Floor Statements

I think the amendment is quite simple. As written, the bill allows for information to be shared with the private sector and utilities, but there are those that do not fall within that that I think we would all agree should be able to have this relationship.

Our amendment would have the simple effect of including those elements such as airport authorities, mass transit authorities, or municipal hospitals, which are neither private sector nor utilities, to be able to participate in this voluntary information-sharing regime.

I find it odd to find out that the committee is worried about the definition of ``critical infrastructure.'' That has been defined in the U.S. Code for over a decade. It is in the language in 42 U.S.C. 5195c, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2001, which defines critical infrastructure as:

Systems or assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to

the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such

systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on

security, national economic security, national public health

or safety, or any combination of those matters.

That has been the definition that we have supported. That's been the definition that we've worked on. Your committee, our committee, all committees have. I find this a very simple amendment that tries to reach what we are all trying to reach. It does not grant any more authority to the Federal Government. It allows for the sharing of information to vital entities, as the gentleman has suggested, that we would all agree ought to be there.

I would hope that pride of authorship is not the problem here. We're trying to do something that we think makes common sense. And if folks have trouble with the definition of critical infrastructure, you would have thought it would have been raised in the last decade.

I would hope that we could have support for this bipartisan amendment brought forward by the gentleman who

serves on the Intelligence Committee. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee. I'm chairman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity.

It seems to me to make imminent sense. I do not understand why there is some opposition to this amendment. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 24, 2012, former Attorney General of the United States Michael Mukasey spoke at an event in Paris about Iran and the Iranian opposition.

Judge Mukasey's comments warrant our consideration in light of the events which are currently taking place in Iran and their potential impact on the global community. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to submit them to this Body:

Thank you very much. Thank you to the sponsors of this

wonderful conference. Thank you David Amess for your clear,

penetrating comments on what is going on.

You know it seems as though we've come together many times

before to talk about the plight of the residents of Ashraf,

and now the plight of the residents of both Ashraf and the

ironically named Camp Liberty. And we were told on each of

those occasions that these broadcasts, that these meetings

were broadcast to Ashraf. And we haven't been told it, but I

wonder whether perhaps they're being broadcast at Camp

Liberty as well.

I would suggest to you, I would suggest to you that there's

someplace else that they should be broadcast. They should be

broadcast to the United States State Department. Of course,

based on what's happened in the last couple of weeks, I can't

guarantee that the signal would get through. I mean it may

very well be that at the State Department, just as in Cuba

and North Korea and Iran, they jam broadcasts with which they

disagree. I don't know whether that's true at the State

Department or not. I sincerely hope so. But I would hope that

a broadcast like this would get through, because then they

would see. They would see Mrs. [Maryam] Rajavi open this

session by extending her sympathy to the Jewish community of

Toulouse. They would see and hear her discuss what her

religion really means and what it has to do with terrorism,

which is nothing. They would get a hint as to what kind of,

quote, terrorist organization, unquote, this really is.

Of course this wasn't the way it was supposed to be. In

2003 when coalition forces invaded Iraq and encountered the

residents of Ashraf, the Ashraf residents peacefully

surrendered their weapons, the weapons they had, the only

thing they had to defend themselves, and received in return

on a piece of paper a guarantee that they would be treated as

protected persons under the fourth Geneva Conventions, a

guarantee signed on behalf of all coalition forces by a

United States general. And they received identity cards that

carry the telephone number of the military police, commanded

by another United States general who has appeared at these

meetings before, General Phillips. As I'm sure you know,

because we've told the story several times, the Clinton

administration put the MEK on a list of foreign terrorist

organizations really to appease the Iranians in the hope that

that would invite a dialogue. Some dialogue. Some dialogue,

with the regime that only a couple of months ago plotted to

assassinate a Saudi diplomat in the United States. Those are

the people they wanted to talk to.

The FBI went in 2003 and vetted each of the residents of

Ashraf to make sure that none of them were a terrorist, and

in each case it was certified that none were. The Iraqis, as

we know, have been acting increasingly at the behest of the

Iranian government, now that the United States has withdrawn.

And Nouri al-Maliki himself is behind the pressure that is

being brought and the persecution that is being brought

against the residents of both Ashraf and Camp Liberty. This

is how we get thanks for the sacrifices that were made by

American troops and by the United States as a whole in

freeing the people of Iraq.

The United Nations says transfer to Camp Liberty. We've had

1,200 people transfer to Camp Liberty. And we're told each

time, notwithstanding the completely inadequate conditions at

Camp Liberty, that this is progress. We're making progress.

People are moving out of Ashraf into Camp Liberty and this is

progress. You know, I had an uncle once who died of progress.

He was--it's true, he was in the hospital. And every day the

doctor came and checked on him and said he was showing

progress, until one day he was dead. And the family concluded

he must have died of progress. Ambassador [Martin] Kobler

reminds me of that doctor.

Of course, it's even worse than that here because the

potentially fatal disease that the residents of Ashraf have

really comes from their designation as a foreign terrorist

organization. The U.S. designation. And when I say the U.S.

designation advisedly because we're the only ones left in the

civilized world who apply that designation. And it's time to

get rid of it.

So, how is this all going to end? Well, I suggest to you

ladies and gentlemen that I'm very hopeful about how it's

going to end. I'm a lawyer, I deal in evidence. We have

evidence. We have statements from anonymous sources that

those of us who are here voicing our views are behaving

illegally under U.S. law.

It's a funny thing about anonymous sources, what are they

afraid of? They must be afraid of something. They're afraid

to have their names used. Look at the timing. The MEK tells

the State Department and the Justice Department, ``You know,

you've been dragging your feet long enough with this

designation. We're going to go into court.'' They gave them

not only advanced notice that they're going to do it, they

gave them an advanced copy of the papers they were going to

file. And they disclosed the names of the people. Mayor

Giuliani, Tom Ridge, others, many others, who would have also

filed paper in court as friends of the court, telling them on

the basis of our experience and our knowledge--many people on

that brief directly involved in national security affairs--

that there is no basis, no reason for that designation. They

were told that in advance. And lo and behold a couple days

later subpoenas get served on the speaker agencies that send

those people out to express their views. I stopped believing

in coincidences like that when I stopped believing in the

Tooth Fairy, and that was a long time ago.

But how is it going to come out? Well, look at the

behavior. The people who release information to the press are

afraid to give their names. The State Department hears that

papers are going to be filed on behalf of MEK, that papers

are going to be filed by people who have spoken out in behalf

of delisting, scurry to the Treasury Department, get them to

serve subpoenas.

What are they afraid of? The people here aren't afraid.

Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Ridge,

they're all sitting up there behind placards that have their

names on them. We all use our names. The people who are not

here, and who have been here before and who will be here

again if necessary, Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, they used their

names. They don't get up as anonymous informants to speak at

these meetings. They get up, they give their names and they

express their views. So who's going to prevail?

But can these people prevail in the face of the United

States government? Let me repeat the words of a famous

American industrialist, a man named Henry Kaiser who was once

confronted by the U.S. government. And people asked him, ``Do

you think that you can prevail against the U.S. government in

the view that you've expressed and the course of action that

you want to follow?'' And his response was, ``You know what?

There's no such thing as the U.S. government. They're just a

bunch of people.'' Some of them are smart and dedicated and

some of them are stupid and lazy. And we know who's on which

side in the current dispute.

Ladies and gentlemen, I haven't got any doubt about how

this is going to come out. And the way this is going to come

out is that eventually right will prevail in my country. And

when right prevails in my country it is my sincere hope that

it won't be long before right prevails in your country and

you restore Iran to the glorious civilization that it was and

will be. Thank you very much.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The idea that 15 unelected individuals on the Independent Payment Advisory Board have been empowered by the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ration health care for seniors--and that's for all seniors--is as Orwellian as these titles crafted by the previous Congress to divert attention from what's really being done here.

Delegating such authority to a government board to make such decisions with such a dramatic impact on the health care alternatives available to Medicare recipients raises the most serious ethical concerns about respect for the dignity of our seniors. This is the unfortunate consequence of a world view which favors the notion of bureaucratic expertise and efficiency as a solution to the challenges facing our health care system today. The purpose of providing quality health care to our Nation's seniors is simply incompatible with the idea that the delivery of health care services can be achieved through some sort of algorithm contrived by a panel of experts.

Rather than empowering seniors to play a more active role in their own health care decisions, the IPAB moves in the opposite direction by empowering an unaccountable government panel to make these decisions. In this regard, the inclusion of legislative language to repeal IPAB could not be better placed than with a medical liability reform bill, for IPAB is itself, per se, malpractice.

Now, H.R. 5 contains many important reforms concerning our health care litigation system. These health care reforms are modeled after my own State of California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, better known as MICRA. This important initiative was signed into law over three decades ago by then- and now, again, California Governor Jerry Brown.

I practiced under this law for several years. I practiced under the law that preceded MICRA. I did a good deal of medical malpractice defense in the courtroom. I appeared before juries, before judges. I settled cases. I had the

opportunity to defend doctors and hospitals. About 90 percent of the cases I did were on the defense side, about 10 percent on the plaintiff's side. I believe I had the first successful medical malpractice suit against an HMO in the State of California. I had an opportunity to view the system close up.

And the fact of the matter is, without the MICRA reforms, the California medical system, the health care system would have collapsed. We had doctors leaving the State of California--particularly in specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, neurosurgery, anesthesiology--moving to other States because the premiums that were required to be paid by our doctors had become so exorbitant that they either had to leave the State or no longer be able to practice medicine.

Information received by our Judiciary Committee from the National Association of State Insurance Commissioners indicates that since 1976, when it was adopted, California's medical professional liability premiums have risen at less than half the pace of the rest of the country. While I would caution that MICRA must not be perceived as a silver bullet, it was, nonetheless, an important step forward taken by our State and a sound model for reform. This is, once again, evidence that as laboratories of democracy, our States more often than not serve as incubators of reform.

At the same time, I do believe that it is important to recognize that the American legal system and our civil justice system, in particular, contains vagaries unique to each of the States which operate within the context of a system of federalism. In this regard, we need to be cautious on the Federal level in making assumptions about the impact of our actions. Even in California, itself, the effort to adopt a Federal medical liability reform statute has raised some questions about possible unintended consequences.

Even though one aspect of the impetus behind H.R. 5 is to bring relief to medical practitioners from the trap of defensive medicine, as suggested by the chairman of our committee--and I do believe that is true--physicians are, unfortunately, expressing some concerns over some of the provisions contained in H.R. 5.

Specifically, the California Medical Association, while they support getting rid of the board as we previously discussed, have expressed some opposition to the fair-share rule contained in section 4(d) of the HEALTH Act. They have expressed that the fair-share rule in H.R. 5 will preempt California's law and put full recovery by injured patients at risk. They inform us, ``As written, the fair share rule will dramatically increase the potential for physicians to face enforcement proceedings against their personal assets. This would force physicians to purchase increased medical professional liability insurance coverage, which will significantly increase liability premiums in California for physicians.''

Secondly, the California Medical Association has expressed ``serious concerns with granting complete immunity from punitive damages to medical produce and device manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers.'' They state, ``We believe this will force plaintiffs to look only to physicians and other providers to seek relief and will significantly increase physician exposure and liability costs.''

So I'm somewhat on the horns of a dilemma here. I do believe that we absolutely, as the physicians of the California Medical Association believe, ought to rid ourselves of the Independent Payment Advisory Board for fear that its implementation will, in fact, interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, interfere with the availability of medical care, interfere with the availability of physicians to seniors and others. But they have expressed some concerns that we have to give other States the benefit of MICRA. And I understand some of their concerns. I think we may be very well able to address that in further language.

Although it is my intention to vote for passage of H.R. 5, my hope is that before it would return to us from the Senate, we would specifically address the concerns raised by the physicians from my State. The necessary repeal of IPAB is an important reform. Some of these others contained in the further section of the health care act warrant support. But I do believe we need to have some changes, and I would look forward to those changes in a conference report or any bill which is returned to the body by the Senate.

I would like to say this, that for someone who practiced law for a number of years in the area of medical malpractice, with doctors and hospitals, and saw what a failure to limit noneconomic damages was doing to the availability of health care--not just the cost of health care, but the availability of health care in my home State--I do believe MICRA is a model that ought to be replicated by other States in the Union.

I do believe that the facts are in. Over 30 years, we've been able to see that it has improved access to health care, improved the number of physicians, particularly in difficult specialties, and it has brought down the overall cost of premiums and, therefore, the cost of medical care in my State.

The idea that somehow medical malpractice premiums have no effect either on the cost of care or the accessibility of care flies in the face of the experience of 30 years in my home State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 35) to establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on January 21, 2013, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 36) to authorize the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President- elect of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 29, 2012, I call up House Resolution 562 directing the Office of the Historian to compile oral histories from current and former Members of the House of Representatives involved in the historic and annual Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, marches, as well as the civil rights movement in general, for the purposes of expanding or augmenting the historic record and for public dissemination and education, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 562, which directs the Office of the Historian to compile and disseminate oral histories from current and former Members of the House of Representatives involved in the historic and annual Selma-to-Montgomery, Alabama, marches, as well as the civil rights movement in general.

In March of 1965, a defining 3-week period of the civil rights movement culminated with a historic 54-mile

march from Selma to Montgomery. Led by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., it was the last of three marches that resulted in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 recognizing the right of all Americans to participate in the electoral process.

On March 7, 1965, our colleague from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, and the Reverend Hosea Williams led 600 civil rights activists in the first march from Selma to Montgomery to protest the shooting of Jimmie Lee Jackson, killed just a few weeks earlier by State troopers while doing nothing more than registering African Americans to vote. The march lasted only six blocks before coming to a violent end on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. In what has become known as Bloody Sunday, troopers used tear gas and clubs to beat the protesters back from the bridge. The upsetting, horrifying images of peaceful marchers being brutally assaulted by authorities brought national attention to the plight of African Americans in the South and greater resolve to those seeking equality for all.

Two days later, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., led a second symbolic march where 2,000 participants returned to the Edmund Pettus Bridge and proceeded to kneel and pray.

On March 21, this time with protection from Federal authorities and the Alabama National Guard, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., led a 54-mile march to the State capitol building. Three days later, the group that started with 3,000 participants and grew to 25,000 strong, arrived in Montgomery, where Dr. King proclaimed:

We are on the move now. Like an idea whose time has come,

not even the marching of mighty armies can halt us. We are

moving to the land of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, the magnitude and importance of this historic event is undeniable, and its significance to American history must never be forgotten.

To commemorate these marches, Congress in 1996 created the 54-mile- long Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail along the route of Dr. King's march, starting at the Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma and ending at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery.

Since 1998, Members of Congress have participated in an annual civil rights pilgrimage on the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail. In March of 2009, I had the privilege of participating with my wife in this event. We marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and we were inspired by those with firsthand experiences from the events of 1965.

Documenting and sharing the experiences of Members who participated in historic and annual marches from Selma to Montgomery is critically important to the recognition and preservation of the achievements of the American civil rights movement. As I understand it, Mr. Lewis from Georgia and the majority leader whip, Mr. McCarthy, will lead the 2012 congressional civil rights pilgrimage starting tomorrow. It is fitting that we are here today with this resolution as another group of Members begin their journey.

I want to thank my colleagues from Alabama, Ms. Sewell and Mrs. Roby, for introducing this important resolution.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues not only to support the resolution but also to take part in the annual congressional Selma to Montgomery march.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a distinguished member of the Committees on Education and the Workforce and Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Committees on Armed Services, Agriculture, Education and the Workforce, and she cosponsored this resolution.

(Mrs. ROBY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees.

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

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, although obviously the efforts in the civil rights movement were the culmination of efforts by people of all faiths, I find it instructive that this march takes place during the period of Lent, that in the Christian faith is a period of reflection and sacrifice as we prepare for Easter Sunday.

Last Sunday, in my home parish out in California, I recall the readings at the first Sunday of Lent were about the temptations of Christ in the desert. And we received a remarkable sermon at our church in which the theme was expressed with the words ``the crown without the cross,'' that the essence of the temptation of Christ was whether He, as God-made man, was able to make the decision or was tempted to make the decision to accept the crown without accepting the cross, that is, to accept the kingship as Godhead without going through the demands, the terror, and the death of the cross.

I'm reminded of that today because I think of that question that John Lewis and others had as they crossed that bridge, as they reached the crest and they saw the troopers at the other side: Do you turn back and do you not accept the cross that is coming in order to achieve that which needs to be done to redeem this country and its promise of equality of all as contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?

I would say that I was inspired as I was there with my wife and others on the march several years ago, Steny Hoyer leading those on the Democratic side and John Lewis, of course, being a regular Member. And he wrote to those of us who reflected on that period that perhaps the most magnificent piece of literature that came out of the civil rights movement, in my judgment, is the ``Letter From the Birmingham Jail'' by Dr. King. I would commend to my colleagues and to others who might hear our words that they go back and take time to read those words.

Dr. King, sitting in jail, without access to any texts, wrote a magnificent epistle of his generation and our generation to the conscience of the American people. And he found no difficulty whatsoever in utilizing his heartfelt religious values and principles in extending the promise of that Christian message and the religious values that are found in our Judeo-Christian tradition to the underpinnings of our Constitution and challenged us to understand the difference between just and unjust laws and our responsibility to ``render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.''

It is an inspiration to me now, and it has been an inspiration to me my entire life.

I would say to anyone who wants to understand the civil rights movement, to understand the promise of America that was not fulfilled and will never perfectly be fulfilled but is certainly in a better state today than it was prior to the civil rights revolution, they should read those words of Dr. King and understand how that animated the civil rights movement and gave us heroes such as our colleague from Georgia, John Lewis.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

May I make an inquiry as to whether the gentleman on the other side, Mr. Lewis, has additional speakers?

And how much time do we have?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Lewis. Let us have all Members vote for this resolution. It is a recognition, a simple, straightforward, symbolic resolution recognizing the efforts of so many, as embodied in the gentleman, Mr. Lewis, and others who worked so hard to change this country for the better.

I'm honored to be here on the floor with Mr. Lewis today. I appreciate the chance I had to be with him in this march several years ago.

I encourage all Members to take part in that, either this year or in the future, and I ask all Members to support this.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement on March 2, we rise to thank Peter Shipman for his 32 years of outstanding service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Peter graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1976 with a degree in furniture design and subsequently worked for Gift Construction building decks.

Peter came to the House November 1, 1979, when he was hired by the Cabinet Shop. His first task was to repair broken chairs from various House offices and over time he demonstrated his remarkable talent for constructing new House furniture.

Over the next several years he artfully designed, built, and repaired numerous pieces of House furniture. By 1996, Peter had worked his way up to Assistant Foreman and eventually became Foreman. His list of accomplishments include the construction of the Speaker's chair for the House Floor, the construction of a beautiful hand-painted ``Hummingbird Desk'' for one particular Member, and two special display cabinets for another. He was also responsible for the design and supervision of the House Floor elevating lecterns, a sideboard for the Speaker, and a workstation for one of our House Officers. He has trained many employees over his tenure as a master cabinet maker teaching furniture design as well as construction and repair techniques. For the last four years, he has served as the Manager of the House Cabinet Shop where he passed on his wealth of knowledge and talent to his employees and mentored the staff.

On a more personal note, he has always been interested in team sports and played with many of his co-workers on the House Rockers softball team during the 80s in the Congressional Softball League. After retirement, Peter plans to continue with his woodworking and spend more time with his family.

On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, we personally congratulate Peter on his retirement and thank him for all he has done for this institution. We wish Peter the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, might I make an inquiry as to how much time I have remaining.

I thank the Speaker.

At this time, I would recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee). We are trying to keep it to about 4 minutes apiece. And I'm not just saying that because you're ready to talk, but that's the time we have.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

It is now a pleasure on my part to be able to recognize for his words the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I thank the gentleman for his powerful words.

At this time I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to share the last 9 minutes with the gentleman from New Jersey, the man I call the William Wilberforce of this Congress, Mr. Chris Smith.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I thank him for his leadership on many, many issues of human rights, not only in the United States but around the world.

I was astounded when I heard the comments of the leader of the minority party in the House of Representatives several days ago when she referred to those who were concerned about this decision by the President of the United States and the secretary of HHS as using religious liberty as an excuse. What an insult to those men and women of good faith who've expressed their concern about how this will require them to either violate their consciences or pay fines in tribute to the Federal Government.

Interestingly enough, Alexis de Tocqueville said this about Catholics:

The American Catholics are faithful to the observance of

their religion. Nevertheless, they constitute the most

Republican and most Democratic class of citizens which exists

in the United States. Although this fact may surprise some

observers at first, the causes by which it is occasioned may

easily be discovered upon reflection.

What he suggested was the consciences of Catholics who utilized their consciences to bring to the public debate did not undermine America, it fortified America.

We've crossed this bridge before. Unfortunately there were those who claimed to be Republicans in the 1800s who led the fight against men and women of conscience who happened to be Catholic. This caused Abraham Lincoln to say these words in a letter to Joshua Speed in 1855:

As a Nation, we began by declaring that all men are created

equal. We now practically read it ``all men are created equal

except Negroes.'' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will

read ``all men are created equal except Negroes and

foreigners and Catholics.''

What does it mean? The Know-Nothings feared that Catholics would bring their conscience and their values of faith to the public debate.

We've been across this bridge before. We should not accept it. It's not just Catholics. It is men and women of all religious beliefs and even those of no religious beliefs who understand that a government that commands that you do something against your conscience is a government that can basically take anything away from you, and in this case, perhaps the most precious thing there is in you, your faith.

We cannot let it stand. It is a question of the culture of America, the tradition of America, the first amendment to the Constitution of America.

This is a serious debate because it questions whether anyone, anybody in government, can basically tell you that you must check your religious values at the door.

Interestingly enough, just a week and a half ago, I was present when I heard the President speak at the National Prayer Breakfast and say he does not and we do not and we cannot check our religious values at the door. That's precisely what this edict--and that's what it is--this edict does.

We ought to understand. We speak not just for Catholics, we speak not just for Christians, we speak not just for Jews, for Muslims, for Hindus, for people of faith, and for those who have no faith. We speak for all Americans in understanding that the First Amendment is not made up of mere words; it is made up of first principles. And we cannot allow first principles to be cast aside.

That's why we must stand in unity against this rule, this unprincipled, this unlawful, this unconstitutional rule that has no basis in fact, has no basis in the Constitution, and has no basis in the culture of this country properly understood.

I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I thank all for their contribution.

General Leave

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order this evening.

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

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, let me just point out a couple of things in response to what has been said on the floor about the bill before us. Had we adopted, had we accepted the Senate bill, we would have had 16 drafting errors not corrected; 16 misstatements in the Senate bill that drafted the wrong provisions of the ethics laws that already existed and would have ensured that what was said on the Senate floor and is being said here would not be enforced in law, number one.

Number two, if we had taken the Senate bill, the absolute prohibition

about Members participating in IPOs would not be before us. That is an addition that we have in the House bill. That is an additional prohibition. That makes that an illegal act. It has not been in the past. The Senate bill did not even talk about that.

Third, with respect to the issue of political intelligence, I respect the Senator from Iowa very much, but I doubt he has ever prosecuted anybody and put them in prison for conflict of interest during their public service. I have.

I understand when you do that, you have to deal with the very careful constitutional questions of people dealing with their right to apply before the government their grievances. That has become known now as lobbying. It is a constitutionally protected activity.

And the idea that we have a Congress committed to transparency means that we give out as much information as we possibly can. Those are difficult, conflicting interests that have to be carefully determined if we're going to deal with the question of political intelligence. It does us no good to pass a bill that will be rendered unconstitutional. And it does us no good to not carefully consider this. As a matter of fact, on the Senate floor, it was Senator Lieberman who asked his fellow colleagues to give them time on the Senate side to study the issue so that, precisely, they would not render the bill unconstitutional. I might add that Senator Lieberman also served as Attorney General of his State, and knows whereof he speaks.

If the gentleman would send someone over here, you can make a copy of it right now.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at the very outset, I would like to thank Members on both

sides of the aisle for attempting to try and deal with a serious issue. I'd like to particularly point to staff who have worked over this last weekend, including four attorneys on my House Administration Committee, who spent a good portion of this last weekend going through the Senate bill and trying to come up with what we believe is a responsible bill, a tough bill that could pass this House, and frankly did not include the errors that we found in the bill on the Senate side.

Several months before the STOCK Act debuted in the Senate, questions were raised publicly about the application of existing laws relating to insider trading. Specifically, there were questions as to whether or not the current laws applied to Members of Congress or their staff. As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I and my staff carefully reviewed current law, and we concluded that the prohibition on insider trading and the criminal penalties associated with it are very much applicable, and not just to Members of Congress and staff of the legislative branch.

Let me be clear. Let us disabuse anyone of the notion that somehow they could engage in insider trading between now and the time the bill gets on the President's desk and he signs it. It is already illegal. That is the advice I've given Members when I've been asked. That's the advice I've given to the press when they've asked. It's the advice that's been given by the Ethics Committee to Members of Congress and to staff. No one within the House of Representatives or the Senate or the executive branch or even the judicial branch, regardless of responsibility, title or salary, should be under the false impression that they are somehow exempt under these laws. They are not.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I would be very happy to respond to that, and I will a little bit later on in my statement. Thank you very much.

In addition to the Congress sometimes dedicated to redundancy, there is a question of clarification. The fact that we've had questions asked of us over the last several months as House Administration chairman, as the Ethics chairman has done, gives rise to the question that some have asked, and we have tried to disabuse them of that notion all along. Although we create and uphold the laws of the land, we are not above them. As their elected representatives, we owe our constituents the assurance that the decisions we make here in the people's House are, in fact, for the people and not ourselves. This assurance, Madam Speaker, must be government-wide. America not only needs to know that all of their government officials are subject to insider trading laws, but also need to know and need proof that they are adhering to them, which is exactly what the amended version of the S. 2038 accomplishes.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Skilling v. United States that set out several specific questions that it said must be answered in criminal statutes on honest services. The Senate bill ignored the Supreme Court's guidance and failed to answer the questions it set out. The amendment does more than eliminate the Senate's defective provisions and numerous drafting errors.

Our bill before us also strengthens the previous House and Senate proposals by first clarifying the broad application of insider trading laws, making sure no one questions it. As I say, it is already against the law, and no Member ought to rush out now and attempt to use his insider trading information for insider trading thinking that he or she is not covered. They are already covered.

It expands the financial transaction disclosure requirements. We are going to be required now, in terms of actual financial transactions, to report within a 30-day period as opposed to doing it quarterly. We're also going to be required to disclose our mortgages, which are not required right now. So we are expanding the disclosure requirements. We extend the post-employment negotiation restrictions. We expand prohibitions on influencing private hiring decisions. This is an additional point.

I would say to my friend from Michigan, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we end the preferential treatment of government officials by prohibiting them from accepting exclusive access to IPOs. That has not been against the law. There's been some suggestion that might have been carried on by some Members. I have no evidence whether it has or it has not; but that is an additional prohibition placed in this, which I believe was not in the Senate bill, is not under current law, but it does make it explicit. Members of Congress cannot participate in accepting exclusive access to IPOs.

Certainly.

I would be happy to if they don't know that already. But when you read the newspapers, you would think that somehow it is proper and appropriate.

I want to make it clear not only to our colleagues but to the American public, it is against the law now, it has been against the law. If anybody has evidence of this, they should report it to the proper authorities because it is against the law.

Madam Speaker, the amendment before us, when applied to the underlying bill, creates the clarity and accountability necessary to ensure that government officials--elected, appointed, and otherwise-- adhere to Federal insider trading laws. It prohibits Members, officials, and employees of every branch of government from using nonpublic privileged information for personal gain, and it creates a disclosure mechanism for finding out when they do so. Additionally, the bill denies pensions for Members convicted of crimes. That is an addition to current law. It eliminates bonuses for senior executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is an addition to current law. And it directs the GAO to utilize----

With that, I would urge that all vote for this strong, strong STOCK Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 99, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago, this administration announced a position that amounts to an assault on religious liberty in this country. Their narrow definition of what constitutes religious action, religious belief, and whether or not the Federal Government can cause you to take actions against your own conscience is a serious matter that ought not to be determined by the Friday release of a decision made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This is an issue that goes beyond the Catholic Church and Catholic institution. It goes to the essence of the First Amendment protections contained in the Constitution with respect to religious freedom. We had better understand exactly how important this issue is, and we had better understand how it has to be addressed directly and cannot be compromised by saying we're not going to take away your religious liberty for a year. That is not a compromise. That is a form of political extortion.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 496) adjusting the amount provided for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.

Madam 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 H. Res. 496.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 496. This resolution adjusts the amounts provided for the expenses of the select and standing committees of the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress.

Last November, the Committee on House Administration held a full-day hearing at which we heard from our chairs and ranking members. At that hearing, we discussed how each committee absorbed the 5 percent budget reduction implemented at the beginning of the 112th Congress and how, as we continue to reduce government spending, they will manage additional reductions this year.

Madam Speaker, I know, as a committee chairman myself, that we face the difficult task of doing more with less. Yet I also know that my constituents, all of our constituents, need us to do more with less and to rein in government spending. Families have been required to tighten their belts, and they constantly ask us to do the very same thing. They do not suggest it is easy, because it has not been easy for them. But they ask of us that which they have asked of themselves. Today's economy has forced our constituents to sacrifice and, as I say, tighten their financial belts to make ends meet at home. Congress should not be and will not be immune.

While most committees are taking a 6.4 percent cut in line with the reduced funding levels of the 2012 legislative branch appropriation, certain committees faced with additional oversight responsibilities in 2012 were cut at a smaller percentage in order that they might be able to conduct their work.

Particularly daunting will be the Armed Services' charge of managing the automatic sequestration of $600 billion in defense cuts triggered by the Budget Control Act. And I hasten to add that is in addition to, or on top of, the $400 billion cut that is already being enforced by prior decisions by this Congress and the President.

In addition to Armed Services, the Ethics Committee, tasked with holding Members and staff to the highest ethical standards, has requested and will receive a reprieve from funding reductions.

To help offset these exceptions and match the reduced appropriations, we've identified and reduced authorizations of three committee budgets that we feel are able to absorb a slightly higher reduction in 2012. In addition to

our committee, the Committee on House Administration, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Committee on Small Business will receive a slightly higher reduction than the 6.4 percent applied to the remaining House committees.

Madam Speaker, as we've demonstrated over the past year, this House is committed to living within its means and leading by example by putting an end to excessive spending. Our committees do vitally important oversight of the executive branch and Federal agencies, and that ought to be underscored if we are, in fact, going to be successful in holding down and controlling spending in the executive branch. We, the legislative branch, are the extension of the people we represent in an oversight capacity, and that is an extremely important responsibility. Our committees, as I say, do vitally important oversight of the executive branch and our Federal agencies; and while these reductions in committee funding will require committees to allocate their resources more judiciously, I am confident, based on the hearing, that they are prudent and manageable.

Madam Speaker, these are extraordinary times. We face extraordinary debt, deficits, and unemployment. Trillion-dollar deficits year after year after year would be practically unheard of just a couple of years ago; yet, unfortunately, they have become commonplace. That is unacceptable. We haven't had an unemployment rate at the levels we have seen for such a sustained period of time since the Great Depression. Those are not facts that I like to recite on this floor, but those are the real facts that face our constituents every single day.

Unfortunately, my area, over the last several years, we have had a higher unemployment rate than that which has prevailed in this country. California has had an unemployment rate, I believe, that has been the third worst in the entire country. We are not immune from what is being felt by the rest of the country. And when I am home, as I am sure other Members have found in their districts when they are home, we constantly hear the refrain, Where are the jobs? And following that, we hear the refrain, Why don't you get your House in order, referring to the entire Federal Government. Why don't you bring spending under control, because we believe it has a specific and direct and immediate drag on our ability to create jobs in this country. That ought to be, along with national defense, homeland security, our greatest objective.

And so this is just a small part of our effort to be responsible. Through the adoption of this resolution and the 5 percent cut during our first session of the 112th Congress, this House is doing its job to step up to the plate and reduce spending and find cost savings wherever possible. We are taking bold steps to demonstrate our commitment to reduced spending and tighter budgets.

This is not easy. I don't suggest it is. It is not easy to say that we are going to bring our budgets down and that our employees are not going to have increased salaries along with Members of Congress, but it is at least what we ought to do.

Combined, I would say these measures--that is, last year and this year--represent the largest percentage cut to committee budgets since the 104th Congress, when the House then adopted a resolution with an amendment by then-House Administration Committee Member John Boehner to reduce committee funding by 30 percent.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 496 was reported out of the committee in December, and I now look forward to its passage by the House. I support H. Res. 496 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Elections on House Administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight on the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a distinguished member of the House Administration Committee and the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to close out the debate. I have no other speakers. So if the gentleman would finish his time, I would be happy to as well.

Madam Speaker, I would just say that this is an effort on our part to give an example to the rest of the government. This will be a culmination of about a 10 percent cut overall to the committees of this House. We have had combined cuts in terms of our own MRAs, that is, the amount that each Member has for his budget. And I think as we go forward and having to make some very difficult decisions with respect to future controls of spending on the Federal establishment in its entirety, it will serve us well that we have shown the way, that we can make difficult decisions in this regard, and that this is an appropriate, responsible action to take.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 496.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 90) authorizing the printing of the 25th edition of the pocket version of the United States Constitution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam 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 90.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Standards for the Electronic Posting of House and Committee Documents and Data, which were adopted by the Committee on House Administration on December 16, 2011, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Madam 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 the Standards for the Electronic Posting of House and Committee Documents and Data.

Mr. Speaker, first I would just say to the gentlelady who just spoke that I do not doubt that the President wishes to create jobs. The fact of the matter is he just doesn't know how. The record would suggest that.

When I first came to this House, the year was 1979, January. We were in the midst of what history has shown us was a failed Presidency. We had something called the misery index. We had unemployment rising. We had inflation rates around 20 percent. We had, by all gauges, a difficult time, a time that many people looked upon with despair, and many suggested that the issues were so large and the problems so great that no President could possibly deal with it, no Congress, and the American people could not.

It was just prior to that time that I met a gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, as we were both freshman Members elected. And we began talking about the fact that our party had

not been in the majority for well over a generation, that there seemed to be a lack of a vision for the future, and that there was an acceptance of mediocrity and failure and second-class status for America.

Our belief was, at that time, that we could come together with a number of other Members and try and at least give voice to a new idea, a new vision, a more positive vision for America. We worked together with other Members and formed what was called the Conservative Opportunity Society because we thought that that was a positive vision for the future of America, consistent with Republican principles and, more importantly, consistent with and expressive of American principles. We thought it was an antidote to what we saw leading us at that time as the liberal welfare state. I think history has shown that, with the election of Ronald Reagan and the embracing of the Conservative Opportunity Society vision of America, that America could turn around.

We are confronted with what I believe to be a failed Presidency at the present time. We are confronted with questions and some great despair in families around America for the failure of an opportunity for jobs. And I would suggest that, at this point in time, it is appropriate for those who have visions, those who are ready to challenge the conventional wisdom, those who believe that America's best days are ahead, not behind, to come to the fore.

There are those who look at the faults of Newt Gingrich. I'd like to suggest that he was the one person that I know that had a vision in this House of how this House could be changed, how we, working as an institution, could work with a President to make changes and, ultimately, how this side of the aisle could, for the first time in a generation, actually be the majority.

Following his ascendency to Speaker of the House, we actually had balanced budgets. We actually had some bringing down of some of the size of the Federal Government. We actually had some progress around the country. So I would say, for those who look at the faults of others, let's look at their accomplishments.

This is a time when it seems to me we ought to be serious about the future of America. We ought to be bold about the future of America. We ought to have some confidence in the greatness of America, the greatness of its people, not necessarily the greatness of its government. We need to have a good governmental structure that allows the greatness of the American people.

There are some on the Presidential debate scene today who are willing to challenge us with bold ideas. That has been done in the past and has proven successful. It seems to me we should not shrink from the future; we should embrace the future. We should, in fact, be leaders of the future.

I am not one elected to this House to be satisfied that the future of America for my children and my grandchildren is any less than what it was for me as a child growing up. I will not stand here and allow us to act in vain so that the sacrifices of my parents, some call the Greatest Generation, I say one of the greatest generations, will have been in vain. They worked hard. They accepted the challenges of the future with an innate confidence in the goodness of the American people, the capabilities of the American people, and, yes, the common sense of the American people.

My hope is that as we go forward in this year, those of us who seek office for both the House, the Senate, and Presidency will accept that mantle of leadership that has been cast upon us from those in the past.