Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6336) to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept a statue depicting Frederick Douglass from the District of Columbia and to provide for the permanent display of the statue in Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6336, a bill that I had the privilege to introduce with my esteemed colleague, the representative from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This bill appropriately places a statue of Frederick Douglass into Emancipation Hall in the U.S. Congress.

Frederick Douglass is a pivotal figure in American history who had an unyielding dedication to equal rights,

the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of women's suffrage. In addition to a gripping personal saga detailing his flight from slavery to freedom, Frederick Douglass inspired a nation through both his compelling antislavery writings and his rhetoric.

Published in 1845, his eloquent autobiography ``Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave'' undercut pro-slavery arguments. He challenged enslavement, and he inspired individuals seeking their freedom.

After the Civil War, he served in a number of government positions and became the first African American to receive a vote for nomination as President of the United States at the 1888 Republican National Convention--yes, I would repeat, the Republican National Convention. He was a proud Republican.

Mr. Speaker, September 22 marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln signing the preliminary proclamation that paved the way for the Emancipation Proclamation to be signed on January 1, 1863. How fitting that a statue honoring Frederick Douglass, a man who brought freedom to so many, will be on display in Emancipation Hall.

In considering the remarkable achievements of Frederick Douglass and his contributions to our rich history, his presence within the U.S. Capitol will honor this institution and serve as an endearing testimony to the struggle for freedom and equality.

I would like to thank again my colleague, the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I know she, unfortunately, couldn't be here today because I know she has a requirement to teach a class; otherwise, she would be here. But I wanted to thank her for her tireless work to bring this statue to the Capitol, as well as our counterparts in the Senate, the Senate Rules Committee. As many know, Senator Schumer introduced the companion legislation in the Senate. I thank my ranking member for his support in this effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I look forward to welcoming the statue of Frederick Douglass to Emancipation Hall very soon.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

One of the great things about Frederick Douglass is that he inspired a nation not only by the example of his lifetime in releasing the bonds of slavery and becoming a free man, but he was self-educated. He was a great orator, a great writer, a great inspiration to this country.

There's not too many people that you can talk about that actually can take credit, tremendous credit, for the passage of three amendments to the U.S. Constitution--13th, 14th, and 15th. There's not many people who were on the right side of history in such a tremendous way, someone who not only worked to encourage African Americans to fight in the Civil War on the side of freedom, but also later on to work to ensure that the message of freedom that was the promise of both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was embodied specifically in the Constitution by these amendments.

He was a powerful man who was very proud of his history and proud of his place in history in terms of leading a political movement and showing that African Americans were not just freed slaves that somehow got their freedom at the suffrage of the other members of society, but that they fought for it, they struggled for it, and they had both physical courage and intellectual power that inspired the Nation to recognize the fact that we had fallen so far short of the promise of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I'm afraid that too many young people today don't know the story of Frederick Douglass. In a small way, this may help to rekindle the interest in Frederick Douglass so that when the young people come here to this Capitol, as they often do, and they look at the statues and they ask who is that and what did he do or what did she do, people can now look proudly to the statue of Frederick Douglass and explain what it is he did and why his powerful legacy is still an inspiration to all of us today.

So I would hope that our Members would unanimously support this legislation and that we would soon see Frederick Douglass return to the United States Capitol in this way.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 739) to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the Senate at no net cost to the Federal Government, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1402) to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives at no net cost to the Federal Government, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the bill at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3510) to prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military officers and civilian employees to whom internet publication of certain information applies, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Camellia Symphony Orchestra of Sacramento, California.

The Camellia Symphony Orchestra is one of Sacramento's prized assets and has deep roots in the region.

Today's Orchestra traces its beginnings back to a small group of local musicians who began informally gathering together and playing music, simply for the fun of it. This group began performing at Encina High School, originally naming themselves the ``Pot Luck Symphony.''

On September 1, 1962, the group formally organized eventually adopting the name the North Area Community Symphony. Ever since that September evening, the Orchestra has continued to grow, educate and entertain people in the Sacramento area.

By 1970 the Orchestra changed its name to the Camellia Symphony and became a regular participant of Camellia Day events held annually by the City of Sacramento. As the Orchestra has grown, it continues to earn national praise while also showcasing the talent of Sacramentans across the country. In 1979 the Camellia Symphony won its first of many future ASCAP awards, and in 1986 won the prestigious ``INDIE'' award for best classical release.

As the years have progressed, the Camellia Symphony Orchestra has developed and produced innovative, historical and exciting performances, earning a reputation as one of the finest orchestras in the region. While earning this reputation of excellence, the Orchestra has continued to give back to the Sacramento community, providing opportunities for local musicians to display their musical ability. The Orchestra's commitment to community is seen through its ongoing collaboration with a variety of Sacramento events and organizations, such as Camerata California, the Strauss Festival, St. John's Lutheran Church and many others in the region.

On behalf of all those in the Sacramento area who appreciate what the Camellia Symphony Orchestra means to our community, I would like to congratulate them on their 50th anniversary and wish them many more years of success and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 135) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, in recognition of her leadership and perseverance in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 133) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal to Arnold Palmer, in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, has outlined in much detail how the current law--some call it ObamaCare, and some call it the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--does not do what it claims to. In fact, it does not protect the patient, and it does not provide affordable care.

He also pointed out that, when this bill was argued on this floor and in the other body, it was denied time and time again that it was a tax. We recall the President of the United States on several public occasions denied it was a tax. Yet he had his administration argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of constitutionality that it was a tax.

The American people view the Federal Government as an entity. What have they seen with respect to this as it went from the executive branch to the legislative branch to the judiciary branch? They find that they were played. They find that what they were told at one point was not that which it was at the other point.

If you look at the Supreme Court's decision, they had to first consider whether this was a tax under what's known as the Anti- Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act essentially says you can't contest a tax until it has been visited upon you. The question was, since the individual mandate, conceived as a tax, doesn't come into effect for some time, how could it be before the Court? The Court said, for purposes of standing, it is not a tax. Then they went and analyzed the individual mandate and said, Is it constitutional under the Commerce Clause? No. Is it constitutional under the necessary and proper clause, or the Spending Clause? No. But then they said, We will interpret this mandate, this penalty, as a tax for purposes of constitutionality as argued by the administration, which had denied it when it was arguing that case here in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

Is it any wonder people are cynical about this? Is it any wonder that people begin to lose their confidence in a government that will not present facts consistently to them? I will not say there were any intentional lies made, but I will say that the American people have to question if they have confidence in their government when they say one thing at one time and say another thing at another. In fact, now by virtue of the Supreme Court decision, this is the largest single tax on the middle class of America in history. That's what we're talking about.

Can we do better? We believe we can. We believe that you can provide affordable health care for the American people without the largest single middle class tax in the history of the Nation, which puts the Federal Government in the position of being between the patient and the doctor. It is the antithesis of patient-centered health care.

That's why we're here. We're not here because we believe the present system is perfect. We think it is broken. The status quo is not acceptable. But we believe that this bill, ObamaCare, that is before this Congress right now is unacceptable to the American people because it exacerbates the problems that we find in our health care delivery system. That's why we're here.

The fact of the matter that we've voted several times to repeal it and have yet to be successful is no reason for us to give up. We are standing here for the American people against the largest middle class tax increase in the history of the United States, and we will not stop until we are ultimately successful.

Mr. Speaker, we've just had a very important vote and some would ask what this second vote is about.

This second vote is a simple authorization for the committee involved to be able to essentially hire counsel that would allow us to go into court to seek a declaratory judgment by the Federal court to enforce the subpoenas that have been presented by this committee to the Attorney General of the United States. It's a simple, straightforward resolution.

Why is it important? One of our obligations under the Constitution is to provide oversight of the executive branch. There are those in this body who have been here and engaged in debate with respect to important items such as the PATRIOT Act and FISA. One of the things that we've attempted to assure our constituents was that we would ensure that the constitutional rights of Americans would not be trampled upon as we carry out the appropriate responsibility of protecting this country and our constituents against terrorist attack. That requires us to provide active oversight over the executive branch.

Similarly, in this case, we have an obligation to stand in the shoes of those we represent, to oversee the operations of the executive branch--in this case, the Department of Justice--to ensure that they are following the law.

One manner in which that can be frustrated is by a department--in this case, the Department of Justice--that refuses to respond to lawful subpoenas and give us the information so that we can do that oversight. That is what we were talking about.

This Congress, this House of Representatives, was misled. I don't know whether it was intentional or not. I do know we were misled by a representation from the Justice Department in an official response to an inquiry by the Congress of the United States. That was not corrected for 10 months.

You can look at it a couple of ways. One is that there was an attempt to slow-walk the Congress so that it could not carry out its constitutional responsibility. There is a lot of talk on this floor by both Democrats and Republicans as to how we have an obligation to oversee the executive branch. In fact, one of the genius points of our Founding Fathers' Constitution is that conflict between or among the three branches of government, that natural tension. But that natural tension cannot exist and we cannot do that which we are called upon under the Constitution to do faithfully if we are denied information to oversee the operations of the Department of Justice.

So all we are doing simply is asking for the authorization so that this committee can have the representation of counsel to see that these subpoenas are carried out. Since we have been given every sense from the Justice Department that it would be folly, in a sense, to suggest that they would carry out the actions that we just voted upon against the Attorney General, this is the method by which we can achieve that which we are required to do; that is, to carry out oversight responsibility against the executive department, including the Department of Justice.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I might say that this should not be a surprise bill to anybody. This is actually a part of the authorization bill that we already worked on. It has come about as a result of the fact of complaints from local jurisdictions that they were unable to utilize funds in a way that they thought was most effective.

This bill would simply permit recipients of certain FEMA grants to use this funding for training and exercises conducted in conjunction with a national lab or Federal research facility. There's no additional cost. The CBO report shows there's no additional cost. In other words, the bill expands the allowable use of FEMA grants and ensures that emergency managers, first responders, and local governments can use these grant dollars to leverage the expertise of our national labs and research facilities.

We have had plenty of hearings on the viability of our national labs and research facilities and the fact that we need to leverage more, in these tough budget times, their expertise to help us come up with solutions and prepare, among others, first responders to the challenges that we face in these times. With fewer grant dollars available, it's important that State and local governments be able to use them for the greatest public benefit.

As we all know, State and local governments everywhere are also operating under severe budget limitations, and increasing the allowable use of FEMA grants helps these cash-strapped governments to address their emergency needs. Using our existing national assets for training and research is another way to efficiently leverage the scientific expertise available at these facilities.

I just want to correct the record. This is not just cosponsored by two other Members, both of whom are Republicans. It is cosponsored by Representative Stark from California and Representative Lujan from New Mexico. In addition, on the Republican side, Mr. Turner from New York, Mr. Long from Missouri, Mr. Marino from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bilirakis from Florida, and Mr. King from New York.

We have heard not only from entities in the State of California, but I believe also in New York and New Jersey about concerns that they were unable to use their grants in the most efficient way, and absent a clarification of statutory language, FEMA was not going to allow them to participate in this way.

Now, some would ask what examples might we have of how these funds might be used. I will just use my home State of California. The Naval Postgraduate School, which is a Federal entity in Monterey, provides unique training to State and local officials through its Center for Homeland Defense and Security. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is a government-owned, contract-operated facility managed through a contract between the Laboratory Board of Governors and DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. These national labs can provide a myriad of research and technical support to programs that support State and local emergency responders, things such as risk analysis and security systems evaluation. And just another example, the Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego has substantial capability and interest in helping emergency responders with communications and nuclear detention.

So we are responding in as quick a fashion as we can to complaints that we've heard from local jurisdictions that they were unable to use their FEMA grants in the most effective way in leveraging, as I say, the expertise, the unique expertise of national labs and Federal research facilities. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is a very simple, a one-sentence clarification of the underlying statute. I would hope that we have unanimous support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. King had to leave, and I ask unanimous consent that I control the time of Representative King.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill responding to a simple problem. Actually, this bill undoes redtape that ought not to be there. It leverages the best assets of the Federal Government, working with our first responders in our local communities in ways that they asked us to try and deal with the problem. It's not a fancy bill. It is a simple bill. It is straightforward. And, therefore, I ask for a unanimous vote on this from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3173) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to reform the process for the enrollment, activation, issuance, and renewal of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) to require, in total, not more than one in-person visit to a designated enrollment center, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3173 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to reform the process for issuing the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, known as TWIC, to require not more than one in-person visit to an enrollment center except in cases with extenuating circumstances. The need for more than one trip to an enrollment center is not mandated by statute or regulation, but currently by DHS policy. Given that other very important security documents are mailed to people, including the U.S. passport, there is no doubt that the Federal Government can develop secure procedures for delivering TWIC documents to workers.

DHS has the statutory authority and regulatory flexibility to develop an alternative process for TWIC enrollment to ease the burden on transportation workers. The Secretary of Homeland Security should reform the TWIC process before the end of 2012 when the first TWICs issued in 2007 will need to be renewed and allow applicants to complete the process in only one in-person visit.

I would like to thank Congressman Steve Scalise for the commonsense bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, nearly 2 million transportation workers have applied for and received a TWIC. The goal of this bill is to limit the red tape involved in the TWIC process so we can focus on the work of this Nation while being as secure as possible.

The Secretary needs to reform the Transportation Workers Identification Credential enrollment and renewable process so that our workers are not burdened with increased and unnecessary bureaucracy.

As with the previously considered bill, this is an attempt by those of us in the Congress to try and get rid of some unnecessary red tape. It in no way undercuts the security of our Nation. As a matter of fact, it improves it because it gets rid of a burden on people that is totally without merit.

So I ask my colleagues to support its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees many of the agencies affected by these appropriations, I am pleased we are continuing to uphold our pledge to reduce government spending, while providing the necessary security and support for each Member to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.

Since taking control of the House, we've worked diligently to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and streamline and improve operations by using technology, thereby saving taxpayers millions. We've also worked to reduce spending on the production and printing of unnecessary publications, including an amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Harper, to reduce the number of copies of the U.S. Code printed for the House.

With the support of the Appropriations Committee, we will further improve House technology through an advancement of programs utilized by the Law Revision Counsel and the Office of the Legislative Counsel that modernize and improve their capabilities.

Utilizing new technologies, we will continue to increase the accuracy and accessibility of legislative proposals and changes to the U.S. Code. As the people's House, it is imperative we continue to use technological innovations to foster transparency and provide our constituents with timely and accurate information.

I'd like to thank the appropriators for their support in providing the resources necessary to enhance and streamline House operations and reduce overall expenses. And later, when we have an amendment on the floor that once again tries to make us go backward in our effort to get rid of waste produced in this House, I will stand and oppose that.

We have had a successful program of converting waste to energy, one of the most innovative programs in the entire country. We've convinced the other side of the Capitol, the Senate, to join us. We have thousands of tons of waste now not going into landfills but being converted to clean energy, one of the best examples of a technology that the EPA says is one of the cleanest in the country. We ought to be thankful for that. We ought not to go backwards. We ought to understand.

And in doing that, we have also given best or better customer service to those who utilize the various restaurants on the campus here in the Capitol. Those are things that we ought to be proud of and not be shy about the successes that we have had.

So I'll still be here on the floor to talk about one of those amendments, as we did just a year ago.

The gentleman is correct, we did pass a resolution over to the other body. It is customary that either body determine what their printing needs are, but we do have to normally have a resolution for it.

Under Mr. Harper's direction, with the Joint Committee on Printing, we actually reduced our request by 50 percent to save money, but also to give adequate printing of what we thought was needed. The other body initially decided that they didn't need any more copies. They have now reassessed that and at the last minute have indicated to us that they see the need for doing that and have promised us that they will act on our resolution.

So this is a hope that maybe this is one thing that they can agree on sending out of their body this year and over to us. But in the meantime, the gentleman's amendment is appropriate. Let us not lose the Constitution over this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Last year we had this argument. Last year, it was criticism of the fact that I had approved a contract that got rid of the composting and instead that started a pilot project, I believe, in the gentleman from Virginia's district, where we are taking all of this and we are converting it from waste energy in the gentleman's district--one of the exemplary programs in the country. We're not putting this into a landfill; we are actually converting it. In fact, these products are one of the best means of creating energy from waste.

The second thing is, this is a condemnation of an industry that employs about 50,000 Americans around the country that deal with the production of this product. I would say they have come to me and said: Can you at least defend us with the facts, that the FDA has to approve use for sale of these products that come into human contact. If it were carcinogenic, it would not be allowed.

The fact of the matter is, we used common sense. We actually took up a recommendation by the Democrats when the Republicans took over. One of the recommendations that was made in writing was that we eliminate the composting program because it cost too much money, it was unsuccessful, and in fact it caused more energy than it was supposed to save. We did that. I thought you were going to thank us for following your suggestion. We even put it in the gentleman's district--proud employees of the gentleman's constituency are reducing this waste to energy, and yet the gentleman comes before us and says the program that you have in my district, doggone it, we just don't want it. Sometimes people around here can't take yes for an answer.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I would just like to advise all Members that we have full-time employees working under the direction of Members of the Franking Commission and the House administration every single day who review the products of the offices of Members.

There is a limitation on the number of references you can make to yourself. There is a limitation on the number of pictures you can have. There is a limitation on how large the pictures can be. There is a limitation on some of the language that there can be. We try not to censor, but we try to make a distinction between that which is partisanly political and that which is a communication to our membership.

If someone is trying to suggest that we ought not to be allowed to ask our constituents ``What is your position on a balanced budget amendment?'' I'd like to say that you have that right. If you don't want to ask that question, you don't have to ask that question, but that's for Members to be able to do that.

Frankly, I think the idea that somehow we ought to limit our communications to the old-fashioned snail mail is just wrong. What we've attempted to do is to use the principles that have been established by the Franking Commission over the years to the new technology. That is simply what we have done. It is no more or no less. If people want to complain about particular messages that have come out, we can look at that. In fact, we turn down many, many suggested pieces to be sent out by Members of Congress. We have tried to adjust to the new communications, and the gentleman's amendment would not allow us to use a new means of communication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 128, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Concurrent Resolution 128.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, one of the proudest moments of my experience here in the House is having worked on a bipartisan basis on the extension of the Voting Rights Act in the 1980s. I had been involved in the extension of the Voting Rights Act several Congresses ago. But also, as attorney general of the State of California, I was involved in the preclearance procedures by the Justice Department with several of the jurisdictions in my home State.

The Voting Rights Act has stood as one of the great efforts of progress in this country; but as the U.S. Supreme Court said, as it reviewed the preclearance requirements some years ago, There will come a time when this unprecedented power of the Federal Government versus the sovereignty of the States will end.

The preclearance requirement contained in the Voting Rights Act is an anomaly, a necessary anomaly over history, but it is an anomaly. And we should understand that the Court viewed it as such.

The problem I have with the current status of the Voting Rights Act is that it gives no opportunity for an escape clause by those jurisdictions that have proven, over the decades, that they have, in fact, changed their practices. There is no means by which a jurisdiction can come forward and show that over a decade, they have not, in fact, discriminated but have acted appropriately and, therefore, this tremendous Justice Department authority will be no more there.

But this is not the place to deal with it, I would say. A funding resolution is not the place to deal with it. This is an important issue that ought to be addressed; and I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle would recognize that when you have a jurisdiction that has for 10, 20, 30, 40 years followed the law, perhaps we ought to reward them and provide incentives for other jurisdictions to do the same. Also, historically, there is a reason-- almost a historical accident by which some of the jurisdictions in California are covered. It had to do with a low turnout election in which a large percentage of the people who were considered citizens happened to be military folks who didn't vote in that area in that particular election. And there's been a static analysis which has resulted in those jurisdictions continuing to be covered under that section of the law which allows this unprecedented authority of the Justice Department to preclear.

And I would hope that we would have the courage to stand up and look at the changes that have taken place and give credit to the consensus of conscience of civil rights that I think has prevailed in this country and has aided us greatly.

But I would just say, this is not the time nor the place for us to, within a short period of time on the floor of the House, try to make a significant change in that. And, therefore, with all due respect to my friend from Georgia who points out some of the problems here, I would have to oppose this amendment. But I would hope that we would have the courage to come to the floor and recognize that changes may be necessary.

This is an unprecedented authority that is granted to the Justice Department. No other jurisdictions are required to come before the Justice Department and ask for their permission as to whether they could make a change as simple as changing a date or making any change with respect to any election process in that jurisdiction.

So I would hope my friends on the other side who have, I think, appropriately opposed the gentleman's amendment would also recognize that there is a large area in which we should discuss the current status, vis-a-vis the current fact situations that exist with all jurisdictions.

Let us hope that as bad as the conduct has been in the past, that we believe in redemption and that we believe that there can be changed hearts, and we believe that we can change practices and that we believe that, in fact, maybe the good will of our fellow citizens will prevail. And when it has done so, let us recognize that, give them credit for it, and in the law provide incentives for other jurisdictions to also change their ways.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we not support this amendment, but at the same time recognize the legitimacy of the shortcomings of the law, as applied currently, and the failure of the Congress to make the changes to give credit to those jurisdictions that have, in fact, acted in good faith.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to speak, but I have heard this argument made time and time again that it's the prerogative of the executive branch to decide whether it's going to defend a law legally passed by the Congress and signed by the President. That is hyperbole. That is incorrect.

There is an obligation, by tradition and by the law, that the Attorney General is duty bound to defend duly constituted laws of the United States so long as he or she can find a constitutional basis for it. It is not the purpose, nor has it been in the past, in Democratic and Republican administrations, for a Justice Department to arrogate to themselves the responsibility of deciding which laws they like and which laws they did not like. You are supposed to be the attorney for the United States and recognized as such.

I recall as Attorney General of California I was required at times to defend laws that I had voted against, but I could find a constitutional basis for it. My real problem with this administration is they strained to find any constitutional basis to not defend. That is turning it on its side.

The point of fact is when the executive branch does not do what they should do, it requires us to make a decision as to whether we should now pay for outside counsel. That has not been the tradition of the United States.

This Justice Department, in my judgment, based on the experience I've had here in this Congress, 18 years, my years as the chief legal officer of the State of California, and 35 or 40 years as a practicing attorney, tells me that this administration has fundamentally failed in its obligation to attempt to faithfully carry out the laws of the United States, not to wake up every morning and decide: I think I can find an unconstitutional basis for a law passed by the Congress.

Think of what that would mean. It would mean that you have an administration in every instance deciding what laws they want and what laws they don't want that are on the books, instead of coming here to the Congress and attempting to change what the law is. If we believe that we have an obligation when we hold up our hands to uphold the Constitution, that means we don't just turn over things to the courts and say you decide whether it's constitutional.

We are duty bound to pass what we think are constitutional laws. And the administration--of whatever stripe--is obligated to attempt to defend those laws unless they can't find a constitutional basis for it, not to seek every possible unconstitutional basis so they don't have to defend. That's what the problem is here.

And so while I understand many of the arguments made here and I understand what my friend from Ohio said--and I agree with much of what he said--let's not just say, well, it's the prerogative of the executive branch to decide if they want to defend laws passed by the United States. That has not been the tradition of this country. It has not been the experience. It has not been the legacy of Democratic and Republican administrations going back to the founding of this Republic.

I yield to the gentlelady.

I take back my time.

I will not accept the gentlelady's argument that I was condemning the actions of those people in the Justice Department who are excellent civil servants.

I am specifically talking about the Attorney General of the United States who, evidently, made the decision or, if he didn't make the decision, failed to make the proper decision to uphold the laws of the United States duly enacted by this Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.