Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an old friend, Oliver (Ollie) Speraw, who on March 26, 2011 turned 90 years of age. Ollie has lived a life full of notable accomplishments where he became a captain of industry and a humble public servant.

Ollie grew up in Long Beach after moving there at a young age with his family from Minnesota. As a young man Ollie worked in a number of different trades and contributed to the early war effort, riveting P- 38s, before finally coming of age to enlist in the Army Air Corps and serve during WW2. After returning home he entered the Real Estate Business, starting Sparrow Reality, and became one of the original pioneers of Century 21 Real Estate. Throughout his life, Ollie has been actively involved in his home town of Long Beach and the surrounding region, participating in multiple organizations such as the Long Beach Jaycees, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce and the Oceanside Rotary. In 1954, he began his first position in civilian public service as a member of the Long Beach Water Board, and served there until 1969. Ollie was inspired by Ronald Reagan, California's Governor at the time, and his message of an efficient, cost-cutting government. He subsequently volunteered for one of the Governor's citizen committees. Out of this inspiration, Ollie became more active in politics, which led him to become a Board Member on the 31st Senate District Republican Central Committee, of which I was also a member at the time. Ollie moved on to win his first election in 1979, where he joined the California State Senate and served there until 1984. While in the Senate he gained a reputation as a protector of the taxpayer who sought to make government leaner, effective and more efficient. Californians who have a little red organ donor sticker on their Drivers Licenses can be reminded daily of just a small piece of his legislative legacy.

Ollie served his country with honor in World War II, helped pioneer one of the largest employers in the Real Estate industry and has honorably served the people of California as one of their elected officials. It has been my pleasure to know Ollie Speraw and more importantly, to call him my friend. Please join me in wishing him a happy 90th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to refer to the so-called health care reform bill as the Affordable Health Care Act. There are a lot of questions 1 year after passage. But one question has been answered. It is not the Affordable Medical Care Act. It is the Unaffordable Medical Care Act.

Why do I say that? Well, HHS has decided to give over 1,000 waivers to businesses, to unions, and now even to States because they find they can't afford what is required in the bill. Secondly, I haven't met a single constituent whose health care cost by way of their insurance policies or programs has gone down. They have all gone up as a direct result of the bill passed on this floor and signed by the President.

So let's at least have some truth in labeling. It is not the Affordable Health Care Act. It is increasingly becoming the Unaffordable Health Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 147 and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Thank you very much.

I was actually not going to speak on this rule until I heard the ranking member of the Rules Committee speak, and she made our point so eloquently I wanted to underscore it. I couldn't believe that she suggested that there was somehow a parity between national defense and NPR. She said, if we're going to come here and talk about de-funding NPR, then why shouldn't she get a shot at denying the Defense Department $8 billion or whatever it is.

That's the point we're trying to make. We have a huge deficit, $228 billion in 1 month. In fact, it was the shortest month of the year, which just happened to be the total deficit for, I think, the entire year of 2007. You know, I don't know, I heard people on the other side of the aisle criticizing President Bush for deficits. He's a piker compared to what we're seeing right now in the White House.

But the point is, how do we do anything here on the floor with respect to trying to bring spending under control if, as the gentlelady from New York suggests, we should treat equally the question of national defense and NPR? That's what the American people are rejecting. They're saying to you, why don't you establish priorities the way we establish priorities. And to come to the floor and suggest that somehow NPR is contained in the Constitution, as is the subject of national defense, I think is, frankly, ludicrous.

So I hope the American people are listening. This is a debate on the rule to allow the bill to be brought to the floor. The gentlelady from New York has done a very good job of crystallizing the issue. If you don't believe we

ought to set priorities, if you believe NPR is as important to this Nation as national defense, then reject the rule and reject the bill because the gentlelady is correct. If they're of equal weight, this is unfair because we are talking about NPR. We're not talking about somehow gutting national defense.

But if you believe that somehow national defense has a slightly higher priority in the Constitution and in our constitutional governmental structure than does NPR, then you would reject the gentlelady's suggestion and say we came here to try and change things. We came here to try and somehow balance our books at some point in time in the future, but the way to do that is to establish priorities.

If we, in fact, believe that saving NPR or giving NPR Federal funding is the same as funding our troops, then all is lost, all is lost; but I frankly was surprised to hear the comparison of us debating on money to keep our troops in the war zone versus NPR. That is the best example I have seen on the floor, perhaps the most honest example I've seen on floor, of the difference of the two parties and the difference in, I think, what the American people want us to do and what some in the leadership on the Democratic side want us to do.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am, as many are, going home hopefully this afternoon and will have town halls when I'm home, and maybe I will ask the question at my town halls: Do you believe that funding NPR is of the same importance or moment as funding our troops in the war zone? I believe that I will have an overwhelming response by the people of my district who suggest what we are doing with this rule is to allow us to deal with those kinds of issues, setting priorities that they sent us to Washington to do.

So I again thank the gentleman for his time. I thank the gentlelady for explicating the difference between the two parties' approaches on this and understanding the sense of priorities that either exist or don't exist on this floor.

For me, I will easily say that even though it may be a tough decision, I would vote to take Federal funding away from NPR in order to try to balance our books in the future and do what is necessary to defend this country and those other things that are contained in the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) providing for the acceptance of a statue of Gerald R. Ford from the people of Michigan for placement in the United States Capitol.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 27, providing for the acceptance of a statue of Gerald R. Ford from the people of Michigan for placement in the United States Capitol.

President Gerald R. Ford was a distinguished Member and minority leader of this Chamber, a man of the House. He was Vice President of the United States and our 38th President. A proud citizen of the great State of Michigan, President Ford served this Nation at a time of great national pain and turmoil. He ably served and helped us heal our wounds.

This resolution allows, at the direction of the people of Michigan, the Rotunda to be used for a ceremony in President Ford's honor on May 3 of this year. It also allows for the statue to be permanently displayed as part of the prestigious and historic national Statuary Hall collection.

Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution, introduced by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and cosponsored by the other members of the Michigan delegation, should garner overwhelming bipartisan support. So I thank Mr. Upton for introducing it, and I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 27.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2011.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the original sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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

Mr. Speaker, President Ford was a wonderful person, as everyone has said here. He was a remarkable man. And one of the most remarkable things about him was the humility with which he carried himself through his entire life.

An All-American football player, he was criticized for being clumsy by the national press at times, when in fact it was because he had a trick knee as a result of injuries that he suffered. But he never complained about that.

I'd like to just mention one little anecdote that I think brings to the attention of people what a genuine person he was. We all know that President Ford took a rather controversial, and I would say courageous, act in granting a pardon to President Nixon because he thought it was best for this country.

Now, some time thereafter, my father actually happened to be the physician attending to former President Nixon when he was suffering from his phlebitis attack which led to a near-death occasion while he was at Long Beach Memorial Hospital.

President Ford heard about that, and President Ford was en route to California, and he immediately summoned his aides to him on Air Force One and said, I want to go visit Richard Nixon. His staff replied, Mr. President, we would advise against it. You've already received political heat for pardoning Mr. Nixon. And a personal visit like this would draw attention to that, and we would recommend against it.

In response, Gerald Ford said, Richard Nixon is my friend; he is in trouble. I want to see him.

So his aides then said, well, Mr. President, perhaps he is not well enough to see you. And President Ford said to his staff, call his doctor, call Pat Nixon, ask whether it would be good for me to visit him, and I will abide by their decision.

They called up and talked to Mrs. Nixon, who then called my dad and asked whether it would be a good idea. And my dad said it might be the best thing for his health that could happen. And when that was told to Gerald Ford, he said, make it happen. And he did. He came and he visited Richard Nixon at the hospital. After it was over, he turned to his aide, his Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney, and said, that's as close to death as I've ever seen anybody, because President Nixon was very, very sick at the time.

My dad called me up after that was over and said, this was a wonderful visit. It will help the health of President Nixon. And then he said to me, this--probably politically incorrect to say today, but my dad said, That President Ford, he's a real man's man. What he meant by that was he was a genuine person who, irrespective of the political consequences, decided to go forward with what most people would consider to be a genuine act of friendship, trying to help a friend in need, a friend who was in difficulty and, in fact, almost on the doorstep of death.

But that was Gerald Ford. He acted the way we would all hope that we would act, without concern for the consequences politically. Gerald Ford was, in fact, a man's man.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge our colleagues to support this resolution so that we might have the presence of Gerald Ford's statue here in our Nation's Capitol so that generations from now children can come and visit and ask questions about who that man, President Ford, really was, and perhaps they will get the real picture.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Folsom High School Bulldogs Varsity Football Team for their 2010 CIF Division II State Championship win on December 18, 2010.

With their win at the CIF Division II State Championship in Carson, against Serra High School of Gardena, the team joins the level of elite high school football teams in the State. Their win is a source of pride for the students, faculty, and the alumni of Folsom High School, as well as the residents of Folsom.

The Bulldogs had an impressive season in which they attained a 14-1 record. Along the road to the State Championship, the Folsom Bulldogs had one of the greatest playoff runs in Section history. After defeating a solid 6-4 Roseville team 56-13 in the first round, the Bulldogs then steamrolled the 10-1 Vacaville Bulldogs 75-6 in round two. In the Section Semi-finals the Folsom Bulldogs traveled to Atwater to face the 12-0 Buhach Colony Thunder. The Bulldogs defeated the Thunder 55-20. In front of a record crowd of 20,000 plus fans, the Bulldogs battled the nationally ranked Grant Pacers to a 41-20 victory and the Division II Section Championship. Winning the Section Championship in the toughest division in the San Joaquin Section and finishing the season with a 13-1 record earned the Folsom Bulldogs a State Bowl berth. This set the matchup between the 13-1 Folsom Bulldogs and the 14-0 Serra Cavaliers in the Division II State Championship. The Serra Cavaliers came into the State Championship game with a 29-game winning streak. The Folsom Bulldogs proved to be too much for the Cavaliers as the Folsom Bulldogs rolled to a 48-20 victory. This earned the Folsom Bulldogs their first State Championship and a number 5 National Ranking by MaxPreps.

In their 5 postseason games the Folsom Bulldogs faced teams with a combined record of 55-5 and outscored them 275-79. This is an amazing feat by an amazing team. Postseason awards include Dano Graves winning the title of Cal-Hi State Football Player of the Year and the MaxPreps National Player of the Year. Coach Kris Richardson has been honored as the Nike and MaxPreps Division II State Coach of the Year.

This team represents heart, strength, determination, and resilience. I commend Coach Kris Richardson for his leadership throughout the season, and applaud him and his fellow coaches for keeping the team focused and determined to achieve their goal of a state championship.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the Folsom High School Varsity Football Team.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

My name happens to appear on this bill as the original author of this bill, H.R. 4. I remember when I introduced this last April, Members on that side of the aisle were told by their leadership don't dare go on this bill to repeal this necessary provision of the Affordable Care Act.

By the way, if it is truly an affordable care act, why has Secretary Sebelius granted over 700 waivers to companies and unions? Because it's not affordable. Why has virtually every member of my constituency who has health insurance had an increase in their premiums as a direct result of the ``Affordable Care Act''? Just a passing question because I'm asked that all the time by my constituents.

Why did I introduce this? Because provision 9006 of the bill has nothing to do with affordable care and has everything to do with the capacity of our friends on the other side to find ingenious ways of impacting business because I guess business is considered bad. Well, I've got an answer for you today to the question of who creates jobs. This is who creates jobs: small business. And this particular section of your so-called Affordable Care Act kills business, kills small business. What does it do? It is based on the assumption that everybody cheats. Why? Because the 1099 form is usually utilized for the purpose of making sure you carry out your obligation to pay payroll tax.

But what did we do in the so-called Affordable Care Act? We increased the reach of 1099s so that when you have no obligation to pay anything, you have to report on the person on the other side of the business transaction; so that they, supposedly, are cheating, and therefore we have what's known as the universal snitch act.

The idea that it's going to gain $19 billion, in my judgment, is created out of whole cloth. You have to assume that almost everybody cheats to get your $19 billion.

And here's the game here in Washington, D.C.: We create a new obligation on business that's never existed before. We then secretly put it in a bill--virtually no one on this floor knew it was in the bill--and then we score it for gaining $19 billion to the Treasury. And if I dare come to this floor to repeal it, I'm obligated to come up with $19 billion in new taxes or some sort of a spending cut?

The American people ought to understand the game that's played. In secret, we pass something like this, which has an unbelievably pernicious effect on business. Now, how does it have such an effect? It requires every single person involved in business or trade to go into accounting to make sure that every time they reach that threshold of $600 or more with anybody they purchase something from they have to file a 1099.

Here's what someone in my district just emailed me, a small business person, a woman:

``I have 15 employees. As owner, I am the HR department, the bookkeeping department, the administration department, and still serve my customers while surviving this economic climate. It will be a tremendous burden, both in time and dollars, to send out 1099s to all my vendors--appliance manufacturers, parts distributors, other suppliers, utility companies.''

It is a job-killer provision. We brought this H.R. 4 to the floor to get rid of a job-killer provision.

The other reason why it is a double-edged sword on small business is, if you want to minimize the number of 1099s that you file, you will not go to your local hardware store. You will not go to your local restaurant. You will go to the big box store. You will go to the chain restaurant. And we are killing small business on this floor.

So I understand the sincerity of the other side of the aisle, of those who are concerned about the middle class.

Who do you think small business is? This is the middle class in my district and virtually every district across the country. These are the people who create jobs. You will put a dagger in their side. And now you come up and argue against passing this legislation because you are concerned about the middle class.

You are killing the middle class with the provision in the health care reform bill, so-called. What we are trying to do is to get rid of that. We are trying help the middle class. We are trying to help the job creators. We are trying to help the people in our districts who don't have jobs.

Don't distract the debate on this job-killer piece of legislation. Give us some relief, which is being called for all around the country.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman made a personal reference to me, stating that I made a statement on the floor, and then called that the biggest lie of the year. Is that, in fact, an appropriate comment to be made on the floor during debate?

I would make a point of order that the gentleman has made a personal reference to me and then followed that up by saying that what I said was a lie.

Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. But I would ask that the Speaker admonish Members not to question the motivation of other Members in reference to any debate that is taking place.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

All I just want to make clear in the Record, I never made a reference to the government takeover of health care in my speech, and the gentleman was errant in making a personal reference to what I had just said.

I appreciate the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are bringing H.R. 4 to the floor. This is a bill that I introduced in its original form last April 26 when we looked at the health care bill that had passed and saw that this, which has absolutely nothing to do with health care, this new burden on businesses, this double-edged sword against small business, was put in that bill supposedly to pay for part of the health care bill.

Now, we have our Democratic friends talking about the pay-for here. I happen to think that we don't even need a pay-for because I think there is a game that is played in this place, which is we will put something in the health care bill that virtually nobody knows is in there. I bet you 99 percent of the Members of the House and the Senate who voted on that bill didn't even know this provision was in there. We then have it scored as somehow gaining $19 billion for the Federal Government over the next 10 years, which I happen to think is made out of whole cloth because you have to assume that virtually everybody cheats in order for you to come to that conclusion. And

then if we say we now want to get rid of this unnecessary burden, which, by the way, when I introduced this last April, I couldn't get a single Democrat to join me on. I was told by Democrats that the leadership had said, Don't get on that bill; don't dare do anything like that because that will be the first repeal of the health care bill. After a while I finally got some to join me and now there are 38 Members, I believe, on the other side that have joined so that we now have a total of 278 Members, I believe, that have cosponsored my bill,

And so I would just like to get away from the confusion that is being displayed on the floor today and just get back to the essence of this bill. It is to repeal a provision that was put in the health care bill that virtually no one knew about, that is a job killer, that is recognized as being a job killer, that the other side with the majority could have at any time last year gotten rid of, which finally the President recognized in his State of the Union address is an excess in this health care bill, and let's not make it a political football now and say, well, now it's a tax, or now it's this, or now it's that. Frankly it is an attempt to try and repeal a section of the health care bill that never should have been there in the first place, that has erroneous premises on which it was developed, a suggestion that somehow most Americans involved in business cheat. That's the only way you can justify $19 billion coming back to the Federal Treasury. If you believe that the average American businessman and businesswoman, particularly small businessmen and small businesswomen, are cheaters, I never have accepted that. I won't accept that today. And, frankly, we ought not to allow this kind of debate to stop the repeal of this provision of the health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, while we were gone last week, the United States Department of Justice made an unfortunate decision announcement. They announced that they would no longer defend an act of Congress that was signed into law by President Clinton, that is, the Defense of Marriage Act.

The statement that came out of the Justice Department said that they could find no constitutional basis for defending that law. I recall we had the same thing happen in my home State where then-Attorney General Jerry Brown said he could not defend Proposition 8 which dealt with the definition of marriage.

Having served in that office in California, I can tell you, I defended laws that I disagreed with. I defended laws that I had voted against, and I felt it was my solemn obligation to uphold the Constitution and the laws duly enacted in my State, just as I believe the Attorney General of the United States has that obligation on the Federal level.

It is beyond disappointment. I believe it is a dereliction of duty. To somehow now find that there is no constitutional basis for defending that law is incredible and I think regrettable, and I think we ought to look into it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 386) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 386, the bill currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the danger of shining a laser beam into someone's eyes is not news. What is news is the ever-increasing number of incidents of laser pointers being directed at the pilots of commercial and law enforcement aircraft.

In 2005, when a similar measure was passed by this body, this emerging threat was estimated at 400 reported incidents over the previous 15 years. By contrast, in 2009, there were almost 1,600 episodes reported. In 2010, there were over 2,800 incidents reported.

As the Airline Pilots Association has stated in its letter of support for this legislation, ``The inappropriate use of widely available laser pointers against airborne flight crews represents a genuine and growing safety and security concern. At a minimum, the laser illumination of a cockpit creates a flight crew distraction, and in more serious cases, can result in eye damage and temporary incapacitation.''

Mr. Speaker, the danger from shining a laser into the cockpit of any aircraft is truly a tragedy waiting to happen. The ominous prospect of a catastrophe is particularly high during the takeoff and landing stages. Emergency maneuvers to prevent the misperception of midair collisions have also occurred. In one instance, the pilot thought he was about to strike the warning light on a tower. In another case, the laser beam was thought to be the lights of an approaching aircraft.

Law enforcement pilots, unfortunately, are frequently targeted and have to consider the possibility that they are being illuminated by a laser scope attached to a rifle. Law enforcement pilots have, on occasion, been required to discontinue a response to a crime in progress due to being hit by a laser.

At the same time, it is an unfortunate fact that some Federal prosecutors have declined to pursue cases, believing that the current Destruction of Aircraft statute does not fit the facts of their particular laser cases. Some States have statutes that have been successfully used to address this problem, but many more do not. H.R. 386 specifically addresses shining a laser pointer into an aircraft cockpit and will make aircraft travel safer for pilots and the public.

It is not only the number of laser pointers being aimed at aircraft cockpits that has dramatically increased during the past several years. The power of the current generation of laser-pointer devices has also significantly increased. Their cost, on the other hand, has gone down, making them much more widely available.

The problem of lasers being shown into cockpits is so prevalent that in my area, the Sacramento area, the FBI, the FAA, and the Federal Air Marshal Service have joined with State and local law enforcement in establishing a Laser Strike Working Group. These working groups have also expanded into other areas of the country.

H.R. 386 provides an important tool in our efforts to enhance the safety of air travel. This body passed identical language by a voice vote at the close of the 111th Congress. It is my hope that all Members will join me in supporting this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a timely matter. There was a press report just this week that police are trying to find the person who, on Friday morning, pointed a green laser beam both at an airplane and at a news helicopter in the Phoenix area. There have been incidents all around the country. This is not just something that is peculiar to my area; it is something that is increasing in terms of severity and in the number of incidents, so we need to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

I urge my fellow Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 368) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 368, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Removal Clarification Act of 2011, sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), primarily amends section 1442 of title 28 of the U.S. Code. This is a statute that allows Federal officers, under limited conditions, to remove cases filed against them in State court to U.S. District Court for disposition.

The purpose of section 1442 is to deny State courts the power to hold Federal officers criminally or civilly liable for acts allegedly performed in the execution of their Federal duties. This does not mean Federal officers can break the law; rather, it just means that these cases are transferred to U.S. District Court for consideration.

Congress wrote the statute because it deems the right to remove under these conditions essential to the preeminence of the Federal Government on those matters entrusted to it under the Constitution. Federal officers or agents, even Members of Congress, should not be forced to answer in a State forum for conduct asserted in the performance of Federal duties.

The Supreme Court weighed in on this matter long ago. As the Court explained in the case of Willingham v. Morgan, the Federal Government can only act through its officers and agents, and they must act within the States. If, when acting and within the scope of their authority, those officers can be arrested and brought to trial in a State court for an alleged offense against the law of the State, yet warranted by the Federal authority they possess; and if the general government is powerless to interfere at once for their protection, the operations of the general government may at any time be arrested at the will of one of its members.

District courts have inconsistently interpreted the statute. Most recently, in March, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court ruling in Texas that the Federal removal statute does not apply to a Texas law involving pre-suit discovery.

Because 46 other States have similar laws, the House General Counsel's Office is concerned that more Federal courts will adopt this logic. The problem occurs when a plaintiff who contemplates suit against a Federal officer petitions for discovery without actually filing suit in State court. Many Federal courts now assert that this conduct only anticipates a suit; it is, therefore, not a ``cause of action'' as contemplated by the Federal removal statute.

The problem is compounded because of a separate Federal statute, section 1447 of title 28. Therein it requires U.S. district courts to remand any case back to State court if ``at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.''

Judicial review of remand orders under section 1447 is limited and has no application to suits involving Federal officers and section 1442. So this means remanded cases brought against Federal officers under these conditions cannot find their way back to Federal court, a result that conflicts with the

history of the Federal removal and remand statutes.

While we passed a predecessor bill last July, the other body developed minor amendments to clarify the text. These changes were vetted with House Judiciary and we endorse them. The revisions improve the bill in two ways. First, the new language stipulates that only Federal issues are removable to Federal court. And second, the text provides that a 30-day removal ``clock'' is triggered either by a request for testimony or documents, or an order enforcing such a request.

In addition, the floor version strikes section 3 of H.R. 368. This is superfluous language that references a favorable CBO score inserted in the Congressional Record last year in advance of our consideration of the predecessor bill. Section 3 isn't needed because we have an updated CBO score--also favorable--that applies to this year's bill.

In closing, I would like to thank Congressman Johnson for his hard work on this project, and I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 368.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill to the committee and to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 347) to correct and simplify the drafting of

section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 347 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), the author of this bill, a distinguished former member of our Judiciary Committee and one who has just gotten over the mourning period because of his beloved Pittsburgh Steelers.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members to support this reasonable legislation.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I stand before you as a conservative member of the Republican Study Committee, former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, in strong opposition to this proposal.

Across-the-board cuts are a lazy Member's way to achieve something. This will cut 11 percent for the security of the Congress. Since the tragedy in Tucson, I have had innumerable Members come to me as the chairman of House Administration and asking me what more we can do for the security of this House, our Members, and our constituents. There is not a single Member of this House who has asked me to cut security. Quite the contrary. This would cut 250 officers. It would not allow me to do the things you have asked me to do in terms of securing your offices here or at home.

Secondly, the greatest obligation we have here, I believe, is oversight of the Federal Government. So what does this amendment do? It cuts us twice as much as those we are supposed to follow. It makes no sense whatsoever. If you want us to do our job and be secure in our job, I would humbly ask you to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This is a continuation of the effort by the other side to undo the evenhanded approach that was utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in their decision in Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment protections that you have for free speech are not in any way diminished by virtue of the fact that you say it not with a single voice but you join with others.

Every response that we've heard from the other side has said, Well, we don't like what the court did, so what we're going to do is put certain requirements on those who are corporations but not the same requirements on those who are unions representing those who are employees of the Federal Government. And there is as much a conflict of interest in that regard as there is on those corporations that have contracts with the Federal Government.

So, once again, they're trying to talk about how this action by the Supreme Court was unfair, it somehow requires that there is an unfairness involved, that our elections were taken over by corporations. Every study has shown that there were far more expressions of political thought in paid advertising by those on the left than those on the right in the last election, but we don't hear about that.

If they would bring forward something that would have equal treatment, maybe then we could take a look at it. But the fact of the matter is we have seen effort after effort. We can recall last year when they brought it to the floor, one of the things they wanted to do is not only have uneven treatment with respect to corporations and unions, but they were engaged in an auctioning off of First Amendment rights according to whether you were a favored or disfavored group.

We saw organizations that were given special exemptions. The National Rifle Association was one of them. And there were those on the left. And if you had enough political sway, you got exempted from the disclosure requirements. And that really is the definition of ``Capitol cronyism,'' where the government decides who is favored and who is disfavored, and that the essence of the decision by the Supreme Court was the acknowledgment that the First Amendment has its most essential protection in speech, which is political speech.

And if that be the case, we should tread very lightly where we require disparate treatment between different groups, those favored and those which are disfavored. If there's one thing the First Amendment stands for, it is that we treat everybody the same. And this again is in keeping with what we saw last year. Some people are more favored than the others, and when you're talking about First Amendment rights and expressions of political thought, we should be very wary of it. And, by the way, nothing with the Supreme Court decision changed the prohibition against direct contributions to campaigns by corporations. That has been, that continues to be, and will be a felony. And if people on the other side have evidence of that happening, they ought to give that information to the Justice Department and have people prosecuted.

So let's at least talk about what the facts are and let's remember the history of this effort on the other side of the aisle.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just say this: At the core of the Supreme Court decision was a protection of the First Amendment right of political speech, and that it would not be lost because you joined with others. As a corollary of that, the court in the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy talked about the fact that one of the real fears of the Founding Fathers was the government acting in disparate ways; that is, treating different groups differently for a political reason.

And so I just say, in the scenario by the gentleman from Maryland, one would force an obligation of disclosure on one group and not another. So that the defense contractors, he said, would if he funded a statement on television, but the union members who work for the defense contractor would not; or those who are Federal employees represented by unions would not.

I guess what we're saying here is we know that corporations influence elections, but it is absurd to assume that unions do. And if you believe that, then support this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether we're in an episode of ``Alice in Wonderland'' here or not. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it true.

The gentlelady just spoke a moment ago and said we need to look at this; we need to scrub this. And yet she is asking her colleagues to vote against the rule to not even allow this to be brought up. What's the conclusion of that? What's the intimation of that? That we should allow these provisions to expire. Not that we would have time to look at it, but they would expire, one legislative day left.

There are three major provisions in our effort to fight against terrorists. These are the provisions that initially were put under a sunset by the gentleman from Wisconsin when he was chairman of the committee. And then later on when we redid, reviewed, and reformed provisions of this, I authored and brought forward the extension with the sunsets on these three provisions. So I find it interesting to have my friends on the other side of the aisle tell us what we were doing and tell us now that there has been a proven unconstitutionality or unconstitutional basis for these three provisions.

Interestingly enough, they refer to the lone wolf provision. That was known when it was first passed as the Schumer-Kyl provision. Now, some people may not be aware that those are two Senators, Members of the other body, I would say probably extending from the left to the right. Why did they put that in? Because we believe that we were actually burdening ourselves in a way that would not allow us to find out about terrorism before it was actually carried out.

The lone wolf provision recognizes that the greatest threat we have today are, as was said by the two cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, less consequential attacks; meaning attacks on a smaller scale than that we saw on 9/11, still meant to do grievous harm to Americans, to cause us to see the loss of life, to do tremendous fiscal damage to this country, yet with smaller cells or even from individuals.

Do we have to be reminded of what happened on that Christmas Day a couple of years ago? That was a lone wolf, even though these provisions wouldn't apply because he's an American citizen. Major Hasan was a lone wolf. Just to prove the point that we have to be concerned about lone wolves.

The other two provisions, the business records and the roving wiretaps, I'd like to talk about those because there's been so much misunderstanding, misstatements.

I actually observed a Member of the other body this morning on television saying the reason that he voted against these extensions was that under the Constitution he believes that one ought to have a warrant so there's intervention of a third party that is a judicial officer. Well, these two provisions, the business records provision and the roving wiretap provisions, require the government to go to the FISA court to get permission to carry out those elements directed at any individual.

And so let's just make sure we know what we're talking about here. We're talking about two provisions that require the government to go before the FISA court to get permission to utilize those provisions in their investigation. And the third part deals with the lone wolf definition, and the lone wolf requirement is needed now more than it was when it first passed because of the difference in the threat to us that has

been recognized by our intelligence agencies and by the 9/11 Commission and, most recently, by Secretary Napolitano.