Floor Statements

I thank my colleague from North Carolina for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I might say this is an interesting point. I don't think I've ever been on the floor in 16 years and have faced this kind of a rule. It is a closed rule. I've been here before with closed rules, but the effect of the closed rule is to prohibit me from providing or from presenting my amendment. Now, that is not unusual. Usually, you come to the floor, and you present an amendment to try and amend the bill to change it from the way it was reported out of the committee that did the work on it. But in this case, I am being prohibited from offering an amendment to change the bill back to the way it was as reported out of the committee on a bipartisan basis.

For whatever reason, the majority on the Rules Committee decided that an amendment that was cited by the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, as an excellent clarifying amendment is not going to be here.

When one of the chief cosponsors of the bill, or coauthors of the bill, being presented on the floor today announced the bill last week, she said publicly that this was similar to the bill that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the bipartisan support of Congressman Lungren from California. So, naturally, I was interested to look at the bill that they were presenting to see how it was the same as the bill we presented. I found out that they'd left out my amendment which allowed for the sharing of historical data by insurers so that they might look at the experience evidence and utilize that in making their decisions with respect to how they conducted their business going forward.

I had been assured that my amendment was not necessary because committee staff on the Judiciary Committee had researched it. Nobody believed that the Justice Department of any administration going forward would find the compiling of historical data among the insurers to be noncompetitive and violative of the antitrust laws. I was further assured that they did not believe that that would be the case with any of the attorneys general of the States.

Now, I had the privilege of serving as attorney general of my State for 8 years, being a member of the National Association of Attorneys General--an organization which does support legislation of this type-- and of course, attorneys general of the various States have independent authority under their State laws to enforce antitrust laws, which I did during my 8 years. Sometimes we went beyond what the Federal Government did because we understood better the unique circumstances of our State.

I remember, one time, we were dealing with a merger between two large banks. They were national banks, and they had branches in the State of California. We were working in conjunction with the antitrust division of the Justice Department, and we were moving in the same direction, but I remember getting a phone call from one of the attorneys at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, who asked this question: Well, how close is San Jose to San Diego? About 400 miles, but they thought they were next to one another.

Why was that relevant? That would be relevant as to whether you had competition among the bank branches that were then going to be merged. Would that then give increased and illegal concentration of power in those areas?

The point I am making is that attorneys general of the States may know a little bit more about their States than attorneys working as hard as they can here in Washington, DC. So the idea that attorneys general are somehow impotent, from a legal standpoint, such that they cannot bring forward antitrust cases, is just not true.

At the same time, I voted for the bill coming out of committee because I thought it had, in fact, reached an appropriate balance. Interestingly enough, the gentlelady from New York, the chairperson of the Rules Committee, stated in her support for this rule and in support for the underlying bill that this is really a tribute to Jack

Brooks, who attempted to do this for years.

I was privileged to serve with Jack Brooks, an interesting Texan Member, someone who was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee for some time. When the bill in the Judiciary Committee was originally introduced this time around, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Conyers, cited Jack Brooks, and said, This was the Jack Brooks bill. So I went back, and I looked at it. I found out that my amendment, or the language that I had then put in in amendment form, was in the Jack Brooks bill but not in the bill before us. So I brought it forward.

So you might say, if we are doing this in homage to Jack Brooks, you would do him further homage by allowing the language of his bill to be put into this bill, and that's all I ask for. It's all I ask for.

Now, the other part of the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, which is not in this bill, is to remove the antitrust exemption that currently exists for medical malpractice insurance providers, but somehow that has been taken out of this bill with no explanation whatsoever.

So we have cherry-picked from the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, and yet we acclaim the bill as being, essentially, the bipartisan bill that came out of committee.

As I said before the Rules Committee yesterday, sometimes you just have to learn to take ``yes'' for an answer. I support the underlying bill. I support this effort. I am trying to make it better. It was accepted on a bipartisan basis. Yet, in the Rules Committee, there wasn't one, in my judgment, credible argument about why you wouldn't have it.

On the one hand, I've heard from the staff of the Judiciary Committee that it is not necessary because no single administration will have a Justice Department that finds this to be anti-competitive. On the other hand, I hear from the chairperson of the committee, Well, we don't want to give this power to the insurance companies. We want the Justice Department to investigate it. Well, if that's the case, you can't have your cake and you can't eat it, too. It's either one or the other.

If it is, as I was told, unnecessary, redundant because nobody looking at it will find this to be noncompetitive because it is essential information--and by the way, the absence of this information will not hurt the big guys as much as it will hurt the little guys. Why? Because if you are a large carrier, you have a far greater experience database than if you are a small carrier. You understand the market better in terms of information that is at your fingertips. If you are a smaller provider, you need the information to understand the universe that you might be attempting to present your product to.

So we have, on the one side, being told that no reasonable antitrust division of any Justice Department of any administration will find this to be anti-competitive. Then you have the chairperson of the Rules Committee saying, No, no, we have to keep this in here because we want to make sure that the Justice Department will be able to determine whether or not it is.

So what does that give the market? What does it give the smaller insurers? It gives them uncertainty.

So the very thing that you are saying you want to do you are prohibiting from being accomplished by not allowing this amendment to be considered. This amendment, as I might say, was described by the chairman of the committee as an excellent clarifying amendment. We are therefore removing clarification, and we are replacing it with uncertainty.

Look, I can go down on the floor and bash the insurance companies as well as anybody here. Let's just knock them all around here. The point is we are making an adjustment in law, which is what is good for the people. So why not do it in an intelligent way, in a way that will actually assist in the marketplace and allow for greater competition? Outside studies have said, if, in fact, this information is not allowed to be collected together and shared among those in the industry, it might--they said ``might''--might have the impact of harming the smaller insurance carriers.

So I don't know why you're doing this. I don't know if there is a political reason for it. I don't know if it's because I happen to be a Republican. I'll give it up. Any Democrat who wants to put his name on it can add his name to Jack Brooks' and present it on the floor. But this kind of silliness on this floor has got to stop. You ask for bipartisanship, and you throw it away. We have complete bipartisanship in the committee, and you ignore it.

As one member of the committee, a Republican member who voted with me in support of this bill on a bipartisan basis, said afterwards when he found out that that bill wasn't going to be presented on the floor, Why do we need committees and subcommittees? What are we holding hearings for? Why are we having the experts testify before us if, in fact, somehow in the--I don't know where it is. There are closed doors somewhere that decided that this bill was going to come out instead of the bill we worked on in committee and then give no good answer.

It's such a shame you don't have TV cameras in the Rules Committee. If people could have seen the argument yesterday, if the public could have understood what we were talking about, I mean they would have shaken their heads and said, Do the people's business. Please do the people's business. Don't get involved in partisanship.

Again, I would say I give up my name on this amendment. I will gladly dedicate it to Jack Brooks in his memory. I'm glad to give it to any Member of the Democratic side. Let's do the people's business and get rid of this silliness of unstated partisanship, without any rationale, that undercuts the impact of the bill.

Once again, this is unique. I've spent 16 years in this place. This is the first time I've ever come to the floor and have been denied an amendment that would put back in something we voted on on a bipartisan basis in committee that has been removed at the direction of somebody, including the Rules Committee, so that we can't have the chance to work on the product that came out of a bipartisan effort in the committee.

Will the gentleman yield?

That's the most interesting thing. You did change it. You changed the bill from the bill that came out of committee. So don't tell me you didn't want it changed. You did change it. That's the whole point we're making.

The bill that we produced out of committee on a bipartisan basis that was called a clarifying amendment was taken out. So you're the folks that changed it. I didn't change it.

My God, is this 1984 doublespeak around this place?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

Could I just ask my friend from California, isn't it true that if there was collusion utilizing this information, that would still be prosecutable under the amendment that I suggest because it is prosecutable at the present time under State action theory and has been pursued by various States?

Well, I know we have had people on this floor who say they have no expertise but they say this amendment does certain things. I did spend 8 years as the Attorney General of California. We had the most active antitrust public law office in the country other than the U.S. Justice Department.

I might just say, this is the first time I have ever heard that Jack Brooks was presenting legislation on the floor of the House or in Judiciary that was to protect insurance companies or allow collusion. The language I used is taken from the Jack Brooks bill. The language I use is specifically the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis and said by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was an excellent clarifying amendment.

The fact of the matter is that under the law under this bill, the State action still applies, State action principles still apply. States can still do what they will, including what the gentleman talked about before. So this is a red herring.

This is so silly that you would take something that got bipartisan support, unless you're suddenly suggesting that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has a secret plan to somehow allow the insurance companies to gouge people and that Jack Brooks had that secret plan. This is total nonsense, to bring a bill to the floor and take out an essential element from committee and then suggest, when you want to put it back in committee for revision, you're trying to protect somebody.

I thank the ranking member for the time.

Let me say at the outset, I do not believe that health insurance companies should be exempt from our Nation's antitrust laws. As one of those who believes and hopes that those applauding would join me in supporting the idea of buying health insurance across State lines, when we reach that accomplishment, I think it is appropriate for us not to have a Federal antitrust exemption.

When health care has been primarily and in a very real sense exclusively the

province of the States, under their jurisdiction, the attorney generals of the States have retained the ability to enforce the antitrust laws of those States. So we're entering a new era, I would hope, where we would be able to, if, in fact, this one Republican idea finds its way into legislative enactment, find an opportunity to extend the universe of decisions that might be accessed by individuals or their employers by way of insurance policies that may be available in other States.

My intention is to vote in favor of this bill. However, my concern is that the bill before us is not nearly as good as it should be because normal bipartisan committee process has been circumvented.

As has been noted by some in advancing this bill, I did vote in favor of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 when it marked up in the Judiciary Committee. At that time, I offered an amendment to the bill to allow the sharing of historical data and the performance of actuarial services by insurance companies. Not future trending data but rather looking-backward historical data. At that time, it was adopted unanimously by the committee, therefore, on a bipartisan basis. Our distinguished chairman of the committee supported my amendment, which he described at the time as ``a helpful clarification.''

If there's one thing that we ought to understand when we have this downturn in the economy, if you want to make sure things don't happen in the private economy, insert uncertainty. If you want to make sure that things cost more than they otherwise would, insert uncertainty. And that's what we are doing by not allowing that in the bill before us.

In fact, I should point out to my friends on the other side, section 262 of your health care bill, your health care bill, adopted on this floor, allowed for the sharing of such information. It contained the language of my amendment. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, it has been held out of the bill before us.

Unless anyone thinks I have risen to speak because of sour grapes because my amendment with my name on it was not included in this bill, let me clarify the case. I can give you assurance that is not the case for the simple reason that I cannot take personal credit for the guts or the contents of this amendment.

The truth of the matter is that the hard work done to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act began with the efforts of then Chairman Jack Brooks, Democratic chairman, in the 101st, 102d, and 103d Congresses. Ironically, at the beginning of our committee markup, our chairman described the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson ``as a tribute to Jack Brooks.'' So if we really wish to pay tribute to Jack Brooks, and I believe we should, perhaps a good place to start would have been to allow an amendment to include Chairman Brooks's language in any legislation before us. I'm hopeful that the motion to recommit might contain that language, and I would hope that people would set aside partisan differences and support it.

So aside from the issue of the denigration of the committee process-- and I think that's an important thing we ought to take into consideration. The subcommittee, committee, you act on this bill. You debate it. You consider amendments. You vote out the amendment on a unanimous bipartisan vote. Then you have bipartisan support for the bill as it comes out of committee. And then what happens? It's changed before it comes to the floor. And we had one of the members of the Rules Committee say she wasn't going to engage me in debate because, she said, I don't have the expertise on this issue. So I presume that means if you have expertise, and that's what committees are supposed to have, you ignore that so you can come to the floor and not allow debate utilizing that expertise because you prohibit that amendment from being considered on the floor.

H.R. 4626 will have precisely the opposite effect of its stated intention if, in fact, the notion of sharing historical data is not considered appropriate and legal. The economics of the insurance industry are such that companies depend on information. Why? In order to enable them to price their products. They have to base it on something.

I thank the gentleman.

It is better if they have actual data upon which to make their decisions.

And here's the rub: As was mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin, it is the small companies which depend on the availability of information the most. Smaller companies simply do not have a sufficiently large volume of information to price their products efficiently. So it's for this reason that it is of the utmost importance that insurers have the ability to share historical data.

Now, am I just saying this? No. In this record, a Congressional Research Service report raises the possibility that were such data not available to small insurance companies, we might see the ironic outcome of further concentration in the insurance industry. Again, not my conclusion; the conclusion of the Congressional Research report done most recently.

So, yesterday I did approach the Rules Committee to ask my amendment, the Brooks amendment, as I call it, be restored to the health insurance antitrust bill. And even though it was approved unanimously by my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, my request was inexplicably rejected by the Rules Committee.

This is not the way, I would say, Madam Speaker, that this body should do business. Let's respect the integrity of the institution and the work that has been done in the duly established committee process.

I would hope that when this part of the recommittal motion is discussed, we'll discuss it in light of the history of this bill--the language taken from the Jack Brooks bill; the language taken from the majority's health care bill passed just this year.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry of the Chair.

Is it not correct that Members are supposed to address the Chair?

Thank you.

Since the gentleman refused to yield when I asked him to, despite the fact he was using my name and attributing motivations to me that are questionable under the rules of the House, I might say this. The gentleman is absolutely incorrect in his analysis. The report said that it would harm the small insurance companies if they were not able to get this historical data, number one.

Number two, the gentleman conflates two completely different things: one is historical data and the other is trending data. And they are two different things. My amendment does nothing about allowing insurance companies to work together and compare trending data, which is data going forward, despite the fact that some in the insurance industry wish that is the case. The dirty little secret is that some in the insurance industry don't want to have my amendment, they want it to be silent so that in addition to historical data, they can also have trending data. But the gentleman hasn't looked at the data in that way, hasn't examined or, I presume the gentleman would not have examined the reports to know the difference that was in that and my specific decision not to include trending data in my amendment.

Secondly, I find it interesting that the gentleman suggests that I am trying to do something other than what I say that I am doing. This is an interesting argument made on this floor, that if you disagree with someone you suggest that what they say can't possibly be true. The fact of the matter is I have quoted outside reports to support my position, number one. The fact of the matter is I have used the language from the Jack Brooks legislation, I have used language from the gentleman's party's health care bill, and I have used the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in Judiciary Committee unanimously.

Perhaps the gentleman is suggesting that all the Members on his side of the aisle who supported this amendment share in his description of the motivation of those of us who have presented it. I thought maybe we were above that. I thought maybe we were engaged in civil discourse here. But rather, if the gentleman or any gentleman wishes to talk about the motivations of others, I will tell you any idea about bipartisanship is lost in this House. The suggestion that all you have to do is shout louder than somebody else and accuse them of motivations other than what they articulated is just absolute nonsense.

The fact of the matter is, properly done, the sharing of historical data is not anticompetitive. The fact of the matter is the underlying bill, with my amendment, would still allow actions taken by the Justice Department and the various States Attorney General if there was bid rigging, if there was price setting, if there was determination before the hand of which markets you would act in and which markets you would not act in.

And so this is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, essentially. I have never seen such an attack on an amendment that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee. Now, I realize it is only the committee of jurisdiction that has expertise in this area. I understand that those of us who have done antitrust law ought not to be listened to because those who have said on this floor that they have no expertise in this and they don't understand it, therefore, they don't want to debate it, should have the upper hand in the Rules Committee.

But frankly, I will say once again at some point in time you have to accept yes for an answer. I support the bill. I am trying to help the bill. I am trying to get it back to where it was when Jack Brooks introduced it. And in response to that, rather than saying hurray for bipartisanship, I hear from other people, well, we got to question your motivations. Hardly a high point in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, once again I

know I run the risk of trying to introduce some expertise into this debate. For that, I apologize. But the American Bar Association appeared before the subcommittee of Judiciary dealing with the underlying bill, or the bill that was presented before our committee, and in there, they voice support, as they have for decades, for removal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for the health care insurance industry.

However, they said, as point number one of the five major points they made, insurers should be authorized to cooperate in the collection and dissemination of past loss-experience data so long as these activities do not unreasonably restrain competition, but insurers should not be authorized to cooperate in the construction of advisory rates or the projection of loss experience in the future in such a manner as to interfere with competitive pricing. That second part deals with trending data. I do not allow that under my amendment.

And as I presented my effort to have my amendment considered in the Rules Committee, I was told by the representative of the American Bar Association, they did support my position, they supported my amendment, and they supported the arguments that I made before the committee.

Now, maybe they're wrong because they have some expertise in this area, but perhaps this is one time we might look to them. The ABA has not been known as a Republican, conservative, pro-insurance company operation. Last time I looked, they have a major element of the bar association that's involved with antitrust law.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as I've said repeatedly--and perhaps the gentlelady from Ohio who just spoke didn't hear--I support the bill. I think she also heard--well, maybe she wasn't here to hear the ranking Republican say he is not going to oppose the bill, so let's be clear about what we're talking about here.

While I do support this bill and while I do think it could be perfected and while I hope that the motion to recommit will be adopted to actually make it a better bill, I would say, however, this is not the first bill we should have on the floor dealing with the overall issue of health care. The first one should be the one the American people have asked us to look at, and that is reform of the medical malpractice system.

The interesting thing is, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, that in the bill that we have in the Senate and the House, there is reference, as the President of the United States said, to medical malpractice litigation alternatives. That bill does give incentives, financial incentives, Federal moneys from the Federal Government to the States if they will engage in alternatives to the litigation system in areas of medical malpractice. But as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, there is a kicker in there, and it says that if your State dares to in any way put any limitations on attorneys fees or on any part of the recovery in medical malpractice cases, that State will be ineligible for the funds; in other words, you will be punished relative to other States.

Now, the gentleman from Texas referred to the landmark legislation we had in California called MICRA, which was adopted in the mid-1970s at a time when we had a crisis in medical malpractice premiums. We actually had an exodus of doctors, particularly in the specialties. Neurosurgeons, I remember anesthesiologists, other high specialties with high-risk practices were actually leaving the State of California because of the significant increase in premiums on a yearly basis as a result of the true historical data of what was happening in the courts.

I recall at this time, because I actually did some representation in the courts of doctors and hospitals and of even a couple of plaintiff cases--but primarily defense cases--that it was becoming a crisis.

So, in California, it came together on a bipartisan basis, and we passed legislation better known as MICRA. In there, we have a limitation on a sliding scale on the amount of money that can go to the attorneys, and it's a slightly higher percentage at the lower recoveries. As the recovery gets larger and

larger, the percentage of return to the attorneys, percentage-wise for that segment of the recovery, is less.

While putting no limitation whatsoever on recovery for loss of income and for all medical costs, there was a cap put on noneconomic damages. As one who has been in the courtroom and has seen what happens, that is logical because the one area in which you saw extraordinary amounts of money that really were not truly indicative of approvable damage--I'm not saying there isn't pain and suffering, but trying to quantify it is extremely difficult, and it proved to be impossible, and it proved to be the area in which you had the outrageous jury verdicts that had the impact of distorting the system. So California adopted both of those.

In other words, the bill that has been presented by the President and Democrats in the House and the Senate not only does not really deal with reform of the medical malpractice system, but it takes us back more than 30 years to the position in which we were then when we had not an academic exercise about the possibility of a crisis but a true crisis. We literally had a crisis in medical care in the State of California until we enacted this change.

So that is why it is at least as strange to ask and to see why we don't have some litigation reform moving through our Judiciary Committee and through the other committees that may have jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and placed on the floor. That's why it was very important for the gentleman from Texas to make reference to the California system, because that is one that has worked, and it specifically is the one that is singled out in the legislation that the President supports to be punished. Now, if that is not irony, I don't know what is.

So I would just hope that people would understand, as important as this bill is, that we should be at least listening to the American people, who have said number one on their issue list in dealing with this problem, as they see it, as they understand it, as they are affected by it, is the reform of the medical malpractice litigation system as it currently exists.

So it is somewhat disappointing that we don't have that even on the horizon. I think the gentleman, the ranking member on the committee, would agree we haven't seen anything on this subject that has been scheduled for our committee.

While I support this legislation--and let me repeat that--I support this legislation. I think it is good legislation. I think it may have a slightly bigger impact than, maybe, my ranking member thinks it will have, although not as large an impact as suggested by the other side. I would hope that the other side would look with open eyes and would listen with open ears to our motion to recommit because I think it will make a better bill, will clear up some definitions that are not defined in this bill and will help us move in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to that part of the motion to recommit that deals with the amendment that I offered and that was contained in the bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee. It simply allows historical data to be utilized by insurance companies large and small. This is something that is requested by the small insurance companies, this is something supported by the American Bar Association. Their representative who testified before our subcommittee on behalf of or in support of the underlying legislation supported this amendment so that in fact small insurers would not be disadvantaged.

Let's get this right. There are some who have told me on the other side that, well, we don't need this because it will be allowed by the U.S. Justice Department or by the courts. We ought not to wait for that. We ought to give some real solid certainty to insurance companies, particularly the small insurance carriers. So if we wish to permit the collection of historical data, let's make it clear what we intend. Just because we haven't brought forward on this floor some answer to the medical malpractice litigation issue is no reason for us to commit legislative malpractice here. We ought to do our job. We ought to not pass it on.

Now, there are a few people who don't think that historical data should even be allowed. If that is the way they feel, I understand it. Most Members I have spoken to believe it ought to be allowed. They understand the absolute essence of it in terms of the continued existence of small insurers across the country.

Let's get it right. I have the language virtually the same that was contained in the majority's health care bill that passed just a couple of months ago. It is the same as contained in the bipartisan bill that came out of our committee. And most importantly, it is the same language contained in the various bills presented to this House by the late great Jack Brooks, chairman at that time of the House Judiciary Committee, about whom Members on the other side have waxed eloquently. And in tribute to him, I would hope they would support the gentleman's motion to recommit that contains my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman's words be taken down once more.

Reserving the right to object, has the Chair ruled as to whether the gentleman's words are inappropriate under the rules of the House and the precedents of the House?

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent if I might revise my remarks. I referred to Jack Brooks as the late great. I didn't mean to suggest that he is no longer with us. He is great but he is not late.

Mr. Speaker, I returned from my district here just a couple of days ago after hearing from my constituents at several town hall meetings. One of the things they made absolutely crystal clear was they wanted us to start over on health care. They weren't arguing for the status quo. They are arguing for a new start.

So what do we have on Thursday? The President inviting Members from both Houses, both Democrat and Republican, for what? For what? A session in which it appears that the ground rules are going to be we are going to start with the House and the Senate bills.

I don't know. I am proud to be in this House, in part because of my love of the Constitution. I look at the Constitution, and it says we have three different branches of government and we are responsible for legislation. I don't see where there is a monarchy, where you are supposed to go and have an audience with the monarch surrounded by his court jesters.

Madam Speaker, I, as many of my colleagues, have just returned from my district. During that time, I had two town hall meetings and numerous individual meetings with members of my constituency; and one thing was abundantly clear.

On the subject of health care, overwhelmingly they told me to bring this message back to Washington, D.C.:

Stop what you're doing, scrap the House bill, scrap the Senate bill and start over.

Interestingly enough, national polls show that's the national sentiment. By about 61 or 62 to 28, at least, the American people are telling us, Back off, scrap what you've done, start over again.

They're not asking for the status quo but they're asking for incremental approaches, and many of the things that Republicans have talked about are what the people are asking for.

Yet today, I was very disappointed to see the President has decided to ignore the American people. His message to the American people at least coming out from the White House today is:

Forget what you say. You're not smart enough to figure this out. We know better. We're going to forge ahead.

Madam Speaker, let's listen to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the great work The Resource Connection has done on behalf of the community of Calaveras County.

Having toured The Resource Connection Food Bank and witnessed the good work of Jeannie Hayward and her staff, it does not surprise me to learn that the generosity of the people of Calaveras County was recognized in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ``2009 Rural Development Progress Report.''

The residents of Calaveras County and the staff at The Resource Connection need to be congratulated as a community that consistently grows to meet and feed an ever-increasing need--no matter what. There was a time when the big hearts of this community were larger than the facility that housed it and the food bank literally had to turn away food or leave it outside at night.

Now, thanks to a $1.36 million Community Facilities loan from USDA Rural Development--for which I wrote a letter of support--the food bank can operate out of a new, 5,500-square-foot building with offices and meeting space. It's been open just over a year and it was a blessing over the 2009 Holiday Season when the need was so great.

Ms. Hayward is especially proud of the Santa's Express Committee, which served over 800 families at Thanksgiving and 1,300 families at Christmas. This was made possible because of the success of the Santa's Express Food Drive, which netted 28,000 pounds of food. In addition, the Food Bank was able to provide clothing and toys for the children of these families. Fraternal groups such as the Rotary, Lions, VFW, and others were team partners in this effort.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate The Resource Connection and the people of Calaveras County on their accomplishment in being recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, it's kind of interesting that my friends from the other side keep beating up on Democrats. I think Bill Gates is a Democrat and I think the other gentleman that you mentioned is as well.

But let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. It is amazing on this floor how we have convoluted the thought process. You see, we have a PAYGO system on the Democratic side that says you have to pay for tax cuts. What is that assumption? That is, every time you have a tax cut, that's a tax expenditure. That's the other language they used to use. In other words, the premise is that every dollar in your pocket is owned by the government, and only when they, at their sufferance, allow you to keep it is it okay. So if you give a tax cut or you maintain tax rates at present levels, you have an obligation here to somehow say, Thank you. Thank you Federal Government. Thank you members of the leadership on the Democratic side. You've allowed me to keep my money if I can show how you pay for it.

It used to be the other way around, government only spends what it takes in; not saying that you, the average American, have an obligation to pay for whatever they want to do, and if you don't, you have to somehow pay for it. It is your money in the first instance.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. It returns the authority of managing our place to the Members of Congress. We are the legislative branch. The Capitol is our House. It is not the purview or within the province of the President of the United States. It seems strange, to say the least, that we have a process by which we do not direct who it is we establish as the person who is really the official caretaker of the Capitol.

The Architect suggests that you sit in a room designing architectural designs for the purpose of new additions and new buildings, and the Architect would be responsible for that under his direction. But he really takes care of this place. He is the top appointed official to make sure that the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the entire Capitol complex runs.

And somehow, we have set up a situation in which there is input by the House, input by the Senate, and the tiebreaker is the President of the United States essentially, and that really doesn't make sense. We don't choose who the chief usher of the White House is--and when I say ``chief usher,'' people don't realize that's the person who runs the White House complex.

And so it just makes very, very good sense. And I congratulate the gentlelady for bringing this to our attention, the gentleman, Mr. Wamp, and the other cosponsors.

So I rise in support of this bill, which will, as we say, establish a bicameral process by which we appoint the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect has carried the responsibility of preserving and enhancing the Capitol complex since construction on the U.S. Capitol began in 1793. Following the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, management and administration of that center was placed under the purview of the Architect--further cementing the Architect's role in support of the legislature and its operations.

So accordingly, it is, as I say, the appropriate process by which the Architect is appointed by a bipartisan, bicameral process free of decisionmaking responsibility by the executive branch. The appointment process will be better aligned with the mission of the Office by emphasizing the relationship between the Architect and the ongoing legislative operations of the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

I hope we have a unanimous vote in favor of H.R. 2843, and then I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the wisdom of this and join us in reasserting the proper role of the legislative branch. And hopefully we can convince the President to give up this responsibility that I am sure does not weigh heavily on him at the present time.

This makes good sense. It ought to be accepted on a unanimous vote.

And urging support of that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor First Northern Bank as it marked its 100th year in business yesterday, February 1, 2010.

First Northern Bank was established in 1910, and has remained faithful to its roots as an institution formed to address specific personalized needs. First Northern continues to serve such needs with a strong commitment to superior personal service, and commitment to support and reinvest in each of the communities the Bank serves. The Bank continues to maintain its commitment as a full service community bank serving the business, professional, personal, and real estate requirements of the people in Solano, Sacramento, Yolo, and Placer Counties--with a reach into neighboring El Dorado County.

Back in 1910, a group of local Dixon businesspeople believed they weren't getting the kind of banking services they needed, so in the do- it-yourself tradition of an independent farming community, they voted on January 20th to open their own bank--an ``enterprise with all local capital and no outside investment or affiliations.''

Following a trip to San Francisco to purchase a safe and other supplies, their new bank opened for business a few days later on February 1, 1910, in a former ice cream parlor. After one month in business, the Bank had 93 accounts with deposits totaling more than $75,000. Today, deposits have grown to more than $650 million. Even though 100 years have passed, descendants of the Bank's founders are still shareholders and customers.

Over the years, First Northern Bank has contributed millions of dollars to the communities it serves, in the form of direct financial support and in-kind services.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate First Northern Bank at this milestone, and anticipate many more successful years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the administration made a tragic mistake when it decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates in a civilian courtroom in New York City. We now find that they realize there's been a mistake, but we don't know where they're going to go next. I'll give them a clue: If you didn't have Guantanamo Bay, you'd have to build it. That's the place he should remain. That's the place he should be tried. We should resume the military tribunals where he and his confederates had already indicated they wanted to plead guilty. We should forget this nonsense about bringing them to civilian courts in the United States. If it's too dangerous for New York, if it doesn't make sense for New York, it doesn't make sense for anywhere in the sovereign territory of the United States. Guantanamo is the perfect place for them to remain.

Do not close Guantanamo. Keep them there. Try them there. Give them their meeting with justice there as well.

Mr. Speaker, they're not attacking us because of Guantanamo Bay. They're attacking us because of the Statue of Liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the idea of transparency in this and in all things. I think that some observers may not appreciate the issues that are before us when we are dealing with Indian rights, whether it is settlement or something else, because of the unique situation of Native Americans in the United States and how the relationship that we have with the Indian Nations is as a result directly of the Constitution of the United States.

Often it is good for us to remind ourselves of the first principles involved when we are dealing with these issues. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also mention that today, in a blow for freedom, in a tremendous action of a return to first principles under the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court finally got it right. The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, finally focused on the first amendment and talked about the essence of the first amendment being political speech.

We have been distracted so often in other decisions by the Court that they have lost in many times their focus on the fact that the first amendment is in essence a protection of our political speech. And today they overruled a previous case where they had wandered from that. They said to us that Congress cannot in fact make choices between preferred speakers and nonpreferred speakers, preferred organizations and nonpreferred organizations.

And here is one of the kernels of truth contained in today's majority opinion. ``Political speech is so ingrained in this country's culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws.'' That oftentimes in this body we, in the effort to try and cleanse the political system from the possibility of people who might take undue advantage of it, render political speech to the sidelines. And the Court has said the people are smarter than that. They can get around that, and therefore we ought to attempt to allow the full flowering of political speech.

The Court also said this. ``Rapid changes to technology--and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression--counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.'' This is a great day, Mr. Speaker. This is a great day. The Court said, ``Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the first amendment, and there is no support for the view that the amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' political speech.''

It is said that their previous decision in Austin allows ``censorship that is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations.''

Earlier this week the people of Massachusetts reminded us that here the people prevail, that the Constitution starts with the words, ``We, the people.'' That despite what the pundits say, despite what special interests say, the people prevail. Today the Supreme Court said the people can speak. It is a great day.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues that are before this Congress, very, very serious issues. But on Christmas Day, we were reminded of one that we do not always think about, and that is the fact that we are still the subject of those who would use terror to take away our liberty.

I would hope that, as the President has found it appropriate to use the word ``war'' and talk about the war with al Qaeda, that we would understand that it is more than words, it is actions; that we need to treat those who would attempt to kill us in this way as what they are, unlawful enemy combatants, not common criminals. We should not turn them over to our criminal justice system. We should allow them to be interrogated by the military.

Madam Speaker, those who say that they are attacking us because of Guantanamo do not understand history, both long-term and short-term. They are not attacking us because of Guantanamo. They are attacking us because of the Statue of Liberty.

I thank the gentleman for the time and I thank him for bringing this bill to the floor. And I thank the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle for their support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise as one who was part of the bipartisan coalition who established in this Chamber the Martin Luther King holiday some two and a half decades ago. That was a glorious day here, and it was a day in which we acted for the right reasons.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929. Perhaps it is fitting that Dr. King was born in that year, for while the great Crash of 1929 would shake the economic and financial fundamentals of our country and our society, Dr. King's life and work would just as dramatically shake this Nation into reconfirming our commitments to our moral and constitutional foundations.

Madam Speaker, in honor of Dr. King, we do not have the time to recount the entire complex history of civil rights in this country, but Dr. King knew and appreciated the shoulders upon which he stood. Slavery was our founding fault, and segregation our enduring national stain. Dr. King knew these truths in his soul, and knew many we could discuss today that fought their struggles for civil rights and laid the groundwork for Dr. King's life work. The gentleman from Georgia is one of those people. We have individuals like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, the African Americans who so nobly, heroically, and tragically served in Congress after the Civil War, Booker T. Washington, the early founders of the NAACP, Emmett Till, Medgar Evers, the tirelessly persistent, transportation-less souls in Montgomery, the brave individuals in Birmingham, Alabama and Philadelphia, Mississippi, those who tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and many, many more.

We think of those 180,000 African Americans who served and fought for this country during the Civil War, those who fought bravely against the suffering, the unspeakable lynchings, the violence, the de facto and de jure segregation and the enforced callousness and ruthlessness of being second-class citizens in a Nation founded upon liberty.

Many could have been bitter. Those who succeeded were not bitter, but they called us to our better spirits. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on these precedents, rightly admonishing us to look to their example, and we should all take pride in their and his commitment to equality and to civil rights.

Madam Speaker, Dr. King's letter from a Birmingham jail is one of the finest articulations of the moral prerequisites of the rule of law and its fundamental necessity to our legal, political, and societal foundations ever written. When I talk to school children, oftentimes I tell them to take a look at that letter. When you realize that letter was written without any access to books at the time, that he wrote under very difficult circumstances in a sparse jail cell, you appreciate even more the wisdom and the grace of the language that Dr. King used. His articulation of natural rights guided by natural law, of just and unjust laws, and of the objective and nonarbitrary basis for the rule of law, just government, and moral order is, in my judgment, without comparison.

So as we call, in this resolution, people of this Nation, particularly young people, to dedicate a portion of that day to service to their country, let us remember the vision of Dr. King as he understood the true basis for laws in this country.

When asked by some of the other ministers in Birmingham why he would interfere, he basically answered that it was his obligation to stand up against injustice. He said that he was a man of the law, but we were called to follow just laws, not unjust laws. He answered the question as to the difference between the two. And he, in my judgment, made a very, very specific reference to natural law in which he said that there are those laws which violate the laws of God, that we know them to be unjust, and therefore we must work against them.

I also remember in that letter he said to these ministers, who were similarly Christian ministers, when they accused him of being an outside agitator, and I can only paraphrase his words, but he said words to this effect: He said, What was Christ but an outside agitator for love? What was Christ but someone who attempted to seek justice? And are not we called upon to do the same thing?

So as we, in this resolution, call upon young people and others of this country to commit some time in the service of others, let them understand that Dr. King's appeal went deeper than just serving another; it was serving another for the right reason, it was for fighting for justice, not only in your community, but anywhere that you saw injustice.

There are few heroes in any lifetime that you have; but certainly, for those of us old enough to have been alive during Dr. King's lifetime, even though we may not have marched with him, we were honored to be part of a generation that saw his life and his commitment and his call to justice and truth and, fundamentally, to a full application of the Constitution of the United States and the foundations upon which this country is based.

I thank you for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Arthur Price for his 28 years of service.

Art Price was born in Escondido, California, October 13, 1951 to Arthur and Betty Price. He graduated from Ramona High School in 1969, then Grossmont Jr. College and California State University, Sacramento--earning a B.A. in Criminal Justice.

Art met Kathryn Price and was married on August 18, 1974. He graduated from P.O.S.T. in 1980 and was hired as a District Attorney Investigator for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office. On June 15, 1981, he was hired as the Chief Investigator for the Amador County District Attorney's Office, and has faithfully served five District Attorney Administrations as Chief Investigator since then.

Art played a key role in assisting the District Attorney in receiving the Auto Insurance Fraud, Workers' Compensation Fraud, and Elder Abuse grant programs, and Art's influence was critical in forging an alliance between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Social Services to combat welfare fraud in our community.

In 2002, Art was recognized by his peers as the Amador County Peace Officer of the Year. At the time of his retirement, Art was the longest serving District Attorney Chief Investigator in the State of California, recognized statewide as a leader in law enforcement. Art has also been active in the state law enforcement community through his work with the California District Attorney Investigator's Association, serving as president in 1999-2000.

Art's greatest legacy is his service to the community, having served as soccer coach, President of the Mother Lode Youth Soccer League, fundraiser for the Amador Polar Bears swim team and the Amador High School Volleyball team, Project Leader for the Sierra Eagles 4-H, Food Chairman for Sober Grad, member of the Jackson Lions and other positions for worthy causes.

Art is a devoted family man and father to five children--Arthur, Janice, Cheryl, Victoria, and John--and grandfather to four--Arthur, Kaitlyn, Timothy, and David.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Art Price for his dedication towards the District Attorney's Office, local law enforcement, and the citizens of Amador County.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow in my district--in Folsom, California--Numonyx will establish its North American headquarters. Numonyx is a leading semiconductor technology firm that specializes in memory products.

Approximately 450 members of the Numonyx global workforce will be located in nearly 100,000 square feet of building space on its new campus. The campus will house product research and development, business management, testing labs, validation labs, sales, marketing, and more.

Folsom was chosen as the new home for Numonyx due to its business- friendly environment, highly skilled and educated workforce as well as being a family-oriented community. Numonyx will play an important role in the ongoing growth of the workforce, economy and technical skill within the greater Sacramento region.

Beyond the obvious business, employment, and economic benefits, Numonyx's impact reaches the community at large with ``Numonyx in Your Neighborhood'' campaigns. These campaigns assist in meeting the needs of individuals and charitable organizations within the Sacramento region.

I am pleased that this leading-edge and high impact company has chosen California's 3rd district as its home.

Mr. Speaker, some days ago, when we were discussing and debating and voting on the health care bill, I got a call in my office from one of my constituents. After we had spoken for some time, he said, I have a confession to make. He said, I voted for President Obama because I thought that he would bring us together and that there was hope. But then he said these words, But I did not vote for this madness.

What did he mean? I guess maybe he was talking about a health care bill that's going to cost more money, going to raise taxes, and not going to take care of all Americans. I guess he was talking about a cap-and-trade bill that will put a burden on every single American. I guess he was talking about a proposal that comes to us that says, oh, we have a huge deficit and we're going to work our way out by spending more. And I suppose he may have been here to hear one of my colleagues just a moment ago who said, When Democrats meet behind closed doors, they come out for transparency. It seems absurd, perhaps because it is.