Deeper Inside the Mountain

Wake Up, America

2012-02-23T16:43:00.001-05:00

[Page: H897]  GPO's PDF
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bucshon). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are interesting days in which we live. There is supposed to be an old Chinese curse that says: May you live in interesting times; and it's as if that curse has been placed on us. We certainly live in interesting times.

On 9/11/2001, this country suffered the worst attack in its history on its homeland. It was worse than December 7, 1941. It left thousands dead, it left the Nation reeling from the feeling of vul ner a bil ity, and it pushed the Federal Government to respond quickly.

Now, there are a number of things that could be effectuated more effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be a subject for another time.

I recall after 9/11, Bill Bennett coming to my hometown of Tyler, Texas, and speaking at Tyler Junior College. And there was a huge crowd that turned out. People, in fact, turned out during those few months after 9/11 in record numbers to their churches and to places of worship in record numbers. Because much like the children of Israel after a disaster, they realized they needed to get back closer to our Creator.

The FBI, our intelligence attributes, all of our Justice Department, State Department and all of the Bush administration immediately was pushed into gear to do something to protect us. And in that regard, Bill Bennett speaking there in Tyler said, Some people get offended if they look somewhat like someone who committed the worst attack in American history and they're searched more thoroughly than perhaps someone else.

And Bill said, I just know that if there was a red-headed Irishman that had attacked the United States, he said, I could anticipate having to go through heightened security checks every time I try to fly, every time I try to go anywhere. And he said, If that were to happen, I would understand because, he said, I love this country. I want people to be safe and feel safe, and since someone who looked like me with red hair and my same heritage had committed that act, even though he was and is a law-abiding citizen, he would understand being subjected to more scrutiny.

There was a time in this country when common sense like that did prevail, when no one would have ever dreamed that in going through security at an airport and somebody like me asking, why did I get pulled aside for the extra inspection and the puffery and all the added scrutiny, and being told, you look like you wouldn't get mad. That told me a lot. I stood there and watched for about 20 minutes. There were a couple of African American businessmen, well dressed, they were pulled aside for the heightened scrutiny. They certainly had no resemblance to anybody that had attacked America on 9/11. A little old lady, one of our seniors, full of vim, vigor and spirit, she was pulled aside. Anyway, interesting times.

I think our Justice Department, some of our folks who are supposed to be looking out for our protection have been lulled into a false sense of security, and they have done what some say

[Page: H898]  GPO's PDF

would be to respond to the squeaky wheel. The OIC, the 57 Islamic nations that make up the OIC, are the ones that invented the term ``Islamophobia,'' and it was Islamic nations that have funded some of our Ivy League schools, institutions of higher learning yearning for more dollars to accept massive contributions in return for their doing seminars and conferences on Islamophobia and trying to make Americans think there's something wrong with them if they fear the people who brought about 9/11.

[Time: 20:10]

Now, I am grateful for my Muslim friends. I am very grateful for the Muslim allies we had--and have, although this administration is throwing them under the bus--that we have in northern Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, those in the Balochistan area of Pakistan. We've got Muslim friends all over the world. We have Muslim friends in this country who love the freedom here, who don't want to see this country hurt.

But there are those who have contributed to terrorism. There are those who have come here from other countries who hope to see our demise. My brother, who was living out north of the beltway, was shocked on 9/11, that afternoon, to see in a Muslim area north of the beltway children jumping and yelling and rejoicing over the deaths of Americans in the Pentagon and in the 9/11 towers. There was a time when Americans would have had more sensitivity than that. They would be so grateful to be in America they would not rejoice in the loss of innocent lives by Islamic jihadists.

The 9/11 Commission, bipartisan as it was, came to conclusions--with all of which I don't agree--but they made a very good-faith effort. They came to the conclusion about certain things, and it was clear that the actions of the terrorists that killed over 3,000 Americans were those of Islamic extremists, not rank-and-file, but Islamic extremists who believed that jihad meant the destruction of our way of life here in America, of Americans as infidels because they do not believe the same way.

Who would have believed that 10 1/2 years later the mean people would not be those who have refused to denounce terrorist activities, those groups who have not only refused to denounce terrorist activity but who have actually supported terrorist activity through Hamas and Hezbollah--known terrorist organizations--and against whom there is sufficient evidence, as found by a district court in Texas and by the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sufficient evidence to move forward with the case. That's because the judge in the district court, Judge Solis, and the Fifth Circuit agreed that there was prima facia evidence of Muslim groups here in America who were named but unindicted coconspirators in funding terrorism, ``prima facia'' meaning adequate evidence to basically go forward. In fact, the words ``prima facia'' were used by Judge Solis in his decision.

Well, the FBI, over the years, seems to have relaxed in some regards, wanting to avoid being called Islamophobic, as the 57 Islamic states have shoved that notion further and further across our Nation, have pushed to meet one of their 10-year stated goals, as found in the materials of the Muslim Brotherhood archives found across the river in Virginia in a subbasement.

One of those goals was to subvert--actually subject the U.S. Constitution to sharia law; and the way to do that was to force a pronouncement that in America you could burn a Bible, you could put a cross in urine, you could call Christians all kinds of names, blaspheme Jesus Christ, you can burn an American flag, call the American Government all kinds of names, but under no circumstances should anyone defile a Koran.

As a Christian, I do not think anyone should ever abuse a Koran in any way. But the Constitution says if somebody wants to burn a Bible, that's been interpreted to mean you can burn a Bible. It's a freedom of speech issue. If you want to burn a flag, we're told you can do that.

Well, we had the Director of the FBI come before our Judiciary Committee in the not-too-distant past. And these are some of the documents that have been involved in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in which groups like the Islamic Society of North America, CAIR, others, were named coconspirators. In any event, Director Mueller, March 16 of last year, before our Judiciary Committee, had testified in answer to a number of questions that, gosh, they viewed the Muslim community as absolutely the same as any other community, even those Muslim communities that rejoiced over 9/11--he didn't say this, but it was clear--that rejoiced over the deaths of Americans on 9/11. They saw them just like every other community. He also testified about the positive outreach that the FBI had been making to Muslim communities.

Well, I don't have a problem with that, but why would the FBI see the need to make positive outreach into any community of a specific nature?

So, after Director Mueller had indicated, yes, we have this wonderful outreach program with the Muslim communities and those communities are exactly like every other community, I said:

You had mentioned earlier--and it is in your written statement--that the FBI has developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities. And in answer to an earlier question, I understood you to say that Muslim communities were like all other communities. So I'm curious, as a result of the extensive outreach program the FBI has had to the Muslim community, how has your outreach program gone with the Baptists and the Catholics?

Mr. Mueller said:

I am not certain of necessarily the thrust of that question. I would say that our outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good.

I said:

Well, do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics, or is it just an extensive outreach program to----

He interrupted and said:

We have outreach to every one of those communities.

I asked how he did that. And he started to filibuster. I said:

I have looked extensively, and I haven't seen anywhere in any one from the FBI's letters information that there has been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship, and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

[Time: 20:20]

And just so there's no mistaking, let me just read directly from the judge's opinion in the Holy Land Foundation case in response to the effort by ISNA, CAIR, NAIT, the Holy Land Foundation, and others.

The judge said:

The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas. While the Court recognizes that the evidence produced by the government largely predates the HLF designation date, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas.

There was plenty of evidence to support that, according to the judge. That was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.

It is important to note that, out of concern for the FBI's outreach program, and the State Department, and the White House, for reaching out and bringing in people who courts have said have supported terrorism, and these people are being brought in--in the military we said brought inside the wire--in this case, brought inside the State Department, brought inside The White House on a regular basis, brought inside the Justice Department, my friend, Frank Wolf, had this language added to the continuing resolution that was passed, that President Obama signed into law. This is language in the law, and my friend, Mr. Wolf, included it to reference the FBI's policy.

It says, and this is the language in the law:

Conferees support the FBI's policy prohibiting any formal non-investigative cooperation with unindicted coconspirators in terrorism cases. The conferees expect the FBI to insist on full compliance with this policy by FBI field offices, and to report to the Committees on Appropriations regarding any violation of the policy.

Well, guess what? We didn't get this from the FBI. We had to get it from the Islamic Society of North America's own Web site. They reported that on Wednesday, February 8, that's this year, the American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, the Arab American

[Page: H899]  GPO's PDF

Institute, the Interfaith Alliance, the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, which has been pronounced by the Fifth Circuit as having plenty of evidence to support that they fund terrorism and have, and then it mentions other groups, including the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign.

But they, it says:

They had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Public Affairs Office of the FBI. Director Robert Mueller joined the meeting to discuss these matters with representatives from the organizations.

The conversation with Director Mueller centered on material used by the agency that depicts falsehoods and negative connotations of the Muslim American community. The use of the material was first uncovered by Wired magazine.

And that was uncovered by an organization that seems to be right in there with those who were unindicted but named coconspirators in funding terrorism.

Well, from ISNA they say:

Director Mueller informed the participants that the FBI took the review of the training material very seriously, and he pursued the matter with urgency to ensure that this does not occur again in the future.

ISNA President Imam Magid, who's a frequent visitor to the White House, who the White House consults on speeches, or has, and welcomed to the inner sanctum of the State Department, other Departments here in Washington, Magid stated:

The discovery of FBI training materials that discriminated against Muslims did damage to the trust that was built between dedicated FBI officials and the American Muslim community. We welcome and appreciate Director Mueller's commitment to take positive steps toward eradicating such materials and rebuilding trust in an open dialogue.

The director also informed participants that to date, nearly all related FBI training materials, including more than 160,000 pages of documents, were reviewed by subject matter experts multiple times. Consequently, more than 700 documents, 300 presentations of material, have been deemed unusable by the Bureau and pulled from the training curriculum. Material was pulled from the curriculum if even one component was deemed to include factual errors or be in poor taste or be stereotypical, or lack precision.

I guess stereotypical would mean if they point out that terrorists have had one thing in common, that that would be stereotypical.

Well, ISNA also reports:

It was clear to all meeting participants that the issue of trust between community members and the FBI needs to be taken seriously by all our nation's decisionmakers. It was evident the Bureau must strengthen its efforts to build trust.

How about trust from the other side? How about condemnation of terrorist acts?

How about coming out and making clear all ties have been severed with Hamas and Hezbollah and those who would seek to make terror on innocent people?

Anyway, ISNA's rejoicing because they've gotten the FBI to actually go through and cull material that includes words like jihad, words like Islamist.

And, in fact, and I really do wish, Mr. Speaker, that our Director of the FBI would be as concerned about this law as he is about laws that don't exist, but his concern is about offending people who have been supporting terrorism that has been killing innocent people around the world.

Instead, this is what we have as a result of the efforts by this administration and the Director of the FBI. The 9/11 Commission report mentioned 322 times Islam because the people who were the hijackers, the people that planned the attacks, that hoped that they would kill tens of thousands of Americans instead of 3,000, those who helped train them in Afghanistan, those who helped plan and participate from other radical Islamist groups, they were Islamists. They believed in Islam. And thank God that they only represent a tiny percentage of Muslims around the world. But let's be realistic. As one intelligence officer said, we are blinding ourselves to being able to see who our enemy is.

Well, our FBI can be very, very proud. No longer in training materials, as the director told the named coconspirator of terrorism, ISNA, no longer are they going to mention Islam, Muslim, jihad, enemy. They don't mention the Muslim Brotherhood. They don't mention Hamas. They don't mention Hezbollah. They don't mention al Qaeda. They don't mention caliphate. They don't mention sharia law.

Those have been wiped clean from our training materials so that new FBI trainees, people coming in, will have no idea exactly what they're facing because they're being told, you must look only at a group as supporting heightened violence. But you cannot examine their books, things that mean very much to them, things that motivate these killers, these terrorists. You can't look at the things and their interpretations, what makes them tick.

How do you defeat an enemy if you cannot look at what makes them think the way they do? I would think that groups, our Muslim friends who want to help keep this country free, instead of demanding that we not realize that these are Islamic jihadists that want to kill us, that they would be out there pointing these people out publicly and condemning them. Instead, they're condemning those who simply want to protect America, who want to live in peace, want to live in freedom.

[Time: 20:30]

Imagine what these same kind of groups would have said if they had heard the prayer on D-day, live? Can you imagine these groups hearing Franklin Roosevelt's prayer on radio as he prayed for 6-to-10 minutes publicly, a prayer that you can find online?

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set up on a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization to set free a suffering humanity.

He goes on and prays for a very long time on D-day as our troops were trying to retake Europe.

He also says in his prayer:

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.

Back then, Roosevelt didn't know you couldn't call your enemy that wanted to take over your Nation, that wanted to kill innocent people, that wanted to take away your liberty, Roosevelt didn't know you couldn't call them unholy forces of our enemy. So he used those terms because he cared about America. He cared about protecting America.

We want to live in peace. We want to live in peace with our Muslim friends, our Hindu friends, our agnostics, our atheists. But for heaven's sake, do not keep blinding our intelligence community, our justice community.

There was a time when in America you could call things just as they were, and in the Revolution one of the most quoted statements was attributed to Voltaire:

I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.

Now, when someone disagrees with what you say, they want to destroy your life, destroy your livelihood.

It's time for America to wake up before we get hit again. We have people in this country who are supporting terrorism. There's prima facie evidence to establish it; the courts have found it. This administration refused to pursue it when the evidence was clearly there, refused to pursue these people; and instead of pursuing the unindicted coconspirators after the convictions and the Holy Land Foundation--oh, sure, this administration says, Well, the Bush administration wasn't going to. The Bush administration was going to pursue the unindicted coconspirators if they got convictions in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which they did, near the end of 2008.

It's this administration that refused to go forward and prosecute anyone further.

So instead of prosecuting people supporting terrorism, this administration calls them into the White House, calls them into the Justice Department and says why can't we be friends.

It's time to wake up. We owe this country a defense with our eyes open, with our arms and heart open to help those who really are helpless, but to stand firm even to the death as our serv ice mem bers are pledged to do, as I did my 4 years on active duty. Let's stand firm together until those who are intent on destroying us and supporting

[Page: H900]  GPO's PDF

terrorism are made to account and back off and say we're no longer your enemy. Then all communities can worship and love as one.

We've got to protect America.

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

(House of Representatives - February 16, 2012)

Religious Freedom

2012-02-23T16:41:00.002-05:00

[Page: H887]
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hanna). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

America has a long history of religious freedom.

In the 17th century, colonists fled to what would become the United States of America in search of religious freedom. In 1789, Congress drafted the First Amendment, ensuring the right to the free exercise of religion. Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the rights of individuals to practice their religions according to the dictates of their own consciences. In 2001, President Bush established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to ``encourage faith-based programs without changing their mission.''

But today, the Obama administration's policies threaten that fundamental freedom. President Obama's new health care mandate, despite a flimsy, politically motivated, so-called ``compromise,'' forces religious organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans.

So much for over 200 years of religious freedom.

The mandate is an unprecedented act of government trampling over the deeply held beliefs of millions of Americans. I stand with my colleagues tonight in showing our united opposition to any efforts by the Obama administration to flagrantly disregard deeply held religious beliefs.

I am a cosponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, which would protect the rights of conscience for faith-based organizations and would leave Federal law where it was before the President's divisive health care plan was passed.

A number of Representatives from around the country are very troubled by this unprecedented government intrusion into the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. We are going to take the next 60 minutes to explore just how wrong this decision was, how meaningless the so-called ``compromise'' is, and how vital to our country freedom of religion is today.

At this point, I would like to yield to the courageous sponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, Representative Fortenberry of Nebraska.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership in holding this discussion tonight. This is a very important discussion because it is about a fundamental American principle.

As you mentioned, over a year ago, we actually began work on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act in anticipation that the new health care law may actually be used to undermine religious freedom and the moral precepts, the deeply held beliefs, of many Americans in this country.

You had mentioned that this particular bill--hopefully, we'll get it through this House soon, and there is a companion measure, by the way, in the Senate--would not only protect faith-based organizations, which seem to be most perniciously targeted by this new HHS mandate from the strong arm of government, which is forcing them to pay for drugs and procedures that may violate their ethics norms, but it would also protect all Americans because, right now, these institutions, as well as other people of good will, are being asked to choose: to follow your deeply held, reasoned beliefs or to obey President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius'

[Page: H888]

new mandate, which is in violation of your conscience rights.

That's a false choice.

That's un-American.

That violates a deeply held principle of this country, namely religious liberty, which we have held so dear throughout our history.

[Time: 18:30]

The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act really does one simple thing: It restores us to where we were a year and a half ago before the new health care law came into being, and it would prevent things such as this new mandate, which is an intrusion of government into the faith life of many Americans, from ever happening.

Again, I'm very pleased for your willingness to hold this hour of discussion with fellow Members. It is a bipartisan bill, by the way. There are Democrats and Republicans on this bill. It is a bicameral bill. There are over 200 House Members who have cosponsored this bill 200, Democrats and Republicans; and there are 37 Members on the companion piece in the United States Senate, dropped by my friend Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri. In fact, Senator Blunthas offered this as potential amendments to must-pass legislation in the other body. We haven't seen that go through yet.

So there is tremendous momentum for this piece of legislation because it's not about politics. It's not about partisanship. It's about a principle, a fundamental American principle: the rights of conscience and religious liberty, as applied in health care.

I'm pleased by the outpouring of support from Members of both sides of the aisle here. I think that is due to the intensity of concern across America about how this time, the government has gone too far.

Again, I appreciate your willingness to hold a good conversation tonight on this fundamental principle of religious liberty and the rights of conscience for all Americans.

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I do want to applaud Representative Fortenberry of Lincoln, Nebraska, for this courageous move that he has taken, for being a leader on this important issue of protecting the rights of the conscience for Americans. I thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I appreciate it. I hope that we continue to hold more conversations about this because America needs to know. America is already speaking. And that is evident in the number of Members who are deeply interested in this bill.

Mr. LAMBORN. And I can certainly count that 200 Members is close to the magic number of 218, which is 50 percent of the House. Likewise, 37 is getting close to the magic number of 50 needed over in the Senate. So you're doing great work. And I appreciate that, and many Americans appreciate your work.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you very much.

Mr. LAMBORN. At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Steve Scalise.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding and for taking the lead on this hour dedicated to standing up for religious freedom.

I also thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his leadership and for bringing forth legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, that would repeal the decision that President Obama came down with that is an attack on religious freedom.

As a Catholic who attends church, it's rare when you see a Catholic priest talking from the pulpit, calling on the parishioners to call Congress, to contact Congress about any issue. Yet I want to applaud the Catholic bishops who have been so vocal in helping bring this issue to light, for standing up and saying, This is something that we will not comply with because it violates our own religious beliefs.

The beauty of the Constitution--and especially when you look at the Bill of Rights--are the rights that it lays out to all Americans. And when you read that First Amendment, there is a reason why freedom of religion is included in the First Amendment placed in the Bill of Rights, because our Founders believed it was a right that was handed down to us from God through our Founding Fathers and that it was given to all American citizens.

But yet the President came out with this ruling, and he says, Well, we'll tailor a little exemption just for places of worship. Not religious organizations, just places of worship. And everybody else, they're on their own. They've got religious beliefs that--they don't want to have to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, for example, which the President mandated. Then the President basically said, No, you have to do this, even if it violates your religious beliefs. That violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. It violates the Bill of Rights. No President has the ability to violate the Bill of Rights, those constitutional rights we have.

And then the President, just a few days ago, came out with what he called ``an accommodation,'' an accommodation where he said, Okay, we'll carve out a little more exception. It still doesn't apply to an employer, for example, that has those same religious beliefs, so we'll carve out an exemption.

Well, guess what? After the President carved out that exemption, so to speak, they actually issued a final

rule. This is the final rule from the Obama administration after he gave a press conference, a political speech. And in the final rule, it says, ``These regulations finalize, without change, interim final regulations.'' In other words, they didn't even put any of the things from the President's press conference where he said he was going to give accommodations. None of that is in the final rule.

The final rule still says, if you're a Catholic school, for example, or a Catholic Church--and I know Colorado Christian University is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit because they would face a $500,000 fine under this rule. Even if the President gave a press conference, you can't go to court and say, Look, I'm not going to comply with this rule, because they're going to say, Well, you have to comply; it's the law. And they will say, Oh, but the President gave a speech saying I don't have to. It's still in the rule.

Again, any President who thinks that he has the power to issue accommodations to the Bill of Rights is a President who thinks he's got the ability to take away that Bill of Rights. He doesn't have that. And that's why I'm so proud to stand here with my colleague from Colorado and so many others that have stood up and said, we are going to stand up and defend those religious freedoms that are so precious, not just for religious organizations, but for all Americans, as is called for in the Bill of Rights. So it's an important issue that we need to keep fighting for because this is all a component of the President's health care law.

I remember back in those days when the President stood right here on this House floor at that podium and he looked at all Members of Congress and he said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. Do you remember that? All Americans heard that. Time and time again, the President said, If you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. Guess what: With this ruling, he broke that promise he made to the American people because if you're a religious organization and you like the fact that you don't have to provide--and you are not going to provide--abortion-inducing drugs because it violates your own conscience, the President is now saying, You can't keep it. You have to abide by my ruling. That goes against the will. And if you are a religious organization that is self-insured, they're left out of this too.

There are so many problems with this. I'm glad that they're fighting it in the courts. But the bottom line is, they shouldn't have to go to the court to defend the First Amendment. That should be something that's sacrosanct. The President shouldn't be trying to violate and attack our religious freedoms.

I appreciate the gentleman for his leadership tonight.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for making his remarks.

And he mentioned Colorado Christian University. The president of that fine institution is former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong, who served Colorado both in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate in such a distinguished manner. And that is not necessarily a Catholic institution. It's more of a Protestant evangelical institution, although people of different Christian backgrounds attend there. But this shows that it's not strictly a ``Catholic'' issue. All people of faith are concerned about violations of conscience.

[Page: H889]

You see here this quote from Martin Luther King. February is Black History Month. And I think it's appropriate to look at what he said. He said, There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right. He pointed to the need to listen to our consciences when deciding matters of great importance. And Martin Luther King left a great legacy for this country, and his respect for the conscience of the individual is one of those marks of his legacy.

I now yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we have one of the most serious assaults on religious liberty in American history. The President's rule, finalized last Friday, in its unchanged form, as we just heard, violates the individual rights to religious freedom that every American shares.

The Bill of Rights doesn't pertain to organizations. It wasn't written for groups. It was written for individuals, every individual having the right to exercise their religious belief. The President's rule not only restricts individuals, but it restricts everything except what exists between the walls of a church building. Mr. Speaker, that's not what the First Amendment is about.

[Time: 18:40]

My parents, like many immigrants to this country, fled countries where those beliefs weren't held. My parents came from communist countries where we don't find it farfetched to believe that they would imprison, they would punish individuals for their religious beliefs.

Let's look at what the President's Affordable Care Act has turned into.

We knew and America knew when that bill was passed, because the previous Speaker of the House said: We just have to wait to pass it; we'll find out what's in it. Mr. Speaker, we are finding out what's in it, and America doesn't like it, because what's in it is the ability, under the current rule, to restrict individual religious freedom. And if you choose to exercise your religious freedom, you are punished by the government with a fine. And it's not just a few dollars; it's $2,000 per employee.

If an employer has deeply held religious beliefs, deeply held, it's not up to the President or the Secretary of Health or anyone in the Federal bureaucracy or government to decide if those are appropriate religious beliefs. Yet that is exactly what this rule does. It says if you don't share their religious beliefs or their beliefs in certain types of health care, you are going to pay a fine to the government. Well, that sounds a lot like governments where immigrants have fled from to this country to share in the individual religious belief.

Let's go down the list of what this final rule impairs. It violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in this Congress two decades ago. It obviously violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause because it does place a substantial burden on individuals who choose to exercise religious belief. That's all they're doing. We have made it an effective crime to hold a certain religious belief that this administration disagrees with. That's not America. That describes a whole lot of other countries in the world, but it doesn't describe America.

It violates the First Amendment free exercise rights because it intentionally discriminates--intentionally discriminates--against religious beliefs. It imposes requirements on some religions, not on others. It picks winners and losers. That's exactly what the First Amendment was meant not to do.

And, Mr. Speaker, it's not going to be adequate if we just extend it to religious organizations because, I remind you, the First Amendment is not about groups or buildings or churches or any institutions; it's about the ability of every American to not violate their conscience. And if their conscience says, It would be wrong for me to provide insurance to an employee that would provide something that my religious belief disagrees with, who are we, as the government, to step in and say, You have to violate your religious beliefs; and if you don't, you pay a fine to the government.

That's not the America we believe in. It never has been; hopefully, it never will be.

We know that the President's final rule, because we just heard it--and, Mr. Speaker, you know, some people listening to us will say, That's not true; that's not true. Go Google the final rule and compare it to the rule last summer, the final rule, issued hours after the President claimed a compromise, and compare it with the interim rule issued last summer. Not a comma is different; not a comma was changed. The smoke and mirrors was: Don't listen to what I say; don't watch my hands as I do this magic.

Go and read the final rule. There was not a single change. There was an accounting gimmick. Americans understand accounting gimmicks. That's why we're in the fiscal mess we're in, because Washington likes them. This time the accounting gimmick attempts to override Americans' religious conscience, and you can't do that. Americans understand there's no such thing as free anything. Somebody pays for it. And if the government is going to mandate that an employer provide insurance that includes provisions that conflict with their conscience beliefs, this is an accounting gimmick to say that somebody else has to pay for the rest of that insurance policy that you provided. Every American knows that's not true. We know specifically for larger institutions that self-insure, they are the insurer. There is no other insurance company. Large bodies, and if they happen to be religious, self-insure. You will now force them to violate their conscience or pay a $2,000 per person fine.

I want to thank the Representative from Colorado for bringing this point up tonight, reminding the American public to pay attention to the debate. Go look at that final rule and understand that we're in the same situation as we were last week with a violation of religious liberty that we should never tolerate.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his insight into this issue and his comments.

A couple of organizational things just very quickly.

Because of the keen interest to address this important issue, we're going to ask for a 4-minute timeframe for each speaker, and there are several that I need to take out of the rough order that we have to accommodate tight schedules.

So, as Mr. Kelly comes forward, I will read a quote here from John F. Kennedy. Let me read what John F. Kennedy said about conscience:

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.

What a powerful statement.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from in western Pennsylvania, there's an old saying that goes something like this: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

And I think that tonight, my colleagues and I come before you and come before this House to talk about some very egregious action that this administration has just taken. And for the President, who at one time was a professor of constitutional law and who knows better, he relies on constitutional convenience. When it's convenient, he follows the Constitution; when it's not, he follows what he wants to do. And then he looks upon us, saying, You just didn't get it. Maybe I didn't use the right words to frame it.

And so he takes policy that is horrible policy, policy that is against our First Amendment, policy that restricts our free speech, restricts our freedom of religion, and puts an onerous burden on people not to be able to choose what they want but what this administration wants. And he says, You know what? Let me take what I just told you, put it in a little different box, a little different color paper and put a little different bow around it, and this is what we're going to use.

And some people sit back and say, Oh, my gosh, I'm so glad he was accommodating. That is not accommodating.

Now, I'm a Roman Catholic, and I will tell you that for many, many months and for many years I have wondered why our religious leaders, the people we look to for spiritual guidance, have been silent and have taken a back seat and have let things happen that they should not have let happen.

Bishop Zubik from Pittsburgh, Bishop Trautman from Erie, and my

[Page: H890]

priest, Father Steven Neff in Butler, have all spoken up from the pulpit, and they have spoken very clearly about this violation, and they have articulated much better than any of us can. They have done it from the pulpit. They have done it in the papers. They have done it on the radio and on the TV. The American people now know what is going on.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. No way.

And we are here tonight because we have had enough of an administration that continues to trample on our Constitution, marginalize it, and use it only when it's convenient. And when it doesn't meet their means, we talk about constitutional niceties. We talk about a Constitution that was well written at the time, really doesn't address the needs of today.

I would tell you that the needs of today have nothing to do with the needs of the American people, the rights of the American people, the freedom of the American people in speech or religion. It has to do with an administration that finds it a little too onerous for their agenda.

So I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I would hope that all Americans, not just Catholics, not just Christians, but all Americans, are outraged by this attempt to violate our First Amendment rights.

[Time: 18:50]

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

There are a number of freshmen, including Mr. Kelly, who are making a big impact here in Congress just at 13 months of service.

Another one, who I would like to refer to as speaking next, is Ann Marie Buerkle of the State of New York.

Thank you for coming and speaking.

Ms. BUERKLE. I thank my colleague for putting together this hour that is so meaningful and so important not just for Democrats or Republicans but for every American, not just for people of faith but for those who have no faith. This is a First Amendment issue.

I stand here tonight as a health care professional, someone who is so vitally aware of the importance of conscience and the protection of conscience rights.

This HHS rule is the largest intrusion that we have ever seen from the Federal Government on our rights of conscience. Every American--every American--must understand what an insult this is to our constitutional rights.

I want to just take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to challenge our media as they listen to this debate, and it is a debate that really encompasses so many unlikely bedfellows, I would say, that you see liberals, conservatives, Catholics, atheists, Christians, and Jews coming together in an outrage because our First Amendment rights have been assaulted and have been attacked by this administration. But I would challenge the media to not be fooled by the red herring that this administration continues to throw out there. Mr. Speaker, this is not about contraception. This is not about women's health. This is not about Catholicism. This is about protecting the most fundamental right that we, as Americans, have.

So many of my colleagues have mentioned about the reasons people came to this country and they continue to want to come to this country, because we ensure that you will not be persecuted for your beliefs, for your religious beliefs. That's the bedrock of the United States of America. That's why there's such outrage over this HHS rule.

As my colleague from Maryland mentioned, this rule has not been changed. Do not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of this administration. This rule remains the same. It remains an assault on our First Amendment rights. I plead with America and I plead with the media to understand what's at stake in this debate.

I thank my colleague again for this opportunity.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gen tle lady for her comments.

There's one other person who has a strong scheduling issue that I would like to come forward, from the State of Kansas, another person in his first term who has impressed me greatly, Representative Huelskamp.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congressman. It's a pleasure to stand with you today. It is a pleasure to be here. But it is a real shock to see what is happening today.

I would agree with the comments of my colleague and many others. I must admit--and I guess in today's environment it is an admission. I must admit I am Roman Catholic. This issue is not about what faith you call your own. This issue is about our religious freedoms, whichever we choose.

Who would have thought of an administration that would identify and select a certain group and say, We are going to violate their conscience? We knew this was coming. We knew this was coming.

I'm reminded of a few quotes that I've heard in the last few months--actually, in the last few years--a famous quote that was already used previously, that we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it, the former Speaker of this House. We're finding out what was in it. We found out many things that we did know were in it.

Actually, when this was debated on the Senate side, there was an attempt by our leadership, Republican leadership, that said, no, let's make certain that this doesn't happen. This was anticipated by this administration, I believe, to attempt to violate the conscience of millions and millions of Americans, and yet they continued forward with that.

We also found out that, once we read the bill and it was passed--or passed and then read it--that this administration, the HHS Secretary who we talk about, Kathleen Sebelius, began to give waivers and said, well, it applies to some groups and not others. If you happen to know the Secretary or happen to be from the right district or happen to work for the right company, you can find a waiver, and I remember speaking out about it. What I didn't anticipate was having to ask a waiver to actually have your beliefs, still hold those in America. Who would have thought that we'd have to get permission from the President of the United States and his Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, for permission to believe

what I believe? That's shocking.

As I mentioned, I am a Catholic, and Pope Benedict XVI a few months ago said that freedom of religion is the most American of all freedoms. And I think about the thousands of folks that have served in this Chamber, that have walked up here and fought for our freedoms and spoke on the floor for them; they would have never guessed that if you are of a particular group--in this case, Catholic, and others that disagree with this administration--you would have to pay a fine to actually disagree with them.

Congressman, you have showed a real civil rights leader in the history of our country, Martin Luther King. One of his other tremendous quotes was that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That didn't just apply to his beliefs. He thought it applied to all Americans. But what is shocking to me is that we have a President who disregards basic American freedoms and is willing, somehow--it's just shocking to me that he's willing to risk his election, to alienate folks because of what he's attempting to impose. But that's what we expect from ObamaCare. That's what we expect from his health care plan, because it is government mandates. It is government control.

As the Attorney General of Virginia said, the President's health care plan, the debate over that is not about health care. The fundamental issue is liberty. And that's what we're finding out right here.

I call upon this President, I call upon Kathleen Sebelius, please, reach deep down into your soul, and also think about your next election. Because we know if this rolls back, it's about the next election. But we don't care about the next election. Americans care about their freedoms and liberties.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention. We've been fighting this on many routes, and I think it's just absolutely critical. I thank you for your efforts, and, hopefully, we will recall those words: An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Mr. LAMBORN. If I could ask the gentleman, is there any chance that Kathleen Sebelius will issue waivers to religious organizations, not just the labor unions who up until now have been the main ones getting waivers?

Mr. HUELSKAMP. That is an excellent idea I guess we would expect from

[Page: H891]

the administration, but, fundamentally, that is favoritism. That is picking who gets to believe what. And as previous colleagues talked about escaping, immigrants that came to this country came here for this particular reason, to avoid paying a fine for what they believed. That's exactly what we are being forced to do.

Do we get permission from the President not to pay the fine? Do we get a waiver? Well, how do we accommodate religious freedom, Mr. President? How do we accommodate that, Secretary Sebelius? How do we balance? It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution we're going to balance what you want with our freedoms.

The First Amendment is very clear. And the first part of the First Amendment is the freedom to believe in the God as we choose. And I appreciate and thank you for that.

I'll do this. Let's ask for a waiver for everybody in America to actually get a waiver so we can believe what we want to believe. I would ask for that as well.

So thank you, Congressman, for your leadership, and we will continue to join you in this effort.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Kansas. He's been an excellent addition to the newer Members coming here to Congress, an excellent addition.

Among those who are having scheduling conflicts, unfortunately, is me. I have a committee that's meeting right now that's having a markup. We're having recorded votes on amendments and passage of bills out of committee, so I have to leave in just a moment. As much as I so badly wish I could finish up this discussion and hear the comments that have been moving to me so far, I have to depart.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.

[Time: 19:00]

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, might I make an inquiry as to how much time I have remaining.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 26 minutes remaining.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. NUNNELEE. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California, for your leadership in this area.

Religious freedom in America is under attack, not from some outside source, but from within. And if we've learned anything from history, we should have learned that great civilizations are at a greater risk of destroying themselves from within than they ever are in danger from any outside peril.

Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our society. In 1789, when James Madison and the rest of the Framers of our Constitution were crafting that great document, their genius created the concepts of separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government. However, when that document was presented to the States, the people said that with all of its genius, that document was inadequate. While it outlined a framework for government, it failed to guarantee individual rights.

So in order to establish the Government of the United States of America as we know it today, our ancestors insisted that our Nation adopt the Bill of Rights--10 amendments to the Constitution that would guarantee rights to every individual. That Bill of Rights begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Yet the Obama administration has displayed a disturbing contempt for the religious liberty guaranteed in that Bill of Rights. The message coming out of them seems to be: it's okay to have religious beliefs as long as you confine that practice to your church. They just don't get it. They don't seem to grasp the fact that our faith is part of who we are. We don't check it in and check it out when we walk into our places of worship. We take it with us everywhere we go.

Now, defenders of this health mandate are attempting to play a clever political game. They're attempting to frame this as a narrow debate between women's rights and the Catholic Church. The truth is, this is about an outrageous idea that the State can force citizens of this Nation to violate their religious beliefs by some degree or regulation, and that some bureaucrat at Health and Human Services can violate constitutional rights.

All Americans--its individuals, not just religious institutions--should be free to purchase and provide health insurance that does not violate their religious beliefs. This principle is so basic that it's tragic that we even have to introduce legislation to reaffirm it. But it's the position of the Obama administration that has put us in the position we're in today. That's why I'm a proud cosponsor of the Rights of Conscience Act, and I urge its swift passage.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

Mr. STUTZMAN. It's a privilege to be here to stand on the House floor with my colleagues this evening and discuss an issue that is facing Americans today that really we should not be standing here talking about. We face tough economic times, but instead we have to be dealing with the administration's rule that he is implementing that came out of the health care bill passed several years ago. This is a freedom-of-religion issue. This issue is not about birth control. This issue is about government control.

I'd like to share a couple of lines from our founding documents that I think are very important. I think one thing that has happened over the past couple of years is that Americans have become more familiar with our Constitution, because I believe the Constitution has the answers for the problems that we face today.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share this particular line that actually influenced the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment:

All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.

That is found in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The First Amendment says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today and I believe that this is a threat to our freedoms. I stand here as a Baptist, along with my colleagues from many denominations who believe that this is a threat to our freedom of religion. Can you imagine the outcry if the President told journalists what stories they could write? This is no less appalling. The President's decision to force individuals of faith to violate their conscience is a blatant assault on the First Amendment.

One of the things that is so foundational here in America is that we are a people of strong convictions. We are a people of faith. What this rule does is it puts the real American safety net at risk. We have so many faith-based organizations, charities, people that organize to help those who are in need. They are the backbone of the social safety net of this country. I believe that this rule interferes with those core beliefs and that HHS has jeopardized the mission that so many Americans have to help people across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share this quote by one of our famous and well-respected Founders and Forefathers of our country, and it is Daniel Webster, who said this in addressing Americans about preserving the principles of the Constitution. He said:

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Mr. Speaker, I'd submit to you today that this administration, past Congresses, has good intentions; but they are beginning to control and to rule

[Page: H892]

the people in ways that violate our constitutional freedoms and our liberties.

So I want to thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order because I believe that the people must know that this is a rule that will infringe on their First Amendment rights.

The last quote I'd like to read tonight is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson says:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

I ask the American people to voice their opinion, to voice their freedom, and to let their Member of Congress know what this ruling does to the freedom of religion.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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).

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate the opportunity from the gentleman from California to stand with my colleagues tonight to speak on an important issue.

It was an amazing experience for me this morning to be part of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and to have a hearing where we had numerous members of religious organizations, including leaders in the Catholic, the Jewish, and the Protestant faiths, in front of us, men who were appealing for rights that should be taken for granted in this country, the rights of religious freedom.

It brought back to me the thoughts that I experienced just a year ago almost this very day when I was in Israel and had the opportunity to hear from the Prime Minister of Israel as he spoke with glowing admiration for America. He talked about the religious liberty that was unlike any other place in the world in Israel today for all faiths, all religions, based upon, as he said, the experience, the value, and the documents of America and its foundings.

[Time: 19:10]

And so, today, to hear our religious leaders speaking for their religious liberty was unreal. Those documents that the Prime Minister of Israel referred to going back to the Declaration of Independence, where it says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Liberty.

And our First Amendment has been quoted numerous times tonight. The beginning of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

These truly sacred documents, documents that we live by, at least we should, documents that we can carry and quote from, are under serious attack today. These documents of liberty, liberty, not just for organizations but for individuals, not just for churches, but for parishioners who have businesses, who are body shop owners, who are lawyers, who are doctors and have employees that they want to care for.

We have today a Justice of the Supreme Court who recommends to a country looking for a constitution to write, not America's Constitution, but constitutions of other countries. Unbelievable.

And attorneys, labor attorneys pooh-poohing the opposition to attacks on our own Constitution as constitutional niceties. This is not America that we understand.

And now the attack on the constitutional right of religious conscience, the foundational liberty upon which this great land was birthed, our churches and our individuals.

We would do well to listen, Mr. Speaker, to the warnings of our Framers and Founders.

And with this I close: Jonathan Witherspoon, a minister who signed the Declaration of Independence said:

A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.

John Adams followed by saying:

Liberty lost once is liberty lost forever.

We would do well also to take the heed of enemy voices who desire the destruction of America and its liberty, lest we unwittingly follow and fall into their advice, advice such as this that was said:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold; its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. If we undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

Joseph Stalin.

May God grant us, Mr. Speaker, wisdom so that our President, this Congress, and all of America will never let these words be a prophecy fulfilled.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his powerful words.

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

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as a young man, I swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States when I was sworn into the United States military. Literally, millions of young men and women have sworn that oath, shed blood, precious blood, to protect the individual liberties and freedoms that we take for granted in this Nation. And now, no longer, due to the actions of this President, can we take those for granted.

I want to associate my remarks tonight with my colleagues who've so eloquently spoken. Once again, it tells us why government should be out of these individual decisions that we make. We passed almost 2 years ago, and Mr. Lungren remembers this very well, on this House floor we debated this health care bill that now mandates not only what we should buy, an essential benefits package, but what's in it and how it's administered. How ridiculous that is. Individuals have that right and should maintain that right and that freedom to do that.

Our government was established to protect rights of conscience for all Americans, not just some Americans, but all Americans. Neither the HHS nor any other government Department should have the power to force people to violate their conscience. Since 1973, health care and coverage providers--and I am a physician, I am an obstetrician and gynecologist--were granted protections in the law to follow their conscience. This rule that was passed and will be the law of the land cancels those protections. Cancels those protections.

This HHS rule will force individuals and organizations to violate deeply held moral convictions with no opportunity to opt out, no opportunity to opt out. Protection of the rights of conscience is a fundamental American principle, a fundamental liberty, not a marginal consideration to be subordinated or ignored because of Federal mandates. It's guaranteed in this book right here, the Constitution. The freedom of religion is the first one mentioned in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The HHS rule gives people and me, a provider, an impossible choice: either break the law, or violate your beliefs. This rule is causing buyer's remorse in someone who previously supported the health care reform bill.

Former Representative Kathy Dahlkemper recently said:

I would never have voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception.

Christians cannot distinguish between purely religious activities and provisions of health care. Because of this rule and because of this President, many may have no choice but to stop providing coverage for their employees. And providers like myself and others with conscience clauses may have to stop providing care.

This is not a choice that any of us should have to make. It's a freedom guaranteed by over 200 years of bloodshed for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot stand by and let this happen.

I appreciate very much the gentleman holding this Special Order tonight.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my great friend from California for his leadership, former Attorney General of California, one of the most decisive and

[Page: H893]

wonderful debaters in the House of Representatives and a great champion of life.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's slick public relations offensive this past Friday contained neither an accommodation nor a compromise, nor a change in his coercion rule. It was, instead, a pernicious attack on religious freedom.

The Obama final rule promulgated on Friday is an unprecedented government attack on the conscience rights of religious entities and anyone else, and I repeat that, anyone else who, for moral reasons, cannot and will not pay for abortion-inducing drugs, such as ella, or contraception and sterilization procedures in their private insurance plans.

Mr. Obama is arrogantly using the coercive power of the state to force faith-based charities, hospitals and schools to conform to his will at the expense of conscience.

Mr. Obama's means of coercing compliance, ruinous fines of $2,000 per employee when faith-based organizations refuse to comply, and they will refuse to comply, will impose incalculable harm on millions of children educated in faith-based schools. It will also impose harm on the poor, sick, disabled, and frail elderly who are served with such extraordinary compassion and dignity by faith-based entities.

For example, Catholic Charities employs 70,000 employees. They will be hit with a fine by the Obama administration of $140 million per year. That's the fine. That's the penalty: $2,000 per employee.

Notre Dame has about 5,000 employees. That will be a $10 million fine on Notre Dame. And so it goes for those faith-based organizations.

Let me just say to my colleagues that vocal apologists of the Obama coercion rule say over and over again that the IOM, the Institute of Medicine, panel that reportedly researched and did recommend the coercion rule was somehow independent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Time: 19:20]

Journalist Kathryn Jean Lopez reported that the Human Life International organization looked into the members of the panel. You stack the panel, you get a predetermined outcome. They found that it was packed with pro-abortion activists.

For example, member Claire Brindis, member of the organization of NARAL Pro-Choice America; Angela Diaz, member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health; Paula Johnson, chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; Magda Peck, also on the board of directors, or was, of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs. She was chair of the board as well as vice chair. If you just stack an IOM or any other panel, you will get a predetermined outcome, and so they did.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act reasserts and restores conscience rights by making absolutely clear that no one can be compelled to subsidize so-called services in private insurance plans contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This legislation must be on the floor soon, and I hope the American people will realize how important this bill offered by Mr. Fortenberry is to conscience rights in America.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to avoid personalities with regard to the President, such as accusations of arrogance.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[Begin Insert]

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start tonight by continuing our discussion on conscience protections and our First Amendment rights.

As I did yesterday during the press conference on the same topic, I'd like to read the First Amendment to our Constitution. It states: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''

[Page: H894]

Our Founding Fathers thought that those specific five tenets were crucial to the citizens of America--so critical that they needed to be guaranteed first and foremost.

The conscience protection debate that started a few weeks ago with the administration's announcement of a new rule regarding contraception, sterilization, and insurance policies is a perfect example of the importance of these rights.

The government cannot, and should not, be forcing any employer, whether they are Catholic charities and schools or an individual businessman, to violate the tenets of their faith.

As this debate continues, it highlights the great need to have a standard that explicitly protects employers from attempts to erode our First Amendment rights.

We need to fight for the standard in H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, introduced by my good friend from Nebraska, Mr.Fortenberry.

It simply protects employers from being forced to violate their religious or moral beliefs by an overreaching mandate from the administration. It takes nothing away from the public, nor does it prohibit women from getting services that are already provided, as some have alleged.

H.R. 1179 is a responsible and reasonable response to clarify what can and cannot be mandated through the healthcare law regarding conscience protections.

We cannot allow the federal government to start going down the slippery slope of eroding our constitutionally protected rights--we took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

As a mother and grandmother, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the rights we enjoy today continue to be guaranteed for my daughter, grandchildren, and generations to come.

[End Insert]

(House of Representatives - February 16, 2012)

Religious Freedom

2012-02-23T16:38:00.005-05:00

[Page: H887]  GPO's PDF
---

(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's mandate on abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptive services has not gone away--I repeat--has not gone away. It has not been settled. There is no compromise. The administration's assault on the First Amendment continues. The deeply held beliefs of people who oppose abortifacients are still under attack.

Let's be clear. The President remains as determined as ever to force insurance companies and their customers to pay for services which defy the moral fiber of their beings and which are contrary to religious beliefs and sacred teachings.

Let me be clear. Despite what you have heard, no rules have changed. There has been no accommodation. President Obama is simply hoping to cover this issue with a smokescreen to push it past Election Day so he can still get his way.

That's why this Congress needs to act--and act right now--to put in place conscience protections that the administration cannot violate. We need to safeguard our religious liberties against these attacks by the Obama administration.

(House of Representatives - February 16, 2012)

All American Women

2012-01-30T14:30:00.000-05:00

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 20, 2012

Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment
Federal Register (PDF)
Filed August 1, 2011

Specifically, the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions. Such an accommodation would be consistent with the policies of States that require contraceptive services coverage, the majority of which simultaneously provide for a religious accommodation.

In light of the above, the Departments are amending the interim final rules to provide HRSA additional discretion to exempt certain religious employers from the Guidelines where contraceptive services are concerned. The amendment to the interim final rules provides HRSA with the discretion to establish this exemption. Consistent with most States that have such exemptions, as described below, the amended regulations specify that, for purposes of this policy, a religious employer is one that:

(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and
(4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.

Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. The definition of religious employer, as set forth in the amended regulations, is based on existing definitions used by most States that exempt certain religious employers from having to comply with State law requirements to cover contraceptive services.

Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps
Institute of Medicine
Full Report
July 19, 2011

Chapter 7: Findings and Recommendations for Addressing Identified Gaps in Preventive Services for Women (p. 163)

TABLE 7-1: Summary of the Committee's Recommendations on Preventive Services for Women (p. 164)

TABLE 7-1 Continued (p. 165)

Preventive Service: Contraceptive methods and counseling

Supporting Evidence: The evidence provided to support a recommendation related to unintended pregnancy is based on systematic evidence reviews and other peer-reviewed studies, which indicate that contraception and contraceptive drug counseling, are effective at reducing unintended pregnancies. Current federal reimbursement policies provide coverage for contraception and contraceptive counseling and most private insurers also cover contraception in their health plans. Numerous health professional associations recommend family planning services as part of preventive care for women. Furthermore, a reduction in unintended pregnancies has been identified as a specific goal in Healthy People 2010 and Healthy People 2020.

Recommendation 5.5
The committee recommends for consideration as a preventive service for women: the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.

Birth control: Feds say many church-affiliated employers must cover but grant 1-year extension
The Washington Post
January 20, 2012

Liberals and women’s rights groups praised the decision, saying that women who work for religious employers should not have to accept a lower standard of health coverage.

“The administration stood firm,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “As a result millions will get access to contraception, and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.”

Sebelius: "We Are in a War" for Abortion
The New American
October 13, 2011

But the audience must understand, she continued, that their struggle isn’t a mere political battle. “We’ve come a long way in women's health over the last few decades,” she noted, “but we are in a war.”

“I’m confident we can keep moving forward to a day when all American woman have access to the comprehensive health services they need and the right to make their own choices about their bodies and their own futures.”

State of the Union, 2012

2012-01-25T10:38:00.000-05:00

JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS PURSUANT TO HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 96 TO RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT -- (House of Representatives - January 24, 2012)

[Page: H151]
---

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker at 8 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.

The Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Mrs. Kerri Hanley, announced the Vice President and Members of the U.S. Senate, who entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, the Vice President taking the chair at the right of the Speaker, and the Members of the Senate the seats reserved for them.

The SPEAKER. The joint session will come to order.

The Chair appoints as members of the committee on the part of the House to escort the President of the United States into the Chamber:

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor);

The gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy);

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling);

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions);

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price);

The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers);

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter);

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi);

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer);

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson);

The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra);

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn);

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel); and

The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

The VICE PRESIDENT. The President of the Senate, at the direction of that body, appoints the following Senators as members of the committee on the part of the Senate to escort the President of the United States into the House Chamber:

The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid);

The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin);

The Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer);

The Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray);

The Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow);

The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich);

The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell);

The Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl);

The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander);

The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso);

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune);

The Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn); and

The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

The Deputy Sergeant at Arms announced the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, His Excellency Roble Olhaye, Ambassador from the Republic of Djibouti.

The Dean of the Diplomatic Corps entered the Hall of the House of Representatives and took the seat reserved for him.

The Deputy Sergeant at Arms announced the Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court entered the Hall of the House of Representatives and took the seats reserved for them in front of the Speaker's rostrum.

The Deputy Sergeant at Arms announced the Cabinet of the President of the United States.

The members of the Cabinet of the President of the United States entered the Hall of the House of Representatives and took the seats reserved for them in front of the Speaker's rostrum.

At 9 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m., the Sergeant at Arms, the Honorable Paul D. Irving, announced the President of the United States.

The President of the United States, escorted by the committee of Senators and Representatives, entered the Hall of the House of Representatives and stood at the Clerk's desk.

(Applause, the Members rising.)

The SPEAKER. Members of the Congress, I have the high privilege and the distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.

(Applause, the Members rising.)

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought--and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in 9 years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

[Page: H152]

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: a country that leads the world in educating its people; an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs; a future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world; an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share--the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their

incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the 6 months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable so a crisis like this never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this Chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last--an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can't bring every job back that's left our shores. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let's change it. First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax, and every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America.

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away.

We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over 5 years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we're on track to meet that goal--ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, Toledo and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration--and it's made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we've stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It's not right when another country lets our movies, music and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia. Our workers are

[Page: H153]

the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you--America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that--openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

It's inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national

commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers--places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs so that from now on people like Jackie have one program, one Web site, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need. It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier. For less than 1 percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning--the first time that's happened in a generation.

But challenges remain, and we know how to solve them. At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this Chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job and reward the best ones. And in return, grant schools flexibility to teach with creativity and passion, to stop teaching to the test, and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn. That's a bargain worth making.

We also know that when students don't walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every State--every State--require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next 5 years.

Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets, and colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. Some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge--the fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through; yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently to study business and science and engineering; but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else. That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them a chance to earn their citizenship; I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who's willing to work and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs. After all, innovation is what America has always been about.

Most new jobs are created in startups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched, new lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet, to new American jobs and new American industries.

And nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last 3 years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. And tonight, I'm directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in 8 years--that's right, 8 years. Not only that, last year we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy, a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. The experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and

power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper,

[Page: H154]

proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock, reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

Now, what's true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In 3 years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of Federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55 no one would give him a second chance; but he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today it's hiring workers like Bryan who said, I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future.

Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out. Some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable and double down on a clean-energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean-energy tax credits, and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this Chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, but there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean-energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well, tonight I will. I'm directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us--the world's largest consumer of energy--will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history, with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power 250,000 homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's a proposal: help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories, and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges, a power grid that wastes too much energy, an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects, but you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest of it to do some nation-building right here at home.

There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones who were hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who have seen their home values decline. And while government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

And that's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing at historically low rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices, these don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first 3 years of my Presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I've ordered every Federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next 5 years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill--because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilt milk.

Now, I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a Federal agency looking over his shoulder. Absolutely. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the gulf 2 years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men.

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home or start a business or send their kids to college.

So, if you are a big bank or financial institution, you're no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a living will that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail, because the rest of us are not bailing you

out ever again. And if you're a mortgage lender, or a payday lender, or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices, those days are over. Today American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray, with one job: to look out for them.

We'll also establish a financial crimes unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I'm asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of Federal prosecutors and leading State attorney generals to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke

[Page: H155]

the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let's agree right here, right now: no side issues, no drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay. Let's get it done.

When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the Tax Code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else, like education and medical research, a strong military, and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms to rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid and strengthen Social Security so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But, in return, we need to change our Tax Code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit or somebody else has to make up the difference, like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know that's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last.

Now, I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt, energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right about now: Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street, but the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad, and it seems to get worse every year. And some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money and politics. So together, let's take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress. I will sign it tomorrow.

Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress and vice versa, an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything, even routine business, passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it.

For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up-or-down vote within 90 days. The executive branch also needs to change. Too often it's inefficient, outdated, and remote. That's why I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the Federal bureaucracy so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction, that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around commonsense ideas.

I'm a Democrat, but I believe what Republican, Abraham Lincoln, believed--the government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves and no more. That's why my education reform offers more competition and more control for schools and States. That's why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work. That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads and clean energy projects and Federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is we should all want a smarter, more effective government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress.

With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help because when we act together, there's nothing the United States of America can't achieve.

That's the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years. Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength we've begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home; 23,000 more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo, from Sana'a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world's longest serving dictators, a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed and that human dignity cannot be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it's ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well.

We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings, men and women, Christians, Muslims,

[Page: H156]

and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets because tyranny is no match for liberty. And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests.

Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before. Its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions. And as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible and far better. And if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the Community of Nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment, and I mean ironclad to Israel security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.

We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power. And a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope.

From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials to the missions we've led against hunger and disease, to the blows we've dealt our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years. Yes, the world is changing. No, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable Nation in world affairs; and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way.

That's why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyberthreats.

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they've served us. That includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned, which is why we've increased annual VA spending every year I've been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I'm proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white, Asian, Latino, Native American, conservative or liberal, rich, poor, gay, straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

And one of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats, some may be Republicans; but that doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room when I sat next to Bob Gates, a man who was George Bush's Defense Secretary, and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for President.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job--the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control, the translator who kept others from entering the compound, the troops who separated the women and children from the fight, the SEALs who charged up the stairs.

More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other, because you can't charge up those stairs into darkness and danger unless you know that there's somebody behind you watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get

each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great, no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

(Applause, the Members rising.)

At 10 o'clock and 16 minutes p.m., the President of the United States, accompanied by the committee of escort, retired from the Hall of the House of Representatives.

The Deputy Sergeant at Arms escorted the invited guests from the Chamber in the following order:

The members of the President's Cabinet; the Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps.

The SPEAKER. The Chair declares the joint session of the two Houses now dissolved.

Accordingly, at 10 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m., the joint session of the two Houses was dissolved.

The Members of the Senate retired to their Chamber.

A Statement of Conscience

2011-10-06T10:05:00.002-04:00

[Page: H6509] ---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 5 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. My conscience has compelled me to come to the floor today to voice concerns I have with the influence Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has on the political process in Washington. My issue is not with ATR's goal of keeping taxes low. Like Ronald Reagan said, and I believe, ``The problem is not that the people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.''

I want to be perfectly clear: I do not support raising taxes on the American people. My concern is with the other individuals, groups and causes with whom Mr. Norquist is associated that have nothing to do with keeping taxes low.

Among them:

One, Mr. Norquist's relationship with Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff essentially laundered money through ATR and Mr. Norquist knew it.

Two, his association and representation of terrorist financier and vocal Hamas supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi. He also is associated with terrorist financier Sami al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide services to Palestinian Islamic jihad.

Three, Mr. Norquist's lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae.

Fourth, Mr. Norquist's representation of the Internet gambling industry.

Fifth, Mr. Norquist's advocacy of moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Simply put, I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream. I also believe that Mr. Norquist has used the ATR ``pledge'' as leverage to advance other issues that many Americans would find inappropriate and, when taken as a whole, should give people pause.

I raise these concerns today in the context of dealing with the future of our country. America is in trouble. Unemployment is over 9 percent. Housing values continue to decline. Retirement accounts are threatened. The American people are worried. Yet Washington is tragically shackled in ideological gridlock. Some are dead set against any change to entitlement programs, while others insist that any discussion of tax policy is off the table.

We are at a point today that the tsunami of debt in America demands that every piece of the budget be scrutinized, and that means more than just cutting waste, fraud and abuse and discretionary programs. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our Tax Code. Until we reach an agreement that addresses those two drivers of our deficit and debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state. Everything must be on the table, and I believe how the ``pledge'' is interpreted and enforced by Mr. Norquist is a roadblock to realistically reforming our Tax Code.

[Page: H6510]

When Senator Tom Coburn recently called for eliminating the special interest ethanol tax subsidy, who led the opposition? Mr. Norquist. Have we already forgotten the battle over earmarks from last year? Unlike an earmark included in an annual appropriations bill, tax earmarks are far worse because, once enacted, they typically exist in perpetuity. Have we really reached a point where one person's demand for ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge?

I understand that some may not agree with what I say. I know many are not aware of Mr. Norquist's associations. But my conscience compels me to speak out today. Reasonable people can differ on the merits of pledges--and I respect those differences--but the issue is with the interpreter and the enforcer of a pledge. William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and abolitionist, famously told his colleagues: ``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know.''

I urge my colleagues to read my full statement in the Record, which will also be posted on my Web page, going into greater detail on the issues I have raised.

[Begin Insert]

A STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE

Mr. Speaker, every day, brave men and women in our armed forces and their families are sacrificing for our country--many making the ultimate sacrifice. Despite the danger, they rise to the occasion. At this time of political and economic crisis, will the Congress and the president match their courage? Will we rise to the occasion?

Every member of Congress and the president know the dire economic situation facing our country. A debt load well over $14.5 trillion. Annual deficits over $1 trillion.

A separate but some believe even more important challenge is addressing the over $62 trillion in unfunded obligations and liabilities on the books for entitlements including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

We always say we want to leave our country better than we found it and to give our children and grandchildren hope for the future. But if we do not change course, the debt burden will crush future generations. Every penny of the federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2028. Every penny. That means no money for our national defense. No money for homeland security. No money to fix our nation's crumbling infrastructure. No money for cancer research.

The uncertainty about our nation's economic future is undermining employer and consumer confidence, preventing the recovery we so desperately need to get Americans back to work.

According to the most recent jobs data, the economy failed to add a single net job during August 2011. Not one. The nation's unemployment rate continues to hover above 9 percent.

We hear from our constituents every day that they are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the value of their houses. They are worried about their investments and retirement plans.

Furthermore, we face these challenges not in a vacuum, but in an increasingly competitive and dangerous world filled with those who would stand to benefit from an America in decline. Among our biggest ``bankers'' are China--which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith--and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

At a time when strong leadership is needed to address this fiscal crisis, it is unfortunate that President Obama has continually failed to lead by example. He even walked away from the recommendations of his own fiscal commission.

And just last month, on September 16, the Washington Post reported that President Obama is once again walking away from any serious effort to address the deficit and debt by removing any discussion of Social Security from the debt negotiations. Once again, the president is not only failing to lead, but obstructing the process to find a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction.

The president and some on the other side of the aisle say that this debt crisis is because Americans are undertaxed. In fact, the president just proposed paying for another round of temporary stimulus spending by permanently limiting charitable tax deductions. He knows that even members of his own party would never support this. I don't support this either.

Like President Reagan said, and I believe, ``The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.'' There is no question that the real problem is overspending, especially on runaway entitlement costs and through hundreds of billions of so-called tax expenditures.

It is no secret that our inefficient and burdensome tax code is undermining consumer and business confidence further weakening our fragile economic recovery. Comprehensive tax reform is needed now more than ever to rid our tax code of earmarks and loopholes that promote crony capitalism and let Washington pick winners and losers.

Yet we sit here today shackled in ideological gridlock. Some insist that any discussion of tax policy is off the table. Others reject any change in entitlement programs.

On the Democrat side, MoveOn.org and other liberal interests tie the hands of Democrat members, threatening them should they break ranks on any deficit reduction plan that touches social programs.

On the Republican side, Grover Norquist holds up the Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge to block even the mention of putting tax reform on the table for discussion as part of a deficit reduction agreement.

For over five years I have pushed bipartisan legislation to set up an independent commission to develop a comprehensive deficit reduction package that would require an up-or-down vote by the Congress. I have said that the enormity of the crisis we face demands that everything must be on the table for discussion--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, and tax policy; not tax increases, but reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer and free from special interest earmarks.

I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis: the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the ``Gang of Six'' effort, and the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' bill--including the Balanced Budget Amendment. None of these solutions were perfect, but they all took the steps necessary to rebuild and protect our economy.

Powerful special interests continue to hold this institution hostage and undermine every good faith effort to change course.

POLITICAL PLEDGES

Some may ask: what's the big deal in signing a pledge by a special interest group to articulate a candidate's position on a political issue?

Pledges are not new to politics, but conservatives have long recognized their danger. In 1774 during an address to the electors of Bristol, the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, refused to bind himself to a pledge during the campaign and renounced their ``coercive authority.''

Burke said that an elected representative's ``unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. ..... They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.''

More recently, preeminent American conservative academic Russell Kirk identified the principal qualities of a conservative leader. Kirk urged conservatives to follow Burke's example and to be prudent. According to Kirk, ``to be `prudent' means to be judicious, cautious, sagacious. Plato, and later Burke, instruct us that in the statesman, prudence is the first of the virtues. A prudent statesman is one who looks before he leaps; who takes long views; who knows that politics is the art of the possible.''

Conservatives of all people should not be locked into any ideological position. We are bearers of a conservative tradition. Conservatism is not an ideology; it's not doctrine or dogma. It is a way of seeing life. It draws on the wisdom of the past to view events of the present. We all stand on the shoulders of the great people who have gone before us. That is why G. K. Chesterton described our experiment as ``democracy of the dead'' because we care about the foundation laid by our forefathers.

Burke's wisdom was succinctly summarized by Governor Jeb Bush, who told the Washington Post's Michael Gerson in July, ``I never raised taxes. I'm pro-life. But I don't recall signing any of those pledges. You don't hide your beliefs. You persuade people. You win or lose. And if you win, you are not beholden to anyone or anything other than your own beliefs.''

I don't sign or support political pledges. Reasonable people can disagree about the philosophical merits of signing pledges--and I respect those differences. But even for those who do, I think everyone can recognize that the real danger of pledges lies with the ideologues who claim ownership of the interpretation and enforcement of the pledge.

Since 1986, Grover Norquist has asked every candidate for office to sign the ``Taxpayer Protection Pledge.'' He is the owner of the pledge, which he says binds the signer in

[Page: H6511]

perpetuity to oppose any and all tax increases, as determined solely by Norquist. He even locks the pledges in a safe. He has become the self-anointed protector and if anyone dares challenge him, be prepared for retribution.

Jason Horowitz, in a July 12 Washington Post article reported: ``The sacred texts from which Grover Norquist draws his political power are hidden in a secret fireproof safe.''

He quotes Norquist: ``I keep the originals in a vault, in case D.C. burns down. When someone takes the pledge, you don't want it tampered with; you don't want it destroyed.''

In his own words in the October 2011 edition of The American Spectator, Norquist says, ``Take the Pledge, win the primary. Take the Pledge, win the general. Break the Pledge, lose the next election.''

Columnist Robert Samuelson, in a July 10 Washington Post piece pointed out, ``just in case you hadn't noticed, no one has elected Grover Norquist to anything. Still, he looms as a major obstacle to Congress reaching a deficit-reduction agreement. .....''

Samuelson continued: ``[B]ut what's revealing about Norquist's passionate advocacy is that it virtually ignores the main causes of bigger government: Social Security and Medicare.''

I agree that entitlement spending is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our tax code also must be dealt with. Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our deficits and debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.

We are at a point today that the tsunami of debt in America demands that every slice of the budget be scrutinized. As I said before, everything must be on the table.

Have we really reached a point where one person's demand for ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge?

It is curious that Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, yet his purist pledge has no mention of working to reform the tax code to make it simpler and fairer to average American taxpayers.

ATTACKS ON CONGRESS

We recently witnessed Norquist's zealotry in action as he worked to stop Senator Tom Coburn's call for eliminating the ethanol tax subsidy. Senator Coburn signed Norquist's pledge, but he dared to call for a change in the tax code to eliminate spending through the tax code.

In signing the pledge, a candidate promises to: ``one, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.''

In Mr. Norquist's way of thinking, for Senator Coburn to pursue a change in the tax code to cut a tax earmark, he was breaking the pledge. Norquist accused this honorable member of Congress of lying his way into office.

In his recent report, Back to Black, Senator Coburn identified nearly $1 trillion in annual spending through the types of tax earmarks that Grover Norquist defends. Many of these earmarks are designed to benefit special interests. NASCAR, dog and horse tracks, tackle box makers, railroads, mohair producers, hedge fund managers, ethanol producers, automakers, and video game developers--all receive tax breaks which subsidize their businesses.

A September 10, 2011, New York Times article reported, ``the federal government gave $123 billion in tax incentives to corporations in 2010, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.'' The article highlighted one example of unnecessary and wasteful tax earmarks, stating that tax ``breaks for the video game industry--whose domestic sales of $15 billion a year now exceed those of the music business--are a vivid example of a tax system that defies common sense.''

But, according to Mr. Norquist's pledge, anyone who opposes the myriad of tax subsidies that allowed General Electric to avoid paying taxes last year would violate ``the pledge.'' The average American family last year paid more in taxes than GE, which has aggressively offshored thousands of jobs to China and has been actively transferring American technology to the Chinese government, according to an August 23, 2011, article in The Washington Post by Howard Schneider.

Have we already forgotten the battle over earmarks from last year? Unlike an earmark included in an annual appropriations bill, these ``tax earmarks'' are far worse because once enacted they exist in perpetuity. Tax earmarks last for multiple spending cycles--piling up as special interest lobbies succeed in getting more special treatment for their clients. At the end of the day, whether a spending earmark or a tax earmark, the federal government is picking winners and losers, and the losers are hard-working Americans who are looking to us to reduce their tax rates.

I stand with Senator COBURN. I don't want to increase marginal tax rates on hard-working Americans; I want to lower them by ridding the tax code of the loopholes and special interest earmarks. If we can reform the code in that way, we can lower marginal tax rates.

I would submit that Mr. Norquist has every interest in protecting these special interest tax earmarks because that is how he earns his living. A review of his lobbying disclosure forms demonstrate how many special interest issues he lobbies on and how little they have to do with reforming the tax code to lower tax rates on all Americans.

I would also submit that Mr. Norquist's pledge--which candidates sign to indicate their opposition to tax increases--has morphed into a powerful mechanism for Mr. Norquist to ensure that favored tax earmarks to select industries remain untouched, thus preventing comprehensive tax reform.

I believe it is fair to ask: just who is Grover Norquist and how has he amassed such perceived political power inside Washington?

Numerous federal investigations, reports, and public documents point to Grover Norquist using his network of organizations--Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), his former and now defunct lobbying firm Janus-Merritt Strategies, and the Islamic Free Market Institute--in questionable ways, raising money in business activities with people who have been in serious criminal trouble.

A survey of Mr. Norquist's associates reveals that some of his closest business partners and clients have been convicted of crimes and have served time in prison or are currently serving, including Jack Abramoff, David Safavian, and Dickie Scruggs, as well as convicted terrorist supporters Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian.

More recently, according to news reports, Mr. Norquist has been an outspoken advocate for moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, including 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed to New York City. He also interjected himself into the debate about the proposed ``Ground Zero Mosque'' last summer.

I want to be clear: I raise these issues not just because Mr. Norquist's associates may be unsavory people. There are many lobbyists in Washington who represent clients of all stripes and backgrounds. But my concern arises when the appearances of impropriety are raised over and over again with a person who has such influence over public policy. That, I believe, should give any fair-minded person pause.

ABRAMOFF SCANDAL

Norquist's role in the Jack Abramoff scandal has been well documented by federal investigators, including the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' 2006 report, Gimme Five--Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters. Investigators found that Messrs. Norquist and Abramoff developed a secretive relationship under which Mr. Abramoff directed the Choctaw tribe to make payments to Americans for Tax Reform, which, in turn, transferred the money to Ralph Reed's advocacy firm--after taking a ``management fee,'' which averaged $25,000 per transaction, for agreeing to serve as Abramoff's conduit, according to the committee's report.

According to the same Senate report, ``Abramoff said that keeping the arrangement with Norquist and ATR a secret was important. After all, Abramoff wrote `[w]e do not want opponents to think we are trying to buy the tax payer [sic] movement.' ''

Again, according to the Senate report, ``On May 20, 1999, Norquist had asked Abramoff, `What is the status of the Choctaw stuff. I have a $75K hole in my budget from last year. Ouch [sic].' Thus in the fall of 1999, Abramoff reminded himself to `call Ralph [Reed] re Grover doing pass through.' When Abramoff suggested the Choctaw start using ATR as a conduit, the Tribe agreed.''

In February 2000, according to the Senate report, Mr. Abramoff contacted Mr. Reed in advance of a series of $300,000 payments to ATR to warn him that, ``I need to give Grover something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit lighter.''

The degree to which Mr. Norquist was financially benefiting by laundering Mr. Abramoff's money was detailed in the Senate report:

``On February 17, 2000 Abramoff advised Reed that `ATR will be sending a second $300K today.' This money, too, came from the Choctaw. Norquist kept another $25,000 from the second transfer, which apparently surprised Abramoff.

``On March 2, 2000, Abramoff told [Choctaw liaison] Rogers that he needed `more money asap' for Reed, and requested `a check for $300K for Americans for Tax Reform asap.'

``Abramoff's executive assistant Susan Ralston asked him, `Once ATR gets their check, should the entire $300k be sent to the Alabama Christian Coalition again?'

``Abramoff replied, `Yes, but last time they sent $275K, so I want to make sure that before we send it to ATR I speak with Grover to confirm.' ''

[Page: H6512]

Weekly Standard editor Matthew Continetti wrote in his book, The K Street Gang, that ``between 1995 and 2002 the Mississippi Choctaw donated about $1.5 million to Americans for Tax Reform.'' Mr. Abramoff also instructed his other clients to make regular donations to ATR, according to Continetti's book. However, the cumulative amount is unknown because Mr. Norquist refuses to identify ATR's clients, Continetti states.

According to Continetti, during the same period, Mr. Norquist was intimately involved with the questionable activities surrounding other Abramoff clients, including the Marianas Islands, which is prominently featured in the documentary Casino Jack. As one participant in Mr. Norquist's Wednesday Group meetings--a weekly gathering of Mr. Norquist's invited guests--noted, following Mr. Norquist's collaboration with Mr. Abramoff, ``All of a sudden the Marianas shows up as one of [ATR's] number-one priority issues,'' Continetti writes.

``[The Norquist-Abramoff strategy] was about co-opting conservative journalists and intellectuals,'' wrote Continetti. ``As outlined in his retrospective memo, Abramoff knew from the start that a good lobbyist not only targeted lawmakers, he also targeted opinion makers. So representatives were dispatched to Norquist's Wednesday Meetings to preach the gospel ..... When [Abramoff's clients] visited the United States, Abramoff would not only make sure to shepherd them to Grover Norquist's Wednesday Meetings. He also billed them thousands of dollars for `discussions' with Norquist. He billed the Marianas for the airfare to send staff members of Americans for Tax Reform to Saipan. From National Journal: `According to sources familiar with ATR finances, the group sent Marianas officials a bill for $10,000 at least once in the mid-1990s for attendance at Norquist's tax policy dinners.' It paid to be a friend of Jack Abramoff.''

IGNORING SUBPOENAS

It is also noteworthy that Mr. Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform repeatedly refused to comply with the congressional subpoenas for additional information regarding their role in the Abramoff affair, according to an April 21, 2005, article in Roll Call.

Additionally, Mr. Norquist refused to comply with an earlier congressional subpoena according to a 1998 Senate Governmental Affairs report, which found Americans for Tax Reform in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Given Norquist's questionable role in the Abramoff scandal, his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas is all the more troubling.

TERRORIST CONNECTIONS

Not only was Mr. Norquist entangled with the criminal dealings of Jack Abramoff, but documentation shows that he has deep ties to supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn enemies of the United States and our ally Israel.

According to Senate lobbying disclosure records of his now defunct lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies, around the years 2000 and 2001 Mr. Norquist's firm represented Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted two years later for his role in a terrorist plot and who is presently serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison.

Court documents and a October 15, 2004, Department of Justice press release reveal that Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council, was arrested at Dulles Airport in September 2003 upon returning to the U.S after participating in a Libyan plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. ``Alamoudi participated in recruiting participants for this plot by introducing the Libyans to two Saudi dissidents in London and facilitating the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash from the Libyans to those dissidents to finance the plot,'' the release said.

According to the DOJ press release, Alamoudi, a naturalized citizen, pled guilty to three federal offenses: One count of violating the International Emergency Powers Act; One count of false statements made in his application for naturalization; A tax offense involving a long-term scheme to conceal from the IRS his financial transactions with Libya and his foreign bank accounts and to omit material information from the tax returns filed by his charities.

It is important to point out that Alamoudi's ties to terrorist groups were no secret prior to his arrest.

Alamoudi spoke at an October 2000 rally in front of the White House in support of Hamas and Hezbollah during the period he was represented by Norquist's firm, according to

Senate lobbying disclosure records. The ``Rally Against Israeli Aggression'' was sponsored by Norquist's Islamic Free Market Institute, according to a September 2000 ``Islamic Institute Friday Brief.'' The Islamic Free Market Institute was created by Grover Norquist and operated out of his Americans for Tax Reform office in Washington, thanks to sizable start-up contributions from Alamoudi, according to a March 11, 2003, article in the St. Petersburg Times by Mary Jacoby.

I have seen video from the rally, where Alamoudi roared from the stage:

``I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas, anybody supports Hamas here?''

[Crowd cheers, ``Yes!'']

``..... Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas, Allahu Akbar.''

``I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here?''

[Crowd cheers, ``Yes!'']

A few months after the Lafayette Park rally, Alamoudi was photographed in Beirut at a conference attended by representatives of the terror groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and al-Qaida, also according to the March 2003 St. Petersburg Times article.

In addition to Alamoudi's outspoken support for Hamas and Hezbollah, he expressed private support for the 1994 terrorist attack against a synagogue in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds, according to a December 17, 2003, article in The American Spectator by Shawn Macomber, who reported: ``In a wiretapped conversation made public in the recent criminal complaint, he (Alamoudi) praises a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires. `The Jewish Community Center. It is a worthy operation,' Alamoudi tells an unidentified man, in Arabic. `I think that the attacks that are being executed by bin Laden and other Islamic groups are wrong, especially hitting the civilian targets. Many African Muslims have died and not a single American has died. I prefer to hit a Zionist target in America or Europe ..... I prefer honestly like what happened in Argentina.''

According to a June 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal article by reporters Tom Hamburger and Glenn Simpson, around 1999 Alamoudi sent his deputy at the American Muslim Council, Khaled Saffuri, to work directly for Mr. Norquist to establish the Islamic Free Market Institute--one of the groups that sponsored the October 2000 rally in Lafayette Park. The institute, chaired by Norquist and led by Saffuri, operated out of the Americans for Tax Reform offices here in Washington, according to the March 2003 article in the St. Petersburg Times.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee report revealed that Saffuri was closely tied to Mr. Norquist and the Abramoff scandal and received money from Abramoff and a front group, the American International Center (AIC), to partner with Abramoff's firm Greenberg Traurig on his ``Malaysian-related interests and issues.''

Mr. Norquist also associated with terror financier Sami Al-Arian, according to Mary Jacoby's reporting in March 2003, in the St. Petersburg Times. Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ``to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law,'' and is under house arrests, according to a Department of Justice press release. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad's ``paramilitary wing--the al-Quds Brigades--has conducted numerous attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings,'' according to the National Counterterrorism Center,

Who is Sami al-Arian? An October 2003 federal affidavit noted that Al-Arian had longstanding connections to associates of al Qaeda. According to the affidavit, ``Sheik Rahman (the ``Blind Sheik'') visited Al-Arian at his residence in Tampa and spoke at his mosque.'' Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in U.S. prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attack and additional terror plots. The federal affidavit also disclosed Al-Arian's ties with Alamoudi.

Al-Arian's relationship with Mr. Norquist appears to have spanned several years. Prior to his arrest in February 2003, Sami Al-Arian visited Norquist's office in Washington for a meeting, also reported in the June 11, 2003, article in the Wall Street Journal. According to Continetti, Mr. Al-Arian also ``cc'd Norquist on an e-mail he sent to the Wall Street Journal protesting an editorial that had pointed out his terrorist connections.''

Mr. Norquist himself served as a key facilitator between Al-Arian, Alamoudi and the White House, according to Mary Jacoby's reporting in March 2003 in The St. Petersburg Times. She reported that ``In June 2001, Al-Arian was among the members of the American Muslim Council invited to the White House complex. . . The next month, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom--a civil liberties group headed by Al-Arian--gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases.''

OPPOSING THE PATRIOT ACT

Mr. Norquist also has been an outspoken supporter of Al-Arian's effort to end the use of classified evidence in terror trials. In fact, Norquist was scheduled to lead a delegation to the White House on September 11, 2001, that included a convicted felon and some who would later be identified by federal law enforcement as suspected terrorist financiers.

According to a Arab American Institute 2002 report, ``Healing the Nation,'' ``[o]n the day of

[Page: H6513]

the terrorist attacks, Arab American and Muslim American leaders were already in Washington, D.C. for a previously scheduled meeting with President Bush to discuss the use of `secret evidence' in certain immigration proceedings and racial profiling of Arab Americans at the nation's airports and security checkpoints.''

I have seen the list of attendees for the scheduled meeting. Among those listed:

Madhi Bray, a convicted felon who was found guilty of drug and fraud charges in the 1980s. Bray appeared cheering on stage with Alamoudi at the October 2000 rally in Lafayette Park as Alamoudi declared his support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Omar Ahmed, co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to an April 18, 2011, Politico article by Josh Gerstein, ``Federal prosecutors ..... have introduced evidence in court of Ahmad's attendance at a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia that the FBI contends was a gathering of Hamas supporters seeking to undermine the Middle East peace process. Prosecutors [in the Holy Land Foundation case] have also presented documents that appear to show CAIR as part of a network of Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.''

The list provided to the White House by Norquist's Islamic Institute included representatives from each of Norquist's organizations, including a Janus-Merrit lobbyist. At the top of the list: Grover Norquist, representing Americans for Tax Reform.

According to a June 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal article by reporters Tom Hamburger and Glenn Simpson, ``Mr. Norquist helped secure a promise from presidential candidate Bush to moderate federal policy on investigating suspected illegal immigrants. In a nationally televised debate on Oct. 11, 2000, Mr. Bush said: `Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence ..... We've got to do something about that.' Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House has abandoned that promise, as the Justice Department has aggressively pursued prosecutions of Muslims allegedly supporting terrorism.''

Mr. Norquist has also led efforts over the last decade to weaken and repeal the PATRIOT Act, working closely with liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, according to a February 20, 2008, profile on Norquist in the Washington Examiner, ``A former lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union said privately that Norquist won her over when they joined forces to oppose the Bush administration's Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. `I was initially skeptical,' she said, `but I knew there was common ground on this issue and that we would be most powerful if we united.' ''

GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

More recently, Mr. Norquist has become an outspoken advocate for moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States. According to a November 16, 2009, Huffington Post article by Sam Stein, Norquist led a public campaign to undermine Republican-led efforts to block the Obama Administration's transfer of 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed to New York City and other terrorist detainees to Thompson Prison in Illinois, the first time terrorists would be held indefinitely inside the United States.

The article reported that Mr. Norquist wrote that, ``moving suspected terrorists to the Thomson, Illinois prison facility, `makes good sense.' Taxpayers, [Norquist wrote], have already invested $145 million in the facility, which has been `little used.' The scaremongering about these issues should stop,' [Norquist wrote], noting that there is `absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.''

Why is Mr. Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, advocating for one of President Obama's top campaign promises? His efforts fly in the face of near-unanimous congressional opposition to providing al Qaeda terrorists with civilian trials in U.S. courts.

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

Mr. Norquist also interjected himself into the debate about the proposed ``Ground Zero Mosque'' last summer, calling legitimate concerns about the location a ``Monica Lewinsky ploy'' by Republicans, according to an August 18, 2010, report by Michael Scherer on Time magazine's Web site. Mr. Norquist further trivialized the concerns saying that Republicans were, ``distracted by shiny things.''

Mr. Norquist even used Americans for Tax Reform to circulate a petition in support of the ``Ground Zero Mosque.'' Patrick Gleason, director of state affairs for Americans for Tax Reform, wrote an August 17, 2010, letter to state affiliates urging them to share the petition with their coalition.

Why would Americans for Tax Reform circulate a petition in support of the ``Ground Zero Mosque?'' For the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 or during operations in the War on Terror, concerns about the ``Ground Zero Mosque'' were neither a ploy nor a distraction, as Norquist described it.

FANNIE MAE

Some also may not be aware of Mr. Norquist's lobbying for Fannie Mae. Lobbying disclosure records indicate that Norquist's lobbying firm, Janus-Merrit Strategies, also lobbied for the massive government sponsored enterprise that required a large federal bailout.

According to a May 18, 2011, report by Erick Erickson on the conservative Web site, Red State, ``in 2000, Janus Meritt received $120,000 in lobbying fees from Fannie Mae. Mr. Norquist, along with [David] Safavian, was listed as one of the main lobbyists on the Fannie Mae account. In disclosure records, Janus-Meritt says its lobbying activities related to a `Home ownership tax.' It appears this lobbying work was designed to protect the homeownership tax credit, which [Fannie Mae executive] Franklin Raines described as key to `increase homeownership in urban and rural areas.' As many conservatives believe, this credit, which Mr. Norquist and Safavian apparently defended, was a major contributing factor in the housing bubble and mortgage crisis.''

INTERNET GAMBLING AND CASINOS

Mr. Norquist also has a long history of lobbying to spread Internet gambling. According to public lobbying disclosure reports, Norquist's clients at Janus-Meritt included a variety of gambling organizations, including the Interactive Gaming Council, organized to oppose the Republican-led effort to pass the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. It is also worth noting that the Interactive Gaming Council was made up of online poker companies, including Full Tilt Poker, which was shut down by the FBI in April and is described by the Justice Department as a ``massive Ponzi scheme.''

As recently as January 2011, Senate lobby disclosure forms show that Mr. Norquist continues to lobby on expanding Internet poker issues in his capacity as president of Americans for Tax Reform. Why would Mr. Norquist and ATR have an interest in lobbying to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act?

The Washington Times reported on September 21, 2011, that ``critics of expanded gambling worry that legalizing online poker will increase gambling addiction and its fallout, such as divorces, bankruptcies and suicides. `People may not understand how highly addictive it is, when you're alone in your home,' said Jerry Prosapio, co-founder of Gambling Exposed and a self-confessed gambling addict who quit 28 years ago. `Online gambling is just another way you're going to create more addiction and then you're going to see more crime. It's just no good for America.' ''

Mr. Norquist also took money from other gambling interests, like the Venetian Casino Resort, according to a March 31, 2006, article by Michael Kranish in the Boston Globe.

I think it is fair to ask: whose bidding is Grover Norquist doing? Why would Americans for Tax Reform take such a longstanding interest in proliferating gambling in the United States?

TRIAL LAWYERS

That same 2006 Boston Globe article reported that, ``interviews and copies of Norquist's donor lists, obtained by the Globe, show that contributors include an array of special interests ranging from tobacco companies to Indian tribes to a Las Vegas casino. The biggest surprise is Norquist's largest individual donor: Richard `Dickie' Scruggs, a Democratic Mississippi trial lawyer, who contributed $4.3 million. Scruggs had received a $1 billion fee in the landmark tobacco case against the same tobacco companies that were also Norquist's donors.''

The Globe reported that, ``Scruggs, like the tobacco companies and some other leading donors, was interested in more than lifting the burdens of the taxpayer. He said he had his own agenda: He wanted Norquist to work to defeat a congressional proposal that he feared would confiscate most of his $1 billion legal fee in the tobacco case.'' In 2008, Scruggs pled guilty to trying to bribe a judge and was sentenced to five years in prison.

Why would Mr. Norquist, a self-proclaimed conservative leader, take so much money to represent a major Democrat party donor and advocate for trial lawyers? Mr. Scruggs himself provided one answer, describing Mr. Norquist in the Globe article, ``There is an expression, if you need a thief, take him from the gallows.''

INSULTING FORMER PRESIDENTS

My colleagues may also be surprised at the tenor and arrogance of Mr. Norquist's public attacks on fellow Republican leaders. In an October 2011 piece he authored in the American Spectator, Norquist personally insults two former Republican presidents and a former Republican majority leader and presidential candidate.

Writing about former President George H.W. Bush's decision to break the tax pledge during his term, Norquist lashed out at Bush saying, ``Now, no person's life is a complete waste. Some serve as bad examples.''

Former President George H.W. Bush is an honorable man who dedicated his life to public service as a congressman, ambassador, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and

[Page: H6514]

vice president before being elected president. As president he oversaw the end of the Cold War and led the successful liberation of Kuwait. He is also an American hero who enlisted in the U.S. Navy after Pearl Harbor and nearly lost his life after being shot down by the Japanese.

While acknowledging former President George W. Bush's adherence to the pledge, Norquist still makes an indecorous allusion about the president, writing, ``He may invade countries he cannot pronounce or find on a map, but he will not raise taxes.''

Former President George W. Bush also is an honorable man who served two successful terms as governor of Texas before twice being elected president. He rallied our nation following 9/11 attacks and led sweeping efforts to secure our homeland and disrupt al Qaeda, preventing further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during his term.

Norquist also boasts of sinking Bob Dole's 1988 presidential campaign, gloating, ``Delaware governor Pete du Pont explained that all the other [Republican primary] candidates had signed the pledge and challenged Dole to do so also, offering the pledge to Dole, who visibly recoiled, as if a vampire being tossed a cross. Dole subsequently lost New Hampshire.''

Former Senator Dole, too, is an honorable man who served his country as a senator and Republican presidential candidate. Dole also is an American hero who fought in World War II and suffered serious injury from Axis gunfire, leaving his arm paralyzed.

MOVING FORWARD

I believe many people were unaware of these troubling connections that I have spoken about. I was surprised when this information came to my attention. I also understand that some may not agree with what I have said in this speech.

But as William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and abolitionist, famously told his colleagues, ``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.''

I can no longer be silent. I believe the evidence is clear that Grover Norquist is connected with a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream. I also believe he has exploited ``the pledge'' to the point of being elevated at times by the media as a spokesman for the Republican Party.

How can we ever hope to move our country forward and solve our debt problem if we are paralyzed by a pledge and threats of political retribution for breaking it by someone whose dealings in Washington over several decades have raised serious questions of impropriety? No one should be able to singularly hold Congress hostage with veto power over candidates for public office; above all someone with such troubling associations.

As former Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission, said in an August 7, 2011, interview with Newsweek ``What can [Norquist] do to you? He's not gonna murder you. He won't burn your house. The only thing he can do is defeat you for reelection. If your reelection means more than doing something for the United States of America and getting out of this [debt] hole, then you shouldn't be in Congress.''

Barbara Shelly, editorial writer for the Kansas City Star, wrote on July 11, 2011: ``Washington, we know, is a planet unto itself. But here in the heartland, it's surreal to watch an unelected guy with a broken ethical compass bring the capital to a standstill and thwart the spirit of compromise that the majority of Americans say they want. Who elected Grover Norquist? He did, that's who. And Washington's political class has not the shame, nor the spine, to send him packing.''

As I observe the hardened ideological positions gripping Washington that threaten our nation's future, my conscience has compelled me to share these concerns and provide this information for all to consider.

The American people want us to resolve this debt crisis and they have every right to expect us to follow through. Congress and the president must reach a solution that will bring confidence to the country. This place is dysfunctional and the American people see it. They want action.

I believe we must: (A) reaffirm ourselves to free America of the incredible debt burden that saddles the coming generations; and (B) break loose of not only Mr. Norquist, but any other special interest holding us hostage.

We also need to be honest with the American people and explain that we cannot just solve our nation's financial crisis by cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our tax code. Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our deficit and debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.

Some are speculating that our country has gone too far to recover. I emphatically reject that notion. Americans have a spirit and sense of civic duty which was implanted in us from the beginning of this republic. It was this sense that Tocqueville most noticed. He called it the great republican virtue of America--ordinary citizens willing to do the hard work of citizenship, helping their neighbors, sacrificing for the common good, and building a better future for our kids. That's been the hallmark of America.

Have we lost this? I don't think so. We may be tempted to veer off course at times, but America is the same nation filled with the same dedicated, patriotic, God-loving, God-fearing people who carved this nation out a wilderness, and have made it an extraordinary beacon of hope and light in the world like none before it.

The problem in the country is not with the people. The problem in the country is Washington. The system is broken because we have fallen prey to ideologues that have put us in a straight jacket and threaten our futures. I believe we can and will break free because the seriousness of the times demands it.

I am one who believes America's greatest days are still ahead. All we have to do is recover that sense of virtue and duty, and be bold and brave enough to stand up and speak the truth and be true to our conscience.

[End Insert]

(House of Representatives - October 4, 2011)

House Votes - H.R. 2584: Department of the Interior, Environment Appropriations Act, 2012

2011-07-26T09:29:00.003-04:00

H.Res. 363: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2584

House Report 112-176

On Passage
Passed by 74 votes: 205-131, 96 not voting

H.R. 2584: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Amendments

H.Amdt. 714 by Rep. Moran [D-VA8]
An amendment to reduce the funds in the Management of Lands and Resources account by $18,663,000 and increase the Indian Health Facilities account by $18,663,000.
Failed by 63 votes: 175-237, 20 not voting

H.Amdt. 715 by Rep. Huelskamp [R-KS1]
An amendment to reduce the various accounts by $3,000,231,000 and applies the savings to the spending reduction account.
Failed by 159 votes: 126-284, 22 not voting

H.Amdt. 716 by Rep. Cleaver [D-MO5]
An amendment to reduce the Management of Lands and Resources account by $3,000,000 and increase the Environmental Programs and Management account by $3,000,000.
Failed by 84 votes: 165-248, 19 not voting

H.Amdt. 717 by Rep. Richmond [D-LA2]
An amendment to reduce the Management of Lands and Resources account by $6,000,000 and increase the Regulation and Enforcement, Ocean Energy Managment account by $5,000,000.
Agreed to by 29 votes: 221-192, 19 not voting

H.Amdt. 719 by Rep. Hochul [D-NY26]
An amendment to reduce the amount in the Bureau of Land Management account available for the processing of applications for drilling permits by $4,452,000.
Failed by 131 votes: 141-271, 20 not voting

House Republicans target EPA in environment spending bill
House Republicans on Monday made no secret that their Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Related Agencies spending bill is designed to trim back the EPA, which they said is a huge creator of uncertainty in an already uncertain environment for business and job creation. The overall bill, H.R. 2584, cuts spending by about 7 percent, but the EPA could be cut by 18 percent. Republican supporters of the bill said these cuts are justified, in part because the EPA received stimulus money that pumped up its budget. But they also made it clear on the House floor that it's time to rein in the agency.

House Dems filibuster GOP's 'anti-environment' bill
House Democrats late Monday afternoon were staging a mini-filibuster against a Republican bill that they said would significantly undermine U.S. environmental protection laws. A handful of amendments were debated before Democratic leaders and senior committee members each took five minutes to talk in opposition to the bill.

Congress Last Week

2011-07-24T10:00:00.000-04:00

House

Senate

Passed Both, No Votes

H.R. 1383: Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011

House Votes - H.R. 2551: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2012

2011-07-23T21:58:00.004-04:00

H.Res. 359: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2551

House Report 112-173

On Passage
Passed by 67 votes: 239-172, 21 not voting

H.R. 2551: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2012
Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Amendments

H.Amdt. 698 by Rep. Watt [D-NC12]
An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 112-173 to reduce funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) by 40% ($619,200) and transfer the funds to the Spending Reduction Account.
Failed by 201 votes: 102-302, 28 not voting

H.Amdt. 701 by Rep. Hayworth [R-NY19]
An amendment numbered 5 printed in House Report 112-173 to reduce funding for the Botanic Garden by $632,780 and apply the savings to the spending reduction account.
Agreed to by 187 votes: 299-112, 21 not voting

H.Amdt. 702 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report 112-173 to reduce funding for the Botanic Garden to the FY 2008 level (a $3,192,000 reduction) and apply the savings to the spending reduction account.
Failed by 108 votes: 153-260, 19 not voting

H.Amdt. 704 by Rep. Stutzman [R-IN3]
An amendment numbered 8 printed in House Report 112-173 to reduce the GPO funding by $4,946,140.80 by transferring $3,414,150.29 from GPO, Congressional Printing and Binding and $1,531,990.51 from GPO, Office of Superintendent of Documents, to the spending reduction account.
Agreed to by 24 votes: 218-194, 20 not voting

H.Amdt. 707 by Rep. Thompson [R-PA5]
An amendment numbered 15 printed in House Report 112-173 to prohibit use of funds to purchase, acquire, install, or use any medium screw base compact fluorescent lamp or light bulb (CFL).
Failed by 154 votes: 130-283, 19 not voting

H.Amdt. 711 by Rep. Holt [D-NJ12]
An amendment numbered 12 printed in House Report 112-173 to provide $2.5 million for the congressional Office of Technology Assessment and reduce funding for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund by the same amount.
Failed by 60 votes: 176-235, 21 not voting

H.Amdt. 712 by Rep. Moran [D-VA8]
An amendment numbered 9 printed in House Report 112-173 to prohibit the use of funds for polystyrene containers in the food service facilities of the House of Representatives.
Failed by 56 votes: 179-234, 19 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 93 votes: 252-159, 21 not voting

Senate Vote - H.R. 2560: Cut, Cap, and Balance Act

2011-07-23T21:57:00.007-04:00

H.R. 2560: Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

Previous House Votes

Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 2560
Motion to Table Agreed to by 5 votes: 51-46, 3 not voting

House Votes - H.R. 1315: Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act

2011-07-23T21:56:00.006-04:00

H.Res. 358: Providing for consideration of H.R. 1315

House Report 112-172

On Question of Consideration of the Resolution
Passed by 54 votes: 227-173, 32 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 61 votes: 238-177, 17 not voting

H.R. 1315: Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011
To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Amendments

H.Amdt. 687 by Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 112-172 to restore a 2/3 majority vote in order for the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulation.
Failed by 70 votes: 170-239, 23 not voting

H.Amdt. 690 by Rep. Miller [D-NC13]
An amendment numbered 5 printed in House Report 112-172 to require specific disclosure of information related to filing agency petitions to the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overturn Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rulemaking.
Failed by 64 votes: 175-238, 19 not voting

H.Amdt. 691 by Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
An amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report 112-172 to restore time limits in which the Financial Stability Oversight Council must review and make a determination on regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Failed by 66 votes: 175-240, 17 not voting

H.Amdt. 694 by Rep. Maloney [D-NY14]
An amendment numbered 9 printed in House Report 112-172 to transfer all authority that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would receive to the Secretary of the Treasury if no Commission Chair is in place by July 21st until such time as a Chair has been confirmed by the Senate.
Failed by 77 votes: 168-244, 20 not voting

H.Amdt. 696 by Rep. Rigell [R-VA2]
An amendment numbered 11 printed in House Report 112-172 to require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to (1) submit an analysis on the impact of its proposed rule or regulation on the financial industry, and (2) an analysis of consumers and small businesses' access to credit as a result of the regulation, to the Financial Stability Oversight Council for the purposes of public review.
Agreed to by 79 votes: 246-167, 19 not voting

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 50 votes: 183-232, 17 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 68 votes: 241-173, 18 not voting

Senate Votes - H.R. 2055: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act

2011-07-21T19:11:00.004-04:00

H.R. 2055: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Previous Senate Votes

Amendments

S.Amdt. 568 by Sen. Vitter [R-LA]
To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended at a rate higher than the level of the Senate and House of Representative concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.
Motion to Table Agreed to by 39 votes: 69-30, 1 not voting

S.Amdt. 564 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
To require evidence of causal relationships for presumptions by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of service connection for diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents.
Motion to Table Agreed to by 39 votes: 69-30, 1 not voting

On Passage
Bill Passed by 95 votes: 97-2, 1 not voting

House Votes - H.R. 2553: Airport and Airway Extension Act

2011-07-21T12:12:00.004-04:00

H.Res. 357: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2553

On Ordering the Previous Question
Passed by 56 votes: 239-183, 10 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 64 votes: 242-178, 12 not voting

H.R. 2553: Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 47 votes: 187-233, 12 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 66 votes: 243-177, 12 not voting

House Votes - H.R. 2560: Cut, Cap, and Balance Act

2011-07-21T12:10:00.004-04:00

H.Res. 355: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2560

On Ordering the Previous Question
Passed by 60 votes: 235-175, 21 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 59 votes: 236-177, 19 not voting

H.R. 2560: Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 49 votes: 188-236, 8 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 44 votes: 234-190, 8 not voting

House Suspension Vote - H.R. 33: Church Investment Plans

2011-07-19T13:54:00.002-04:00

H.R. 33: To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes of that Act.

On Passage
Passed by 309 votes: 310-1, 120 not voting (2/3 required)

CQ Roll Call 7/18 Daily Briefing: This is a bill allowing church pension plans to form investment partnerships with other pension plans.

Congress Last Week

2011-07-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

House

Senate

House Votes - H.R. 2354: Energy and Water Appropriations, FY 2012

2011-07-16T11:36:00.009-04:00

H.Res. 337: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2354

Passed House by voice vote.

H.R. 2354: Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Amendments

Monday, July 11, 2011 Votes

H.Amdt. 583 by Rep. Tierney [D-MA6]
An amendment to increase funds for the Army Corps of Engineers, Construction and Operation accounts and reduce funds for the Nuclear Energy account under the Department of Energy.
Failed by 85 votes: 162-246, 23 not voting

H.Amdt. 585 by Rep. Graves [R-MO6]
An amendment to reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account by $1,750,000 and increase the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $1,000,000.
Agreed to by 26 votes: 216-190, 25 not voting

H.Amdt. 586 by Rep. Scalise [R-LA1]
An amendment to increase the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $6,360,000 for efficient cargo transportation by improving dredging and navigation of waterways, and reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Administration Expenses account by the same amount.
Agreed to by 73 votes: 241-168, 22 not voting

H.Amdt. 588 by Rep. Woodall [R-GA7]
An amendment to reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $4,900,000 and increase the Spending Reduction account by the same amount.
Agreed to by 27 votes: 218-191, 22 not voting

H.Amdt. 596 by Rep. McClintock [R-CA4]
An amendment to reduce various accounts by $3,250,437,000 and transfer the savings to the spending reduction account.
Failed by 218 votes: 96-313, 22 not voting

Tuesday, July 14, 2011 Votes

H.Amdt. 590 by Rep. Sessions [R-TX32]
An amendment to strike section 102 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds to be used to implement any competitive sourcing actions under OMB Circular A-76 or High Performing Organizations for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Agreed to by 28 votes: 224-196, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 591 by Rep. Moran [D-VA8]
An amendment to strike section 109 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds to be used by the Army Corps of Engineers to adopt or enforce a change or supplement to the rule or guidance documents pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Failed by 81 votes: 170-250, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 597 by Rep. Markey [D-MA7]
An amendment to increase the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $100 million and reduce the Nuclear Energy account by $50 million and the Fossil Energy Research and Development account by $50 million.
Failed by 113 votes: 154-266, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 598 by Rep. Lamborn [R-CO5]
An amendment numbered 5 printed in the Congressional Record to strike language related to the allocation of funds relating to weatherization assistance funds.
Failed by 96 votes: 164-259, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 599 by Rep. Connolly [D-VA11]
An amendment to increase allocations for energy and efficiency and renewable energy by $46,000,000.
Failed by 77 votes: 173-249, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 601 by Rep. Miller [D-NC13]
An amendment to increase funds for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $24,018,000 by reducing funds for fossil energy research and development.
Failed by 66 votes: 179-244, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 602 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment to reduce energy efficiency and renewable energy funds by $26,510,000 and increase the spending reduction account by the same amount.
Failed by 162 votes: 131-292, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 603 by Rep. Welch [D-VT]
An amendment to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy by $491,000,000 and decrease the National Nuclear Security Administration weapons activities account by the same amount.
Failed by 178 votes: 123-300, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 604 by Rep. Pompeo [R-KS4]
An amendment to reduce energy efficiency and renewable energy by $45,641,000 and increase the spending reduction account by the same amount.
Failed by 170 votes: 127-296, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 605 by Rep. Tonko [D-NY21]
An amendment to increase EERE by $226,800,000 offset by a decrease of a similar amount in weapons funding.
Failed by 125 votes: 149-273, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 606 by Rep. Garrett [R-NJ5]
An amendment to reduce various accounts by $500 million and to apply the savings to the deficit reduction account.
Failed by 126 votes: 149-274, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 607 by Rep. Wu [D-OR1]
An amendment to reduce the account for Departmental Administration by $60, 500,000 and to increase the account for EERE by a similar amount.
Failed by 33 votes: 196-228, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 609 by Rep. McClintock [R-CA4]
An amendment to reduce the account for EERE by $166,143,000 and to apply the savings to the spending reduction account.
Failed by 187 votes: 119-305, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 610 by Rep. Schiff [D-CA29]
An amendment to increase the account for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy by $79,640,000 and to decrease the account for Departmental Administration by a similar amount.
Failed by 91 votes: 167-257, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 612 by Rep. Garamendi [D-CA10]
An amendment to reduce the account for fossil fuels by $450 million and increase the account for Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy by a similar amount.
Failed by 132 votes: 145-276, 10 not voting

Thursday, July 13, 2011 Votes

H.Amdt. 639 by Rep. Matheson [D-UT2]
An amendment to increase the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account under the Department of Energy by $10 million and reduce the Weapons Activities account under the National Nuclear Security Administration by the same amount.
Failed by 90 votes: 168-257, 6 not voting

H.Amdt. 640 by Rep. Reed [R-NY29]
An amendment to increase the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account under the Department of Energy by $41 million and reduce the account for Departmental Administration under the Department of Energy by $21 million and reduce the account for Departmental Administration under the National Nuclear Security Administration by $20 million.
Agreed to by 99 votes: 261-162, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 641 by Rep. Holt [D-NJ12]
An amendment numbered 65 printed in the Congressional Record to increase the Science account under the Department of Energy by $42,665,000 and reduce the Weapons Activities account under the National Nuclear Security Administration by the same amount.
Failed by 98 votes: 164-261, 6 not voting

H.Amdt. 642 by Rep. Royce [R-CA40]
An amendment numbered 68 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce the Science account under the Department of Energy by $10 million and increase the Spending Reduction account by the same amount.
Failed by 156 votes: 136-291, 4 not voting

H.Amdt. 643 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment numbered 43 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce the Science account under the Department of Energy by $820,488,000 and increase the Spending Reduction account by the same amount.
Failed by 230 votes: 99-328, 4 not voting

H.Amdt. 645 by Rep. Schiff [D-CA29]
An amendment to increase the amount appropriated for carrying out the research activities authorized by the America COMPETES Act by $79,640,000 and reduce the Departmental Administration account for the Department of Energy by the same amount.
Agreed to by 1 votes: 214-213, 4 not voting

H.Amdt. 646 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment numbered 48 printed in the Congressional Record to strike the funds for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.
Failed by 196 votes: 114-309, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 649 by Rep. Shimkus [R-IL19]
An amendment to reduce the Departmental Administration account under the Department of Energy by $10 million and increase the Nuclear Regulatory Commission account for the Yucca Mountain license application by the same amount.
Agreed to by 167 votes: 297-130, 4 not voting

H.Amdt. 650 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment No. 47 printed in the Congressional Record to zero out the $250,000 appropriation for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and to apply the savings to the Spending Reduction Account.
Failed by 53 votes: 187-239, 5 not voting

Friday, July 15, 2011 Votes

H.Amdt. 651 by Rep. Cole [R-OK4]
An amendment numbered 26 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order regarding the disclosure of political contributions that takes effect on or after the date of enactment of H.R. 2354.
Agreed to by 80 votes: 249-169, 13 not voting

H.Amdt. 654 by Rep. Cohen [D-TN9]
An amendment to reduce the appropriations for fossil energy research and development by $16,000,000.
Failed by 107 votes: 158-264, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 655 by Rep. Gosar [R-AZ1]
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used to administer or enforce the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act, except with respect to a contract that exceeds $20 million.
Failed by 56 votes: 183-238, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 658 by Rep. Kaptur [D-OH9]
An amendment to reduce the Departmental Administration account under the Department of Energy by $10 million and increase the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by the same amount.
Agreed to by 2 votes: 212-210, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 663 by Rep. Flake [R-AZ6]
An amendment to prohibit the use of of funds to be used for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy.
Failed by 261 votes: 81-341, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 664 by Rep. Capps [D-CA23]
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Failed by 118 votes: 152-269, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 665 by Rep. Flake [R-AZ6]
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program of the Department of Energy.
Failed by 286 votes: 68-353, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 667 by Rep. Scalise [R-LA1]
An amendment to increase the Corps of Engineers-Civil-Construction account for the purpose of coastal restoration by $1 million and reduce the Corps of Engineers-Civil-Expenses account by the same amount.
Agreed to by 123 votes: 271-148, 12 not voting

H.Amdt. 668 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment No. 81 printed in the Congressional Record to strike the funds made available for the the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account under the Department of Energy.
Failed by 286 votes: 69-354, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 669 by Rep. Broun [R-GA10]
An amendment No. 63 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to be used to carry out the activities specified in section 505 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Failed by 243 votes: 90-332, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 672 by Rep. Landry [R-LA3]
An amendment No. 76 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to be used to pay the salary of individuals appointed to their current position through, or otherwise carry out, paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 5503(a) of title 5, United States Code.
Agreed to by 34 votes: 227-193, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 673 by Rep. Blackburn [R-TN7]
An amendment to reduce each amount made available this Act by 5%.
Failed by 164 votes: 129-292, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 674 by Rep. Blackburn [R-TN7]
An amendment to reduce each amount made available by this bill by 1 percent.
Failed by 123 votes: 150-272, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 675 by Rep. Harris [R-MD1]
An amendment numbered 53 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds for any portion of the International program activities at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the Department of Energy with the exception of the activities authorized in section 917 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17337).
Agreed to by 51 votes: 236-185, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 681 by Rep. Rohrabacher [R-CA46]
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act may be used to carry out projects described in section 1703(b)(5) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C 16513(b)(5)).
Failed by 284 votes: 68-351, 12 not voting

H.Amdt. 683 by Rep. Adams [R-FL24]
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds for maintaining, developing, or creating any Web site which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs on energy efficiency specifically to children under 18 years of age.
Failed by 53 votes: 181-233, 17 not voting

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 51 votes: 182-232, 17 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 23 votes: 219-196, 16 not voting

Senate Votes - H.R. 2055: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations

2011-07-15T11:37:00.005-04:00

Senate Vote - S. 1323: Budget Deficit Resolution and Shared Sacrifice

2011-07-14T17:28:00.002-04:00

S. 1323: A bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit

On the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 1323
Motion to Proceed Agreed to by 42 votes: 69-27, 4 not voting

Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1323
Cloture Motion Rejected by 9 votes: 51-49 (3/5 required)

House Votes - H.R. 2018: Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act

2011-07-14T11:36:00.003-04:00

H.Res. 347: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2018

House Report 112-144

On Passage
Passed by 79 votes: 250-171, 10 not voting

H.R. 2018: Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes.

Amendments

H.Amdt. 629 by Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 112-144 to allow the EPA to continue to have the authority to set standards for NPDES Permit programs by striking section 2.
Failed by 83 votes: 170-252, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 630 by Rep. Capito [R-WV2]
An amendment numbered 3 printed in House Report 112-144 to require the EPA to analyze the impact of certain covered actions on employment levels and economic activity and require public notice and a hearing in those instances where a covered action has more than a de minimis impact on employment or economic activity in any given state.
Agreed to by 116 votes: 268-152, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 632 by Rep. Polis [D-CO2]
An amendment numbered 5 printed in House Report 112-144 to exclude from this act permit holders who are on the significant non-compliance list.
Failed by 41 votes: 191-231, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 633 by Rep. Connolly [D-VA11]
An amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report to 112-144 to align federal funding with the scope of federal clean water regulations.
Failed by 60 votes: 181-240, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 635 by Rep. Blumenauer [D-OR3]
An amendment numbered 9 printed in House Report 112-144 to exclude from coverage under the bill, any waters that EPA determines provide flood protection for communities, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat that provides benefits to the economy, or are coastal recreational waters.
Failed by 55 votes: 183-237, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 636 by Rep. Carnahan [D-MO3]
An amendment numbered 10 printed in House Report 112-144 to restrict the application of the bill if a major disaster had been declared in the area due to flooding within the last five years, or the waters in question had contributed to such a declaration.
Failed by 75 votes: 173-247, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 628 by Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 112-144 to strike all after the enacting clause.
Failed by 88 votes: 167-254, 10 not voting

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 51 votes: 188-238, 5 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 55 votes: 239-184, 8 not voting

House Suspension Vote - H.R. 2417: BULB Act

2011-07-13T07:45:00.003-04:00

H.R. 2417: Better Use of Light Bulbs Act

On Passage
Failed by 40 votes: 233-193, 5 not voting (2/3 required)

House Votes - H.R. 1309: Flood Insurance Reform Act

2011-07-13T07:44:00.006-04:00

H.Res. 340: Providing for consideration of H.R. 1309

On Passage
Passed by 123 votes: 269-146, 16 not voting

H.R. 1309: Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011
To extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the program, and to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes.

Amendments

H.Amdt. 615 by Rep. Speier [D-CA12]
An amendment numbered 3 printed in House Report 112-138 to make it a violation for a lender, whose only interest in the property is the amount of the outstanding mortgage indebtedness, to require a homeowner to purchase more than the legally required amount of flood insurance--an amount equal to the outstanding principal balance of the loan.
Failed by 36 votes: 195-230, 6 not voting

H.Amdt. 616 by Rep. Flake [R-AZ6]
An amendment numbered 4 printed in House Report 112-138 to strike additional coverage provided in H.R. 1309 for business interruption and cost of living expenses.
Failed by 188 votes: 118-305, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 619 by Rep. Cardoza [D-CA18]
An amendment numbered 11 printed in House Report 112-138 to eliminate requirements to more broadly map areas considered to be residual risk.
Agreed to by 98 votes: 261-163, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 624 by Rep. Westmoreland [R-GA3]
An amendment numbered 19 printed in House Report 112-138 to add a reserve fund requirement to the National Flood Insurance Program.
Agreed to by 58 votes: 241-183, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 625 by Rep. Miller [R-MI10]
An amendment numbered 20 printed in House Report 112-138 to terminate current spending on TV and Radio commercials being aired to promote the NFIP in all 50 states and directs remaining funds to pay down NFIP's debt. The amendment would continue FEMA's mailing programs that are used to notify current policy holders of changes to their policies and maps as well as other educational publications they produce.
Failed by 53 votes: 186-238, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 626 by Rep. Scott [D-VA3]
An amendment numbered 23 printed in House Report 112-138 to direct the GAO to conduct a study of the means and effects of facilitating a market for all-peril insurance policies for residential properties.
Failed by 39 votes: 192-230, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 627 by Rep. Miller [R-MI10]
An amendment numbered 25 printed in House Report 112-138 to terminate NFIP by January 1, 2012 and allow States to form interstate compacts to provide insurance.
Failed by 347 votes: 38-384, 9 not voting

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 64 votes: 181-244, 6 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 384 votes: 406-22, 3 not voting

Congress Last Week

2011-07-09T10:00:00.000-04:00

House

GOP House leaders prepare to work through July recess
GOP leaders told their rank-and-file the House is likely to be in session through the scheduled July district work week.

Senate

Cloture Vote - S. 1323: Shared Sacrifice on Budget Deficit

House Votes - H.R. 2219: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012

2011-07-09T09:41:00.002-04:00

H.R. 2219: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012
Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Previous Votes

Amendments

Votes - Friday, July 8, 2011

H.Amdt. 566 by Rep. Flake [R-AZ6]
An amendment to reduce funds made available by this Act for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" by $250,000,000.
Failed by 342 votes: 39-380, 12 not voting

H.Amdt. 567 by Rep. Flake [R-AZ6]
An amendment to reduce by $3,577,192,676 the funding for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund provided by title IX.
Failed by 178 votes: 118-295, 18 not voting

H.Amdt. 569 by Rep. Flake [R-AZ6]
An amendment to reduce the amounts made available in sundry sections of title IV.
Failed by 222 votes: 100-321, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 573 by Rep. Huelskamp [R-KS1]
An amendment numbered 77 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to implement the curriculum of the Chaplain Corps Tier 1 DATD repeal training dated April 11, 2011.
Agreed to by 52 votes: 236-184, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 575 by Rep. Polis [D-CO2]
An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to maintain an end strength level of troops in Europe to more than 30,000 and to reduce military personnel accounts accordingly.
Failed by 195 votes: 113-307, 11 not voting

H.Amdt. 579 by Rep. Kucinich [D-OH10]
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in or against Libya except under a declaration of war against Libya pursuant to clause 11 in section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
Failed by 83 votes: 169-251, 11 not voting

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 47 votes: 188-234, 9 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 249 votes: 336-87, 8 not voting

House Suspension Vote - H.Res. 268: Israeli-Palestinian negotiations

2011-07-09T09:36:00.002-04:00

H.Res. 268: Reaffirming the United States' commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes.

Passed by 401 votes: 407-6, 18 not voting (2/3 required)