F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amash amendment. I do so as the person who was the principal author of the PATRIOT Act in 2001, who got that law through quickly after 9/11 and who supported and managed its 2006 reauthorization. Let me make this perfectly clear that unlike what we have heard from speakers on the other side of this issue, this amendment does not stop the collection of data under section 215--the people who are subject to an investigation of an authorized terrorist plot. What it does do is to prevent the collection of data of people who are not subject to an investigation. Now, relevance is required in any type of a grand jury subpoena or in a criminal collection of data for a criminal trial. This goes far beyond what the NSA is doing. The time has come to stop it, and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I sponsored this legislation to improve the ability to protect the United States from terrorist attacks, including attacks using weapons of mass destruction or attacks involving ships and maritime platforms. H.R. 1073 implements obligations of four multilateral counterterrorism treaties. Full ratification of the underlying treaties will not be achieved until Congress amends existing criminal provisions of the United States Code. This legislation was prepared in full cooperation with our Democratic colleagues on the committee, following months of work by committee staff in consultation with the Departments of Justice and State. The importance of this bipartisan legislation is evidenced by those who have joined me as original cosponsors: the gentleman from Virginia, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte; Ranking Member John Conyers; and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Scott. Two of these treaties concern nuclear and radiological materials, the sabotage of nuclear facilities, and the protection of nuclear facilities and materials used for peaceful purposes. The other two treaties relate to the use or targeting of ships or maritime platforms as a part of a terrorist attack, transporting of certain materials by ship for terrorist purposes, and the transport of terrorists by ship, among other things. The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was signed by President Bush on behalf of the United States on September 14, 2005. It requires the U.S. to criminalize certain unlawful acts relating to the possession and use of radioactive material and radiological dispersal devices and damage to nuclear facilities. An amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was adopted at a diplomatic conference on July 25, 2005, requires the U.S. to criminalize nuclear smuggling and sabotage of nuclear facilities. The 2005 Protocol to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation requires parties to criminalize the use or targeting of a ship or a fixed maritime platform in an act of terrorism. The Protocol forbids certain maritime terrorism acts and the maritime transport of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, or their components, delivery means, or materials under specified circumstances. It also forbids the maritime transport of terrorist fugitives. The 2005 Protocol to the 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf criminalizes terrorist acts involving a fixed maritime platform. To combat these types of terrorist threats effectively, we need both a comprehensive domestic legal framework and a broad international legal framework to facilitate international cooperation. Existing law may cover certain obligations under these treaties, but in order to fully comply and ultimately ratify the treaties, parties to the agreements are required to criminalize certain conduct and to fulfill extradition requirements and other obligations relating to international cooperation. Parties to the underlying treaties are required to criminalize certain acts committed by persons who possess or use radioactive material or a nuclear device. And parties are obligated to ``extradite or prosecute'' alleged offenders. As they relate to maritime terrorism, the underlying treaties treat vessels and fixed maritime platforms as a potential means of conducting terrorism activity and not just as objects of terrorist activity. Both the Bush and Obama administrations support ratification of these agreements, which have already received Senate advice and consent. Advancing this legislation strengthens international cooperation and information-sharing, and will ensure that the United States stays at the forefront of global counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts. These measures are consistent with our domestic efforts to improve homeland security and to promote better international cooperation. It is my hope the Senate will act swiftly to pass this legislation so that these important multilateral agreements can finally be ratified. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I was the principal author of the Voting Rights Act extension in 2006, which did pass this House 390-33, and unanimously was passed by the Senate. The Shelby County case concentrates on the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and that is the section that requires pre-clearance of electoral changes in covered jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in the Shelby County case allege that since things have changed since 1965, section 5 is no longer applicable. They're wrong. When Congress considered, in 2006, the extension of the Voting Rights Act, including section 5, the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee had probably the most extensive legislative record in the history of this Congress compiled, 12,000 pages on this side of the Capitol, numerous hearings, numerous witnesses, including those who were opposed to section 5, and even those who were opposed to the entire concept of the Voting Rights Act. So every viewpoint was heard; and the mountain of testimony, I don't think, can be equaled by any other issue that Congress has discussed, in my memory, and maybe in the history of the Republic. I want to make two points. The first point is that all of that testimony very clearly shows that, even in the years immediately prior to 2006, there were attempts at discrimination made, mainly by local governments, to attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. And, in fact, over 700 requests for pre-clearance were denied, I believe, in the 10-year period prior to the hearings being held. So there still are attempts being made to disenfranchise minority voters, and the Congress found that; and that legislative record should be enough to persuade the Court that those of us who are elected representatives of the people had ample evidence to make a considered judgment on this issue. The second point that needs to be made is that, right from the beginning of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, there was a procedure that would allow a covered jurisdiction to bail out of section 5 coverage, and that can be done by showing that there are no attempts to disenfranchise minority voters to the satisfaction of the Justice Department. A few jurisdictions have availed themselves of the bailout provision and have succeeded and thus are no longer under section 5. What the plaintiffs in the Shelby County case want to do is, rather than going and presenting evidence that they are not discriminating anymore and saying that they qualify for the bailout, they want to go to court to throw the whole of section 5 out. It is like dealing with this issue with a blunderbuss rather than with a rifle shot or a surgical strike. Now, if any of the plaintiffs in this case are clean, I believe that they ought to tell the Court why they're going to court, rather than using the provisions that have been in the law for close to 50 years to bail out, because they are clean. When I was in law school, I was always taught that when you wanted to get equity, you ought to come in with clean hands. Well, if you have clean hands, the bailout is made for you. And if you don't have clean hands, then the Supreme Court should tell you to go wash up. The Court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, should uphold section 5, as extensively considered by Congress and reauthorized, and rule in favor of the government.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rivera) in mourning the passing of Steve Vermillion. I gave Steve Vermillion one of his first jobs on Capitol Hill and taught him about the legislative process. He was a man of unquestioned ability, a man of deep integrity, and a man of great commitment to his principles and love of this country and the democracy that we have built and nurtured over the last 230-plus years. His service to other Members of Congress, as well as in the private sector, was marked by making a difference. No one who worked with Steve Vermillion or who was touched by his life came away a poorer person from it. He enriched all of our lives. He made a great contribution, and I join with the gentleman from Florida in expressing our sympathies to his wife, Jennifer, and to his two children on his passage. May his soul rest in peace.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, as I believe it serves as a critical step in correcting the glaring missteps of the Department of Energy's failed loan guarantee program. Through a lack of due diligence, and apparent political pressure, the Obama Administration risked tax dollars in companies whose failures should have been foreseeable. Congress must learn from these mistakes and ensure that future tax dollars are not wasted. I am greatly troubled that several of the initial recipients of the section 1705 loan guarantee program have declared bankruptcy. The most high profile of these was Solyndra, the California solar company that received $535 million in loan guarantees, but DOE also bet wrong by supporting Beacon Power, Ener 1, and Abound Solar. After Solyndra's failure, Congress investigated how DOE was awarding its money. We found that DOE ignored obvious deficiencies in these companies' business structures and rushed much of the decision making process in the name of political expedience. To put it bluntly, DOE attempted to pick winners and losers and it failed miserably. When news of this reckless use of tax dollars became public, my constituents were rightfully outraged. In a time of record debt, DOE's gambling with tax dollars on shaky companies is indefensible. The American people expect more from their government. However, in an apparent disregard for its history of failures, DOE is insisting that it will continue to consider loan guarantees, putting millions more tax dollars at risk. The No More Solyndras Act takes the necessary steps to protect the American taxpayer. By sunsetting DOE's loan guarantee authority, we are shielding taxpayers from future losses associated with these risky loans. Further, greater transparency and ensuring no subordination of tax dollars are important to providing taxpayer protection. While I would like for more aggressive legislation that would end the loan guarantee program altogether, I believe the No More Solyndras Act is needed to begin correcting the flaws of the DOE program.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, enacted in 2006, is landmark legislation intended to keep our communities--and most importantly our children--safe from sex offenders and other dangerous predators. This bipartisan bill strengthened sex offender registry requirements and enforcement, extended Federal registry requirements to Indian tribes, and authorized funding for several programs intended to address and deter child exploitation. The centerpiece of the Adam Walsh Act is the national Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA. SORNA's goal is to create a seamless national sex offender registry to assist law enforcement efforts to detect and track offenders. SORNA provides minimum standards for State sex offender registries and created the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website, which allows law enforcement officials and the general public to search for sex offenders nationwide from just one Web site. H.R. 3796, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012, reauthorizes two key programs from the original Adam Walsh Act--grants to the States and other jurisdictions to implement the Adam Walsh Act sex offender registry requirements, and funding for U.S. Marshals to locate and apprehend sex offenders who violate registration requirements. These programs are crucial to efforts to complete and enforce the national network of sex offender registries, particularly in light of the already-passed July 2011 deadline for the States to come into compliance with SORNA. H.R. 3796 reauthorizes both these programs at levels commensurate with their fiscal year 2012 appropriations. The bill also makes changes to the SORNA sex offender registry requirements in response to feedback from the States. The bill changes the period of time after which juveniles adjudicated delinquent can petition to be removed from the sex offender registry for a clean record from 25 years to 15 years, and provides that juveniles do not need to be included on a publicly viewed sex offender registry. Instead, it is sufficient for juveniles to be included on registries that are only viewed by law enforcement entities. The bill, as amended by the Judiciary Committee, also reauthorizes grants for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders. I believe these provisions strike an appropriate balance between being tough on juveniles who commit serious sex crimes but understanding that there can be differences between adult and juvenile offenders. The Adam Walsh Act has already been a public safety success. To date, the Justice Department has deemed 50 jurisdictions substantially compliant with the SORNA requirements, with two Indian tribes meeting this goal in just the 2 weeks since the Judiciary Committee considered H.R. 3796 at markup. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. We've heard a lot about taxes and the Supreme Court decision. I would like to talk about a tax that was labeled a ``tax'' in the Affordable Care Act when it was passed in 2010. The act amended Internal Revenue Code section 4980(d), and it imposed a tax of $100 per employee per day on any employer who did not follow any mandate of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There was no conscience exemption, and there was no religious employer exemption; $100 per employee per day is $36,500 per year. That means that a parochial school with 50 employees has to pay a tax of $1,825,000 each year. The only way to repeal this tax today is to pass this bill. If this bill is defeated and does not become law, we have put all religious employers out of business.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this isn't about politics. This is about the Constitution, and it's about Congress's mandate to do oversight over both the executive and judicial branches of government. The President is asserting executive privilege to attempt to shield these documents, and he is relying on a type of privilege called the deliberative process privilege. However, that privilege disappears when Congress is investigating evidence of wrongdoing. In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote, in part: Moreover, the privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred. In another case that was decided by the First Circuit in 1995, it says that the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve ``the public's interest in honest, effective government.'' There's been misconduct that's already a matter of public record in two instances. The Justice Department wrote Senator Grassley in January of 2011 saying that the ATF-sanctioned gunwalking across the border was false, and it took them 9 months to retract that letter. So they misled Congress, and then 9 months later they said, Oops, maybe we did mislead Congress and we'll withdraw the letter. And in May 2011, the Attorney General testified before the Judiciary Committee that he first heard of Operation Fast and Furious a few weeks before the hearing. Over 6 months later, he conceded that he should have said ``a few months.'' Now, this very clearly shows that Congress has got the obligation to get to the bottom of this and that the assertion of executive privilege by the President and the Attorney General is not based in law. We ought to go ahead and do our job and do our oversight. It's too bad that the Justice Department has decided to try to obstruct Congress' ability to do it. Pass the resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2012, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the thirty-three preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I introduced H.R. 4223, the SAFE DOSES Act, to address the problem of medical cargo theft across the United States. Medical cargo theft poses significant health risks to patients who have no reason to know that their medicines have been stolen and improperly cared for before being sold back into the legitimate supply chain. Stolen medical cargo can kill or injure those patients that need reliable, safe medicines. Sophisticated and enterprising criminal organizations are stealing large quantities of medical products and selling them via the wholesale market into legitimate pharmacies and hospitals. They are putting patient safety at risk because improperly cared-for medical products can be ineffective or harmful, and such damaged products are often impossible for health care professionals to identify. High-value pharmaceuticals, including treatments for serious diseases, are frequent targets. Unfortunately, these high-value items are the very type of sensitive products that need the most careful handling and temperature control. Many medical products can become ineffective if stored at the wrong temperature, even for a brief time. Yet, under current law, the theft of lifesaving medical supplies is treated the same as the theft of perfume or stereo equipment. The criminal organizations hijack tractor-trailers at truck stops, break into warehouses and evade alarm systems, forge shipping documents, produce high-quality counterfeit labels with altered expiration dates and lot numbers, and otherwise thwart the intense security measures used by the industry. Some employ sophisticated surveillance equipment and techniques in order to learn exactly when and where they can steal the particular shipments they want. For example, in March 2010, over $75 million of prescription drugs, including treatments for cancer, heart disease, and neurological disorders such as depression, ADHD, and schizophrenia, were stolen from a warehouse in Enfield, Connecticut. The burglary was one of the largest pharmaceutical heists in history. The criminals broke into the secure facility on the weekend by cutting a hole in the roof, then rappelling into the storage area. They disabled the alarm system and loaded dozens of crates onto a tractor-trailer. Experts have said that this heist shared many traits with warehouse thefts of pharmaceuticals last year in Richmond, Virginia; Memphis, Tennessee; and Olive Branch, Mississippi. Those thieves also cut through ceilings and sometimes used trapeze-style rigging to get inside and to disable the main and backup alarms. In some cases, they sprayed dark paint on the lenses of security cameras; in others, they removed disks from the security recording devices. This bill increases sentences for theft, transportation, and storage of medical product cargo; enhances penalties for the ``fences'' who knowingly obtain stolen medical products for resale into the supply chain; increases sentences when injury or death results from the ingestion of a stolen substance or when the defendant is employed by an organization in the supply chain; provides law enforcement with such tools as wiretaps; and provides restitution to victims injured by stolen medical products. The legislation is supported by the Coalition for Patient Safety and Medicine Integrity, a group of pharmaceutical, medical device, and medical products companies whose purpose is to protect patients from the risks posed by stolen and improperly handled medical products reentering the legitimate supply chain. Members of the Coalition include Abbott and Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and PhRMA. The bill is also supported by the Association of Community Cancer Centers, the Healthcare Distribution Management Association, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, and the National Fraternal Order of Police. The companion bill in the other body, Senate 1002, was reported by voice vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to give law enforcement agencies and prosecutors the additional tools they need to confront this growing problem.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. This important legislation brings together multiple domestic energy bills that seek to help jumpstart our economy, spur job creation, and reduce energy costs on families and small businesses. Given our slow economic recovery and high unemployment, we ought to do everything within our powers to ease the burdens facing Americans. Instead, this Administration continues to push policies that stifle job creation and increase uncertainty. The failed policies of the last three and a half years have only made a bad situation worse. Why would we continue to go down a path that makes it harder and harder for American companies to compete in a competitive global market? Energy costs are a major factor for companies when they are considering building a new facility or moving operations overseas. Let's make that decision easy for them and work to keep energy costs low so a U.S. presence is more attractive. Today, we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will help stimulate the economy, lower the costs on small businesses and put a few extra dollars in the pockets of hard working Americans. For too long, we have ignored the abundant resources here at home, leaving us at the mercy of OPEC and other unstable countries throughout the world. I found it amusing that earlier this year when gas prices rose to record levels, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, these are the same individuals who are vehemently opposed to opening up production of oil and gas here in the U.S., were encouraging OPEC to increase oil production output. Why would we encourage OPEC to increase production, while doing everything in our power to severely limit production here at home? Additionally, I am pleased that this legislation makes an attempt to reduce the abuse of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to score short term political points by tying the release of oil to opening up federal lands for oil and gas production. Also, this legislation takes important steps to streamline the permitting process for all energy sources, increase transparency and accountability on EPA regulations, and provide for greater lease certainty. It is important for everyone to understand that currently only three percent of federal land is leased for oil and gas development. Given the instability in the Middle East, we must make it a priority to explore and develop our own natural resources. This doesn't mean that this has to come at the expense of our environment. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has identified 351 energy projects that have been stalled by ``not in my backyard'' suits, regulatory red tape, and endless challenges from environmentalists. What many may not realize is that almost half of these projects were for renewable energy projects. So this is not just an obstacle the oil and gas industry is facing. I am confident that we can find a way to ensure the protection of our environment while developing energy resources here at home, and this legislation is a step forward to make that possible. It is time we put Americans back to work, and this legislation will go a long way to encourage economic growth, decrease our nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, and reduce the costs on hard working Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Sensenbrenner-Kind Amendment to the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment waives the time restrictions to award the Medal of Honor to Lieutenant Alonzo Cushing. This award is long overdue as Lt. Cushing heroically served his country during the Civil War. Lt. Cushing was born in Delafield, WI, which is located within my district, and raised in New York. He attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, and after graduating, was put in command of Battery A, 4th United States Artillery, Army of the Potomac for the Union Army. Lt. Cushing was praised for his valor and heroics throughout the Civil War, but it was his actions at the Battle of Gettysburg which have led to his consideration for our nation's highest award. Cushing's battery was at the focal point of the Confederate attack on July 3rd at the Battle of Gettysburg. The intense bombardment preceding the charge by General George Pickett's troops left Cushing wounded by shell fragments, many of his men also wounded, and with only two working guns. Rather than withdraw, Lt. Cushing continued to lead his unit before succumbing to a fatal gunshot wound. The Medal of Honor was not awarded posthumously during the Civil War, so Lt. Cushing was not considered. Years later, after the policy was changed to award the medal to the dead, Lt. Cushing's name simply did not come up. My office became aware of Lt. Cushing's heroic feat almost ten years ago, and I am pleased that while it has taken almost 150 years for Lt. Cushing to be honored for his actions, we are one step closer to making this happen. I urge my colleagues to support the Sensenbrenner-Kind Amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I can't believe what I am hearing on the other side of the aisle. I was the author of the last reauthorization of VAWA. It passed this House 415 4. Many of the Members who are complaining about the inadequacy of the present law weren't around to try to strengthen it, and they didn't attempt to propose amendments. Instead, they seemed to have fallen for the contagion that started on the other side of the Capitol by expanding the scope of the law in a very controversial manner and by making an issue of whether a non-Indian can be prosecuted in a tribal court, which brings up huge constitutional issues because the Bill of Rights does not apply in tribal courts. I don't think it is the authors of this bill, and particularly the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), who have anything to do with making this a partisan bill. It is the people on the other side of the aisle on both sides of the Capitol who have decided to use this as a political issue. And there was one Member of the other body that said the Republican Party has declared war on women. That's not the case. This bill increases authorizations. It makes it more effective, and it limits administrative expenses so that the money is spent on victims. It really is a victims' rights bill. If those who are up here complaining about this legislation and strongly opposing it cause its defeat, the first casualty of the war on women is going to be the most important bill that has protected women for the last 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act. Madam Speaker, if the people on the other side are successful, the blood of the defeat of this bill will be on your hands, not on ours.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regards to H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. Eliminating the threat of our massive national debt must be a top priority for this Congress. I am pleased that House Republicans have identified and put forward a sensible plan. This reconciliation bill will forestall the Budget Control Act's sequestration cuts to defense while, at the same time, offer alternative reductions in federal spending. This measure is a critical first step in getting our fiscal house in order and doing so in a responsible manner. In addition to the number of spending reforms that are included in H.R. 5652, there is an important reform that was proposed--meaningful medical liability reform. Specifically, H.R. 5, the Help Accessible, Efficient, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare, which seeks to ensure that the cost of frivolous litigation is not passed on to consumers in the form of higher health-care premiums by capping non-economic damages in medical liability lawsuits. While I am supportive of these efforts, I currently own shares in multiple corporations that may benefit from its enactment. While my participation in legislative consideration of H.R. 5652 would not appear to violate current House Rules and established precedent, as in all matters susceptible to subjective examination, there are no bright line rules to determine whether a Member should recuse himself or herself in legislation that may benefit that Member in a personal or financial manner. While this may be a gray area, I do not want to raise any potential ethical questions regarding my participation in this legislation. As a result, I have acted to dispel any appearance of conflict by recusing myself from legislative consideration of H.R. 5652 in the 112th Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to recuse myself from consideration of H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare, PATH, Act. I have long supported medical liability reform as a way to control rising health care costs and save taxpayer money. I also have deep concerns regarding the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board and the potential it has to restrict access to health care services. However, because of my holdings in at least two corporations that would benefit directly if H.R. 5 is enacted into law, I have concerns that my involvement could present a conflict with my private economic affairs. While my participation in legislative consideration of H.R. 5 would not appear to violate current House Rules and established precedent, I want to dispel any appearance of conflict. I therefore recuse myself from consideration of this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the beginning that I deeply appreciate my cosponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). This is a Sensenbrenner-Waters bill. You will never see another Sensenbrenner-Waters bill, and that is probably one of the best reasons to vote in favor of it. Yet, on the merits, I am pleased that the House of Representatives today is considering H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This legislation will prevent economic development from being used as a justification for exercising the power of eminent domain. I first introduced a version of this bill after the 2005 Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. In this decision, the Court held 5 4 that ``economic development'' can be a ``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, justifying the government's taking of private property and giving it to a private business for use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base. As a result of this ruling, the Federal Government's power of eminent domain has become almost limitless, providing citizens with few means to protect their property. Under the decision, farmers in my State of Wisconsin are particularly vulnerable. The fair market value of farmland is less than that of residential or commercial property, which means it doesn't generate as much property tax as homes or offices. Uncle Sam can condemn one family's house only because another private entity would pay more in tax revenue. This bill is needed to restore to all Americans the property rights the Supreme Court took away. Although several States have independently passed legislation to limit their power of eminent domain and even though the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio have barred the practice under their State constitutions, these laws exist on a varying degree. The Private Property Rights Protection Act will provide American citizens in every State of this country with the means to protect their private property from exceedingly unsubstantiated claims of eminent domain. Under the legislation, if a State or a political subdivision of a State uses its eminent domain power to transfer private property to other private parties for economic development, the State is ineligible to receive Federal economic development funds for 2 fiscal years following a judicial determination that the law has been violated. Additionally, the bill prohibits the Federal Government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. The protection of property rights is one of the most important tenets of our government. I am mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses, particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority neighborhoods, and of the need to stop it. I am also mindful of the reasons we should allow the government to take land when the way in which the land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. This bill accomplishes both of those goals. The need to ensure that property rights are returned to all Americans is as strong now as it was when Kelo was decided. Congress must play a pivotal role in reforming the use and abuse of eminent domain. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting property rights for all Americans and in limiting the dangerous effects of the Kelo decision on the most vulnerable in society.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just heard from my friend from Missouri. Doing away with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is not a Jim Crow law. And I'll put my record alongside his on ensuring voting rights to minorities as the author of the latest extension of the Voting Rights Act and one who got the 1982 compromise passed and signed into law by President Reagan. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund was destroyed 3 years ago by President and then-Candidate Barack Obama. He refused to be bound by its restrictions. Senator John McCain was. And he was put at a significant disadvantage in the general election campaign by running against Candidate Obama, who rejected the Election Campaign Fund's funds and raised huge and unlimited amounts of money.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have a limited amount of time. If I have time left, I will be happy to yield. This year, so as not to disadvantage themselves, none--that means none--of the Republican primary candidates have signed up for Presidential Election Campaign Fund money. The Obama moneymaking machine is running all around the country. We see this in the newspapers. We hear it on television. And because the campaign fund would limit the amount of money that whoever the Republican nominee, if they took these funds, could use in order to spread his message on why Obama ought to be replaced by the voters, we ought to just get rid of this fund altogether. It was destroyed 3 years ago by then-Candidate Obama. We might as well not spend any more taxpayers' funds on it. May it rest in peace.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 2, which proposes a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It's time to tighten the nation's purse strings and keep Washington from spending more than we can afford. For too long Congress and the President, on a bipartisan basis, have let down the American people in our unwillingness and inability to be responsible with our nation's finances. We have spent too much, borrowed too much, and have failed to face the fact that we can no longer continue to spend money that we do not have. A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution would legally force our government to live within its means. It's interesting to see that while many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including our President, have argued that a constitutional amendment is not necessary, 49 states currently abide by some form of a balanced budget requirement. President Obama urged opposition to this legislation, clearly showing how out of touch he is. He just doesn't seem to get it. Americans overwhelmingly support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution because their government has proven that it is unable to be responsible with their money. The arguments against a Balanced Budget Amendment appear to rest on the concerns that this will finally stop out-of- control spending; meaning Congress will no longer be able to spend at will on programs that may be nice to have, but are unnecessary or unaffordable. The measure on the floor today is a good compromise between those who wanted a stronger Balanced Budget Amendment, and those who felt such proposals went too far. While I would have preferred the version that placed greater restriction on Congress's ability to tax and spend, I am pleased to support his legislation. It is simply unfair to continue to pass our financial burdens along to our children and grandchildren. Given Congress's history of not being responsible with the American people's hard earned money, it is time we put in place these limitations on spending. A Balanced Budget Amendment would finally force us to make tough decisions about how we spend our money. This is not a silver bullet; however, it is an important step in controlling spending and restoring confidence among the American people. I strongly support passage of this important legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is on a path to destroy jobs, and increase costs on every American household. It is puzzling to see the EPA attempt to regulate coal combustion residuals, CCRs, as a hazardous waste, when the EPA, the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Electric Power Research Institute, state agencies, members of academia, and many others who have studied CCRs for nearly three decades concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste. Under the Clinton Administration, the EPA determined that coal ash rarely, if ever, exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. They ultimately concluded that states can safely manage coal ash under federal non-hazardous rules. Additionally, the EPA stated in its 2000 regulatory determination that regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste would be environmentally counterproductive because it would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and impede its beneficial use for reducing greenhouse gases. If the EPA under the Clinton Administration concluded that moving forward with regulating CCRs as a hazardous waste would increase greenhouse gas emissions, then why are so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supportive of the current Administration's actions? If I recall, we spent a good amount of time debating legislation in 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In my home state of Wisconsin, this rule will have a significant impact on many different sectors. The concrete paving industry in Wisconsin uses coal ash on almost 100 percent of its projects. The use of coal ash enhances the performance and durability of concrete, which ultimately increases its lifespan. Additionally, given Wisconsin's cold winters, the use of coal ash in its concrete is even more important due to the reduction of the permeability of the concrete by 50-75 percent, allowing the concrete to better resist the freeze-thaw environment. This regulation will also significantly affect the electric utility industry. Instead of recycling the coal ash produced as a byproduct from coal-fired power plants, the industry will be forced to dispose of the ash in landfills, costing billions. This could potentially lead to the closing of a number of coal plants, creating serious reliability and cost concerns. Additionally, the increased costs to the utility sector will ultimately be passed along to the American consumer. The legislation before us is a commonsense approach to addressing coal ash. States are best able to determine the approach to regulating CCRs. While this legislation will set a federal baseline standard, states will be allowed to exceed these standards if they so choose. Additionally, this legislation assesses the structural integrity of land disposal sites, addressing the concerns that some may have with preventing another spill like that which occurred in 2008. I strongly support passage of H.R. 2273, and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been advanced by the speakers on the other side--my friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). None of them address the question before the House. The question before the House is whether or not to consider this bill. It's not about jobs-- although they're important. It's not about the merits of the bill-- which we will debate later should the House vote to consider this bill. It's about whether there are unfunded mandates in the bill. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) read the CBO statement of February 28, 2011: ``H.R. 358 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.'' That's what the CBO said, and that has not been rebutted either by the proposer of the point of order, my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), or those who have spoken on behalf of this. Now, if we're to follow the rules and say, okay, if there's an unfunded mandate, we ought to waive it--which the resolution does--then we've all got to vote ``yes'' on consideration, because there are no unfunded mandates and nobody has claimed that there are any unfunded mandates. That's why the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is correct in saying that the point of order is dilatory. If you want to debate the bill, let's debate the bill. If you want to object to consideration of the bill, then all you want to do, those who decide to vote ``no'' on this motion to consider ought to have a debate on whether there should be public funding of abortion. Now, when the taxpayers are asked to fund abortions, that's a whole different issue than whether there should be a right to abortion. This question is whether there should be taxpayer funding of abortion. There are no unfunded mandates. And the honest vote is ``yes'' on the motion to consider.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and the bill. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that a right to an abortion was a constitutional right, but they did not decide that there was a constitutional right to have the taxpayers pay for it. The Hyde amendment has been passed every year since 1976 with my support and with the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority. However, when the President's health care bill was rammed through this House in March of last year, the Hyde amendment didn't apply. So, if you try to get a Medicaid abortion, the Hyde amendment applies, and the taxpayers don't finance it; but if you try to get an abortion under the Obama plan or under the exchanges that have been set up under the Obama plan, then there will be taxpayer money that will be used to pay for it. This bill closes that loophole. It is in response to the overwhelming sentiment of the American public, including the sentiment of many of those who do support legalized abortion. Secondly, this bill also reaffirms Federal and State conscience protection laws. The Supreme Court, when it decided Roe v. Wade, did not force people to choose between their faiths and their jobs if they had religious objections to abortion. This protection is not afforded in the Obama health care bill. This legislation closes that loophole. We've heard a lot about jobs from people on the other side of the aisle that don't want to talk about the fact that this legislation shuts the door to the two loopholes that I have just described. Maybe there will be more unemployment if someone who has a license to practice medicine or is in the healthcare profession is told that they have to violate the tenets of their religion in order to keep their job. Now, we have a choice. We have a choice of freedom and liberty by closing the loopholes and passing the bill or not. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, and H.R. 2250, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Relief Act, which are common-sense bills that will reduce uncertainty in the marketplace, and allow businesses to compete and grow. We can no longer continue with the failed economic policies of the past couple of years. As was seen with the nearly $1 trillion failed stimulus program from last year, throwing money at our economic problem does not create jobs. Instead, we need to tackle the heart of the issue and create an environment that attracts new businesses and allows them to successfully compete in our global economy. Industries across all sectors have been reluctant to expand, in large part due to the uncertainty over the slew of heavy-handed government regulations. I believe reducing and eliminating these costly regulations will stimulate confidence and allow small businesses to grow and be successful. Today and tomorrow, Members will have an opportunity to vote on legislation to delay two of these job-killing regulations and give industry officials more time to come into compliance. H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250 are two important bills that will give the EPA 15 months to re-propose and finalize regulations on boilers, process heaters, incinerators, and cement manufacturing facilities. Additionally, these bills instruct the EPA to establish new rules that are actually achievable, and are in the least burdensome regulatory standard. The Cement MACT and Boiler MACT rules are two examples of over- regulation by the government that are estimated to cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Boiler MACT regulations are estimated to affect approximately 200,000 boilers, and have a compliance cost of approximately $14.4 billion, threatening 200,000 jobs. Even the EPA has admitted that more time was needed to consider this rule, given the outpouring of concerns they received from industry officials. The impact of the Boiler MACT regulations will be felt across a wide range of industry sectors including agriculture, chemical, biomass power, forest and paper, refining and municipal utilities. I believe we need to give the EPA more time to reconsider this rule, and we must also give those affected by it a reasonable amount of time to comply. Additionally, the Cement MACT regulations are another set of rules that will have major implications on jobs. According to the Portland Cement Association (PCA), the likely cost of compliance for the cement industry is estimated at $3.4 billion, nearly half of the industry's annual revenues. It will cost an additional $2 billion to comply with incinerator requirements. The PCA estimates that almost 20 percent of the domestic industry will potentially shutdown due to these regulations. In addition to the jobs lost by the plant closures, the effect of rising cement prices on our already struggling construction industry is cause for serious concern. I am mindful of the fact that we must do our part to preserve our environment for future generations, which includes reasonable environmental regulations. However, it is troubling to see the EPA's total disregard for our current economic situation, and its push for unrealistic and unattainable goals that are stifling economic growth. Just last month, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress demanding that Congress pass legislation to restore confidence in our economy and create jobs. I am pleased that House Republicans have once again brought to the floor legislation that does just that. I strongly support passage of H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250, and urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.