Floor Statements

I would like to thank Mr. Scott for the time.

I would like to congratulate Cincinnati on their good fortune to be the host of this game. Memphis was the host for the first two games. The final exhibition game of spring training, the only game that was televised on ESPN, and a great event in our city, where the National Civil Rights Museum exists and the site of civil rights struggles and civil rights victories. We really enjoyed the opportunity to have players honored there, Willie Mays, Minnie Minoso, my hero, and others over the years, who have brought great pride to the city of Memphis where we have the finest minor league baseball park ever constructed, AutoZone Park. We felt that the game should permanently stay in Memphis, but it has moved on.

I want to congratulate Cincinnati, and I congratulate Major League Baseball for having such a game. Jackie Robinson has been immortalized as a civil rights hero whose number 42 was retired by Major League Baseball in an appropriate manner. There were many great players in the Negro baseball leagues who we honored last year with a resolution--such as Satchel Paige, who was written up, I think, in today's New York Times--and the great careers they had, great ballplayers. So it's appropriate that civil rights, which baseball and sports have contributed to so much, be remembered by Major League Baseball. I congratulate Major League Baseball and the city of Cincinnati.

I just want to say to my colleague from Texas--Noah.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2765) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services.

First I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their

remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2765 prohibits U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with our First Amendment or fundamental due process. This legislation addresses what has come to be referred to as libel tourism, doing an end run around the First Amendment by suing American authors and publishers for defamation in the courts of foreign countries with more plaintiff- friendly defamation laws, particularly Britain. Britain has become a favorite destination for libel tourists for a number of reasons. First, British law lacks our constitutional free speech protections and instead, specifically disfavors speech critical of public officials and public figures.

Second, British libel law places the burden of proving the truth of the allegedly defamatory statement on the defendant. This distinction has drawn criticism not only from American defenders of free speech but also from the United Nations and even from some Members of the British Parliament.

And third, Britain takes a very expansive view of personal jurisdiction. A British court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a libel defendant if his or her statement, wherever it was made or aimed, can be said to cause ``real or substantial'' harm or injury to reputation in Britain.

Combined with the Internet, this expansive view has rendered American authors and publishers especially vulnerable to libel suits in Britain. As one commentator has said, ``In the Internet age, the British libel laws can bite you no matter where you live.''

H.R. 2765 will deter libel tourists from taking advantage of these differences in the laws of Britain and other foreign jurisdictions and our precious First Amendment by imposing important limitations on the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in our courts. Under the bill, a U.S. court cannot enforce a foreign defamation judgment inconsistent with the First Amendment to our Constitution or when the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not comport with our due process requirements. And a U.S. court cannot enforce a foreign defamation judgment against an interactive computer service if doing so is inconsistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. This will ensure that libel tourists cannot chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service rather than the actual author of the statement.

Finally, the bill allows a court to award attorney's fees to the party resisting enforcement of the foreign judgment if that party prevails. This puts some added teeth in the bill. That was a recommendation at our hearing on the bill. This will not only compensate the American author or publishers for the expense of defending a nonmeritorious enforcement action but will help dissuade the would-be libel tourist from putting them to that expense in the first place.

I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague Darrell Issa of California. Last year our bill passed the House overwhelmingly, and I ask my colleagues to support it again this year. I would like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith and all the cosponsors of this bill for their help and support in bringing it to this point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2765) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I once again ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time and ask if the gentleman from Texas would like to yield back his time, wherefore I will yield mine.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, and I understand him clear and well. Some people don't understand us as well as we understand each other.

I would like to also request that the previous remarks that I made be incorporated by reference onto this bill.

I yield the remainder my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2247) to amend title 5, United States Code, to make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 5, United States Code, enacted by the Congressional Review Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to extend and revise their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 2247, the Congressional Review Act Improvement Act, would cut governmental waste by reducing duplicative paperwork and relieving some of the administrative burdens currently mandated by the Congressional Review Act.

The Congressional Review Act is the congressional mechanism for reviewing agency rules. It currently requires that when an agency promulgates a rule, it must submit documents to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office.

The agency must submit a report that contains a copy of the rule, a concise general statement describing it, and its proposed effective date. Thus, under current law, the same material is submitted to, housed in, and printed by four different government entities.

This approach creates unnecessary burdens. For example, the House Parliamentarian has testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law in three separate Congresses about the ever-increasing volume of executive branch communications under the Congressional Review Act and its overwhelming impact on the operations of the Parliamentarian's office.

This bill eliminates the requirement that agencies submit copies of rules with accompanying reports to each House of Congress. Instead, the House and Senate will receive a weekly list of all rules from the Comptroller General. The House and Senate would then have the list printed in the Congressional Record with a statement of referral for each rule.

Under the bill, the House and Senate retain the option to directly obtain reports on major rules. Importantly, the bill makes no changes to the authority of Congress under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove agency rules. What it basically does is it cuts out some unnecessary paperwork and saves forests.

I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, and Trent Franks, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, for being original cosponsors of this bill with me.

This is a commonsense bill that rightfully has strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I too would yield the balance of my time and ask for a favorable vote on the proposition before us, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, like Representative Jackson-Lee before me, I was shocked at hearing of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum yesterday. Indeed, it is a place of special reverence and a place where you wouldn't think violence would occur, but deranged minds do deranged things, and the man who did the shooting had a history of hate towards African Americans and toward Jews and toward our government, it appears, even though he served in our Armed Forces.

It reminds me of the need for passing hate crimes legislation because hate today still exists in people's hearts, and when people hate any group, they generally hate all different minorities. They don't understand the America of tolerance and inclusion that we celebrate and upon which we were founded.

It also reminds me of the need to have a COPS bill passed to have more protection, and the cops that were approved in the ARRA protect our society from these types of attacks.

Yesterday there was to be a play debuted at the Holocaust Museum by Janet Langhart Cohen, wife of former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, about an imaginary conversation between Emmett Till and Anne Frank. It will debut on Friday at George Washington University and talk about tolerance and peace and the results of hate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jackson expressed much of what I've thought about as to the events of yesterday.

People who hate--and this assailant hated Jews and blacks in particular--hate all people and minorities.

With that in mind, I think it's important that people reflect and do something positive with their children and with themselves in the future as an antidote to the type of hate that we saw. That is to bring your children to the Holocaust Museum. Let them learn about the horrors of the Nazis and of the camps. Come to Memphis to the Civil Rights Museum and learn about civil rights. Go to Atlanta where Dr. King is buried, and learn about Dr. King and nonviolence. Take steps to learn about ways to make the world better.

It's unfortunate what happened yesterday. It's so awful at that site, but it is awful that it happened anywhere and that Mr. Johns did lose his life. We must appreciate all the guards who protect American order and liberty.

Mr. Speaker, tonight millions of Americans will tune in to the NBA finals to watch a great battle between Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard. Besides immense talent, these gentlemen share another characteristic--they went straight to the NBA from high school. Unfortunately, today's players won't have that same opportunity because the NBA prevents 18-year-olds from choosing their profession and going straight into the NBA simply because of their age. It's something that you don't see in any other sport, baseball, golf, tennis, hockey, any other sport. You don't see it in entertainment, and you don't see it when young men and women choose to join the military and fight for their country. This is part of a hypocritical system that we have which doesn't allow these people to choose their profession when they come out of high school, and it makes the term ``student athlete'' an oxymoron. The system does more to serve the needs of the universities and the NBA, which uses them as a farm system, than to serve the educational interests and needs of the students themselves.

Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard have achieved outstanding success, and I look forward to watching them tonight. But there is no reason to think that today's 18-year-olds can't do the same. Age restriction should be abolished. The NBA should repeal this unfair rule.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker, and Mr. Lynch and Congressperson Blackburn for bringing this to the floor and for extending the time.

I particularly want to thank Congresswoman Blackburn for initiating this concept because John Wilder deserves recognition, and he deserves recognition by having this post office named for him. We name post offices quite frequently for people, people that deserve it. But John Wilder put Fayette County on the map. And when you put a county on the map, the post office in those small counties is the place where the county is. That's where mileage is measured from and people congregate and political gatherings occur and all that.

John Wilder was my friend, is my friend, and has had an unbelievable contribution to the people of Tennessee. I know it's been discussed how many years he served as Lieutenant Governor, longest-serving elected official in the free world of a legislative body, and how much he accomplished.

I served in the Tennessee State Senate with John Wilder for 24 years. I think one of his most significant moments came before I knew him, at a time when there was segregation in the South and there were efforts to penalize black farmers in Fayette County, an instance that John Wilder refers to it, and many people do who remember it, as Tent City.

And there were attempts to take advantage of the sharecroppers and to force them in certain ways, and John Wilder didn't go along with the establishment and he stood up for civil rights, and he stood with the black farmers in Fayette County, the African American tenant farmers, and refused to punish those black tenant farmers by evicting them or calling in their crop loans. That's a moment that John Wilder refers to when he speaks, and I believe, for those who are people of conscience, people in the civil rights movement throughout the Midsouth remember John Wilder for that principled stand. It was a stand by which men were known.

One of the other things that John Wilder did that is most significant is he instituted a system in Tennessee where our judges were taken out of the political spectrum to the extent possible and put into a selection system. The Wilder plan, which survived an attempt to eliminate it in this general assembly, has served Tennessee well, provides that appellate judges are selected, not elected but selected, and that that meets the provisions of our State constitution and allows for judges who are not well known by the public to be chosen by a merit process. They have to stand for approval elections at the public ballot, the general election, but they are chosen not initially in contests where people have to go raise money and campaign on name recognition, but are selected based on their qualifications as submitted through a panel and chosen by the Governor from a list of three and then stand for reelection. And I think all but one of those people have been approved by the electorate and maintained. So his stand for civil rights and his stand for meritocracy in the judiciary are the two things I think John Wilder has done that are most, most admirable of the many.

He also set up a Board of Education for the State to help K-12 and to put some common sense into the education processes in our State. No things are more important than civil rights, education, and a fair and impartial judiciary, and John Wilder stood for all of those.

He's been a lawyer and respected in the courtroom. He's a farmer. He's a banker. He has interests in just about any business that's important to west Tennessee, and anything that got done in west Tennessee, rural west, and Memphis included, John Wilder had a stamp on it.

There's a tower at the University of Memphis known as the John Wilder Tower because he was most instrumental in securing funds for the University of Memphis, which is the great State university in west Tennessee.

John Wilder helped me in my career, appointed me chairman of the State and Local Government Committee, for which I served, I think it was, 12 years in that body. And although there were times when he was not as enthusiastic about the Tennessee education lottery as I was, at the end, there were 22 votes on the board in the Tennessee Senate to provide, give the people the right to vote on a lottery provision that had been banned in our constitution since the early 1800s, and that vote, with those essential 22 votes, every one was necessary, Governor John Wilder was one, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn was another, Congressman Lincoln Davis was another, led to students in Tennessee having the opportunity to go to school.

I thank John Wilder. I thank Congresswoman Blackburn for bringing this, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the John Wilder Post Office.

This is an excellent bill, and Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello have done a great job. But there is a provision which affects the number one industry in my district, Federal Express, in a way that could be very adverse to my community and to that corporation. It lifts them out of the Railway Labor Act where they've been in their entire history and changes 80 years of case and court law. The Railway Labor Act was created to keep our labor moving and have labor and management in express carrier airline and railroad services work in a very special way to protect interstate commerce and keep it flowing. This could jeopardize that particular situation.

If we want to repeal the Railway Labor Act, that's one thing, but to lift a company out of it specifically is not fair when there has not been a hearing. My airport authority, my Chamber of Commerce, and most of the business leaders in my community are against the bill for this reason, and for that reason, I will have to vote ``no.'' But there is so much good in it, it's a regrettable vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with the FAA reauthorization bill in its current form.

The FAA Reauthorization bill contains many good improvements that will benefit aviation and the nation as a whole. However, the bill includes a provision that is completely unrelated to the FAA and could have the most damaging effect on the constituents in my district of Memphis.

I am very concerned about the inclusion of language that seeks to change the laws with respect to only one company, FedEx Express, which is the largest employer in my district. The Federal Express Corporation, which includes FedEx Express, employs approximately 30,000 hard working Memphians.

The FAA reauthorization bill, as currently drafted, includes a provision that would shift the employees of one company, FedEx, from coverage under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to governance under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

FedEx Express and FedEx Corporation have been governed under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) since their inception. Some have said this change will put FedEx Express on an even playing field with competitor United Parcel Service (UPS). However, this is not accurate. Unlike UPS, which started as a walking/bike messenger system, FedEx Express has always been an air cargo carrier. I can understand why UPS would want their top competitor to be under the same labor laws. However, the two companies have different origination histories.

There are over two decades of findings by the Federal courts, the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board that reaffirm Federal Express is an ``express carrier'' under the Railway Labor Act. The Ninth Circuit United States District Court in California has also reemphasized this and it is the law of the land.

If it is the intent of Congress to do away with the Railway Labor Act that is one thing, but it's another to simply pick out one term because of one company. There is a long history with respect to our nation's labor laws, and the inclusion of three types of entities under the Railway Labor Act: railroads, airlines and express carriers.

This is a very complex issue that could have drastic consequences, which could negatively impact our interstate commerce. A hearing should have been held in order to have an adequate public exploration of the policy surrounding the issue or the effect on private industry and the nation, or in this case, one company.

Mr. Chair, through my long legislative career, I have always been a strong supporter of collective bargaining and I have been a longtime friend to labor. I have stood with them on important issues, like minimum wage, Davis Bacon, and trade agreements to protect American jobs and support American standards.

However, this is not about denying workers an opportunity for collective bargaining, this provision is about switching the jurisdiction of a technical term in our labor laws in order to affect one company. Because this provision was included in the FAA reauthorization bill, I was asked by the Memphis Chamber of Commerce and the Memphis Airport Authority to oppose it.

The question is one of fairness. Laws should not single out a person or a company, particularly when the law does not properly fit the circumstances. In this instance, making this so-called technical change will have a devastating effect upon the biggest employer in my District. In this already tough economic climate, the effects will be felt beyond Tennessee's Ninth Congressional District because FedEx is a great economic presence in our country and our world. Now more than ever, we need a steady stream of interstate commerce, which could very well be disrupted by this legislation. Such a disruption could cripple our economy.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday this Nation recognized the 55th anniversary of a great Supreme Court case--Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. That case overruled a case called Plessy v. Ferguson, which legalized segregation in this country.

The people who brought about the Brown v. Board of Education effort did much to start the civil rights movement and kindled a spirit and a spark in America that has led to more equal justice and a better nation that we are continually improving upon.

John Hope Franklin, who recently died and has been honored by this House, researched the law on the subject; and Thurgood Marshall, who later became a United States Supreme Court Justice, argued the case on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

On this, the 55th anniversary of that historic case that kindled a movement in this country that went from the streets and the churches to this Congress, we need to recognize those who have fought so valiantly for justice and liberty and civil rights in this Nation. I appreciate their efforts and what they've done for our Nation.

Madam Speaker, my hometown of Memphis is known for music, the home of rock and roll and the birthplace of the blues. Tonight the Blues Foundation will celebrate the 30th awarding of the Blues Foundation International Awards for the greatest blues performers. B.B. King will be there, and he'll give the first B.B. King International Entertainer of the Year Award. Other performers include Bonnie Raitt, Maria Muldaur, Taj Mahal and others. In the category for Best Blues Performer of the Year, Bobby Rush is nominated, not our Bobby Rush but the Bobby Rush of blues fame also from Chicago.

Memphis is proud to have a great musical heritage and we will celebrate it and enjoy it tonight. I encourage everybody to enjoy the blues. In this economy, they are more relevant than ever, unfortunately, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank Representative Brady for the minute.

I was a freshman last year, and I got the opportunity to meet Jack Kemp on several occasions. He obviously was of a different party, but there wasn't a nicer person to meet and to welcome me into Congress and spend time with.

Congressman Dreier talked about being a Kansas City Chiefs fan. Well, I was the real deal. I was a Los Angeles Chargers and a San Diego Chargers fan, which is where Jack Kemp started his career, and we talked at length about different players with the Chargers and the Bills, Paul Lowe, Keith Lincoln, Elbert Dubenion, and on and on, and he was as nice a person as there was.

I went to his Web site, which if you do you will see letters he wrote. He wrote a letter in November to his grandchildren, and the letter is beautiful. It talks about segregation when he was with the Chargers playing the Houston Oilers and one of his teammate's father could not sit in the stands where his father did; he had to sit in the end zone. Jack Kemp was totally against segregation. He wanted a just society. He was for civil rights. He didn't see color. And he was a man who should be emulated by both sides of the aisle. We will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1107) to enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1107 codifies into positive law as title 41, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to public contracts. It is a rather extensive bill, fairly dry bill, that doesn't do much in the way of substance but does many technical corrections.

It was prepared by the Office of Law Revision Counsel in coordination with our Judiciary Committee.

This bill is not intended to make substantive changes in the law, but as is typical with the codification process, a number of nonsubstantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure. But these changes are not intended in any way to have any substantive effect, simply procedural, and make the code more easily used.

The bill has been subject to extensive review in the previous two Congresses, by relevant congressional committees, agencies, and practitioners, as well as the public.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note a question that has come to our attention with respect to a reporting requirement found in 41 U.S.C. 405b(d) of the present law and restated as 41 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2) in the bill. There is a question whether that reporting requirement is still effective.

Section 3003 of the Federal Reports Elimination and the Sunset Act of 1995, 31 U.S.C. 1113 note, stated that each provision of law requiring the submission to Congress of any annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic report specified in a list that had been prepared by the House Clerk would cease to be effective as of May 15, 2000.

The provision in question is listed on page 156 of that document.

In this regard, it should be noted that, as positive law codification bills do not change substantive law, the restatement of a revision does not revive it if it has otherwise become ineffective.

Thus, the reporting requirement, as restated, is effective to the extent, and only to the extent, that it was effective under the underlying source law on the day before the restatement was enacted.

That is a matter for the agency and the committee of substantive jurisdiction to work out. If legislation removing that requirement from the text of the underlying law is enacted before final enrollment of this bill, that change can be reflected at that time, if and when it occurs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that shows bipartisanship. Mr. Issa has done a wonderful job representing his side of the aisle. I am proud to represent mine. Republicans and Democrats have come together on this bill. I would ask for a positive, unanimous vote on this important legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 14) recognizing the importance of the Border Patrol in combating human smuggling and commending the Department of Justice for increasing the rate of human smuggler prosecutions, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, sponsored by the Honorable Darrell Issa of California, a member of our Judiciary Committee, and a most valuable one, recognizes the recent important steps taken by the Department of Justice and several agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to fight human smuggling in all its forms, including human trafficking and slavery.

I am proud to say that last year the 110th Congress took decisive actions to renew the Nation's efforts against human trafficking and modern slavery. We also went so far as to issue an apology in this House for the slavery that this country condoned before 1865.

Both Houses of Congress unanimously adopted the bipartisan William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It bears repeating that this bill, this substantial bill of 129 pages that provides a myriad of tools to protect trafficking victims and to combat human trafficking at home and around the world, passed both Houses unanimously, once again, a bipartisan effort Mr. Issa led.

This is a strong indication that we are really serious about eradicating human smuggling in all its forms.

Building on our efforts in Congress, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have also renewed their efforts against smuggling and human trafficking. Recently, we have seen a substantial increase in the prosecutions of smugglers and traffickers.

We have seen the adoption of a global enforcement strategy to disrupt and dismantle domestic and international human smuggling and trafficking organizations. And we have seen strong interagency cooperation of identifying rescue victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. These agencies should be commended for their renewed commitment in these areas.

I further commend Darrell Issa for his leadership on this bill. And I commend my chairman, John Conyers, and I commend him on everything he has done. He has been a wonderful member and a mentor to me; and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, also a great mentor to me of the Judiciary Committee; and Chairman Bennie Thompson and Ranking Member Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee for their work in improving the bill and making it a consensus, bipartisan measure.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona, a valuable new Member, Mrs. Ann Kirkpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers Mr. Issa has.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just again like to thank Mr. Issa for his work on this issue. And this is a very important issue. It is important for our security. But it is also important for the concept that people ought to have freedom. And they ought to have freedom in all ways. Many types of enslavement, unfortunately, have gone on in this world for a long time, and still it goes on today. And it is not just commercial slavery, there is slavery in other parts of the world where it is still something that has not been eliminated. It was only 200 years ago that we said we wouldn't import any more slaves, and 144 years ago that we ended the practice in this Nation. It was a long time that people used their power over others.

So this is an important concept and an important, substantive bill, and I thank Mr. Issa. I ask everybody to vote for the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Congresswoman Watson was saying, we will vote this week on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. That act will do several things, one of which will set up a commission to look into the causes of the economic morass that we are presently experiencing.

Congress did that in the Great Depression, and it led to the reforms that kept this country safe for a long time. Then we fell to the arguments that were made, starting with the Reagan administration, about the free market and the free market which took us where we are today.

The free market, unfettered, has caused this problem. But a study needs to be taken by the Congress, and that's what that bill would do.

It would also expand the abilities of several State governments and nonprofits to look into fraud and extend Federal fraud statutes to the TARP and to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. People who fraudulently steal from the government or steal these funds are engaging in as un- American an activity as anybody could do short of espionage.

I endorse the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and hope that we could have a commission to get to the bottom of what's happened. This past week, Mr. Speaker, I watched ``Wall Street,'' the movie. It's shameful and it's today's world.