I don't believe that we can leave without providing for unemployment. Every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields $1.52 in economic growth, and at least 200,000 jobs will be lost if Republicans block extension of the unemployment insurance.

In fact, frankly, I know that Scrooge would not find a place of comfort in this House.

We have always risen to the occasion of helping the most desperate. Whether it has been under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in World War II, where he had to put the apple sellers back to work, or whether it was when our President had to stop the bleeding with the $800 billion stimulus, we have always risen to be able to find a way to move our economy. And if we would tell the truth, we would see that our economy is percolating along.

So in the tribute of President Obama, who speaks today in Kansas in the same place that President Teddy Roosevelt spoke about opportunity for Americans, I'm asking for the Members of Congress to come to the floor and give opportunity for Americans.

I will close by saying to my friends, there are many good friends who are running for President. Many of us have worked with them. And anytime an American wants to offer themselves to serve this country, I have no angst with them, no matter how much I disagree with their policy. But let me be very clear, as a child that grew up poor, lived with neighbors who were poor--not in our minds, but certainly by our economics--I want to make the record very clear: poor children have role models because poor families get up every day and go to work. And the solution to poor children being the best that they can be is not a Donald Trump apprenticeship, and it sure isn't to get rid of the working janitors who are supporting their families and put the poor children to work.

I hope that we can do better than that, Madam Speaker, and get back to work and make sure we extend the payroll tax for working families. And let's extend the unemployment insurance for the 99ers.

Congresswoman Kaptur, thank you for allowing me to join you and to join the distinguished gentleman from New York. We are on the floor often, but it is very special to come here tonight as I listen to you discussing the issues not only of Make It In America, but something you have been on--and, in fact, we have known Ohio to be the center point of manufacturing, the center point of production of what we call the raw materials, overlapping with our friends in the Midwest on steel production. We call Ohio the true salt of the earth and the underpinnings of America's economy.

Again, they are very fortunate to have a Member such as Marcy Kaptur, who has never stepped away from the morality and the moral compass of allowing constituents to work and to fight for them having the opportunity to work and to create opportunities and jobs and manufacturing in Ohio. We thank you. We are joined, of course, by Mr. Tonko, who has never wavered from assisting his constituents, particularly facing the hurricane they had.

I want to join you and pick up the populist chord, if I can. The President went to--I guess he listened to us, listened to you and went to Kansas and went to the place where Teddy Roosevelt, the man with the big stick, went. I think we need a big stick around here. I don't believe in violence, but if I might just get one quote in that I really like: This country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.

This is what we've been speaking about. This is what the public has been asking us. This is what the coffee maker or the small businesses have been asking for: Give us an even playing field.

I want to briefly speak, as I participate in this Special Order, on one or two points, and that is these go hand in hand.

We know there are people who are unemployed. We know there are working people who will benefit from the extension of the payroll tax cut. We also know that we have great respect for our colleagues, but that we have not been tending to the people's business for the last 3 weeks. We have been passing legislation which has been job killers. We could have had a reasonable discussion on how we get to a point. And I don't mind doing things in a bipartisan way. I've never seen you reject bipartisanship. I have never seen Mr. Tonko reject bipartisanship, or Mr. Garamendi do so. We are eager to move this country forward.

I'm going to give the other body a compliment because I know they were stuck on the plan of the payroll tax, but I kind of like the idea of a 1.9 percent surtax applied in 2013--not even in 2012--to millionaires over a 10-year period. An additional $31.8 billion would be generated by increasing fees on mortgage lenders paid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and those may have to be reviewed by this body, but it is seeking a way to ensure that everyone gets a piece. Let me tell you what the response is.

The hostage-taking comes when one Senator of our friends on the other side in the other body, a Republican Senator says: Okay, we don't want the Bush tax cuts to ever expire. That's their response.

So I just want to say to my colleagues that the olive branch has been extended. If we do not do this, I will tell you the GOP will be risking 160 million Americans who will not be protected and will be subjected to this massive, if you will, tax increase. If we do it, it will give 160 million Americans relief. 300,000 people making more than $1 million a year will give a little bit of sacrifice to give a fair shot, a Teddy Roosevelt fair shot, to the American people of $1,000 to $1,500.

Let me speak briefly about the unemployment circumstance here. Six million Americans lost their jobs. And I want to speak briefly, and I want to show this picture of a happy family. You've got manufacturing and I've got the Houston port. We've got stevedores. Obviously, when the international economy slows down, what happens to the guys who load and unload ships? My guy who is in this family that's in need, he's been off work for a month or two months. He's got these beautiful children and a wife. They've got some medical problems. He's had to have surgery. These are the kinds of people that we are castigating, the salt of the earth in Ohio that had jobs in manufacturing and were laid off or they were slowed down.

This headline says: ``Illness and budget cuts fail to diminish family's good cheer,'' but they are the recipients of charitable aid here in Houston, Texas. And you see their three lovely children. If this gentleman does not get unemployment, if, for example, he continues to be laid off, then we are talking about a family that is not on public assistance. We are talking about a family that in fact worked, which is what unemployment insurance is, car insurance, fire insurance. They worked, and they've come upon hard times. New Yorkers worked, and they've come upon hard times. Californians worked, and they've come upon hard times, as have those in Ohio. So I would just, in the spirit of bipartisanship, say to my good friends, find a way to repay the American workers who have come upon hard times, the children who have watched their parents get up every day and work.

Here is my swan song on this point. I wanted to show this picture because I have been plagued over the weekend by the words of one of our national figures who indicated that poor children have no role models; no one in the poor communities ever goes to work; no one who happens to be poor watches any family member get up and go to work unless they're doing illegal activities.

So a solution is we watch the janitors in the schools--let's make sure the poor children, pluck them out of the pre-K and first grade and sixth grade, let them do the janitorial work of an adult who is providing for his family. In my day, janitorial work, the sanitation department, that was good, hard work for individuals who were providing for their families, and maybe they educated a whole generation of children by being a janitor. Or someone who was housekeeping or someone who was cleaning facilities or office buildings. We are not suggesting that these individuals are not looking for greater aspirations. Maybe somebody went and got a GED or went to a community college.

But to suggest that poor children in Appalachia, where Robert Kennedy went and said he saw the worst poverty he had ever seen, or in places such as inner-city Houston or rural America don't have role models because they are impoverished and the only thing that they are able to see is illegal activity is an insult to the American spirit and is a reflection on what we have come to in this body when we can't give to the working class, this wonderful family that is on the front pages of our paper, indicating they're only in this predicament, they only can't see daddy go to work because he is a stevedore without work and then getting back surgery, so compounded not because they are poor and in a family where nobody gets up and goes to work.

We've got to do better than this. We have to take the Teddy Roosevelt spirit. I'm glad the President was in Kansas and has taken on this kind of hard talk in order to provide for the working families of America.

I want to follow up and put two more numbers on the record, as you did. You made a very valid point that here we are at the last minute. You would think that we would be sensitive enough to know that families are gathering. Families want to have a holiday for the children. They're trying to be the Santa that they know that the children believe in. They're trying to make preparations. Families are trying to find ways to be with loved ones. It may be gasoline that they may need to drive a car. If we don't do this unemployment insurance, we are poised--unlike if we did it and we get bang for our buck--to lose 200,000 jobs. Compound that with not extending the payroll tax cut and we'd lose 400,000 jobs. That is almost 600,000 jobs.

I finish by saying the tragedy of your point about China--and I want to make it very clear that we love all people. We wish the best for the people of China. It is the policies, the currencies. But not only do we have this in the backdrop; we have to fix our own house so that we're not building a bridge in California that has drawn steel and workers and designers and accountants from way across the ocean in China. We've got to get our house in order.

And so 600,000--if the payroll tax cut extension doesn't go forward, we're losing 400,000 jobs. And if unemployment insurance doesn't go forward, we're losing 200,000 jobs. Is this the way to welcome the most sacred season for many faiths and many families of the year of giving, where we teach our children to give? Is this what we should be doing to the American people? Is this what we should be doing to our soldiers who will be coming home by the end of December? I think not.

I thank the gentlelady for allowing me to share these thoughts. I'm only looking forward to getting our house in order and getting our holiday house in order and reflecting on the needs of the American people and not special interests.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

My good friend from Texas has introduced an amendment that I wish all of us could have joined with, as well as Mr. Johnson's amendment that was not allowed in order.

We've made a complaint not necessarily on one amendment but on this underlying bill. And the amendment now adds yet another analytical requirement to the already numerous analytical requirements of H.R. 3010.

I would have liked to have joined Mr. Olson on making this just a job creation amendment, or a job creation bill. But part of the bill's super mandate overrides existing statutes like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, all of which reflect bipartisan legislative agreement to prohibit or limit consideration of costs in the rulemaking process.

While I certainly agree with the idea of net job creation, H.R. 3010 does absolutely nothing to create jobs with or without the addition of this analytical requirement.

We can't cure this bill, and we might have been able to do so with an amendment by Mr. Johnson that exempts all rules that result in job growth. After all, it was allowed for H.R. 527, the other bill that we are considering today. I don't know why we can't come together, as some would say, and put forward bipartisan amendments that talk about creating jobs.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I wish today was spent really dealing with job creation rather than diminishing the social safety net for the American people, something that we fought long and hard for.

But let me give you some good news. The unemployment has dropped to approximately 8.9 percent, I believe, or a little bit less. It means the country's economy is going in the right direction, and the time that we're spending on the floor on these bills is a job killer.

We'd much rather have spent our time passing the American Jobs Act, putting money in investment and infrastructure, rehiring firefighters, teachers, and law enforcement officers, and certainly we don't need to jeopardize this little baby's future with thwarting the opportunity for making sure food safety regulations are unfettered on behalf of the American people.

My amendment is a simple clarification. The way the rules exist today is that the agency, in its wisdom, thinking about the safety and security of the American people, food safety, the environment, clean air, clean water, has the right, the discretion to give preliminary 90- day notice.

What do we do in this bill? We demand that the agency give a 90-day notice in order to propose a rule, and

prior to having it published in the Federal Register. My friends, there is no doubt that rulemaking is complex, but in many times rulemaking requires quick action. All my amendment does is put back in the discretion of the agency to determine whether they can have a 90-day notice.

The GOP claims that slashing regulations is the way to create jobs. Well, let me tell you what President Reagan and what President G.H.W. Bush said. As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bruce Bartlett said in an interview, it's just nonsense, it's just made up.

Bruce Bartlett was the economic adviser under Presidents Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Indeed, as BLS data show, in 2010, only 0.3 percent of people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of government regulation, intervention. But I will tell you this, this little one's life will be in jeopardy because of the intrusive and excessive 60-step process that these legislative initiatives are requiring.

Someone would say hogwash. The GOP claim that there has been a tsunami of regulations under President Obama is also a myth. It is simply a myth.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me just expand on this point regarding President Obama.

This administration has approved fewer regulations than the predecessor, George W. Bush, at this same point in their tenures. Furthermore, Bloomberg finds that the average annual cost of regulations under President Obama at about $7 billion to $10 billion is close to the average around the costs from 1981 to 2008.

This GOP bill kills rulemaking in favor of special interests. Sixty new analytical steps, can you imagine? You will be bogged down spending money and using government time and using the taxpayers' dollars to keep from protecting them; to keep from protecting this innocent child; to keep from protecting children with asthma; to keep from protecting people who need to have clean water; to keep from protecting those who need to have, if you will, a food safety requirement that keeps them from being impacted by E. coli.

How ``unsensible,'' if I can use a word in quotes, is that? As the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards says, which includes Consumer Federation of America, this bill will make it virtually impossible for Federal agencies to ensure that American families are protected from tainted food, unsafe drugs, predatory financial schemes, dirty air and water, and dangerous workplaces.

Give us a break. Let us follow in the footsteps of President Bush, President Reagan, and our predecessor President Bush and realize that this regulatory scheme is broken.

Pass the Jackson Lee amendment and save lives, and let's celebrate that unemployment is going down and find a way to create jobs.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3010 the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011,'' which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would require all agencies to adopt the least costly rule by formally codifying the cost benefit analysis process. The bill also overrides existing statutory standards in laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In addition, this measure will significantly slow the regulatory process, increase costs, and burden an already taxed judicial system.

My amendment would allow a federal agency to use their discretion to determine whether to provided advanced notice, not later than 90 days, of a proposed rule prior to it being published in the Federal Register. As it has not been found that agencies have been dilatory in using their discretion. And in fact, there are times when it would be unnecessary.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have provided no solid justification for the bill's inflexible mandate that would require an agency to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, ANPRM, as part of the rulemaking proceeding for any major rule or high-impact rule. Agencies are in the best position to be able to determine the relative benefits and burdens of utilizing ANPRMs. I ask will this new rule create jobs?

As my Republican colleagues are often raising concerns about the never ending bureaucracy in Washington. This bill adds more than 60 new procedural and analytical requirements to the agency rulemaking process. This would include currently nonexempt rulemaking. In addition, the bill extends the timeframe required to complete legal consideration of an agency proposed rule. This measure is a blatant attempt to delay the rulemaking process and the final implementation of agency rules. Well if as many jobs were created as red tape will be created by this piece of legislation then every American would have a job and one waiting in reserve.

This measure calls for Judicial Review of every significant Executive Branch activity and functions. I have been serving as member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the Executive Branch is exactly what Congress does. In fact, one of the primary functions of a Congressional Committee is to provide oversight.

If the Judicial Branch were required to proactively approve every federal rule, it would be extremely time consuming. The Administrative agencies are made up of experts in their respective fields. Many of the regulations that administrative agencies enact are very specific and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of certain issues. The time it would take members of the Judiciary to become adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to effect the change that Americans want.

As we consider this rule, it is important that we not forget that federal agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure that proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted. For every proposed regulation, agencies are required to issue a notice of proposed rulemakings to the industry and market over which they regulate. Those entities then comment on the rules, and they go through many rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.

Rulemaking takes years, and input from all relevant stakeholders is regularly solicited and received. Delays during the rulemaking process are already created by stakeholders and other branches of government. The reality is that the rulemaking process is already hampered by those whose sole intent is to water down or prevent rules they oppose. Additional delays only hurt Americans.

According to a recent report by the Public Citizen delays of OSHA regulations contributed to 100,000 work place injuries, 10,000 cases of work-related illness, and hundreds of workplace fatalities. Promulgating regulations save lives

Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of Judicial review. Arguably, rules and regulation issued by Federal agencies go through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and passed by this body.

Implementing this rule would create an expanded use of formal rulemaking that will effectively prevent needed public health and safety rules, in addition to an expanded and less deferential judicial review process that will lead to endless litigation without enhancing due process. Instead of debating about oversight authority that Congress already has, we should be focusing on the issues that most concern the American people, particularly, creating jobs.

Collectively, the procedural and analytical requirements added by this bill would be enormously burdensome. The task of deliberating on, seeking consensus on, and drafting the numerous recitals that would be added to the rulemaking process would draw heavily on agency resources--a matter that should be of special concern at the present moment, when agencies are facing and will continue to face severe budget pressures. Increasing the time needed to accomplish rulemaking would not only be costly but also would tend to leave stakeholders (including businesses large and small) less able to plan effectively for the future. Not only new regulations, but amendments or rescissions of rules could be deterred by the additional expense and complexity that would be added to the process.

Enforcement of these requirements on judicial review is available to regulatory proponents and regulatory opponents alike, adding to the burden of defensive lawyering agencies must carry. Thus, both affirmative regulation and deregulation may be impeded. As our country rebounds from one of most severe economic downturns in our history, it is imperative that we make decisions that will enable our economy to grow and, most importantly, create jobs.

We should be using our judgment in a manner that would create American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken immigration system. We should be working to implement an orderly process for immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves documentation, and compliments our enforcement efforts to make them more effective.

Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is alive and thriving. America is a free enterprise society, and small businesses are part of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast portion of Americans. We should be ensuring that any consolidation taking place in the marketplace does not push out small businesses and render them unable to compete.

In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are being cut as a result of last year's United--Continental merger. As we face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of mergers such as United--Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no more precious jobs are being lost.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers-- especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return outsourced jobs to American soil.

In addition to jobs, the safety of the American people should be a priority. We should be spending time ensuring our prisons are safe. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, federal prisons now house more convicted international and domestic terrorists than the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. To ensure the safety and security of our prisons, the ratio of employees to inmates is key. Hiring freezes within the Federal Bureau of Prisons coupled with rising inmate populations has the potential to negatively affect this critical ratio, and therefore threaten the safety and security of our prisons. By addressing the employee to inmate ratio, we are securing our Nation and creating more jobs for America.

Bottom line, the judicial branch has a large responsibility. They carry on their shoulders the needs of the American people. We should not further burden the Judiciary with the work that an entire branch of government has already been commissioned to do, especially since Congress still has oversight authority.

For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole should be our priority. And for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 3010.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman very much.

I think it's important to reinforce to our colleagues that many of us are on the floor of the House this morning as these bills have come through the Judiciary Committee, and I am just struck

by the fact that I'm trying to reflect on the vast reach that these bills have taken up. We even have another bill just like this next week. And I'm, for the life of me, trying to reflect on where the data is that these bills are going to create jobs or that there is a problem. And that is what the task of the Members of the United States Congress is. This body and the other body, we are to come as part of the people's House and solve problems.

For example, I am going to be calling for hearings on the heinous actions of sexual abuse against our children in institutions such as Penn State and Syracuse and places around this country that are probably yet uncovered and yet undiscovered. That is a problem, our children being abused, sexually abused, and the vileness of the coverup.

We're sent here to solve problems. And frankly, I am concerned that H.R. 3010 does not solve a problem. I'd rather be addressing the vileness of sexual abuse as an epidemic across this Nation. But today we are here with a regulatory bill and no evidence that anybody has been disturbed by the regulations that have been put in place to save the lives of the American people.

So my amendment is a simple one again. Having been on Homeland Security since its origins--meaning the committee--and before the Department was even created as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, having gone to Ground Zero, and as I reflect seeing the smoke still billowing from the ashes and looking at the rescue and recovery teams--they had not yet stopped seeking to recover those who tragically were in the midst of this hellish quagmire of terrorism. How can you not see the reason in waiving this bill or exempting all rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security? It is the newest department. It has the greatest scrutiny in place for the kinds of regulations that are involved.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in being innovative in protecting our Nation. Don't stifle that. Don't block us from stopping Times Square bombers and shoe bombers and Christmas day bombers that would impact the American people. Don't stop us from helping the Coast Guard do its duty, dealing with the travails of the waterways of America, the many huge ports that would open their doors to heinous acts with cargo. That's what they're telling us to do by making sure homeland security, securing the Nation has to be subjected to these amendments.

I know about the vulnerabilities in security firsthand. We see these all the time. There are 350 major ports. They need to do their work. They don't need to be stifled by a legislative scheme that puts in place 60 new provisions to get a regulation out. How insane.

Help us secure America. I'm asking my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

What does my amendment do? It simply says that if it is a regulation dealing with the securing of the American people, it is exempted from 60 barriers, look-sees, delaying tactics, long-windedness that would prevent that regulation from coming through to help the likes of the Coast Guard do its job, Customs and Border Patrol do its job, ICE do its job, the TSA, dealing with aviation security, do its job.

How clearer do we need to be? With cities and towns across the Nation facing threats indeed every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple departments and agencies as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. How in the world can we do our job and protect the American people? How can we provide small businesses with the opportunity for new technology procurement by layering and layering their ability to get this done?

I ask my colleagues to stand with me in supporting the homeland and Homeland Security. Vote for the Jackson Lee amendment that exempts Homeland Security regulations. But once and for all, let's be bipartisan on securing and protecting the American people.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3010 the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011,'' which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act. This measure would require that all agencies default to the least costly rule unless it can demonstrate that the additional benefits of the more costly rule justify the additional costs, and the agency offers a public health, safety, environmental, or welfare justification clearly drawn from the authorizing statute.

The Regulatory Accountablity Act of 2011 (RAA) formally codifies the cost-benefit analysis process. The bill overrides existing statutory standards in laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In addition, this measure will significantly slow the regulatory process, increase costs, and burden an already taxed judicial system.

As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency, which is why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should be exempt from this legislation.

This bill delays the promulgation of federal regulations, and delays a federal agency's ability to issue regulations when responding to an emergency and grants the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy additional authority to intervene in agency rulemaking, without providing additional funding. Further, H.R. 3010 repeals an agency's authority to waive regulatory analysis during an emergency.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation,'' and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. The Department of Homeland Security cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how to protect our nation. Continuing to make advances in Homeland Security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face.

Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. The Coast Guard, under the directive of the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with protecting our ports of entry. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the State of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak is crucial to the security of the American people.

On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people.

This bill expands the review that agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations and the review they must conduct of existing rules to include an evaluation of the ``indirect'' costs of regulations, and grants the SBA authority to intervene in agency rulemaking. The measure also expands the ability of small businesses and other small entities impacted by an agency's regulations to challenges to those rules in court.

Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years to complete. Given the nature of its mission, the Department of Homeland Security is the last agency that needs to be subject to more levels of regulation and scrutiny. Some advocates groups also have expressed concern that by extending the rule-making process, regulatory uncertainty could increase, which may make it more cost effective for agencies to seek enforcement through the courts, and thereby reduce the public's ability to participate in the process.

These costs add to the cost of doing business with the Department of Homeland Security, and eat away at the profits of our businesses, particularly our small businesses which often are not as equipped to absorb additional costs. Moreover, many businesses dealing with national security have higher costs because of expensive equipment, and as such are already working with lower profit margins.

The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations threaten the security, stability, and the delivery of vital services to the American people. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to slow the promulgation of regulations to a drip.

I have offered this amendment to mitigate the uncertainty regarding federal laws and rulemaking in the area of national security because of the increased urgency when dealing with these often sensitive matters. The Department of Homeland Security is the newest federal agency, and as such already is subject to pioneering levels of oversight and scrutiny.

I urge the Committee to make my amendment in order to ensure that life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise today in commemoration, Mr. Speaker, of World AIDS Day; and I thank our minority leader for her eloquent recounting of how far we have come.

In our best days, we can look to my dear friend Magic Johnson, who has been a living example of the improvements and the courage of those who are living with the HIV infection; but we recognize that, of the 15 million people medically recommended for antiretroviral medication worldwide, only half of them have access to drug treatment.

In the United States, nearly one in five people with HIV, or 240,000 people, don't even know that they are infected. Communities of color and young gay and bisexual men face the most severe burden of HIV in the United States--Magic Johnson, on one hand, and my dying friend on another hand being at the bedside of a person dying with AIDS, who, one, lived with the stigma and didn't have a way out.

Today, I will join others and be tested for the HIV virus, and I encourage others to do so.

I congratulate my constituents, the Harris County Hospital District and the Thomas Street Clinic, for their 12th annual World AIDS Day.

Thank you, Mr. President, for recognizing that 6 million more people need to have access to AIDS prevention drugs.

To those who have lost their lives, may I say to you on this day that your life that was lost should not be in vain. We still look for a cure, and we work for a better Nation and an opportunity to provide resources to those around the world and in the United States who still suffer. It is our challenge. We accept that challenge, and I believe someday we will be victorious.

To those who commemorate this day because they mourn, I commemorate it with you in your mourning. For those who celebrate life, I, likewise, celebrate life.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear, when I have the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has an enormous history of commitment to small businesses, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, both former chairs, opposing this bill, then we obviously know that it is problematic.

What I know of small businesses is that they, frankly, want to have an anchor to promote and propel their business needs. The regulatory scheme and the underlying premise of this bill is to eliminate any anchor for our small businesses. And when you do that, you're clearly undermining their growth and opportunity.

I would add, as well, that I challenge as to whether or not this debate today creates any opportunity for small business, provides them access to credit, guarantees any loans, creates any jobs. Absolutely not, and it is absurd that we would suggest that agencies that are trying to promote small businesses are stopping small businesses and, therefore, we want to implode the regulatory scheme.

The APA provides an opportunity for due process through the court system. If our colleagues have problems with regulations, they can run to the courts. You don't have to implode the process to be able to address the problem.

Let's help small businesses, let's discuss how to create jobs, and let's vote against this legislation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise today to call upon the rational and reasonable thinking of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and really discuss an amendment that speaks the obvious.

The underlying bill puts into process a regulatory scheme that delays the implementation of regulations. Whether you agree or disagree with that approach, we all recognize that securing the homeland continues to be a top priority for this Nation.

I'm standing alongside some of our first responders looking over one of the Nation's major ports. Many who live in those areas recognize the vulnerability of America through her ports or aviation or mass transit or highways or bridges or dams.

Every moment after 9/11 is a new moment in this Nation. My amendment simply says to waive the provisions of this bill, H.R. 527, when it deals with homeland security.

I hold in my hand the National Security Threat List that lists the issues that our Homeland Security Department and intelligence communities have to address. The listing is not classified, so I will mention the many tasks that they have to address: terrorism, espionage, proliferation, the moving forward on the question of economic espionage, targeting the national information structure, cybersecurity. Why would we want to interfere with the movement of regulations to protect the homeland under the premise of this bill?

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that would waive the bill's provisions in light of protecting the homeland.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me again appeal to the bipartisanship of my colleagues. This is a very troublesome bill, and this bill interferes with the normal process, if you will, of dealing with the regulatory scheme. Although it's called the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I can assure you that the purpose of this legislation is, one, not to create jobs, and certainly not to help us secure the homeland.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process allowing special interest lobbyists to second-guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation. This is what Homeland Security regulations would have to go through.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and since my membership on the committee that was a select committee, we've overhauled the government in ways we've never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 are corrected.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved, for example, through the Port of Houston in 2010. That cargo has to be inspected. And the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. Just imagine a regulation dealing with the scanning or the security of that tonnage to be interfered with by H.R. 527.

If Coast Guard intelligence had evidence of a potential attack on the Port of Houston and they wanted the Department of Homeland Security to address it or they used a regulation or there was a regulation in process, then it would have to be stopped by this legislation.

It is important to recognize that homeland security is not security by appointment. It is not security by ``let me address regulations by having them vetted by H.R. 527.''

This is a commonsense amendment that simply says, as it deals with the homeland security or the securing of our Nation as we look to be better than what occurred in 9/11 where agencies were not communicating with each other, where the fault of the cybersecurity system did not work, and we had the heinous tragedy of losing 3,000-plus of our souls in New York City. As we see the franchising of terrorism where there is the shoe bomber and the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber, it's important not to have a fettered Homeland Security Department in a regulatory process that is stopped by overlying legislation.

This legislation is a job-killer, we already know. Let's not let it be a killer of Americans because it gets in the way of Homeland Security efforts doing the work that is necessary.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that asks simply for a waiver of this legislation as it addresses the question of securing the homeland and the regulatory scheme that is needed by intelligence agencies, our Border Patrol agencies, our TSOs that deal with aviation security, our cargo inspectors. As it relates to that work, our front line, let us waive this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. The bill would expand the number of rules covered by the RFA and requires Federal agencies to perform additional analysis of regulations that affect small businesses.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security and ranking member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency, which is why the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should be exempt from this legislation.

This bill delays the promulgation of federal regulations, and delays a Federal agency's ability to issue regulations when responding to an emergency and grants the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office of Advocacy additional authority to intervene in agency rulemaking, without providing additional funding. Further, H.R. 527 repeals an agency's authority to waive regulatory analysis during an emergency.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of Federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our Nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. The Department of Homeland Security cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how we protect our Nation. Continuing to make advances in homeland security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face.

Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. The Coast Guard, under the directive of the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with protecting our ports of entry. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people.

This bill expands the review that agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations and the review they must conduct of existing rules to include an evaluation of the ``indirect'' costs of regulations, and grants the SBA authority to intervene in agency rulemaking. The measure also expands the ability of small businesses and other small entities impacted by an agency's regulations to challenge those rules in court.

Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years to complete. Given the nature of its mission, the Department of Homeland Security is the last agency that needs to be subject to more levels of regulation and scrutiny. Some advocates groups also have expressed concern that by extending the rulemaking process, regulatory uncertainty could increase, which may make it more cost effective for agencies to seek enforcement through the courts, and thereby reduce the public's ability to participate in the process.

These costs add to the cost of doing business with the Department of Homeland Security, and eat away at the profits of our businesses, particularly our small businesses which often are not as equipped to absorb additional costs. Moreover, many businesses dealing with national security have higher costs because of expensive equipment, and as such are already working with lower profit margins.

The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations threaten the security, stability, and the delivery of vital services to the American people. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to slow the promulgation of regulations to a drip.

I have offered this amendment to mitigate the uncertainty regarding federal laws and rulemaking in the area of national security because of the increased urgency when dealing with these often sensitive matters. The Department of Homeland Security is the newest federal agency, and as such already is subject to pioneering levels of oversight and scrutiny.

I urge the Committee to make my amendment in order to ensure that life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

I would like to think that our colleagues are in their offices communicating with their constituents and doing much of the work that we do and writing probably other great legislative initiatives, and they are paying attention to this debate and they keep hearing the words ``small businesses'' and they want to know why would any of us have a disagreement about small businesses when we have, I think, a consensus that small business are in fact the backbone of America; they are the job creators of America.

I recall many of us have initiatives. I have an initiative of visiting small businesses. Just a couple of weeks ago, I donned the clothing of a medical practice. I went to a beauty school and tried to do a little bit of hair design. I went to an energy company. I went on to a small export-import company, and I stood out as a safety officer for a construction company owned by a single mother.

So we all speak the language of small businesses. And you would think that my good friends on the other side of the aisle would have looked more closely at how damaging H.R. 527 is because, for those who may be listening in their offices and others, right now you have a three- agency framework of reviewing regulations dealing with small businesses.

Now you're going to include that all the agencies have to get into the act in stifling small businesses' activities and their growth and opportunity. Remember now, right now we have three, and then we're going to open up the lot so that every agency now has to go through a regulatory process to determine its impact on small businesses. It expands the use of small business review panels to review rules promulgated by all agencies to include all major rules, and some of these, of course, having the positive impact on our small businesses.

What is the significant economic impact? Nobody knows. It forces agencies to engage in wasteful, speculative analysis. It imposes an absurd and wasteful requirement on those agencies.

So I have a simple amendment. Ask the question beforehand: What is the economic impact of all of this vast new inclusion of other agencies to come down on our small businesses? It requires my amendment, a GAO study, to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect it will have on Federal agency rulemaking. Simple, bipartisan amendment, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Let me just continue looking for bipartisanship. I am hoping that I can convince my friend from Texas to not desire to have a can of worms, a potpourri of agencies coming out with the hand of oppression on small businesses.

This is a simple question that I'm asking. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, simply would be asking the question: What is the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities which will greatly slow down the rulemaking process and substantially empower other competitors to small business to throw sand in the gears of rulemaking that will help small businesses, women-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, disabled veterans?

What is the reason for not agreeing to an important study? It forces agencies to again engage in wasteful, speculative analysis, including an assessment of all reasonably foreseeable indirect economic effects.

We can do it ahead of time. Will this kill jobs is the question. It expands judicial review to include all agency actions and not just final agency action.

Mr. Chairman, can we not find an opportunity to come together on this? I would much rather have a report to tell me how many small businesses will shut down waiting for agency review of the rules that would be helpful to them.

Have we engaged with the Small Business Committee? Has anyone

asked the ranking member of that committee, even the chairman of that committee, who are champions of small business? I don't think I have seen the chairperson, but I have seen the ranking member, who listens to small businesses across the country. If there is a regulation that is going to help a small business, this bill kills it.

The small businesses are hanging on for dear life. Pass the rule. Pass the rule. Now you have put in all these agencies, dilly-dallying around trying to be able to find a way to stifle the growth of the small business.

Mr. Chairman, common sense tells Members that it doesn't hurt to have just this one bipartisan effort to get the answer of the economic impact beforehand. Down in Texas we say, close the barn door before the cow gets out, or the cart before the horse, the horse before the cart. We've got all of that. We've got confusion.

I am simply having a simple amendment that would allow the GAO to report on how we can better serve our small businesses and create the jobs that are necessary. I ask my colleagues, including Mr. Smith, to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the ``Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011.'' My amendment would require a GAO study to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect it will have on federal agency rulemaking. In addition, the report must contain information on the impact of repealing the ability of an agency to waive provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act when responding to an emergency.

This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 in such a manner that it would result in significant delays in the agency rule- making processes by mandating multi-agency analyses of both direct and indirect costs for rules proposed or finalized by a single agency.

My amendment simply requires that the Comptroller General, within 2 years after the enactment of the legislation, issue a report to Congress on the cost effectiveness of the changes implemented by this Act.

The report would list all additional costs and resources that each agency will have to expend to carry out this Act and the amendments made by the Act.

It would also show the effect of this Act and its amendments on the efficiency of the rule making process, including the amount of time required to make and implements a new rule.

This study would report on any impact that this Act or its amendments would have on the ability to implement new agencies in the event of an emergency. Lastly, this study would examine the overall compliance of agencies with the Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (RFIA).

By requiring that multiple agencies conduct detailed economic analyses of a rule proposed by a single agency, each agency will have to expend time and resources to uncover the indirect economic effects of the proposed rule. This is unduly burdensome on a process that is already sufficient in length, as rules currently require a 30 day period after publication prior to effectiveness.

There is one overarching problem with H.R. 527. Although it claims to make improvements, one thing it does not do is provide the needed clarification that the GAO has repeatedly pointed out, and that the agencies have asked for.

In the past, there have been GAO reports showing incidents of agency noncompliance with the current regulatory flexibility rules for rule making. The reports cited that this noncompliance is due largely to confusion surrounding the meaning of ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Agencies have expressed the need to better clarification of this clause to aide them in determining when rule making analysis and review is necessary.

Another part of this expanded review and analysis called for in H.R. 527 that concerns me is the potential it has to impede upon emergency rulemaking. Every so often, there are instances when an agency has to implement a new rule or regulation in response to an emergency. Under the current law, there is an exception allowing agencies to bypass the review process in the event of an emergency. The provisions of this bill cloud that exception.

Furthermore, the rule-making process is made more cumbersome and expensive by requiring multi-agency review. If the purported reason for amending the Regulatory Flexibility Act with this bill is to save the American taxpayers money by including provisions requiring analyses of direct and indirect effects of proposed rules, then it should follow that the costs of implementing such provisions should not outweigh the benefits they provide.

My amendment will ensure just that by requiring the Comptroller General to issue a report to Congress that includes (1) the additional costs and resources that each agency must expend to maintain compliance with this Act, (2) an analysis of the effect that this Act has on the efficiency of the rule-making process, and (3) an analysis of the potential difficulties that may arise in an emergency situation in which an agency must implement new rules.

If the process by which government agencies create rules is changed to require the disclosure of all costs associated with a proposed rule, then shouldn't the Act that makes such changes have its own costs to the American taxpayers disclosed? My amendment will ensure that this disclosure is made to the public upon this legislation's enactment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am a proud Cougar, and as you well know, Cougars are silent, fast, and deadly. We welcome Southern Miss to Houston, Texas, the 12-0 Cougars, and we plan to give you all the barbecue you can eat as we celebrate the victory of the great Cougars, University of Houston, academic and athletic champions. It's a pleasure to place this wager with you tonight. Cougars--ready to pounce on you.

Peace in the valley. Victory for the Cougars.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The question to my colleagues is whether workers come as Republicans or Democrats or if they come simply as Americans operating under a constitutional provision that we all celebrate, and that is the First Amendment.

The First Amendment clearly allows the American people to petition, to have freedom of expression and, in essence, freedom to assemble. We also recognize that, in the course of power, there is the worker and there is the employer. The employer, in many instances, intimidates, and the National Labor Relations Board recognized the unevenness of power. Whether they are returning troops and veterans or whether they are single mothers and working families who want to better their lives, they understand that there needs to be fairness in order for this little, small book, the Constitution, to actually operate.

My amendment is very simple. My amendment attempts to make an even playing field. It takes away the power of the underlying legislation, which is to limit how long the election may go on--in fact, delay the election, if you will. This amendment strikes the provision that deals with the timeframe in which the election can go on and in which the employer can interfere with that election. Delay gives unscrupulous employers more time to use the timeframe to delay the election.

It's a simple premise that you win or lose elections; but if you allow employers to use the hand of intimidation and to stop the election, you take away some of the privileges of being an American.

I, frankly, believe that in this time that we're on the floor we really should be debating the extension of the unemployment benefits, and I believe that we should be discussing the passage of the American Jobs Act. We're not doing that. We're here to limit the rights of Americans. So I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment that stops employers from delaying the rights of Americans by participating in delaying litigation, raising their power while limiting the power of the worker. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 3094, ``The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.'' My amendment eliminates the provisions in this bill that would allow employers to unnecessarily delay an election. The bill in its current form rolls back decades of earned collective rights for workers and prevents workers from simply voting in workplace elections.

This legislation is an assault on working Americans. H.R. 3094 is designed to delay and ultimately prevent union representation elections, rendering the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) powerless and undoes decades' worth of improvements for worker's rights.

In order to prevent needless delays in conducting elections I propose my amendment which simply strikes the text which requires that an election must be delayed for at least 35 days from the date the petition was filed. This amendment would restore current law.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemed focused on the NLRB decision and their claim to minimum delays, there is no provision in H.R. 3904 to limit the time that an election can be delayed. This would ensure that an election would be conducted as soon as practicable following the pre-election hearing, consistent with the facts determined by the Regional Director.

By setting a floor that an election will always be held at least 35 days from the filing of a petition, H.R. 3094 imposes delay for delays sake, even if an election could practically be scheduled before 35 days from the filing of a petition. A witness testified before the Education and Workforce Committee's that: ``This [35 day delay] would apply even where the union and employer are willing to stipulate to an earlier date. Other than facilitating an employer in ramping up an antiunion campaign, it does not appear to have any meaningful purpose.''

The National Labor Relations Act provides workers with essential protections; protections that have resulted in a strong middle class. This law prevents companies from retaliating against workers who exercise their rights, such as the right to strike, petition for better pay, demand safer working conditions, and form a union.

H.R. 3094 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define how the National Labor Relations Board should determine a unit for purposes of collective bargaining. In addition, it allows an election to occur sooner than 35 days after the filing of a petition. However, there is no limit on how long an election may be delayed. Delay would provide employers more time to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure employees into abandoning their organizing efforts.

This legislation would perpetuate undue delays in union elections, a blatant attempt to undermine American worker's right to organize to protect their rights. This bill is an attack on collective bargaining, and on the American workforce as a whole.

Delaying elections grants employers the necessary time to use legal and illegal means to discourage employees' interests in forming unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. The bill encourages legal but frivolous appeal litigation, further delaying elections for several months or years. The measure will severely cripple and undermine elections process. A procedure intended to empower workers.

Consequently union voters lose zeal for elections and unscrupulous employers are able to manipulate elections for their desired outcome, stalling the plight of workers' advancement.

Further, The bill misconstrues the procedure for deciding who is a bargaining unit. What effect will this have on the progress union workers have made over the last 75 years?

Employers will use this disruption to gerrymander elections, induce uncertainty regarding elections, thus being able to manipulate workers and flood the ballot boxes with voters not engage in the organizing drive.

For 75 years union workers have fought for basic rights to maintain improved and safer workplace environments. How does this measure effect these achievements?

After the bill's implementation will workers view their workplace favorably? Will their wages match the growth rate of the company and economy? And will workers feel like American employers, supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community survival?

This legislation undermines American workers by eliminating laws that prevent employers from gerrymander elections when employees consider whether or not to form a union. Employees have a right to unionize. They have the right to exercise their rights collectively bargain for competitive wages, benefits, and safe working environments. I am extremely disappointed that my Republican friends are willing to create an atmosphere that forces the voice of hard working Americans to be diluted by their employers. In many cases employees would have to settle for accepting the lowest wages, worst benefits, and harshest working conditions. This bill creates a race to the bottom that is simply not worthy of a great nation, and certainly not worthy of America.

Time after time, throughout the 20th century, the nation turned to the labor community to build infrastructure, supply the Armed Forces, and manufacture the materials that constructed our great American cities, and time after time, hard working Americans answered the call and made this country great.

It appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to repay the American workforce by forcing them to choose between their rights and their jobs. I will fight, as I have throughout my tenure in Congress, to protect the middle class by protecting their right to vote in any capacity.

My Republican friends have not passed a single bill to create jobs, and this bill is no exception. In fact, this reckless legislation threatens American jobs and undermines worker's rights while safeguarding special interest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation, and instead focus our efforts on a bipartisan jobs bill that will foster a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Very briefly, in listening to my good friend from South Carolina, it's time to take out the white hanky and begin to cry for the employers against these deafening and deadly workers, some of them veterans and single parents.

Hear me very clearly: there are 35 days for the filing of a petition, but there is no limit to the amount of time the employer can delay the election through litigation. If that isn't an imbalance against the vulnerable worker--the worker who is behind a cashier, the worker who is manufacturing a made-in-America trinket of some kind, the textile worker, the returning soldier on the battlefield--then what is?

God bless the employers with their constitutional rights. I applaud them. But what this bill is doing and what this section is doing is taking a spear and going on and on and on with dilatory litigation tactics to disallow the organizing that is protected under the Constitution and the due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Go ahead, employers, get your lawyers. Move on.

But the question is, how long is too long?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I say to my good friend from South Carolina is that I have the greatest respect for employers. I'd like the gentleman to join me in passing the American Jobs Act to give them payroll tax relief and to give them tax credits for hiring new employees. But you have to ask the question:

After this bill's implementation, will workers view their workplaces more favorably? Will their wages match the growth rates of the companies and economy? Will workers feel like American employers, supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community survival?

This legislation, frankly, undermines the American workers. Can we all get along? Can we find a way to address the concerns of making sure that we are fair to the employer but not have delay after delay after delay to deny someone his constitutional right of organizing freedom of expression? I think we can.

The elimination of the provisions that I have spoken of is a dilatory upper hand of employers to get the better hand of our employees.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In my hand I have H.R. 3094 and in this hand I have the Constitution. I don't know who you would stand with. Support my amendment, support the Constitution, provide workers the opportunity for freedom and the right to organize.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to join my colleague, Congressman Clay. And before I do that, let me rise as well to express my support for the Gabe Zimmerman legislation that we will address today and pay tribute to his bravery and certainly his loss.

We come to the floor today as partners with many in this Congress against voter intimidation and to speak on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, to collaborate with our many friends across the caucuses and across the interests in the Democratic Caucus, and certainly we hope to include our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Since the 2010 election, over 40 States have implemented voter ID, voter suppression laws. Madam Speaker, we are not against knowing who is voting, but we are against turning back the clock of what the Voting Rights Act attempted to do some 40-plus years ago when before that time a poll tax was utilized, or asking those from the African American community how many jelly beans were in a jar.

Just recently, I sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding voter intimidation and voter oppression. We rise today to say that we will stand against such oppression and ask the Justice Department to not clear voter ID laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as privilege.

I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans of good faith to reject and denounce tactics that have absolutely no place in our democracy. We call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latin Americans, and Asian-American voters to stand strong and learn their voting rights granted by law and the Constitution. We call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy.

Instances of voter intimidation are not long ago and far away. Just last year I sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to draw his attention to several disturbing instances of voter intimidation that had taken place in Houston. In a single week there were at least 15 reports of abuse of voter rights throughout the city of Houston.

As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I called for an immediate investigation of these instances. Many of these incidents of voter intimidation were occurring in predominately minority neighborhoods and have been directed at African-Americans and Latinos. It is unconscionable to think that anyone would deliberately employ the use of such forceful and intimidating tactics to undermine the fundamental, Constitutional right to vote.

However, such conduct has regrettably occurred in Houston, and I urge you to take appropriate action to ensure that it does not recur.

I am here today in the name of freedom, patriotism, and democracy. I am here to demand that the long hard-fought right to vote continues to be protected

A long, bitter, and bloody struggle was fought for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that all Americans could enjoy the right to vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Americans died in that fight so that others could achieve what they had been forcefully deprived of for centuries--the ability to walk freely and without fear into the polling place and cast a voting ballot.

Efforts to keep minorities from fully exercising that franchise, however, continue. Indeed, in the past thirty years, we have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters including efforts that were deemed ``Ballot Security'' programs that include the mailing of threatening notices to African-American voters, the carrying of video cameras to monitor polls, the systematic challenging of minority voters at the polls on unlawful grounds, and the hiring of guards and off-duty police officers to intimidate and frighten voters at the polls.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a particularly poor track record when it comes to documented acts of voter intimidation. In 1982, a Federal Court in New Jersey provided a consent order that forbids the Republican National Committee from undertaking any ballot security activities in a polling place or election district where race or ethnic composition is a factor in the decision to conduct such activities and where a purpose or significant effect is to deter qualified voters from voting. These reprehensible practices continue to plague our Nation's minority voters.

Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I am pleased that, for the first time this Congress, the House is considering important transportation security legislation.

In this budgetary climate, we must ensure that the Transportation Security Administration is maximizing its resources and adequately integrating efficient screening processes across its checkpoint security programs.

This legislation strives to do that by ensuring that an expedited screening program is established for members of the Armed Forces.

These are the men and women who sacrifice their time and family life to defend our liberty.

Affording them the opportunity to be respectfully screened in an expedited manner will ensure that we continue to honor their service and what their commitment means to the American public.

H.R. 1801 represents common-sense legislation with bipartisan support.

I am happy that I was able to work with Mr. Rogers and others members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee on Homeland Security on this bill.

I look forward to continuing our work on the Committee on Homeland Security and producing additional bipartisan measures that strive to enhance our nation's transportation security efforts.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.