ms. chu, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i first ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1002 as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. franks: mr. speaker, congresswoman lofgren and i introduced h.r. 1002 with the broad bipartisan support of 144 original co-sponsors. we now have 36 co-sponsors, and i want to thank ms. lofgren for her hard work on this issue. mr. speaker, access to wireless networks represent a key component of millions of americans' livelihoods, providing the efficient communication and capabilities, whether by phone, broadband internet or otherwise necessary to run a successful business. the exosh tent discriminatory taxes on wireless customers are not only unfair, they are counterintuitive, adding another costly impediment to the success

ms. chu: this issue could endanger people's lives. it hurts my home state of california which develops laws to protect citizens by developing criteria on those who could carry concealed-carry weapons. with this bill that all goes away. this bill is so bad that it even allows drug dealers convicted of selling drugs to minors to carry a concealed weapon. california would not allow it because such permits can only go to those of good moral character. but under this law we would have to accept the concealed weapon permit for every other state that allows weapons to these drug dealers. i offered an amendment in judiciary committee to stop this, but those on the other side of the aisle voted it down. with this bill, a person who endangers the lives of our children will be allowed to carry a concealed loaded gun nationwide and you would be powerless to stop it. it is the individual states that are in the best position to determine how to best protect its citizens. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill. mr. smith: i'

ms. chu: proponents of this bill claims this is about fiscal responsibility but it is the opposite. this bill makes it impossible, in fact, unconstitutional, for the government to save for the future. under this bill programs like social security or long-term federal highway projects would have to be completely eliminated to comply with the constitution. today, american workers put money into a social security trust fund built to pay and save for future benefits. but under this short siggeted -- shortsighted constitutional amendment, money must be paid out the same year. that means you can't have a social security trust fund. so goodbye, social security. goodbye, savings for retirement. let me tell you how bad this idea is. let's say for a moment that this was your family's budget. if this constitutional budget amendment applied to you, you would have to spend everything you earn in the same year. no college fund or i.r.a. no savings account to put a down payment on a house or god forbid to pay for expensive medical treatment. not only is that ludicrous, it is tragic. if that weren'

miss chew: there was a time when -- ms. chu: there was a time when women and minorities were not able to vote. but because people fought back every u.s. citizen gained the right to vote, that is up until now. this year an unprecedented 42 bills were introduced in various states to deprive you of that right. states have passed voter i.d. laws that would stop 21 million legal u.s. citizens from voting. including your grandmother who was born in this country and lived her for 82 years. why? because she no longer drives and doesn't have a picture i.d. these laws would stop early voting and voting by mail so that if you know you have to travel out of town or have an operation on election day, you would be deprived of casting your vote. this threatens the very basis of our democratcy. we must work together to protect every american's right to vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house f

ms. chu: proponents of this bill claims this is about fiscal responsibility but it is the opposite. this bill makes it impossible, in fact, unconstitutional, for the government to save for the future. under this bill programs like social security or long-term federal highway projects would have to be completely eliminated to comply with the constitution. today, american workers put money into a social security trust fund built to pay and save for future benefits. but under this short siggeted -- shortsighted constitutional amendment, money must be paid out the same year. that means you can't have a social security trust fund. so goodbye, social security. goodbye, savings for retirement. let me tell you how bad this idea is. let's say for a moment that this was your family's budget. if this constitutional budget amendment applied to you, you would have to spend everything you earn in the same year. no college fund or i.r.a. no savings account to put a down payment on a house or god forbid to pay for expensive medical treatment. not only is that ludicrous, it is tragic. if that weren'

ms. chu: dawn, a single mother of two spends every day being looking for a job. after 20 years working she was laid off in july and now the only thing paying her heat and electricity bills, the only thing putting food on the table, is her hoddest unemployment benefit. in just 35 days and counting, her safety net will be pulled away if congress fails to act. if we don't extend emergency unemployment benefits when they expire, by mid february, 2.1 million americans will have their benefits cut off. and by the end of the year, six million will be without this critical lifeline. today one out of every 11 americans is out of work. congress has never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when unemployment was this high for this long. we should not start now. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote occurs -- incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record the vote on the postponed ques

ms. chu: this issue could endanger people's lives. it hurts my home state of california which develops laws to protect citizens by developing criteria on those who could carry concealed-carry weapons. with this bill that all goes away. this bill is so bad that it even allows drug dealers convicted of selling drugs to minors to carry a concealed weapon. california would not allow it because such permits can only go to those of good moral character. but under this law we would have to accept the concealed weapon permit for every other state that allows weapons to these drug dealers. i offered an amendment in judiciary committee to stop this, but those on the other side of the aisle voted it down. with this bill, a person who endangers the lives of our children will be allowed to carry a concealed loaded gun nationwide and you would be powerless to stop it. it is the individual states that are in the best position to determine how to best protect its citizens. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill. mr. smith: i'