the chair: on this vote the yeas are 144, the nays are 281, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 11-283 by the

gentleman from texas -- 112-283 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-283 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150, the nays are 276, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-283 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 123, the nays are 299, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in

house report 112-283 by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-283 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 146, the nays are 277. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly the rule -- the committee rises. madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 822 and pursuant to house resolution 463 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 822 and pursuant to house resolution 463 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole.

under the rule the previous question is ordered. in a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported -- is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 18 united states code to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a state may carry concealed firearms in the state. the speaker pro tempore: will the house come to order?

the house come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. cicilline: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. cicilliney of rhode island moves to recommit the bill to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house for the with -- forthwith with the following amendment, page 5, line 3, insert the following, section, limitations on reciprocity for child sex owe fenders, domestic violence offenders and known or suspected terrorists. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, with nearly 14 million unemployed americans and our nation's economy continues to

struggle, it's disheartening that we stand -- >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house is not in order. will members take their crofferingses from the floor? -- conversations from the floor? the gentleman may resume. mr. cicilline: it is disheartening that we stand here today divided, engaging in heated debate about expanding the ability of people to carry concealed weapons and ignoring the most important issue confronting our country, the jobs crisis. we're debating an effort to undermine the ability of states to protect residents from the scourge of gun violence and we have before us a bill that will effectively preclude -- >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. . will members take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard.

will members please cease their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may resume. mr. cicilline: we have before us a bill that will preclude states from limiting who can carry a concealed weapon within its borders and for what purpose. while many of my colleagues are not opposed, there is an opportunity for us to find common ground. there is a chance to unite around a commonsense amendment from the privileges of this bill being exposed to the most dangerous individuals in our society who intend to inflict harm upon our communities and our nation. let me be clear, this is the final amendment and passage of this amendment will not kill the bill. it will be incorporated into the final language and immediately voted upon. while many of us may disagree with the underlying intent of this bill, it's hard to imagine anyone would disagree that there are certain individuals that should not be afforded the right to carry concealed, loaded

weapons across state lines. it's hard to imagine that anyone would advocate for preserving a path for terrorists, child sex offenders, stalkers and domestic abusers to transport a loaded gun into another state. yet these loopholes are present in the underlying bill and if my amendment is not passed by this body, this dangerous and appalling pathway for violence will remain. for far too long, terrorism has threatened the happiness and safety of our citizens. while we continue to live in a world that requires constant vigilance, there is not a single provision in h.r. 822 that would prevent suspected or known terrorists who acquire concealed carry permits in one state, with lax regulations from carrying that same loaded weapon into another state with stringent

regulation. this does not protect victims of domestic violence. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentleman may continue. >> 2007 investigation found that fla's licensing system had granted concealed carry permits to 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony. 128 who are pled guilty to domestic violence. in 2010, a man who had a record of violent behavior against women was able to obtain a concealed handgun permit in florida, he killed his wife and three other women at a local restaurant. h.r. 822 will force other states to recognize florida's concealed

carry permits the same permit held by this man. finally, there is no protection in h.r. 822 to prevent individuals convicted of sex offense against a minor from carrying a concealed, loaded gun into a state whogs requirements might have prevented that individual from carrying a concealed weapon. child sex offenders, individuals who create lasting harm should not be allowed to perpetrate fear in the hearts of our children and families. h.r. 822 will force other states to recognize permits issued to these individuals who pose danger to our children. all too often guns end up back in the hands of criminals and nothing in this bill would impede child sex offenders or domestic violent offenders from carrying loaded guns across state lines. my amendment would preclude child sex offenders, domestic

violent offenders and known and suspected terrorists from enjoying the privilege of carrying concealed handguns. we owe this commonsense amendment to our brave law enforcement officials who bear the greatest responsibility in protecting us from terrorist attacks. we owe this to our children whose lives are preyed upon and victims that the law will not extend the law to continue stalking, threatening and perpetrating abuse. now is the time for our chamber to unite. let's demonstrate to the american people we can use common sense and come together to do what is right. while there is no question that the second amendment embodies the right to bear arms, our citizens also enjoy the right to be free from the terror of gun violence. i urge all members to support this motion.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. gowdy: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the speaker pro tempore: i would like to remind members traffic in the well is improper behavior. the gentleman may continue. mr. gowdy: the second amendment to our constitution was drafted, debated and ratified imprecisely the same manner as the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth, sixth and other amendments our colleagues on the other side of the aisle find sacosanct. it is set lt law that the constitution protects the right to travel and protects the right to self-defense and defend the lives of others. not once but twice the supreme

court has held the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right. and those rights do not know any geographic boundary. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. members, please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. gowdy: the supreme court has held the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, individual right and those rights do not know any geographic boundary and the right to defend ourselves does not ebb and flow or because we transversus a state line. despite the fact that these rights are protected in the constitution, there are still those who seek to treat the second amendment as a constitutional second-class citizen. stimets those efforts, madam speaker, to denigrate the status of the second amendment are

overt and sometimes they are obscure and as i'm sure short lived in fat youation with state rights, let me ask you, what limits are you willing to accept with regard to the first amendment? does your state want reporters to pass a test so they can exercise their first amendment? you want 50 different versions of freedom of religion? what about the fourth amendment? is one state free to dispose of the exclusionary rule because it doesn't agree with it. do we have 50 versions of what is a reasonable severe and seizure. what about the fifth amendment, 50 different versions of miranda. eight amendment,, are there 50 different definitions of cruel and unusual. the concept of states' rights

and we hope the same for the second amendment. this motion to recommit is to jettison and real debate the second amendment to a scrap heap. all of these amendments were dealt with in committee, and the matters of state law classifications are just that, state law. the fact that certain state legislatures refuse to protect their citizens does not mean this body will refuse to defend the second amendment. this bill, madam speaker, h.r. 822, has 245 co-sponsors, more than half the members of this body, and it enjoys that wide and diverse support because it is emblem attic of our forefathers' genius and gave us the right to travel and protect ourselves and gave us the fundamental right to protect others and the fundamental obligation to defend liberty. i urge my colleagues to oppose

this motion and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island has ask for a recorded vote. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will follow by passage and motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 674. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

representatives.]

minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: mr. speaker, the first reason this bill should be defeated is that it usurps state authority and replaces it with a lowest common denominator federal directive. this is a radical piece of legislation. in fact, today 43 states are not in compliance with this law. 38 states today prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous

misdemeanor criminal convictions. 35 states require the completion of a gun -- short gun safety program. the commonwealth of virginia has weakened its gun laws over the past two years allowing concealed guns in bars and renewal of permits by mail. i disagree with these actions, but i would never question the general assembly's authority to make these decisions. but this bill makes our state legislature's judgment irrelevant. this is a federal power grab. coming from a majority that claims to be a defender of states' rights. the second reason that this bill should be defeated is that our law enforcement professionals oppose it. the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities police chief association, the virginia association of chiefs of police all oppose this bill. why? because they know that it will be nearly impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry permits placing officers in potentially life threatening situations.

some states don't even keep verifiable data bases of those who have been issued concealed carry permits. law enforcement is trying to curb illegal gun smuggling, but this bill allows traffickers with concealed carry permits to transport firearms and present an unverifiable permit if stopped by police. this is a blatant lemming overreach presumably because it was next on the n.r.a.'s legislative wish list. we should defeat this bill, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. ross. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 822. if you get a driver's license in arkansas, it's recognized in every state in the country. and if you have a conceal carry permit, the same rules should apply. our second amount rights to own and bear arms are universal, and

our laws should reflect that as best they can. the national right to carry reciprocity act would allow every american citizen with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in all states that allow them for lawful purposes. let me be clear, if your state bans concealed firearms, then this law will not affect that ban. this bill does not change any state laws about when and where you can carry a concealed firearm. this bill does not create a new federal licensing system. it simply reinforces our second amendment rights and makes the laws more fair for law-abiding gun owners. as a strong supporter of the second amendment, i believe we must pass the national right to carry reciprocity act now and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the bill. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from new

jersey, bill pascrell, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . >> thank you, mr. speaker. the ranking member, mr. chairman. i had to make a choice on this bill. mr. pascrell: where whether i would support a disputable constitutional issue about whether you can by law carry a concealed weapon or move towards the other side to those who oppose this. now, who opposes this legislation? besides me? mayors against illegal guns, the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities chiefs association, and the police foundation oppose this bill. doesn't this mean anything to you at all? doesn't it? or does it?

i'll prefer -- i prefer community policing than try to put more guns into the hands of those people who we don't even know who are going to be trained to even use them. that's my preference. this means my home state of new jersey -- this is not idaho, this is not montana. we're -- in fact, we have the most vastly populated state in the union. there is a different culture. when clinton argued on behalf of gun possession when he was the president of the united states, he always made this point about the cultural differences in different parts of the country. we respect that. i'm not against the second amendment. i support the second amendment. but i don't want those folks in the street who are outarmed -- outarm and outgun our police officers. 12,000 police officers we have

in this country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you. 12,000 less police officers in our streets. we should be worried about that as a priority rather than this as a priority. so i made the decision. the evidence is like this against doing this. we haven't had any legislation which took away one gun in the past 20 years from anybody in this country. not one. so we have made the perception being that we want to take guns away from people. how dare you even say, protect our police, don't vote for this? mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinsinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: the right to bear arms is simple. when the guns are heard, it is

thought it is criminals. this bill is about the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. illinois we have concealed-carry. there are people killed in chicago very often by guns that are already concealed. but not concealed by law-abiding citizens. illinois' the only state that doesn't allow a form of it legally. i want h.r. 8 2 to be a clear sign to the governor of illinois that now is the time to join the rest of the country in allowing citizens the right to conceal a firearm on their person. we hear so much of the -- if we allow people to carry guns, more people are going to be killed, but that flies in the face of statistics. after 2008, there was a record number of guns purchased, but we saw crime drop almost everywhere. bar none. my point is that in the law-abiding citizens in this country are not the problem. illinois needs to join the rest of the country in supporting

concealed-carry for its citizens and i believe this is a sign that it's time to do so now and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from florida, debbie wasserman schultz, a former member of the judiciary committee, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act. this ill conceived bill is yet another distraction from what should be the most pressing concern of this congress, putting americans back to work. what's more disturbing is that this bill jeopardizes public safety by mandating that states honor even the most laxed concealed weapons laws of other states. the gentleman from illinois is incorrect. this is about criminals. from my constituents in south florida, gun control is a serious issue.

miami-dade county has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the country. and in the entire state of florida, there are 8,000 permits for concealed firearms. florida's process for issuing license is problematic enough and i would certainly not suggest foisting it on any other state that has stronger safeguards to protect its citizens. but this bill will do exactly that. for states that require age minute mums or safety training before getting a concealed weapon permit or prohibits certain violent offenders from getting a license in the first place, this goes out the window if this bill is passed into law. what we get is the worst of the worst, the lowest common denominator. for example, in just one six-month period in 2006, florida gave concealed license to more than 1,400 individuals who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies. 216 of them had outstanding warrants. 128 of them had active domestic violence injunctions. under this bill other states

will be mandated to honor these permits. they'll be mandated to allow florida self-admitted felons to carry concealed weapons in their states. this is why the law enforcement organizations strongly oppose this bill. it's opposed by more than 600 members of the bipartisan mayors against illegal guns, including many of my local mayors of both parties in south florida. why would this bill be a higher ply or the than creating jobs -- priority than creating jobs? the house majority still has no jobs agenda. regardless of how americans feel about guns, the overwhelming majority would agree that gun policy is not a higher priority than job creation is right now. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i urge my friends across the aisle to stop putting american lives at risk and start putting them back to work. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. coble, who is also the chairman of the court subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coble: i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 822, concealed-carry

permits may be the most scrutinized permits for gun owners to receive. unfortunately, the manner in which these permits are recognized by various states is confusing and inconsistent. h.r. 822 will help resolve this dilemma, mr. chairman. for example, in my home state of north carolina, concealed-carry permits from south carolina and georgia are recognized, but not permits from new mexico. meanwhile, new mexico readily recognizes concealed-carry permits from north carolina. if enacted there would be no discrepancy over which permits are valid. another reason for supporting h.r. 822 is that it protects states' sovereignty. states are not required to issue concealed-carry permits and state laws regarding the use of ownership of firearms are explicitly preserved. i firmly believe that the second amendment -- individuals to own a firearm, mr. chairman. i also believe that ownership and use of a firearm carries a

special level of personal responsibility. this bill promotes both of these ideas and if enacted it will help make america safer which probably explains why this bill has 245 co-sponsors. i thank the chairman and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, rush holt, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this is another great example of legislation in search of a problem. driven by ideological fervor of its sponsors rather than by any practical approach to safety, h.r. 822 would amend existing federal law to establish a national standard for carrying concealed firearms. as the sponsors well know, these matters have long been the province of the states. it's fascinating how quickly the majority ignores the 10th amendment when the gun

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 161, the nays are 263, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 2772 and nays are 154. the bill is passed and the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. unfinished business is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 674 on which the yavend. the clerk will report. the clerk: an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3% withholding on certain payments made to developedors by government entities to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain health-care-related programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in

the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: have all members voted? any member wishing to change their vote? the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 422, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany

house resolution 467, resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 2112 making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agency programs for the fiscal year program ending september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: i ask my name be removed as a co-sponsor to h.r. 836. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to rule -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the motion to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the

following order -- h.r. 3004 de novo, h.r. 2660 de novo, h.r. 2415 de novo, h.r. 1791 de novo. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3004 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3004, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 260 california drive in yountville, california, as the private first class alejandro r. ruiz post office building. mr. faleomavaega: the question is will the house -- the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2660 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2660, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 122 north holderrieth boulevard in tomball, texas, as the tomball veterans post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2415 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2415, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 11 dock street in pittston, pennsylvania, as the trooper joshua d. miller post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1741

which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1791, a bill to designate the united states courthouse under construction at 101 south united states route 1 in fort pierce, florida, as the alto lee adams sr., united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. well, we're all glad to be back in the capital city to talk about the regulations that are drowning our country and we have some legislation that's going to try to do something about that. i see that some of my colleagues are here to join me in talking about these things. i've been on the floor of this house now for the last 18 months explaining to people how these regulations are killing jobs in this country and really

what it cuts down to what we need to turn this country around, we don't need big stimulus spending. that didn't work. we tried that. we don't need the government to tell us how to run our business. we need the people to be able to run their business with the government getting out of the way. and so we have -- we have today several bills that we think are going to be very important to tell us just exactly how we can make sense out of this overwhelming amount of regulations. thousands of regulations just this year have been proposed. many of which will kill hundreds of nouns of jobs across the country. and i think that i have two of my colleagues here. first, recognize my friend from kentucky. i think he has somewhere to go and tell us a little bit about

a solution that you have proposed. mr. davis: well, first, thank you, judge carter, for holding this tonight. your flexibility and allowing me some time to share as we talked about various aspects of the growth of the regulatory state. and the issue is not being against regulation or for regulation. the issue is having transparency and we've seen the administration before and the administration before that, they are stretching the law. whether it's the clean air act of 16972 that's being stretched beyond the original intent to congress or issues related to the clean water act that stretched beyond the bounds of science to unfunded mandates and no child left behind from the last administration. we can think of a wide variety of these issues. and for me i think the american public wakes up when it hits them in the pocketbook, when it hits you and me in the

pocketbook. in our case, you probably experienced the same thing in texas. the year i was sworn into congress a consent decree was forced upon our local community for nearly $1 fwl in stormwater compliance -- $1 billion in stormwater compliance that was beyond the capability of the community to comply. that was based on a rule issued by interpretation of a law that had been passed eight years before in a different congress and a different political climate and, again, our citizens, the citizens of the fourth district of kentucky, citizens of districts across the united states, had no recourse blue to comply with this. and one of my constituents walked in as we wrestled with different aspects of not limiting regulation but providing accountability, providing the opportunity for the voters, our citizens to be able to hold the government accountable for what it does, walked in and said to me, geoff, why can't you guys vote on this?

and we had a revelation in a different way to come back and address the issue of regulatory transparency. standardization is important but it needs to be at a place that the american people agree with and support and is practicable from the standpoint of cost. and the economic cost is often not incurred in this. we have towns across the united states, across the ohio valley whose compliance cost with just that regulation alone is more than what the budgets of the communities are at an annual basis. it's -- we went back and reverend a portion in the congressional review act of 1995 that we suggested changing. and only one -- to the shock of many of my constituents, only one regulation has ever been repealed in the history of the congress. that was the clinton eraering nonics rule -- ergonomics rule.

you had to get a majority in the house and majority in the senate to prevent that regulation from going into effect. what we wanted to do something that's a little bit different. it's done in industry and business. in fact, it's done in all competitive sports. if gets out of bounds or out of exception -- expectation, the game is gone. the line stops and people have tyke an extra look at what the issue is at an assembly line. we wanted to restore transparency and congressional accountability of what the executive branch does and that was the genesis of the raines act. it stants for regulations of the executive, it's house resolution 10. in this congress the number on the chart up there was from the last congress, h.r. 3765. and basically what it does is requires congress to find major rules, one that has $100 million or more in cumulative economic impact across our

country. what our bill will do is really very simple. once a rule comes down to the end of the 60-day comment period it will have to come back up to capitol hill for stand-alone, up our down vote in a joint resolution in the house, in the senate and be signed by the president of the united states. it's making the point that for any major rule, a rule that reaches into the pocketbook of all hardworking taxpaying american, they have a right to be able to hold their elected representatives and senators accountable for the position that they take on that direct economic impact. and for me i think it's fine. there are times that america will stand up and say, yes, we agree with this. this is the right thing to do. there are other times, particularly in hard economic times like today, the last thing we want to do is increase that regulatory burden, that out-of-pocket cost on america's citizens. to give an idea of this, the cost in 2009 alone of regulation on our economy for compliance was $1.75 trillion. if that was taken away some

significant portion of that, where the regulatory process was streamlined, that would be creating jobs. and more taxpayers ultimately. mr. carter: if the gentleman will yield back just a moment? mr. davis: absolutely. mr. carter: that $1.75 trillion is more than the entire income tax for that year. it was collected by this country. so when you talk about a burden, it's more than the entire tax burden of our nation. mr. davis: i think the gentleman has a great point. it comes down to about $10,000 for every man, woman and child in the united states of america is the cost of regulatory compliance. mr. carter: i yield back. go ahead. mr. davis: and why it's so critical now to your point, we've seen agencies in the last administration and this administration who've gone into overreach but most importantly what we've seen happen, in the last congress where there was a democratic supermajority in the house, in the senate with a

liberal democratic president who is out to keep his campaign promises. the american people spoke in that election and they spoke in the election that followed last year that they did not agree with the overreach, be it legislative or in the regulatory side and made a change certainly in this body. the administration proceeded at that point to attempt to enact cap and trade rules, an energy tax on every american by regulation when their own -- when the congress in a democratic supermajority could not pass those bills, to send them to the president's desk, they were intent on doing it by executive order. the same thing that we see happening potentially with the card check. could not pass in the last congress. we see attempts to move that by regulation. there are issues with unfunded mandates on our schools and even seeing an extension of that inside the department of education that further hamstrings already strapped local school districts. that did not get through the united states congress. we are seeing attempts to do that by regulations.

what the rains act would simply do, stop, mr. president, stob, cabinet secretary, you have to have the advice and consent of the representatives of the american people before you're going to move for something that's going to hit us that hard. we have 197 co-sponsors on the by so far. it's -- held two hearings in the judiciary committee, was passed out of the judiciary committee two weeks ago, had a markup in the rules committee to go over some technical pieces inside of the bill with the timelines on vote triggers. it's passed out of the rules committee and we're looking for a vote here hopefully in the very near future to see it passed and sent over to the united states senate. but i appreciate what you are doing to champion this move to not only awaken the american people to the huge economic impact of overregular proliferation but presenting a wide variety of pledge fixes that you and many of our colleagues have authored to stem this tide of reach of the government and to allow our economy to stand up in energy,

in manufacturing and agriculture. and with in a i thank you and yield back. mr. carter: well, i thank you, mr. davis. reclaiming my time. and i thank you for the work you've done on the rains act. it's good -- this is a good bill. this needs to be passed by the congress. i hope that our colleagues over on the senate side when they grab a hold of this that they get excited about it and realize that regulations impose more burdens on the american people than this congress does. . they come to us and say, why did you put this burden on us, when the real issue they don't understand it was done by regulations, by people who were not elected, like members here, you know, we have to answer to our boss. and our boss is the american people. and unfortunately, these regulations done by the

executive branch agencies, i guess the only boss they have to answer to is the president. but in many instances, they are designed to be even independent of the president. and some of these regulations are not thought out in the real world, but theyr in fact, thought out in the minds of somebody that sits at a desk and just thinks this has got to be a good idea. sometimes these good ideas overwhelm us in costs. and quite frankly, interfere with our lives. we have been talking about this. the american people are talking about it. when you go home, they want to know what are you going to do about allowing the business people to have an idea of what the playing field is going to look like, because these regulations are changing the rules every time we look up. and i think that leads us into another excellent piece of legislation which i'm proud to

be a part of. this is a good idea and i'm going to yield to my friend and let him have a chance to explain this to us and what your idea is and why we both got into this mess of trying to make it clear for those who would make our economy grow, just exactly what the playing field looks like. >> i thank my friend from texas and thanks so much for having me today. i spent my entire adult life running my own business and this is something i had the opportunity of having to deal with firsthand and i find it interesting a few weeks ago, on october 25, politico ran an article and said, regulations, top issue for small businesses. and they cite a gallup poll.

41% of small business owners say government is related to the biggest problems facing their companies. they view the costs -- more small business owners view the costs of complying with government regular layings as a bigger problem than any other issue. and i have heard this time and time again. and i was up in northern wisconsin where three other members of congress and myself, we held an all-day session with the timber industry. we invited the u.s. forest service to come in and talk about harvesting timber. and i had a timber manager came up to me who harvests timber and she said, i want to show you something. if i do a timber sale here that's regulated by one of the

counties, this is what i have to fill out. that's the county contract. and then she said, you know, if the state of wisconsin manages that, the contract is twice as long and i have to manage that contract. however, if the federal government manages the timber sale, this is the contract that we have to fill out for the federal government, pages and pages and pages of bureaucratic red tape, just to allow them to harvest timber that's opened by the taxpayer. and so, i thought after hearing a lot of these things and after having run my business that maybe what this country needs more than anything and i support congressman davis' rains act and it is exactly the right thing to do but i want to stake it a step further and you and i put together the regulatory moratorium and job preservations act.

and this bill does one thing, it says the government can't promulgate any new rules until unemployment goes below 7.8%. you and i know full well that unemployment and regulatory environment are connected and linked together. i will have colleagues from the other side of the aisle that will say to me, you know full well this is about demand and demand is causing the problem and without demand, women aren't going to hire and i would say back that every single page of regulation, every single page of trying to comply, every single page has to be responded to by some business owner. and that means that response will have a direct cost to it. as you pile on costs after costs after costs, there have been 24,000 new rules promulgated on the american business owner since 2004. nearly one million pages of new

regulations. every single page, page after page after page adds costs. and every single time the cost of any good or service goes up, there are fewer customers that can afford that product. and so demand must go down. so every time we add a new regulation, costs go up, demand goes down. finally, we have come to a new end game here with over 9% unemployment. we wanted to connect our bill to unemployment so we can show the american people, prove to the american people if we put a hold on new rules and regulations and inject certainty in this regulatory environment where business owners knew what future costs were going to be and measure future costs because government won't promulgate a new rule, they will hire again. the new confidence and certainty will be there and unemployment will go down. as unemployment goes down, the

american people will demand that we extend this rule until unemployment reaches 6% or get to full employment. this rule does not remove a single, a single safety net. this rule does not remove anything that's already there. i have heard people say you are trying to destroy the environment as if i don't want to breathe clean air or drink clean water or i want my grandchildren to swim in clean lakes. it is ridiculous. i want to breathe clean air and drink clean water and eat safe foods and this bill will do nothing to remove those protections whatsoever, but what it will do is stop the administration by executive fiat creating rules and regulations that weren't created by this congress. i was listening to my friend from kentucky and i was struck by article 1, section 1, it says

all legislative powers here them in granted shall be vested in the congress of the united states which shall consist of the house of representatives and senate. that was pretty inclusive, all, it means all of them. and what the rains act does, it says that any rule promulgated, the dual elected representatives of the citizens of the united states get to say whether that is a law or not. we get to say, because the constitution gave us the, the members of this body, the members of the u.s. senate, the authority to execute legislative power, not some federal agency. and this rains act will rein it in. my bill and your bill will extend this control by the congress and will return the power back to our legislative, dual-elected members of congress.

and with that, i yield back. mr. carter: reclaiming my time. you just said a magic word i want to repeat, responsibility. our founders designed our form of government so we define rights in the bill of rights but also points out where the responsibility lies. and i would argue that when this -- these creations of regulatory acts, it allows people to avoid being responsible. they pass a law in congress for the timber industry and they give the authority to a branch of the executive to write rules to implement that legislation. and it allows this congress to hide from those regulations. one of the reasons i have been talking up here for a year and-a-half now about

regulations, it's time that we all know our rights and time for those of us who have accepted a position of responsibility to be responsible. and when an unknown bureaucrat in a cubbyhole in the vast jungle of this town can write a regulation that can affect the very lives of american citizens and he will get his pay check. he's not going to get fired and not get run off, he has been assigned to do rules and regulations and doesn't take responsibility for it, he is hiding as a bureaucrat with -- back there in the civil service. and it's time for the congress to step back up, based on the articles of the constitution that you just read, and take our responsibility. and then, those of us who answer to the people, every two years

and every six years, they are our bosses and they are the people who hire us for this job. and when they have one of these regulations, they have somebody they can go to and say, you need to be responsible for implementing the regulatory moratorium and stopping these regulations. they are killing us. let me give you some examples, real quickly, that we gathered on just some stuff -- these are current events. this is looking back on current events in the last six, eight months. e.p.a. greenhouse gas regulations, potential job loss as a result of those regulations. 1,400,000 000. in utility regulations, 1,400,000. >> oil and gas offshore drilling

and said they were going to introduce permits and don't do it, 430,000 jobs. reclassification of coal, ash as hazardous. this affects this area, 316,000 jobs. the new boiler regulations, 60,000 jobs. the alaska drilling delays, 57,000 jobs. the new cement kill in regulations, 15,000 jobs. just that little block 40, 482,000 that regulation is going to add at a what time when we have unemployment at 9%. by the way, i like the concept that you introduced and explained to me, go back to what the unemployment was at the time that this administration came into being, 7.8%.

i think that's more than reasonable. rid rid unemployment has -- >> scomblun employment has never been lower. rib rib i sat in here and had the privilege of sitting in and the president said that he was going to ask for a regulatory review of the executive branch and wanted to know what they were going to be doing and made jokes about the ridiculous regulations. we have one more president that followed the tradition of thousands of presidents who ordered another study and in the meantime the american people suffer. this is not so much about whether the government can create jobs but whether the government is obstructing and

that's why we decided to pick that number, and i yield back. mr. carter: that is creative thinking. and we need to get unemployment below 7.8%. but it's a good point to start and gives us an opportunity to target what our -- what i honestly believe and a lot of economists agree with that the real solution to this situation we're in with our country right now is to get americans back to work. the president believes one more stimulus -- last one didn't work. the massive spending, the trillions of dollars of additional debt we have accumulated in the last three years didn't quite work. it wasn't quite big enough. we need to do it just one more time. and this time it will push it over the top. well, i don't think the american people are buying that.

they are watching the current events of today, where we loan money to companies that didn't have a concept that was going to pay for itself and they are going broke and threw money at a problem instead of putting common sense into a problem. let a businessman and you were one and for a while in my life, i was a small businessman, you have to know what is around the corner. you can't hire somebody if there is unknown around the corner. when you hire them, you might have to fire them because the unknown will not make it profitable with this person that you hope would neighboring your business profitable. people hire people because somebody gives them a tax incentive or some incentive and somebody gives them extra money this month. no. you hire someone to make your

business more profitable. it's about prospering in your business. if you don't need somebody to prosper your business, you aren't going to hire them. not all the incentives in the world are not going to make you hire someone whether you are a small business or the biggest business in the world. that's the way it works. the reality is -- and there was a time and i read an article on this -- there was a time when business planning was relatively short-term and one of the things that came out of the great depression was the concept of long-term planning, but short-term, mid-term and long-term planning for on businessman because you needed to know what was not only around for the next two years, five years but the next 10 years. that's why, one of the things that we got these tax bills we have passed that will end on a

certain date, well, if you know it's going to end, you have to plan around it. if you plan to avoid it, but when the drop-end date comes up, businessmen are looking and say what does tcha mean to my bottom line. i don't know. i'm not expanding my business or not building a business. and i don't know what that means. the unregulations in the minds of regulators could change my world, could absolutely shake my world. . . the unknown, which is the new financial regulations which has made financial unknown, whether it's the hidden fees in the health care bill, or whether it's something we are surprised

to get, we don't know what's going to happen. we are sitting with our hands in our pocket. we're not doing anything until we know what's going on. that's why this moratorium is perfect. perfect. mr. ribble: will the gentleman yield? keartkear yeah. mr. ribble: i think -- mr. carter: yeah. mr. ribble: i think there's something to hit on. we and i believe, as many do our colleagues and more importantly small business owners and large business owners thinks this bill will increase employment. the very interesting point is it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. this -- what this will cause is that businesses who've now been putting their money in the back and have been holding it because of fear. we will unleash that money back into the sector, back in the private sector to create jobs and get this economy going and not a single penny of taxpayer dollars will be expended as a result of this. this is a simple thing.

you know, since the president talked to us back in january, over 70,000 pages have been added to the federal register. 539 rules have been deemed significant under the executive order 12866. stop and think about these numbers. 116.3 million hours of annual paperwork burden being added. and all of this continues to create that uncertainty. why would you as a business owner spend any money when you have no clue what that future cost will be? and just recently i was talking to some friends of mine in my district at a paper company. hometown where my roofing company is. and they were sharing with me their concerns about the e.p.a. clean air ruling in a new rule called boiler mact. they said if that rule was promulgated, wisconsin's paper industry will be decimated. what's troubling is the fact

that this is a revision of a rule that they put in place a few years ago. the entire paper industry in wisconsin had to upgrade their boilers, spend millions of dollars in investment and then a few years later the e.p.a. said, oops, we made a mistake. we really need to move the bar up again. the business owners are calling their congressman, this time it's me, i'm sure those in your district are asking, if we spend $50 million or $60 million, what assurance do we have that the e.p.a. won't move the bar next year and we have to spend it again and again and again? at what point is clean air clean air? and that's the problem. i'll tell you, it will be very simple. when you start talking in the millions and millions of dollars, it is very simple to lose thousands and thousands of jobs. and this is exactly where our national economy is at right now. this has been an onslaught of regulations dumped on the american entrepreneur. let's talk a little bit about access to credit.

you know, i've been very critical of the drank bill. i understand the -- critical of the dodd-frank bill. i understand the intent was to get at wall street and i understand the financial things in 2008. in appleton they're hiring analysts when they ought to be hiring commercial lenders. most jobs creating in this country is created by small business. but in reality it's really small businesses under five years old, businesses that need access to credit. i often wonder, would somebody like steve jobs be able to emerge in this type of environment today building computers in his garage. i'm sure there is a rule against that now and you can't imagine. i chuckled the other day when i saw a famous television host on msnbc standing by the hoover dam saying we need big projects like this, big thinking

projects like this. they created jobs. this was the boom day of the american mind. and i had to chuckle thinking, there would be no way with the current e.p.a. that you could ever, ever build a hoover dam today. it just wouldn't happen. the environmental rules alone wouldn't allow for it and i yield back. mr. carter: absolutely. you'd be dealing with the e.p.a. you'd be dealing with fish. you'd be dealing with the situation on -- endangered species and that's clear down to the microscopic animals that you can't even see. all that. there's no way the hoover dam would get built like that. you know, there was a thing on history2, i guess it was night before last about building of the alaskan highway and the -- we had gone to war with japan and everybody looked at the united states and said, my gosh, the islands part of the

alaskan -- that time the alaskan territory, they're right close to the japanese and they're probably going to invade those islands and how are we going to get materials, supplies and men up to alaska? there was no road between the united states and alaska. nobody checked a single regulatory act. nobody did anything but say, get every bulldozer we got and head for the border. we're cutting the road straight up through canada. we'll design it all the way up there. we'll direction it on the way up there. and they took off and they built a road. it was a gravel road, but it was the first road that connected the lower 48 to alaska. and i looked at that thing and said, my gosh, they wouldn't have gotten a mile and a half before they would have been joined by every kind of group on god's green earth in this country under the present regulations we have in place,

not even expanded regulations which are getting worse. the present regulations. so when the president made that famous statement now that i enjoyed very much, he laughed and said, i found out that shovel ready today is not really shovel ready. and it's exactly the same regulations we're talking about here that keeps it from being shovel ready. we're building a -- about a 21-mile stretch of highway in my home county, trying to build one. we have been at it for eight years. the money's in place. section 1 has bulldozers sitting on the ground. section 1 has been approved. and we're still trying to get 21 miles of road built. the regulations. i will say now after a little work on our part some regulators are being pretty reasonable and we want to thank them for it. but the days of the hoover dam and the alaskan highway will never come back. not with the regulatory environment we have here.

what we're trying to do is not let this thing expand any farther. we're not trying to get -- kill species. we're not trying to mess up the air like you said or the water. we're trying to say, we've got a good situation in place. and by the way, mr. president, if it's a national security issue or a national emergency, submit it to us. tell us what the emergency is. let's visit with it. if that's the case, this congress will be reasonable. i think that's very -- if we need review of the courts and the individuals need review of the courts, we'll provide that in here. it's very respectful of other people's consideration on these rights. that's another -- for a small bill, there's a lot of good thinking in this bill. and those are the things -- let me just read you something. this came out in the "columbus dispatch." this is a quote. the president's regulatory push

as a usurp has blocked a private sector decisionmaking necessary for job creation. decisionmaking, it is, there's a dash. obama's massive intrusion in the heart of the nation's economy has not helped. running roughshod over the banks, imposing new regulatory regime on the financial sector and spending hundreds of billions on -- of borrowed dollars with no great benefit, add to this the recent actions of the democrat-controlled national labor relations board, perhaps it's most damaging move has been to bring legal action against aircraft manufacture, boeing company, for being a manufacturing plant in south carolina. the nlrb seeks to punish a company for creating new jobs at a time when unemployment is

more than 9% and the nation's economic growth barely registers. the chilling effect of -- on other companies that are consuming -- that are consuming the ideas of building plants is incalculable. these moves have cowed, usurp, blocked the decisions that -- decisionmaking that is necessary to get this nation moving again. there's a quote from the "columbus dispatch", 9/5/11, this year. that's a perfect statement of a big picture of the regulatory burden that's made the papers. but are you can have just as much trouble with one big. so we got to -- as we deal with this, we've got to have something that says, kings x until we get this economy back rolling. i will once again yield to my friend and you tell me if you

have other things you want to talk about. mr. ribble: thank you for yielding back. i thought it was interesting as the president was in here a few weeks back with his jobs bill. i was struck. i actually came into the chamber and with the intent of not really being critical but what is it we could agree on so we could maybe for the good of the american people move things forward. i tell you, i was struck that the president didn't mention energy a single time. we just lost millions of jobs in the energy sector. just recently the president decided to punt on keystone, the canada pipeline which would have created thousands of jobs -- high-paying union jobs, fully labor was supportive of it and decided to kind of punt on that. it seemed like the president's jobs plan is really at the regulatory agencies where since he's been sworn into office employment has increased 13%.

the private sector is shedding millions of jobs, the president has decided to hire thousands of people at federal regula fore agencies. i guess it's maybe so they can implement the 3,573 new rules there have been put in place since january, 2010. you know, we have to get to a place where we understand the connection between employment, the connection between cost and jobs. and just american competitiveness. how in the world can we have businesses compete in this day and age when there's a constant onslaught from the federal government? i just thought i might read a quote from cnbc. we have several c.e.o.'s leading up to this speech, the president's speech, what bold steps president obama could take to reduce the 9.1% unemployment rate. john schwartz, sharme and c.e.o. of energy 21 said, if the government would get out of

the way from are regulation standpoint, 21, do what we do, you'll see us continue to hire and grow this economy. i think that's a message from across the board, should shirler. and i believe it is a -- schiller, and i believe it is a message. it doesn't seem like the executive branch fully understands how this economy actually works. . obstacle each rule and regulati hurting job growth and employment in this country. david park, c.e.o. of austin capital. we are coming at businesses and they are taking a toll. this will be a deterrant to entrepreneurs. companies under five years old, the difficulty and forming a

company is burdensome and hugely complex all because of this endless control and regulation. you and i have all the answers? we don't have the answers. the answers are found in the citizens of this great country. we passed a bill the other day on balla smp t water. and i sit on the transportation committee and i noticed that the federal government was going to promulgate rules for ships that come into the united states and traverse throughout the great lakes. my home is in appleton, wisconsin and we have the port of green bay there and the concern was, as i was reading the bill, the federal government exempted themselves and trading a whole new level of red tape, rules and regulations that were

going to put on ships and not on themselves and not have to manage ba lmp last water and i added an amendment and this body passed it that if the federal government is going to pass rules, they have to live by the same rules themselves and high time that the federal government treats the government the same way they treat the private sector and if we start doing that type of thing, some of these problems will go away and i yield back. >> that is good common sense. we appreciate it. congressman ribble, i understand you have some support for this bill in the senate. would you like to tell us about that. mr. ribble: there is a companion bill, identical piece of legislation. it was crafted by senator ron johnson, a colleague of mine from the great state of wisconsin. we thought it would be good for

us to do a project together and we talk quite often and the idea of attaching the moratorium to unemployment was senator johnson's idea and he now has a companion piece of legislation and told me there is more than 20 co-sponsors and this bill has 70 co-sponsors here in the house of representatives and continues to move forward and i'm optimistic we can pass this bill. doesn't remove a single safety or put something out of the way that is currently in place but says let's give the american entrepreneur some breathing space and give them some room to just have some certainty for the time being until unemployment starts to get going and the engine of our economy starts moving again. and i hope that and i challenge

the united states senate that after we send this piece of legislation over to them that they go ahead and pass it. and if they can't pass it, let the u.s. senate have a chance to vote on it. they have a method over there where they can protect members from having to make tough decisions and table a piece of legislation and i would challenge the senate majority leader when we send h.r. 2989 that they bring it to a vote and have our u.s. senate stand up and say whether they agree with it or not and go on the record whether or not they believe that regulations is a problem in this economy or not. mr. carter: once again, we have over 20 bills that could have done something to turn this economy around and have been tabled, i hope they will ask themselves, why did the senate

table my jobs, because everything is about jobs. when you table a piece of legislation, you are tabling somebody's job. a lot of things that people don't understand and once you start thinking about it, they can understand it, that they hear something like the pipeline. i happen to have spent every summer of my life from the time i was 15 until i graduated from law school, working on pipelines. i have worked on pipelines in texas, louisiana and overseas in belgium and europe. i'm an old laborer on the pipeline. when you hear pipeline you think pipeline of the pipeline. the number of people involved in laying a pipeline and the number of assorted jobs you don't even think about, are overwhelming. in many instances, you have to

cut roads out to where the pipeline is going to be. you have road builders and gravel haulers and asphalt layers. you've got the pipe, the pipe industry is making pipe, the welders are welding the joints, the people that are surveying are surveying the project. the heavy machinery is digging the ditch, many individuals are cleaning the ditch with a hand shovel because it has to be a certain way or else you will have a pipe that will have an electrical charge on it. engineers are engineering. scientists are studying. it is being tested so you see what stress levels you are going to have. it creates jobs, not just a pipe, but all this hundreds and

hundreds of industries that are tied to laying a pipeline. if you are drilling an oil well, same thing. those offshore drilling rigs, you know who got hurt bad on that, the people who feed those people and helicopter pilots that fly the food out there. i mean, these people, have shut down restaurants and closed down helicopter businesses. and we forget the little guys that are providing the services to the big exxon mobil or something platform out there. but in reality there are small businesses connected to any project like this. minimum number of jobs has been estimated to be 25,000 jobs. i can tell you, unless the world has changed since i was a kid, the best paying job that i could find in the state of texas for a kid my age and i worked it since

i was 26 years old and still the best paying job for a part-time job anywhere in the state of texas or europe. but the point being there is a dominoe effect when there is a big project like this or the lumber industry you were describing in your state or the shipping industry on the great lakes, it's not just ships that are involved in the shipping industry. it's hundreds of other professions are involved in the shipping industry. and when we start thinking that concept, and we see, when you hit the big guy, people around this country have the idea that big things are bad and don't realize it takes hundreds and sometimes thousands of little guys to keep the big guys' project going and they are all making a living and raising their families and their homes based upon that project. this is the concept of what

capitalism does and free enterprise does for our country. and when the regulators stop the pipeline or a moratorium after the election so you won't have to talk about it during the election time, that hurts the little guys as well as big guys. and it's the wrong concept. you got -- we've got to make this country once again prosper. and it takes a lot of things to make it prosper. so we're just asking for the government not to be one of the hindrances and that's what this makes a great bill. i thank you for joining me. we are about out of time. and i thank you for joining me and explaining the bill and allowing me to be the original co-sponsor on this bill. i will do everything within my power to assist you in getting this bill to this floor and passing this house and hopefully

senator johnson will get it done in the senate and help him where we can and will be good for america to say time out. time out on these regulations. unless you have something further to say, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gonzalez: i want to start off by asking for unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

include extraneous material on the subject of my special order tonight. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gonzalez: mr. speaker, again, thank you for recognizing me and i thank the democratic leader, ms. pelosi for giving me this time. i thank my colleagues for joining me in a few minutes but i'm very sorry to be here in a certain respect. i'm sorry because i stand here to talk about threats to the right of american citizens in this country to go to the polls and cast a ballot in our elections. the single most fundamental aspect of our democracy is the right to vote and that right is under attack. mr. speaker, there is no right mentioned more often in the constitution than the right to vote. in the past 207 years, we have amended the constitution 15 times. seven of those amendments, almost half of the amendments over the last two centuries are about protecting in the words of

the 14th amendment, the right to vote. minorities, women, adults over 18 years of age, poor citizens, and, of course, citizens of our nation's capital, at least if only for the presidential election, all of these groups right have been enshrined in our constitution. it is troubling to see states passing laws that will make it harder for citizens to vote, whether by denying the opportunity to vote on church on sunday because they cannot take time off or requiring them to spend time and money to procure a birth certificate and photo i.d. they are just plain wrong. hopefully i will be joined by some of my colleagues, but i do want to spend a little bit of time explaining to the american

public and my colleagues what this is all about and i'm going to start off by the photo i.d. voter requirement, which is being passed, obviously, out of the legislature in the state of texas and enacted for the 2012 election. what is it exactly? people will say, you mean you have to have a photo i.d.? it is not just a photo i.d. but one that meets the requirements of a particular state's laws. you will say how onerous can that possibly be? it isn't just a government-issued photo i.d. that will be accepted. it has requirements. i recently found out that basically my identification and my voting card that all members of congress use would not meet the requirements in the great state of texas, but should not

come as any surprise, because if you are a veteran and you have have a photo i.d. that allows you to go to the veterans' hospital in san antonio tone yeoh, that will not suffice under texas law. if you are a student in one of our state-supported institutions and has your name and photo, that isn't going to meet the requirements in the state of texas. so you would ask, why would we pass these laws? what is the need? what is the requirement? because we all know if you are in the state legislature or this great house of representatives at the federal level, we don't pass unnecessary laws, so there must be a purpose behind these photo i.d. laws as well as other laws that are restricting the laws of other individuals. it is to stop fraud. the photo i.d., its whole

purpose is to stop people from impersonating an ineligible voter and you might say this is happening across this great country and that's why we need this great law. people are impersonating other people. people might be impersonating an ineligible voter. let's discuss the purpose of the voter i.d. i'm going to give you the example of the state of kansas. the secretary of state pushed an i.d. law on the basis of the list of 221 reported instances of voter fraud. this is supposed to have occurred in kansas since the year of 1997. from 1997 for about 13 years, 221 reported instances of voter fraud. when the newspaper, "wish ta eagle" looked into the cases,

they found almost all of them were honest mistakes, none were attempted to be perpetrated by someone impersonating who they were not. a great example, and i have to read you the excerpt from the wicita eagle." . it raised the expectser of the dead voting in kansas. he said in a news conference thursday that 9,766 deceased people were registered to vote in kansas. quote, every one of those 1,966 identities is an opportunity for voter fraud waiting to happen, he said. furthermore, he said, some were still casting ballots. dead people in kansas were voting. he gave an example of one

person. alfred k. brewer, a republican, registered in sedgwick county with a birth date listed january 1, 1900. brewer, according to the comparison of social security records and the kansas voter rolls had died in 1996, yet had voted in the august primary and that was the allegation. reached thursday at his home while he was raking leaves, brewer, age 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead. quote, i don't think this is heaven. not when i'm raking leaves. those are example after example. no one can give you a specific example of voter fraud based on someone imperson ating someone who they shouldn't be on election day. now, between the years 2002 and 2007, a major department of justice at the federal level, of course, had a probe into

voter fraud. the result was failure to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and imperson ating ineligible voter. zero, zero prosecutions after tremendous amount of manpower, energy and money, nothing happened. now, the brandon center for justice, the cases for voter fraud, what is it? so if you have a law that is addressing a particular offensive-type behavior that obviously hurts this great republic of ours such as voter fraud, surely we must have demonstrated tangible, verifiable cases out there. but "the new york times" in an editorial -- i should say "the washington post" in an editorial was looking into the number of alleged voter fraud, and these are all predicated on voter i.d. it can be some other type of fraud that is being

perpetrated, but if you look at all of the cases that have ever been alleged, this is the percentage of the total vote cast. of those that might be suspect -- because you got to remember there will be a price we are going to pay for this law and that is it's going to disenfranchise the eligible voter. in pursuit of the phantom illegal voter. in missouri, if you took all of their complaints, it would amount to when compared to the total voter turnout to .0003%. in new york it would amount to .000009%. in new jersey it would be .00002%. so where is the voter fraud? what are we trying to address in passing these laws by the different state legislatures?

we had a recent occurrence -- and this was not even a voter i.d. case -- but this is where the secretary of state in colorado, mr. guessler, was dropping voters from the voting list and not forwarding ballots for voting based on that particular voter not having voted in 2010. didn't matter if they voted previously to that. if they did not vote in 2010, then they were dropped from the rolls. and what was the reason for that? well, there's potential voter fraud. potential voter fraud. but they could not -- the secretary of state when they finally went to court could not address, could not demonstrate, could not offer into evidence one case of voter fraud. not one. based on his suspicion or conjecture. in 2006 in the great state of texas, my home state, the texas

attorney general had a press release and it was entitled "let's stamp out voter fraud in texas." sounds good. sounds like a good thing to do. he could not name one, not one single case of fraud that would have been stopped by a voter i.d. law in the state of texas. i see i've been joined at this time by one of my dear colleagues and i'd like to recognize him and yield at this time to my colleague, the great representative from the great state of new jersey, rush holt, and as much time as he needs to consume. mr. holt: i thank my friend from texas, and i thank him very much for setting aside some time for this important issue. you know, more than a century ago the supreme court described the right to vote as the most fundamental right in our

government because it is the preserve tif of all other -- preserveative of all other rights. indeed, that's true. and many years later, half a century ago, president lyndon johnson said that, quote, the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice. the vote is lifeblood of self-government and it's one of the most powerful ways that citizens can affect change. the integrity of the electoral process is fundamental to ensuring that the voice of the people is heard. i often say that a self-governing country such as ours works only if you believe it does. and we must make sure that every american knows that every vote counts, that every vote will be counted and that, you

know, recognizing how complicated -- it's not as simple as we would all like it to believe -- how complicated it is that we at the federal level and at the state level are doing everything we can to protect the franchise, to protect the franchise of each citizen to cast his vote. and it's not just that we want to protect this as a right. it's something we should desire for the sake of our country that we get the diversity of opinion. well, what's happening right now is in state after state there's legislation that's intended to exclude some opinions, exclude some individuals, exdiagnosisclude some groups. of course, -- exclude some groups.

this is something that's worked diligently, yes, through federal law to correct. it was known as a poll tax. there are also literacy tests. quite clearly intended to exclude african-americans from not just their right to vote but from their obligation and their privilege of voting. what happens if laws are enacted to diminish the integrity and the accessibility of the ballot box for particular sectors of society? what happens if those disenfranchised voters typically vote for candidates representing one party? well, i came of age in the throes of the civil rights movement. when our colleague, representative john lewis, then a young man who had been tapped

by martin luther king jr. to become a leader in the movement , was beaten -- i often say he's the only member of this chamber that had his skull cracked literally to try to earn the right for everyone, every citizen to vote. in the aftermath of those bloody confrontations, congress said there is a role for the federal government. the voting rights act of 1965 was passed and it's made an enormous difference, but we can't sit back. we can't rest because right now in state after state there is effort to exclude some people. it is, if you require people to jump through a lot of hoops, maybe not a lot of money but

spend some money, to me that's a poll tax. that is illegal, unconstitutional. we thought we had gotten away from it. we thought we had gotten away from so-called literacy tests where people had to jump through some hurdles, truly unreasonable hurdles in order to vote. where perspective voters were quizzed to ask, how many bubbles are there in a barf soap -- bar of soap? hurdles that could not be crossed. well, you know, it sounds reasonable when you say you don't want anyone who's not eligible to be showing up to vote. but where are those people?

in state after state, these i.d. requirements are put in place to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. and millions of americans are being excluded from voting in order to deal with fraud at the polling place. now, i don't think in some ways there is not some fraud. but i have not heard of a sing am immigrant coming across the border, walking through the desert of our summer -- southern states so that they can sneak in and cast a ballot someplace. there are tough laws and severe penalties for people who vote fraudulently in the name or address that is intended to deceive.

but very few people have been caught doing that. there are very few examples of prosecutions or apprehensions or for that matter even vuss suspicions -- suspicions of this happening. the laws being passed are to deal with that problem. it's a problem that doesn't exist. nearly five million americans, by estimates from such people as the brener center of the law school of n.y.u., five million people might be excluded from this. so i thank my -- i thank my friend from texas for engaging in this discussion tonight.

indeed this is the right in a preserves all other rights. what could be more important? it is cynical. it is disingenuous. it is un-american. what people are doing in a very systematic way to exclude large groups of people from voting to solve a problem, an imaginary problem that's been trumped up. i believe it's been prumped up just so that they could -- prumped up just so they -- trumped up so they could exclude large numbers of people from voting. so i thank my friend for raising this critically important question, and i yield back my time to mr. gonzalez. mr. gonzalez: i thank my colleague from new jersey and appreciate his words of

encouragement here to address what is going on in this country as we speak. as a matter of fact, there are other laws that are waiting, legislative action in different states. i return, still, because i think people have a legitimate and good faith question of what are these laws supposed to address and it's supposed to be about fraud. myrick, let me address the claim of fraud once more. . there is no voter fraud going to be stopped by not allowing a 94-year-old woman not being allowed to vote because her name doesn't match that on her birther is if i have cat. fraud is about voters going to

polls about eligible. it's about two individuals in the state of maryland indied for having deceptive robo calls to stop people voting, or the robo calls telling people the vote was on wednesday. or the group that said registering the poor to vote is un-american and, quote, like handing burglary tools to criminals. that's the fraud perpetrated on americans today. it's an old story of keeping people away from the polls when we should be encouraging them to vote. these new voter i.d. laws and laws curtailing early voting won't stop this kind of fraud and the kind of fraud it would stop doesn't exist. the previous administration nearly broke the civil rights division of the department of

justice in its quest to find this kind of voting fraud that voter i.d. would stop. they couldn't find any because it does not happen. but these laws will have a powerful effect. they will deny millions of americans the right to participate in this democracy. so we know what the law is. we know what it is intended to address that doesn't really exist, which is that kind of fraud. but what is the cost? mr. speaker, all of us in this chamber understand that when we pass legislation, we always look at the cost benefit aspect of it. in other words, did the good outweigh the bad? is it worth the investment? there's going to be some consequence. in this case, it would not pass any kind of scrutiny, if we really look at what it's going to cost americans and how it's going to benefit americans. now the naacp in a -- in a

november 1 of this year brief cited the following information. 11% of eligible voters in this country, 11% of eligible american citizen voters, 21 million strong, don't have updated state issued photo i.d.'s. so who is going to be impacted? potentially 21 million eligible american citizen voters. but of that 21 million, 25% will be african-americans. 14% are families or individuals that earn less than $35,000 a year. 18% will be seniors over the age of 65. but even 20% will be individuals between the ages of 18 and 29. so i was asking a colleague,

why do we do the analysis? what is the benefit and what is the cost? many times we'll say, well the cost is beneficial because it's worth that kind of investment, if we get any kind of rurp. let me point out the fallacy of these laws when we actually apply the test. because when we talk about numbers, the mere numbers in the abstract, but these are real american voters that will be denied their right to vote when they go to that polling place and are informed that they need a state-issued photo i.d. there's no more fundamental right than that of voting and if a barrier that stops 1% of the people from voting is not acceptable merely because 99% of the people are still able to vote, think of that proposition. you are saying if we just deny

1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, you still have 90-something percent of the population that are still going to be eligible to vote. but think if that was your vote. if that was a family member's vote. every vote is precious in this country. and there's no evidence to support that what you're addressing is a widespread problem that will disenfranchise many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions of american voters. that's what we're facing here today. that's what the analysis shows. so even the lightest of any scrutiny would show that this is ill conceived. it will not produce the result that you're seeking because the problem you're trying to remedy does not exist. but there's a price that will be paid an the price will be paid by many.

disproportionately seniors and minorities and those that may not be in the upper economic scales of this country. at this time, it's my honor, of course, to yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from the great state of florida, who can tell us many things about the florida experience, congressman ted deutch. mr. deutch: thank you very much. i thank my friend for yielding and i thank you for the opportunity to come and join with you tonight to address an issue of great concern to many americans. we are here tonight because republican state legislatures across the nation are passing laws that make it harder for people to exercise their right to vote. the story they tell is one of rampant voter fraud that threatens the integrity of our elections and the very foundation of our democracy. it's a scary story. imagine, just imagine, mobs of

illegally registered voters entering our poll booths and hijacking our lests. however, there is something far scarier than the story that's being told. and that's the reality. the reality that our electoral system is not under siege by voter fraud but instead by an historically deliberate and ongoing effort to suppress the votes of america's minorities, seniors, students, and other traditionally democratic voters. now, while this is a nationwide trend, there is no question that the recent voting law passed in florida takes the cake for radically infringing on voting rights. ask any floridian, florida doesn't have a history of voter fraud. florida has a history of voter

suppression. this is a state that didn't ratify the 19th amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote until 1969. this is a state where in 2000, secretary of state katherine harris eliminated 57,000 votes, mostly minorities, simply because their names resembled those of persons convicted of crimes. they were wiped from the voting rolls. now, our current governor, governor scott, wasn't in florida in 2000 when george bush's legal team fought to stop counting the votes. when katherine harris certified election results without including the recount from my own palm beach county. and when the supreme court stopped a manual recount of votes. florida is the state where thousands of seniors, i am so

privileged to represent today, headed to the polls on election day in 2000 and never had their voices heard. that was hard work. it was hard work, silencing the voices of the voters. h.b. 1355, the florida election law, the voter suppression law, makes it child's play. florida is a state where in 2008, when governor charlie crist extended voting hours, republican officials decried the fact that better access to voting would likely cost them the lebs. now florida is the state serving as a model for republican legislatures across the country looking for ways to suppress turnout at the polls. h.b. 1355 eliminates the ability of voters to update names or addresses at the polls

due to marriage, divorce, or military base relocation. they now have to cast provisional ballots which will likely go uncounted. h b. 1355 also cuts early voting from 14 days to eight because the fact that the united states of america is one of the few democracies in the world to declare -- not to declare election day a national holiday is simply not restrictive enough. h b. 1355 allows absentee ballots to be arbitraryly tossed out of elections because of poor handwriting. the men and women i represent who may suffer from parkinson's disease or arthritis or the aftereffects of a stroke will have their votes thrown out because their quivering hands make their signatures look sloppy. and perhaps most disturbing is how h.b. 1355 cripples the ability of third party groups

like the boy scouts and league of women voters and naacp to run voter registration drives. in fact, any third party, including high school civics teachers, that offer to help students register to vote, must turn in registration form within 48 hours or face fines. by passing h.b. 1355, florida has provided states across the country with a blueprint for voter suppression of minorities, seniors, students, and other democratic voters. the voter fraud bookyman may be a scary story but it cannot compare to the very real and very blatant voter suppression efforts of republican legislatures across america, perhaps because they know they can't win fairly. they need to suppress voters not because of imaginary voter fraud but because of real americans. real americans who have seen the true colors of a republican

agenda that ends medicare, slashes education, eliminates jobs and limits economic opportunity for working families, real americans have had enough. and they have the right to express themselves by exercising the most basic, the most fundamental right in our nation, the right to vote. i thank you for organizing this opportunity tonight for us to make very clear to all who are watching that we won't let them take that right away. i yield back. >> i thank my colleague from florida and -- mr. gonzalez: i yield to my colleague also from florida, ms. wasserman schultz for such time as she may consume. ms. wasserman schultz: congressman gonzalez, it's wonderful that you've organized this opportunity to have

members come to the floor and highlight our concerns and commitment to protect the fundamental right and bedrock of our democratic principals, the right to vote. i'm pleased to stand with so many of my colleagues who all share my deep concern over the organized, insidious effort under way in many states to disenfranchise many americans an silence their voice in our democracy. these are purported to combat so-called voter fraud yet no investigation has fun voter fraud to be a major problem in our nation. every american should be concerned and understand about the political disenfranchisement going on in many states, including my home state of florida, as my colleague from florida just outlined. state ledge slay sures are trying to impose the modern equivalent of poll taxes and literacy tests. the participation of our participatory democracy is rooted in the right to vote,

the right to choose our elected leaders, to have representation in government, to have input on the major policies of the day, the right to have our voices heard. that's why more than 250 years ago, we threw off the shack olves the british empire. to fight -- the fight for universal suffrage has been long and arduous but it has been worth it. as may wright sewell, a leading women's suffrage leader, said, we must stand vigilantly against those who seek to limit it. less than a century ago, the women who came before us were denied the right to have their voices heard. women in that time were confronted by a wealth of arguments against our right to suffrage. women do not want the vote or

women are already represented by their husband's votes, or one of my favorites a woman's place is in the house. i agree with that last one, if we're talking about the house of representatives, with the note that their place is also in the senate and the governor's mansion and all houses of government. the women then were beaten but kept on. they knew women should not be deprived of this fundamental right. we will not stand by and allow anyone's voting rights to be threatened, not on our watch. . despite the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments, african-americans still face more than a century of overt voter suppression. and while we made huge gains with the voting rights act of 1965, a seminole moment in our nation's history where we declared that truly no election law could deny or abridge

voting rights because of race or color, we cannot afford to sit back and just declare the fight over. the struggle for universal suffrage is not over. we cannot allow state legislatures to drag our nation backward and what is -- in what is nothing more to protect the governing majority's interest. a little more than 10 years ago, florida experienced election day turmoil that reminded us all to remain onguard from disenfranchise! s. the irregularities that occurred in my state of florida of how rights can be denied. the commission on civil rights report on the 2000 election in florida found widespread voter disenfranchisement. as commissioner, chairperson mary francis berry stated at the time, and i quote, it is not a question of a recount or even an accurate count but more pointedly the exclusion of the right to vote amounted to a no count. in the last year, scores of states, including florida, have passed laws restricting access

to the polls. a recent brennan center report found that these changes in state voting laws will likely suppress the vote of more than five million voters nationwide. we need look no further than my own home state of florida to see the threat against universal suffrage. the florida law passed last spring restricts both voter registration and voter opportunities. it was championed by governor rick scott and passed by the republican-led legislature which has overwhelming jorts in both the house and senate. first, it restricts the ability of nonpartisan organizations or individuals from helping citizens register to vote. it finds people in groups up to $1,000 per voter if registration isn't turned in within 48 hours. just the other day, a teacher was sanctioned and is now being prosecuted because she didn't turn in her student's voter registration within the new amended time frame in a voter

registration cards have to be turned in, and now she is being subject to a fine, a significant fine per voter. as a result of this law, the league of women voters, a champion of nonvoting rights for over decades, have extended their operations in florida because they can't take the risk that they would be bankrupted by this absolutely unfair, terrible law. second, the florida law rolls back early voting. it rolls back early voting opportunities, including sunday before an election. it eliminates sunday before an election. and i can tell you firsthand how important early voting is for people in my district and for people across the state. also in 2008, african-americans and hispanics who together make up roughly 1/4 of florida voters, accounted for more than half of all voters on sunday. so do we think it's a coincident that those that has

their right to vote on that particular sunday removed from them? as far as we've come in our society in broadening the scope of civil rights, we cannot afford to revert back to a time when it was acceptable to limiting rights of a select few. we are not meant to have a government of some people, by some people, for some people. i hope my colleagues will join me then suring that we uphold president abraham lincoln's democratic ideal government for all the people, elected by the all the people. thank you, mr. gonzalez, for the opportunity to speak tonight and yield back the balance of my time. mr. gonzalez: well, i thank my colleague from florida. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to enter a colloquy with my colleagues from florida and new jersey, and i guess i'm just going to pose the question. so what? just a few people are denied access to the ballot box? it's just a few and after all we're trying to see if there's any kind of proveable, tangible

fraud going on -- proveable, tangible fraud going on? now, they haven't found fraud based on identification, of course. but you pointed out in your remarks what happened in florida in 2000. how many votes in florida actually determined who was going to be president in the united states of america? ms. wasserman schultz: 537. mr. gonzalez: and we already touched on that estimates of how many millions of eligible american citizen voters don't have a current state-issued i.d. in the millions. and in florida it was less than 600 votes. i don't know the experience in new jersey, but it would seem -- i went over this earlier and i don't know if my colleagues were here, we passed laws in this chamber and we always try to demonstrate that we're trying to remedy a situation

that is true in existence and the manner in which we do it. we look at cost benefit. we can't prove fraud but i can assure you we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people will be denied access to the polls. mr. holt: i thank my friend from texas. the history of america has been a history of expanding the franchise. the opportunity, the right to vote. and it's based on this principle that we often talk about in this chamber but maybe don't pay enough attention to which is the principle of equality under the law. we're saying -- we're not just saying that, yes, everybody can vote. well, unless you're disabled and you can't get into the polling place. or everybody can vote except, well, if you -- if you're 75 years old, 85 years old, you're no longer driving and you let

your driver's license expire and, no, you haven't gotten down to motor vehicles. orwell' let everybody vote -- well, as long as you pay a tax or if your grandfather voted or if you can cross these hurdles. you know, our history has been a history of saying everybody is equal under the law. and we don't put artificial hurdles in place. the 15th amendment said you can't deny african-americans the right to vote. in 1915 the supreme court said the grandfather clauses are unconstitutional which would outlaw exemptions from literary -- literacy requirements for voters whose grand fathers had been eligible to vote before -- you know, at the time of the civil war. and the 19th amendment said women could vofmente and the 23rd amendment said the

citizens of the district of columbia could vote in presidential elections. rand the 24th amendment outlawed poll taxes. and in 1965, as i referred to earlier in the aftermath of the march acrosses edmund pettus bridge in selma, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or prohibits the use of suppressive tactics and various poll tests. these are -- you know, i could go on. the 18-year-old vote. the americans with disabilities act. it requires equal access to voting places. the national voter registration act. the motor voter act. this is based on the principle of equality under the law. ms. wasserman schultz: will the gentleman yield? mr. holt: i'd be happy to yield. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you. in answer to the gentleman from texas' question, what's wrong with it is that this is

supposed to be a country that affords everyone, regardless of any category that you fall into, the opportunity to vote. the voter suppression laws that have been passed by republican legislatures, championed by republican governors across the country, have systematically targeted specific group of individuals based on their propencity to vote, differently than the legislators that support those laws would like to see them vote. in other words, they are essentially blocking access to the polls for people who vote against their interests, against republican interests. that is blocking anyone's access to the polls is unacceptable to begin with, but insidiously trying to influence the outcome of an election through systematically changing the law to prevent people who are likely to go to the polls to vote for your opponent is the most heinous form of

anti-democratic policy. it's the kind of policy that you would see in countries that we -- that we abhor, countries that we criticize. just for example, let's take the photo i.d. laws. we have a photo i.d. law in florida. you may have told the story of the 96-year-old woman from tennessee. i am sure you already talked about that this evening. but there are -- if you look at the statistics, which you may have gone over as well, 11% of americans don't have a photo i.d. 11%. 25% of african-americans don't have a photo i.d. and i don't know the number -- i was looking for the statistics for hispanics, but it is -- it is unacceptable to say that the only way that you can identify somebody is by requiring them to carry a photo

identification in order to vote, that's just -- that's ridiculous. modern technology today allows for signature matches. all of our soup vifere of elections have -- supervisor of elections have the signature on file. in the old-fashioned way, written on a piece of paper, or scanned on a computer where they can match the signatures. that's how they did it -- they've done it for many years in florida until they imposed the photo i.d. law. all that foteoy i.d.'s are an obstacle in the path of an individual who is more likely to go and vote for someone who is not a republican, and -- i'm sorry. elections should be won fair and square. mr. holt: and continuing to answer the gentleman's question, who cares, why does it matter, my friend from florida has talked about how millions can be disenfranchised, excluded by the photo i.d. laws. additionally, state after state

has made it more difficult to conduct voter registration drives. so people who are eligible, who should be voting are prevented from or hindered in their -- in their registration. and hundreds of thousands -- ms. wasserman schultz: mr. holt, i have a story i want to share. mr. holt: excluded from registration drives and other exclusions i'll talk about in a moment. i'll yield to the gentlelady. ms. wasserman schultz: we had the republican secretary of state in florida recently asked the attorney general to start assessing $50 fines for each of the 76 voter registration applications that were submitted by a high school teacher in santa rosa county. there was no indication of foul play. the applications were of individuals who appeared to be

eligible florida voters. they were high school kids who were -- you know, 18 and were eligible to vote, but because florida has changed the law under the republican voter suppression law that requires registrations to be turned in within 48 hours and it used to be 10 days, this teacher got fined because she was trying to help her students registered to vote and didn't get them in under the new time limit. mr. holt: so i ask the lady, the gentlelady, how many other patriotic americans are going to be deterred from asking their friends, their neighbors, in this case, maybe students, from registering for fear that they'll be prosecuted if they don't dot the i's just right? ms. wasserman schultz: well, the league of women voters in my state, mr. holt, has registered voters in florida for seven decades and suspended their voter registration activity after this law passed

because they can't take the risk. the organization would become bankrupt. can you imagine that the league of women voters no longer registers people to vote in the state of florida? mr. holt: and then in other states, who cares, my friend asks, in other states they're making it harder to cast absentee ballots. so that's going to exclude people. it's -- and this is not -- you know, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist. ms. wasserman schultz: rocket scientist. mr. holt: to see behind this a purpose of exclusion. this is not, oh, we're just trying to clean up the procedures here to make sure that it's all neat and tidy. no. in is deliberate exclusion. mr. gonzalez: well, the curious thing, and i know the gentlelady from florida already pointed it out, and that is there is no doubt that segments of voters are being targeted. this isn't an even application

whose consequences will be felt across all sectors or segments of the voting population. we know what is really going on and it is a concerted, directed effort, and some people may find it exceedingly hard to say that's what these laws will accomplish other than the lofty goals of eliminating or addressing voter fraud when we've already stated that you don't have any demonstrable evidence that the fraud is occurring. . . in texas, we had this photo i.d. law passed, so i went to the department of public safety, charged with the duty of providing this election i.d., photo i.d. this is the amazing thing. the department of public safety in the state of texas has not been appropriated one extra

dollar for this added burden. they are not going to have extended hours, they're going to have the regular hours, they're not going to have any mobile units of any type. they will continue using their existing facilities, which already are taxed to the limit by individuals going in there just for regular business. now this is the state of texas. you may not believe this, but i think florida is a pretty big state, new jersey, -- new jersey, not as big. but you can have a distance of 100 miles, you can have a distance of 100 miles from some of our towns to the nearest d.p.s. office. now, why does that -- why would that be important? you don't have a texas driver's license, that tells you you have to get someone to drive you to the d.p.s. station. then you're going to be in the same line, maybe they're queue it a little differently but

i'll tell you now, the texas experience is no different than most states where you stand in line for ined or nant amounts of time, we're talking about the elderly, about those who have some sort of physical handicap, they can still vote because they're so proud of the right to vote that they've been exercising for 60-plus years. i yield to the gentlewoman. ms. wasserman schultz: in some states, it's equally as bad, it's certainly bad enough in texas that they're not putting more funding in to make sure people have more access to get photo i.d.'s but in some states, because of budget cuts, they're systematically in communities that have large african-american populations and large hispanic populations, shutting down driver's license offices so it's even harder for those communities to go and get a photo i.d. this has been insidious. the disturbing thing about this is that it's clear that these

republican legislatures, led by republican governors, just don't think they can win an election on the merits, so they have to -- they need an insurance policy because in the event that voters actually decide that no, republicans aren't interested in creating jobs, they're in the interested in getting the economy turned around, maybe i'd like to go to the polls and vote for the candidate of my choice, they are using the insurance policy of voter suppression laws to make sure that people who are likely to go to the polls and vote for someone other than them, can't do it. it's un-american. it's unacceptable. mr. gonzalez: i believe we still have at least five minutes. i surely wanted to reference an article written by our colleague from georgia, john lewis, mr. holt, i think, has already referred to mr. lewis' ill lust res you career in the civil rights movement, but i'd

like to read the last couple of paragraphs. coming from john lewis, it is special. he's lived the worst of times and he knows it's been a progression, a slow one, and we're not there yet. to somehow return to those old days urn the guise of some sort of voter fraud, which again has not been demonstrated and we know that it's a cost that's going to exceed the benefits, this is what he said. these restrictions purportedly apply to all citizens equally. we know they will disproportionately burden african-americans and other minority races yet again. they are poll taxes by another name. the king memorial reminds us that out of a mountain of despair, we may hew a stone of hope. 48 years after the march on washington we must continue our work with hope that all citizens will have a right to

vote. second class citizenship is not citizenship at all. we've come some distance and have made great progress but dr. king's dream has not been realized in fool. new restraints on the right to vote do not merely slow us down, they turn us backwards. sending us in the wrong direction, on a course where we have already traveled too far and sacrificed too much. mr. speaker, how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has about five and a half minutes left. mr. gonzalez: i'd like to yield time to each of my colleagues as we close out the special order and i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: thank you. so you know, as efforts are made to put hurdles in the way, to require proof that is difficult or expensive to get, that is -- that if offices are

closed and open periods for absentee ballots are shrunk and early voting is discontinued as it has been in some states, in fact, florida, georgia, ohio, tennessee, west virginia, have succeeded in enacting bills that reduce early voting, all of this serves not only to reduce the dignity of americans, by saying the principle of equality applies, except for some people. some people, as i said, who might have physical disabilities or might be elderly or might be low income. but more than that -- but more than that, it deprives us of a working democksthism reason the history of america has been a history of expanding the franchise is so that we could

have a more stable, productive democracy. we want everyone to vote. it makes this a richer country in every way. i thank the gentleman for setting aside this time. can't think of a more important topic to be debated in this great chamber. mr. gonzalez: i thank my colleague for his participation and his words and i yield to my colleague from florida. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much, thank you for the opportunity, an for calling us together on this rp very important topic. i want to close out my time briefly by saying to the gentlemen from texas and new jersey that we are not going to lay down and just allow these laws to stand. that we are going -- there are civil rights organizations, as we speak, pursuing these laws because we know they're violations of individuals'

constitutional rights, we know they're violations of the voting rights act of 1965678 we know the justice department is reviewing many of these laws because they have to be precleared of the voting rights act of 1965. people should know while we are here expressing grave concern, we are certainly not using only our voices to fight these insidious laws, we are standing up for the franchise, we are standing up for the right to vote and we go to work to make sure every eligible voter has the right to vote and cast their ballot for the individual they want to represent them in this democracy and we are standing up against those who try to fix the outcome of elections by blocking people's access oto polls. mr. gonzalez: i thank my colleague from florida, i thank the speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy -- policy of january 5,

2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's always my privilege to be here on the floor of the house of representatives. i find it ironic that i watched my colleagues talking about the election situation, when it was reported that as nearly -- as many as 24,000 people voted in both new york and florida for the president, that's a bit of an irony as i hear the discussion about the election process in the united states. i think there's too little concern on the part of my colleagues who i do respect and appreciate and count as -- count as friends in many respects. i think there's too much focus

on how you get more warm bodies to the polls as many times as possible and not enough on the legitimate vote. now as i listen, the gentleman from texas said there's no demonstrable evidence that fraud is occurring. i would disagree. i think convictions are demonstrable evidence. and the quickses, particularly in troy, new york, of election fraud, i have seen it in the state of iowa, in a fashion that didn't result in quicks, but i have conviction that it happened, we have paid too little attention to election fraud and in the case that i mentioned of people voting in the state of new york and in the state of florida, if they do both, they surely can't be lawfully voting in each of the states. they may not be lawfully able to vote in either state but voting in both states. how does that happen? this is unexamined subject matter on the part of my

colleagues. how does it happen that people can vote someplace they don't reside, how does it happen they can vote when they're not citizens, how dizz it happen they can vote in more than one jurisdiction for the same election, not necessarily simultaneously but possibly simultaneously. i can tell you, to some degree, how that is. it work this is way. the voter registration lists within the states are not integrated among the states. and so if an individual is registered to vote in new york, they can also be registered to vote in florida. or any adjoining state, for that matter. new jersey, connecticut, you name it. all they have to do is register in one state and go register in another state. in my own state, it was the case, and probably is not still the case, that the voter registration lists -- list does not integrate itself county to county in a definitive way.

if john doe registers to vote? washington county and goes over to register to vote as john m. doe in jefferson county. there's two registrations there and he can vote in both counties, both by absentee. in my state, where it's 99 counties, it's possible to vote in 99 counties simultaneously by absentee. if you register to vote, put up an address that's perhaps a false address, but an address of someone else and if that address, if the voter registration is unique in any way, if it's the -- the initial could change. it could be john, could be jonathan, could be the middle name can change. that's all it would take. the same person could vote multiple times in a state. think how many times that cowl happen when they're crossing state lines. no one has yet calculated how many times an individual could vote in the united states if they really wanted to game the system. and we do hear credible stories

of buses taking people across the state lines and buses taking people from precinct to precinct to vote multiple times and who have been the advocates for same-day registration? who have been the advocates for lowering the integrity of the vote itself? it's been the people on the other side of the aisle, it's been the democrats. the things that republicans bring to establish credibility and integrity in the vote are undermined by the democrats on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker. and why? because they say people are disenfan chiesed from their vote. i would argue that legitimate voters, american citizens who respect the law and vote one time, one place in their legal residence are watching their vote be canceled out by illegitimate votes that happen in this country because we don't have convictions for people voting in multiple locations for the same election, isn't an indication it doesn't happen. we do have some quickses. we don't have large nurs of quicks as the gentleman from

texas may have implied but not specifically said. the reason for that is, because our voting laws are so open, so lax, so insecure, that it's nearly impossible to get a conviction. for example, in the state of new mexico, if i were working the voting booth as an election worker in new mexico, and i opened the polls up at, say, 8:00 in the morning and i'm sitting there for the list of people that come in and they say, i'm john doe, i'm jane doe, i'm jim smith. if one of them walks in and says, i'm steve king and i live at the address where i live and i have not yet voted, i am compelled, even as an election worker, to let that false and fraudulent individual vote under my name. it's against the law in new mexico and other states to challenge an illegitimate voter even when you know they're illegitimate even to the extent illegitimate even to the extent that they