To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide clarification relating to the authority of the United States Postal Service to accept donations as an additional source of funding for commemorative plaques.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution addresses an issue of great importance to current and future Members of this august body: the proper conduct of its Members.

Despite statements made by various leaders of the other party, this is not about partisan politics or inappropriate comments. To the contrary, this is about the rules of this House and reprehensible conduct.

I stand here as a former schoolteacher and the proud father of a current public schoolteacher who teaches in the congressional district represented by Congressman Wilson. My grandchildren attend schools in that district.

But, Mr. Speaker, this Hall is the most prominent classroom in this great country, and all of us are teachers. We are bound by duty and the offices we hold to conduct ourselves as such. Classroom teachers and schoolchildren across the country and around the world looking in on our proceedings should see proper decorum and hear civil discourse. Our teachers are expected to teach our children to learn proper behavior. All of us are expected to give appropriate support and deference to the institutions that help us develop and maintain a civil and orderly society.

Our three separate branches of government have defined roles to play in this process, and those of us who hold positions within these branches are expected and are duty bound to treat each other with proper dignity and respect. Whether we like it or not, teachers and students see us as role models.

But none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes, and we sometimes fall short of expectations. But when we do, proper contrition is expected. When one of us, while seated in a formal session, severely violates the rules of this body by shamelessly hurling accusations of mendacity towards a President of these United States, our Commander in Chief, and refuses to formally express remorse, we, at a minimum, are duty bound to express our disapproval. Our teachers, our students, and constituents deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all say to my friend, the leader, that before coming to this Congress I spent 18 years running a State agency in South Carolina. In those 18 years, I worked for four Governors--two Democrats and two Republicans. Many of you remember that one of

those Republicans for whom I worked for 8 years was Carroll Campbell, a former Member of this body. We were good friends. We often consulted with each other in the evenings, but we always respected each other even though we were poles apart politically.

This is not a partisan stunt. I do not participate in partisan stunts, and I think every Member here knows that. This is about the proper decorum that should take place on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

And I would like to say to the leader, and I think he knows, that he has not represented the facts correctly. On October 23, 2007, a Member of this body, Representative Stark, came to this floor and apologized for behavior, as I read, ``I want to apologize to first of all my colleagues, many of whom have been offended,'' and then he went on to say to the President, to his family, to the troops. That took place on this floor in 2007 on October 23.

Then I would remind the leader on July 23, which incidentally happens to be Carroll Campbell's birthday, on July 23, Chairman Thomas came to this floor and he offered an apology: ``Because of my poor judgment, the stewardship of my party as majority party in the House has been unfairly criticized,'' and he went on to apologize.

And so all we have ever asked is that this body, this House, receive from Mr. Wilson a similar statement of contrition. It is all about the decorum of this House.

And I will reiterate, I have never stood on the floor of this House in my 17 years and participated in any kind of partisan stunt, and I think the other side knows that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close this discussion today using the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leader earlier referenced the great preacher whose reference can be found in the third chapter of the Book of Ecclesiastes. He said there's a time and a place for everything. I agree with that. I believe very seriously that there is going to be a time for us to discuss health care, a time for us to discuss energy policies, education, and the economy. But Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House provide the vehicle by which we carry out those discussions. If the rules are not honored, if the rules of this House are not there to maintain order, we can never get to these discussions and do so in a way that would make the people of our great country proud.

The gentlelady from Michigan indicated that this is a teachable moment. Yes, it is. This is a time for us to teach--not just by precept, but by example--that which we say to our children, that which we say to our constituents, that there are certain things that you do and certain things that you don't do. And when you do those things that you don't do, the proper thing to do is to show proper contrition, not the way that you may think is proper, but the accepted form of contrition. And the accepted form of contrition when the rules of this body are violated is to come to this floor and to request the apology of these Members. And until that is done, Mr. Speaker, proper contrition has not been made.

My father used to teach me all the time, Son, he would say, The first sign of a good education is good manners. I took that to heart. And I would hope that this body today would demonstrate to all of those schoolchildren who are looking in on these proceedings that we are here to demonstrate what is proper decorum for you to follow in your classrooms. We must here today support our teachers and help them educate our children.

Silence gives consent. We cannot be silent in this matter, because we do not consent to the conduct of Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, none of us, none of us is happy to be here considering this resolution. I know I am not.

At the same time, my colleagues, what is at issue here is of importance to this House and to our country, and that issue is whether we are able to proceed with a degree of civility and decorum that our rules and our democracy contemplate and require.

The House Code of Official Conduct requires that each Member, every one of us, each and every one of us ``conduct himself,'' and I'm quoting from the rule, ``at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.''

There seems to be little or no disagreement that Mr. Wilson did not so conduct himself on the evening of September 9. Senator John McCain was quoted as saying that Mr. Wilson's behavior was ``totally disrespectful.'' He went on to say, ``There is no place for it in that setting, or any other, and he should apologize for it immediately.''

Mr. Wilson did, in fact, apologize to the President through Mr. Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff.

However, it was the House itself whose rules were offended. And as Mr. Inglis, Mr. Wilson's colleague, a Republican colleague from South Carolina, observed, and again I quote, ``He should apologize to the House,'' to the House, ``for the rule violation.'' Mr. Inglis went on to add, ``That would end the matter.''

I had made a similar representation to the Republican leader, and I believe that would have ended the matter. I know that is what the Republican leaders of the House thought would be appropriate and what the Republican leader talked to Mr. Wilson about doing. He said so to the press.

Indeed, last Thursday, based upon what a Republican leader told me, not Mr. Boehner, that morning, it was what I expected Mr. Wilson to do. As a result, I held open the time between the next-to-the-last vote and the very last vote to give Mr. Wilson an opportunity to express an apology to the House. As all of us know, many Members have done that in the past, reflecting upon conduct they thought was not appropriate; and as a result, they came to this floor. That has happened on both sides of the aisle where Members have done things that they thought brought discredit to the House and they came to this floor, to that rostrum and to this, to say, I apologize. Mr. Inglis is correct: that would have ended the matter.

However, for whatever reason, Mr. Wilson has decided not to take any further action. In light of that, this resolution simply states the House's disapproval of Mr. Wilson's words and actions.

As Republican Whip Cantor is quoted as saying, ``Obviously the President of the United States is always welcome on Capitol Hill and he deserves respect and decorum.'' Surely all of us believe that's correct. Surely all of us, hopefully all of us, believe that when we invite a President of either party to come to this House and address a joint session of Congress that he ought to expect and we ought to expect that we will accord to him the decorum and courtesy of which Mr. Cantor spoke.

The Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, added, ``I think we ought to treat the President with respect, and anything other than that is not appropriate.'' That's what this resolution is about. It's a resolution of disapproval.

This resolution is not about the substance of an issue, but about the conduct we expect of one another in the course of doing our business. Senator John Cornyn, the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, stated this: ``There's a time and a place for everything, and that was not the time or the place for that kind of comment.''

In the absence of Mr. Wilson's expressing his regret for acting in a manner that almost all agree, every Republican that I have talked to as well as every Democrat that I have talked to, was inappropriate and contrary to the spirit of the rules of the House and the common courtesy that we should extend to all, and particularly to the President of the United States of America, our President, we have brought forward this resolution. I expected to extend that same courtesy with every President with whom I have served, be they Republican or Democrat.

We consider this resolution as a result of Mr. Wilson's failure to follow the advice of his leadership and a number of his Republican and Democratic colleagues who have told me that they have talked to him.

I want to say personally that I know Mr. Wilson. We've had a good relationship. I expect to continue to have a good relationship. I found him a man of measured conduct. I was surprised. I think he was probably surprised as well. A simple apology to this House would have ended the matter.

But this House ought not to stand silent in the face of conduct that almost universally, and by Mr. Wilson himself, was felt to be inappropriate. It is an expression of the people's House that neither Presidents nor any of us ought to expect to be subjected to such conduct in the course of our business in this, the people's House.

The resolution says simply what hopefully all of us feel, that we disapprove of the conduct cited and let others know that such conduct is neither welcome nor approved by the House of Representatives.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), and I ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of that time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

I think this is a sad day for the House of Representatives. I think that this is nothing more than a partisan stunt aimed at trying to divert people's attention from the real issue that the American people want to talk about, and that is health care.

The gentleman from South Carolina made it clear the other night when he told the President's Chief of Staff that his behavior was inappropriate, and that is why he was calling to apologize to the President. The President graciously accepted his apology.

And last Friday, none other than the Speaker of the House, herself, said it is time for us to talk about health care and not Mr. Wilson. Now, the Speaker and I don't see eye to eye on every issue, but on this issue I think I am in full agreement with her.

Joe Wilson is a decent human being. He did the right thing. He called the President and apologized, and the President was gracious enough to accept it. And I just believe that a man who has spent 25 years of his life in public service in the State senate and here in Congress, who has four sons, all of whom were in the military, three of whom served in Iraq, we all know Joe Wilson. He is a decent man, and to put him through this on the floor of the House I think is unacceptable and it is a partisan stunt.

There has been behavior that has gone on around here far more serious than this, and it didn't bring a resolution to the floor to condemn someone's behavior.

Yes, people have made mistakes. Some have come down to the floor and apologized, others have not. But none of it, none of it required a resolution. And to think that the precedent that is being set here today, the precedent, think about it, never has this happened before, that we are going to bring a resolution of disapproving of his behavior. My goodness, we could be doing this every day of the week.

The American people sent us here to work together to solve the problems of our country. They didn't send us here to talk about our behavior. They didn't send us here to do that. What they want us to do is to deal with the issue of health care.

The President said we ought to work in a bipartisan fashion to get health care reform accomplished. I agree with the President. I'm here. I'm willing. I'm able. Set the time and the place, and we will be there with our solutions to the health care problems in the country.

But to divert the Nation's attention from the issues they care about, health care, trying to make sure that we get jobs back into our economy, trying to do something about record deficits and record debt, no, no, no, we are not doing any of that. We are here on some witch hunt, some partisan stunt that the American people are not going to respect.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the Republican whip, Mr. Cantor.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, over the month of August, when Members were home in their districts, the American people were speaking loudly, and both Democrats and Republicans heard the message, I think, loud and clear. But as we stand here today, I would think the American people are probably looking at us wondering, do they really understand?

The American people are saying enough is enough; enough of the politics here in Washington, enough of the spending, enough of the big government takeover. And yet, here we are on the floor of the House today debating a resolution that should not be here, putting a man's name in the record books of disapproving of his behavior.

The gentleman from South Carolina admitted that he had made a mistake; he called the President and apologized. And yet, here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives debating a resolution describing his behavior. I think it's wrong. And I think we will rue the day that we set this precedent and brought this resolution to the floor.

I would just ask all my colleagues to remember what it is that we're doing here and the precedent that's being set. It's wrong. So I would ask all my colleagues to do the right thing, to stand up and to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Let's all respect our colleague who admitted his mistake and apologized. Let's all respect him. And the way that we do that is to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3137) to amend title 39, United States Code, to provide clarification relating to the authority of the United States Postal Service to accept donations as an additional source of funding for commemorative plaques.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

As chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to present H.R. 3137 for consideration. This legislation will clarify the authority of the United States Postal Service over the receipt of monetary donations for post office commemorative plaques. I want to commend my ranking member, Congressman Issa, who really, really brought this idea forth. I think that it goes into what we are doing. We are trying to reserve, we are trying to save money, and I think this legislation is a very creative way of being able to do that.

Congress routinely passes legislation to designate post offices throughout the country and honor deserving individuals, and I think that is a great idea.

Under current practice, the United States Postal Service subsequently purchases dedicatory plaques, at its own expense, out of the agency's operating budget. I think this is something that we will be able to eliminate and save money. I think that is one way to do that.

H.R. 3137 simply seeks to reduce and to eliminate the financial burden imposed on the United States Postal Service with regard to the purchase of commemorative plaques by clarifying current law in this area. Specifically, the legislation would amend the United States Code to make clear that the postal service may accept monetary donations offered for the funding of postal facility commemorative plaques.

In addition, H.R. 3137 provides that monetary donors may specify the postal facility at which their donations will be used. Moreover, when the amount of a donation exceeds the cost of a specified facility's commemorative plaque, H.R. 3137 would also allow, with a donor's consent, for the use of the excess donations towards the purchase of a plaque needed for another postal facility.

I think that is a great idea. I think it's a very creative way to be able to sort of save money and, at the same time, not to have to cut back on doing what we know is right based on the fact that they do not have the funding.

On that note, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the financial condition of the United States Postal Service is dismal, at best, and the agency is faced with a continually

declining mail volume. Accordingly, we should all welcome cost-saving efforts such as those provided in H.R. 3137, that is not a detriment to hardworking postal employees, but rather will only serve to alleviate the financial burden of the Postal Service.

We all name post offices from time to time. I know I named one after Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to serve in the United States Congress. I thought it was a great thing. But, let's face it, it cost the Postal Service money in order to be able to get the plaque, to get it designed, and to be able to put together an event because, after all, that was an important event for the first black woman who served in the United States Congress.

So these are things that cost money that the Postal Service has to put up the money for. And I want to congratulate Mr. Issa for introducing this legislation because I really think that you might look at it as not a giant step or big or tremendous saving, but I see it today that every little bit helps. And this, I feel, is really helping.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, but I would like to just close by encouraging and urging all of the Members of this House to support this legislation. I think this is legislation that truly makes a lot of sense, and it sort of does the things that we need to do to sort of tighten our belts and work together to be able to bring about solutions to solve problems.

I think this legislation is legislation that points us in the right direction, and maybe as result of this we can find other ways to be able to bring about savings for the Postal Service.

I yield back the balance of my time and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding how it is that we are on the floor today debating this resolution. I would like to first speak to the claims made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the majority whip, in pointing out what are alleged to be precedents for this resolution.

As he knows, those instances that he referred to, whether it be the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) when they came to the well of this body to speak to our colleagues, it was as a result of conduct displayed, number one, in the case of Mr. Stark, during debate on the floor of this House, and number two, on the part of Mr. Thomas, conduct that took place among members in a committee on which I sit, the Ways and Means, two very distinct situations from the one we have here at hand.

Again, I don't understand how it is a priority that we are here on this particular resolution. The resolution, as has been pointed out, creates no job. The resolution does nothing to do anything to increase access to quality health care. The resolution does nothing to address the issues of national security. Plain and simple, this resolution does not reflect the priority of the American people.

Now, President Obama came to this Chamber last week and he admonished us, Mr. Speaker. He admonished us to stop with the partisan bickering. In fact, he echoed the sentiments that he expressed during his inaugural address when he said, ``We may still be a young Nation, but it is time to set aside childish things.''

Now, as the leader said, as the gentleman from South Carolina himself said, he admits that what he did was inappropriate. He was on national television indicating he shouldn't have done it. He wouldn't do it again. He also said to the Nation, he called the President. As the leader indicated, the President graciously accepted the apology. I am told the Vice President has also accepted the apology. What more does the gentleman want? That's why I am at a loss as to what this is if it is not a partisan stunt.

So I believe we ought to accept what the President and the Speaker and others have said: Let's get on with the business of the people. Let's try and get over the divide and stick to the course of trying to work on things we agree on, or things that we have a potential to do away with the disagreements, not the partisanship.

Now, this is the bill. This is the famed H.R. 3200, Mr. Speaker, and there are several issues in here the American people have spoken out on. The first is the claim that we ought to be able to keep what we have if we are talking about health insurance. On page 16 of the bill, there is a section entitled, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.'' That's what we all are trying to do for the 85 or some percent of this country who has health insurance.

You know what, our side says despite that title, there are provisions in there which begin to require individuals and their insurers to do certain things which make it somewhat difficult if not impossible to allow for folks to keep what they have.

The next issue that is of import certainly to the American people and to this body is the question of access to Federal benefits by those who are here illegally.

Now, the President stood on this floor in this body, Mr. Speaker, and said that he did not believe that there was any access for those here illegally to Federal benefits. In fact, on page 143, there is a section which speaks to the issue that there should be no Federal benefit for those here illegally.

The problem that we have on this side is there is no requirement of verification of legal status. And in fact the White House, in fact Senator Baucus and others have since come out and said, You know what, you're right. These are the kinds of things we could be doing right now to try and accomplish what it is that the American people have sent us here to do, and they expect us to do that in a deliberate manner that produces a positive result, which means we all have got to do that living within our means and to ensure that we do not break the bank in passing this health care reform measure.

So I implore this House, Mr. Speaker, let's try and get back to the business of the people.