F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I held two town hall meetings in Wisconsin's Fifth District that had record turnout. The headline in the local paper summed up the meeting well: ``Health Reform Bill Gets Thumbs Down in Elm Grove.'' Very few people in Wisconsin's Fifth District believe a program costing more than a trillion dollars can be deficit neutral. My constituents were overwhelming opposed to any government takeover of health care. I believe the right way to improve health care is to prioritize spending and be careful with taxpayer dollars. The wrong way is to raise taxes even higher and dig our debt even deeper to pay for more wasteful programs that don't work. This health care overhaul bill will likely make Cash for Clunkers look like a Black Friday door buster item! Before we raise taxes to pay for yet another program, we owe it to our constituents to cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse of government programs. One size does not fit all when it comes to health care. A patient and their physician should be in charge of their health care decisions, not politicians. I too, give this bill a thumbs down.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for my Hybrid Truck bill. New taxes are not the only solution to climate change. We need to focus on our economy as we work to reduce our emissions. We can over-regulate our businesses, cripple our economic development, and watch as China and India race past us--sputtering greenhouse gases along the way--or Congress can create incentives that encourage the development of new technologies that will reduce our emissions, foster economic development, and allow U.S. manufacturers to export their energy-saving technologies worldwide. Commercial traffic is truly vital to the American economy, and the fuel costs for trucks directly affect costs for all Americans. Higher prices for their fuel raise the prices of our food, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, waste removal, and other goods and services. While our economy would not survive without them, trucks consume huge quantities of oil, which raises the cost of their business, increases our dependence on oil, and injects greenhouse gases into our environment. The answer is not to burden these businesses, already strained by high fuel costs, with additional taxes for the carbon dioxide they release. Instead, we need to encourage the development and introduction of technologies that will reduce their fuel consumption. The technologies we need already exist. Everyone has seen hybrid cars. This technology, which combines gas and electric motors for a powerful and efficient engine, is even more practical in trucks. Even though there are fewer trucks on the road, trucks use more fuel. Utility trucks, for example, typically drive short distances to and from a work site, but sit idle for hours while on site. A plug-in hybrid truck would use less fuel getting to and from the site, and could operate without any fuel while on site. Ultimately, a plug-in hybrid engine in a utility truck could use up to 60 percent less fuel. Delivery trucks constantly stop and go. Hybrid engines excel at this type of driving because the engine can essentially turn off during short accelerations, while coasting, and when it is at a stop. Developing these technologies will have benefits beyond fuel savings. By making our trucks more efficient, we will make our goods and services more affordable and become leaders in these new technologies. By helping American manufacturers research and commercialize new technologies, we can strengthen our economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and lower our emissions. H.R. 445 is one example of how technology, not taxes, can solve our energy crisis. This legislation will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technology in trucks by creating grants for manufacturers to build, test, and sell plug-in hybrid utility and delivery trucks. This bill will put plug-in hybrid trucks on the road and help advance research and accelerate commercialization of an important technology.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following memo regarding H.R. 445: Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2009

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge one of my constituents, Mr. Thomas Tradewell, who is slated to become the newly elected National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Mr. Tradewell will soon begin working in this prestigious position of leadership. His honorable service to our country, along with his numerous awards recognizing his service exemplifies his outstanding commitment to ensuring America's freedom. I join many other Americans in expressing my deep appreciation for his efforts to assist and lead our nation's veterans. I am proud that Mr. Tradewell is a citizen of Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District and I wish him well in his new position as National Commander. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. Tradewell for his notable career achievements, his exemplary leadership, and his dedication to our country.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, this bill is not only everything that the opponents have said it is, but it is also a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to foreign countries. And the reason it is that is because this bill legalizes offsets. Over 40 percent of the offsets that have been created under the Kyoto Protocol have come from China. The $2.2 trillion that will be transferred through purchase of offsets in foreign countries will be the largest nonmilitary foreign aid bill that this House of Representatives has ever passed. The chart that is beside me here shows that the $2.2 trillion in foreign giveaways is equal to 210 times the amount of money we give to help people with domestic heating oil and propane; 119 times the amount of money we give for making buildings more efficient; 111 times the money we give for clean vehicle technology; 33 times the money that we give for domestic natural gas consumers; 11 times the amount that we give for the domestic industrial sector; and five times the amount that we give to help out our domestic electric consumers. Madam Speaker, this money should be spent at home. We have enough problems at home that we have to deal with, and I think the Congress has recognized this today. But let's not send more money overseas, money that will come through higher prices at the pump, higher bills from our utilities, higher food prices when we buy them in the supermarket. Vote this bill down, and keep the money at home.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, under clause 7 of rule XX, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 414] Abercrombie Aderholt Adler (NJ) Akin Alexander Altmire Andrews Arcuri Austria Baca Bachus Baird Baldwin Barrow Bartlett Barton (TX) Bean Becerra Berkley Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blumenauer Blunt Boccieri Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boren Boswell Boustany Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Bright Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Cao Capito Capps Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson (IN) Carter Cassidy Castle Castor (FL) Chaffetz Chandler Childers Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coble Coffman (CO) Cohen Cole Conaway Connolly (VA) Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Culberson Cummings Dahlkemper Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis (KY) Davis (TN) DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Doggett Donnelly (IN) Doyle Dreier Driehaus Duncan Edwards (MD) Edwards (TX) Ehlers Ellison Ellsworth Emerson Engel Etheridge Fallin Filner Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Fudge Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Giffords Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Gonzalez Goodlatte Gordon (TN) Granger Graves Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Griffith Grijalva Guthrie Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hall (TX) Halvorson Hare Harper Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Heinrich Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Himes Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Hunter Inglis Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jenkins Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones Jordan (OH) Kagen Kaptur Kildee Kilroy Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kirkpatrick (AZ) Kissell Klein (FL) Kosmas Kratovil Kucinich Lamborn Lance Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham Latta Lee (CA) Lee (NY) Levin Lewis (CA) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lucas Luetkemeyer Lujan Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Maffei Maloney Manzullo Marchant Markey (CO) Markey (MA) Marshall Massa Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul McClintock McCollum McCotter McDermott McGovern McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMahon McMorris Rodgers McNerney Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Miller, George Minnick Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Tim Murtha Myrick Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Nunes Nye Oberstar Obey Olson Olver Ortiz Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Paul Paulsen Payne Pence Perlmutter Perriello Peters Peterson Petri Pingree (ME) Pitts Platts Poe (TX) Polis (CO) Pomeroy Posey Price (GA) Price (NC) Putnam Quigley Radanovich Rahall Rehberg Reichert Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Salazar Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Scalise Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schmidt Schock Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Space Spratt Stearns Stupak Sutton Tanner Tauscher Taylor Teague Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Tierney Titus Tonko Towns Tsongas Turner Upton Van Hollen Visclosky Walden Walz Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Weiner Welch Wexler Whitfield Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Woolsey Wu Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (FL) Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in the call of the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to demand a division of the question so as to result in a separate vote on each of the four articles of impeachment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, both the Impeachment Task Force and the Judiciary Committee unanimously adopted and reported out House Resolution 520. The overwhelming support for this resolution is indicative of the weight of the evidence supporting the four articles of impeachment against Judge Samuel B. Kent. A Federal grand jury indicted Judge Kent on five counts of sexual assault involving two of his female court employees and one count of obstruction of justice. In February of this year Judge Kent pleaded guilty to count six of the superseding indictment, obstruction of justice, pursuant to a plea agreement. As a part of the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss the remaining five counts at sentencing. At that time I called on Judge Kent to resign and stated that I would introduce articles of impeachment upon his sentencing in May if he did not resign. On May 11, 2009, Judge Kent was sentenced to 33 months in prison. On May 12 I introduced the first resolution calling for Judge Kent's impeachment. Judge Kent tried to use his knowledge to work the system by requesting a waiver for disability retirement. In February I wrote the court, asking it to carefully consider all of the particulars concerning Judge Kent's request. On May 27, Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Edith Hollan Jones denied Judge Kent's request. The Impeachment Task Force held an evidentiary hearing where both victims of Judge Kent testified as witnesses. In addition to the two victims, Alan Baron, the lead task force attorney, provided an overview of the investigation. As a part of his statement, he identified and introduced into the record a number of documents. University of Pittsburgh Professor Arthur Hellman provided expert testimony that concluded that Judge Kent's conduct in making false statements to fellow judges, and thereby obstructing justice, as well as abusing his power as a Federal judge to sexually assault women employees, constituted independent grounds to justify his impeachment and removal from office. The task force afforded Judge Kent and his counsel unlimited opportunity to participate exhaustively in the hearing. However, both Judge Kent and his counsel declined our invitation. After this objective and definitive review of the facts, the weight of the evidence against Judge Kent was substantial enough that it became quite obvious that he should not remain a Federal judge. Articles I and II of the articles of impeachment reflect the improper conduct made by Judge Kent toward two of his court employees. On numerous occasions he sexually assaulted the two female court employees by touching their private areas and attempting to engage each woman in a sexual act with him. Article III is an article that incorporates some of the false or misleading statements made by Judge Kent to investigators and the grand jury. It notes that he corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding. Our hearing and the record we have compiled produces clear and convincing evidence that Judge Kent lied to law enforcement authorities during the investigation as well as to the Federal grand jury. Article IV alleges that Judge Kent made material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with the victims to FBI agents and representatives of the Department of Justice. Our purpose for being here today is not to punish Judge Kent. Our purpose is to ensure the integrity of the Federal judiciary. Impeachment is invoked only when the conduct erodes the public's confidence in government. Judge Kent has clearly violated the public's trust and dishonored his role. Judge Samuel B. Kent, who by his own admission obstructed justice to cover his own misdeeds, cannot remain a Federal judge. He is the first judge in the history of our Republic to plead guilty to a felony and refuse to promptly resign his seat on the bench. Other judges have been convicted of crimes and refused to resign, but never has one pled guilty and attempted to stay on the bench. To permit him to retain his position would inflict grievous and, indeed, irreparable damage to the Federal judiciary and, I submit, to the Congress as well. There are two basic questions in connection with this impeachment. First, does the conduct alleged in the four articles of impeachment state an impeachable offense? Absolutely and without question, it does. The articles allege misconduct that is criminal and wholly inconsistent with judicial integrity and the judicial oath. Clearly, everyone would agree that a judge who lies to a judicial body investigating his conduct or who deceives Federal investigators by lying in an interview is not fit to remain on the bench.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The second question is, did the conduct occur? The simple fact that Judge Kent pled guilty confirms that the conduct did, in fact, occur. Today he is sitting in Federal prison, collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers. He is not fit to sit upon the Federal judiciary, and we must perform our constitutional duty to impeach him. Support House Resolution 520. Send the judge to the Senate for a trial.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jerry W. Marty for a career of service to our country. For 40 years, Mr. Marty toiled to advance his dream of exploring the Arctic. Having worked after college for a civilian contractor under the U.S. Antarctic Research Program and as an infantry Imjin Scout in the U.S. Army, Mr. Marty is most known for his research at the South Pole. Later this month, Jerry will retire from the National Science Foundation (NSF). After 15 consecutive seasons at the South Pole, on June 30, 2009, Mr. Marty will begin a new chapter in his life. From 1998 until his retirement Jerry served as the NSF Representative, South Pole Station and as Facilities Construction and Maintenance Manager for the South Pole Station Modernization Project, building a new elevated station, and the home of cutting edge research in topics ranging from astrophysics and origins of the universe, to climate change. It is a 65,000 square foot elevated research station that sits atop a moving ice sheet on stilts to protect it from snow drifts. The official dedication of the new station took place on January 12, 2008. Jerry was involved in the Nation's Antarctic research program from 1969 until his retirement. He is one of the few people on Earth who can say he was involved, in some aspect, with every South Pole station. He was Assistant Construction Manager for completion of the second South Pole Station, including the iconic Dome enclosure for the station's buildings and was present for the dedication in 1975, helping to transition from the original station built in 1957. During 1994-1998 he served as Construction Manager associated with planning for modernization of South Pole Station, and oversaw the construction of the current station. Since October of 1994 he has not missed a single season at the South Pole, sacrificing holidays and birthdays with his family. In all, his service at the South Pole totals almost 5 years of his life. His vision of traveling the world started with a pulldown map in his one-room school house in Monroe, Wisconsin, where he grew up as the son of a dairy farmer. He went on to graduate from the University of Wisconsin, Platteville with a B.S. from the School of Industry, with an emphasis in Construction Management. He also served for 2 years starting in 1970 with the U.S. Army in South Korea, where he spent time in the demilitarized zone as an Imjin Scout (2nd Infantry Division). To honor his dedicated years of service to building state of the art research facilities in the highest, driest, coldest, windiest place on Earth, Jerry was honored by the United States Board on Geographic Names by having the Marty Nunataks named after him. The Marty Nunataks are a group comprising about six nunataks in the western part of the Britannia Range in Antarctica. In 1997, as Chairman of the Science Committee, I had the privilege of meeting Jerry during a visit I made to our research facilities in Antarctica to witness firsthand the research and construction that Americans were conducting at the South Pole and to evaluate the working and living conditions for our personnel stationed there. I was impressed with the dedication and expertise of the individuals on site. It was evident then, as it is now, that Jerry was admired by his colleagues. Having worked diligently to ensure that the South Pole Station Modernization Project was authorized and funded, I am especially proud to honor Jerry on this occasion of his retirement for his dedication to the Nation's Antarctic Program since 1969. His unending commitment to the support of science will be remembered by all who know him.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2009, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the thirty preceding years I have served in the Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. I rise in support today of S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009. I am particularly pleased that the bill amends certain provisions of the False Claims Act, which allows private individuals with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the government to file claims against Federal contractors. We need the False Claims Act, as it is the principal tool of law enforcement to combat fraud against Federal programs. The False Claims Act was originally passed at the behest of President Lincoln during the Civil War to combat fraud against the Union Army. The act has been amended several times since then, with President Reagan signing the most recent bill in 1986, and an update is overdue. The False Claims Act has been successful for the Federal Government. It has returned more than $20 billion in settlements and judgments to the U.S. Treasury over the past 20 years. Although the False Claims Act has been successful, there is always room for improvement. Several Federal courts have applied and interpreted provisions of the FCA in ways that have substantially weakened the law. This bill changes that. Congress recently approved a $787 billion stimulus package. As many of us know, the Federal Government itself will not dole out all of this money, but will rely on government contractors, grantees, and other third parties to distribute a large portion of these funds. With the U.S. Government relying on private contractors to disburse funds for everything from our Medicare prescription drug program to our war efforts in Iraq to the stimulus money, billions of Federal dollars are now in jeopardy. The bailouts that Congress is approving left and right, without proper transparency or accountability, only adds to the amount of government funds in jeopardy from the fraudsters. It is my hope that the House passes additional false claims provisions this year so that fraudsters will no longer be able to hide behind judicially created qualifications and evade liability. Especially in these challenging times, there is no patience for individuals making false claims and benefiting from them. Although all of the provisions of the False Claims Corrections Act, which I introduced with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), were not included in this legislation, I am pleased that some were added. This is a good start, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the rest of those provisions.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The motivation behind this bill is extremely well-intentioned. We should punish violent crime. We should punish violent crime where the animus is motivated by hate against an individual or against a group because of characteristics that they may have. But this is the wrong way to go about it. What we should be doing is we should be insisting on sentence enhancements for those who are convicted of a violent crime, a murder, an aggravated battery, a simple battery, an assault. The reason we should do it that way is that way we make sure that those who are guilty of a violent crime which is motivated by hate against an individual or a group to which he belongs gets punished more severely. What can happen under this bill by setting up a separate hate crime is that someone could be indicted for the violent crime and the hate crime simultaneously. At the first trial, the person is acquitted of the violent crime, and at the second trial the person is convicted of the hate crime, meaning what the defendant says during the commission of that crime. And that ends up criminalizing free speech, because the actual act of violence the jury determined that the defendant was not guilty, but because of what the defendant said during the commission of the crime aimed at the victim, the person is convicted of saying that. That is where we have the First Amendment slippery slope. And I think if this ever happens, you will find this bill declared to be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment in the blink of an eye. Now, I know that there are a lot of groups that are strongly in favor of this type of legislation. One of our jobs here in the Congress of the United States, and particularly on the Judiciary Committee, is to make sure that what we consider and what we ask the House of Representatives to pass is well thought out and does not have this glaring gap that I have just described. I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been pushing this legislation would stop and think about what happens to this legislation if a defendant is acquitted of the crime of violence and then convicted for what that person says while committing the crime for which he was acquitted. Please think about that and come back with sentence enhancements, because that is the way to deal with this problem, not this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act revises the criminal code to update, simplify and consolidate many of the criminal provisions in Title 18 of the United States Code. It has been over 50 years since the criminal code was last revised. The existing criminal code is riddled with provisions that are either outdated or simply inconsistent with more recent modifications to reflect today's modern world. I introduced this Act in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. This new version incorporates criminal laws enacted during 2007 and 2008. This measure is intended to continue the dialogue and process for rewriting the criminal code, with the hope that other Members, the Senate, the judiciary, the Justice Department, criminal law professors, and other interested professionals will provide input and seek to develop a more comprehensive re-write. With the increasing federalization of local crimes, there is a need to review and revise Title 18 to ensure that such federalization is minimized and tailored to appropriate crimes where State and local prosecutions may not adequately serve the public interest. Federal prosecutions constitute only seven percent of the criminal prosecutions nationwide. We need to ensure that the federal role continues to be limited and that the State and local offenses are not subsumed within an ever-expanding criminal code. Through the years, the criminal code has grown with more and more criminal provisions, some of which are antiquated or redundant, some of which are poorly drafted, some of which have not been used in the last 30 years, and some of which are unnecessary since the crime is already covered by existing criminal provisions. This bill cuts over 1/3 of the existing criminal code; reorganizes the criminal code to make it more user-friendly; and consolidates criminal offenses from other titles so that title 18 includes all major criminal provisions (e.g. drug crimes in title 21, aviation offenses and hijacking in title 49). To the extent possible, and for the most part, I applied a policy- neutral intent, meaning that changes were made to streamline the code in an effort to assist policymakers, practitioners (judges, prosecutors, probation officers) and other persons who rely on the code to implement criminal law enforcement and compliance. However, two general policy changes were made: (1) attempts and conspiracies to commit criminal offenses are generally punished in the same manner as the substantive offense unless specifically stated otherwise; and (2) criminal and civil forfeiture and restitution provisions were consolidated unless a more specific policy was adopted for a crime. Creating a Uniform Set of Definitions for the Entire Title--In reviewing the code, there were instances where terms were defined differently. In most cases there was no evident policy basis for different definitions. To eliminate this problem, a common set of definitions was established in the first section of the revised code. Revising the Intent Requirements--The Supreme Court has consistently criticized Congress for imprecise drafting of intent requirements for criminal offenses. In numerous occasions, improper drafting has lead to confusion in the courts, requiring further modifications to clarify Congress' intent. Courts and commentators alike have denounced the use of ``willful'' in statutes because of the word's inherent ambiguity. The term ``willful'' can have different meanings in different contexts and thus is a vague term defying uniform definition. Therefore, because the Government has a duty to provide clear notice to the public regarding what behavior constitutes a crime, use of the ``willful'' language in statutes should be avoided. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that the term ``willful . . . is a word of many meanings, its construction often being influenced by its context.'' Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 497 (1943). See also United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 395 (1933) (``Aid in arriving at the meaning of the word `willfully' may be afforded by the context in which it is used.''). The looseness of the definition is demonstrated in the many different interpretations of the word ``willful'' in federal statutes. Courts have described ``willful'' as meaning a high degree of culpability, such as a bad or evil motive. E.g., United States v. Harris, 185 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999) (``[T]he act to be criminal must be willful, which means an act done with a fraudulent intent or a bad purpose or an evil motive.''). But cf., e.g., Nabob Oil Co. v. United States, 190 F.2d 478, 480 (10th Cir. 1951) (holding that ``such an evil purpose of criminal intent need not exist'' for a ``willful'' violation). The term can mean that a person must have actual knowledge that his actions were prohibited by the statute. E.g., Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 141-42 (1994) (interpreting ``willful'' to require ``both `knowledge of the reporting requirement' and a `specific intent to commit the crime,' i.e., `a purpose to disobey the law.' '' Courts and commentators have decried the confusion that follows use of the word ``willful'' in statutes. The lower courts repeatedly cite the fluctuating meaning of the term ``willfully,'' which has ``defied any consistent interpretation by the courts.'' United States v. Granda, 565 F.2d 922, 924 (5th Cir. 1978). Judge Learned Hand criticized use of the term ``willful'' in statutes: ``It's an awful word! It is one of the most troublesome words in a statute that I know. If I were to have the index purged, ``willful'' would lead all the rest in spite of its being at the end of the alphabet.'' Model Penal Code and Commentaries, Sec. 2.02, at 249 n.47 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985) (citing A.L.I. Proc. 160 (1955)). Indeed, the drafters of the Model Penal Code, for example, deliberately excluded the term ``willfully'' in the definition of crimes, stating that the term ``is unusually ambiguous standing alone.'' Model Penal Code Sec. 2.02 explanatory note at 228 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 2005). The revised criminal code employs a straight-forward approach--where possible, the term ``knowingly'' is used to define the requisite intent for every crime, except for those criminal offenses that require some additional, and more specific, intent. Each offense starts with ``knowingly'' and then adds, if necessary, some additional intent requirement (e.g. specific intent crime). The term ``knowingly,'' means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident. It would be incorrect to suggest that the term means that the actor must realize that the act was wrongful. See e.g., Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998), the Court explained: [T]he term ``knowingly'' does not necessarily have any reference to a culpable state of mind or to knowledge of the law. As Justice Jackson correctly observed, ``the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law;'' United States v. Udofot, 711 F.2d 831, 835-37 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Gravenmeir, 121 F.3d 526, 529-30 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Tracy, 36 F.3d 187, 194-95 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1717 (1995). Under the doctrine of ``willful blindness,'' a defendant may have knowledge of a fact if the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to him. United States v. Hauert, 40 F.3d 197, 203 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1822 1995) (ruling that the older ``ostrich'' instruction is not error, but not preferred); United States v. Ramsey, 785 F.2d 184, 190 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1186 (1986); United States v. Arambasich, 597 F.2d 609, 612 (7th Cir. 1979); United States v. Gabriel, 597 F.2d 95, 100 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 858 (1979). United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1995). Eliminated Criminal Offenses that Have Not Been Used in Last 30 Years or Are Subsumed by Other Criminal Offenses--As described below and for each section, the revised code eliminated sections that had not been used by the Justice Department. Even in the absence of any significant use, some offenses were kept even if they were not used but for policy reasons need to be maintained to deter the commission of the crime (e.g. Assassination of a Supreme Court Justice). Also, in reviewing the existing code, there were many specific crimes that were already covered by more general provisions. Typically, the more specific provisions were added to the code after the general provision was enacted, and there was no substantive difference in the newer and more specific offense. This project required significant resources and assistance from the Legislative Counsel's Office, and in particular, Doug Bellis, the Deputy Counsel of that Office, and Caroline Lynch, Chief Republican Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, both of whom devoted substantial efforts to preparing this bill and should be commended for their extraordinary efforts.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, the continuing resolution before us today presents us with a golden opportunity to send over to the other body some legislation that does not contain thousands of earmarks, legislation that is not bloated, legislation that is not overspending. We can improve this joint resolution by adopting a motion to recommit to have the continuing resolution go through the end of this fiscal year, meaning September 30th, and that will present the other body with a choice; to keep the government open by passing this continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year, or continuing going on a bloated, earmark-laden track. I would hope that we would get the fiscal year 2009 appropriations over with so that the Appropriations Committee can do the work on the fiscal year 2010 budget. The way to save the taxpayers a lot of money, the way to stop all of the earmarks that have been crammed into the omnibus bill that this House passed last week is to pass a continuing resolution that continues government agencies at their existing spending level through the end of this fiscal year. I would hope that we would have an opportunity to vote on that, and I would enthusiastically support it, as would most of the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. What we have just heard is that the amendments that will modify the Conyers manager's amendment are going to solve the problems and concerns that were raised last week. This is not the case, and the modification that this rule makes in order still makes this modification of the bankruptcy law smoke and mirrors. The devil is really in the details, and let me point out three instances where the details make this amendment a sham. First of all, it gives a defaulting homeowner two bites at the apple. Far from making bankruptcy a last resort, it allows it to guarantee abuse of the system. If the homeowner obtains a mortgage modification that is compliant with the President's terms, he still can file for bankruptcy, but the lender is bound by the modifications under the President's program should it be enacted into law. So the borrower and the bankruptcy attorneys can shop around and can find out which is the better deal for the homeowner. That's something that we deny the lender the opportunity to do, and this is a guarantee of abuse of the system. Secondly, this amendment encourages happy-go-lucky borrowers. Nothing happens to a borrower who rejects the terms under the President's mortgage modification plan. The bankruptcy court can theoretically refuse to confirm a borrower's cramdown plan, but under the terms of the amendment, that will likely happen only when the lender is offered a modification anyhow. What about borrowers who are within 30 days of a foreclosure sale? They don't even have to contact their lenders under this amendment about voluntary modifications, so none of this amendment's modifications and accommodations apply. The new manager's amendment does nothing to change this exception that swallows the bill, and as a result, cagey borrowers and their attorneys can game the system by simply waiting until the borrowers are within 30 days of a foreclosure sale to file for bankruptcy. Finally, this bill allows free money to be offered. The amendment provides an alternative to cram down a principal, but astoundingly, the alternative is free money. If a judge doesn't want to give a cramdown, he can just rewrite the mortgage as a no-interest loan over the full terms of a new 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage. Lenders can kiss their principal goodbye because the amendment seeks to resuscitate the earlier agreement to let lenders claw back and cram down principal if the borrower sells the house after a cramdown. But the clawback is a sham. Once the borrower emerges from bankruptcy, the lender gets nothing back from the crammed-down principal, and since the point of the bill is to help the borrowers stay in the house during bankruptcy, sales aren't going to occur until after bankruptcy--when the lenders' clawback is worthless. The bankruptcy law since 1898 has prohibited bankruptcy judges from rewriting the terms of mortgages that are placed on principal residences. There is a reason for that, and the reason is simple: it allows the mortgage industry to attract more capital to lend out to qualified borrowers at reasonable rates. If the capital isn't there, and the capital is not attracted, then what you will see is the cost of mortgages go up, whether it's in interest rates, points, fees or whatever. It seems to me that Congress did the right thing during the depression in not changing this law. We should not change the law today.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to encourage and expand the use of Dependent Care Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA). Millions of people rely on child care to be able to work, and increasingly, to look for work, while others are responsible for older parents or disabled family members. Child and dependent care is a critical issue and a large expense for many American families. Across the country, annual prices for full-time child and dependent care have increased dramatically. The average price for full-time care for a toddler is approximately $7,000 according to the National Association of Child Care Resources and Referral Agencies--infants cost even more. My state of Wisconsin is among the highest, with an average cost of $12,000. Meanwhile, the out-of-pocket cost of caring for an aging parent or spouse can easily exceed $6,000 a year. To lighten the financial burden for working individuals, Congress created the Dependent Care FSA. A Dependent Care FSA enables individuals to put aside a set amount of money each year to help pay for eligible dependent care expenses for children under the age of 13, or others who can be claimed as a dependent, including a parent or spouse. The money set-aside is pretax, thus reducing a person's taxable income. My legislation will improve the Dependent Care FSA by increasing the exclusion amount to $7,500 for families and indexing it to inflation on an annual basis. Increasing this amount to reflect the changing times will provide more financial relief to parents raising children and/or caring for adults. The legislation would also allow individuals to roll over any unused funds to the following year. Under current law, each household is permitted to set aside up to $5,000 annually pre-taxed. The $5,000 limit has been in effect since 1986, even though the cost of care has risen significantly since then. I am pleased that employers are increasingly recognizing the need to address dependent care issues in the workplace by offering Dependent Care FSAs. It is my hope that Congress will raise the current Dependent Care FSA limit to better reflect the changing workforce and help individuals plan and pay for the care they need at home as they earn a living. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I am beginning my 31st year here, and one of the things that I have learned both being in the majority and being in the minority is that procedural fairness is the antithesis to partisanship. I want to repeat that: Procedural fairness is the antithesis to partisanship. This rules package, and particularly the changes in the motion to recommit, will bring about more partisanship, and I would ask my friends on the majority side to reconsider what they are proposing here. The previous speakers on the Republican side have stated instances in the last 2 years where it has resulted in excessive partisanship because of changes that have been made to the motions to recommit on an ad hoc basis allowing the majority to pull the bill, their choice, not ours, because they set the schedule, not having motions to recommit on certain bills and not allowing to strike proposed tax increases. What is wrong with debating these issues? And what is wrong if the majority of this House of Representatives, which is 21 seats more Democratic than the one that just expired, agrees with the Republican minority every once in awhile? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of losing a few more motions to recommit? If that is the motivation behind this, shame on you, because you are shutting down the process and you are going to result in more partisanship, not less. You are going to result in having the country even more divided, not less, and that goes exactly against what our new President has been trying to do with practically everything he said since he won the election 2 months ago. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that the House is considering Senate 1810, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. This bill would ensure that families who receive a diagnosis of Down Syndrome or any other condition, prenatally or up to a year after birth, receive information, referrals and support in a number of ways. I first introduced the House companion bill in 2005. Research has indicated that when parents are confronted with a complex prenatal test result indicating their child may be born with a level of disability, they're not receiving comprehensive information regarding the accuracy of the test, nor are they receiving up-to-date information regarding life expectancy, developmental potential or quality of life of individuals with these disabilities. Mothers of children born with Down Syndrome have reported that doctors did not tell them about the potential of people with Down Syndrome, nor did they feel like they received contact information for parent support groups. This is unfortunate, particularly in light of mothers reporting that the shortcomings were happening at an emotional time. This Act will require health care providers who deliver a positive test diagnosis to also deliver referrals to key support services in the community, as well as up-to-date science-based information about the life expectancy, developmental potential and treatment options for individuals with prenatally diagnosable conditions. The accuracy and integrity of this information is of the utmost importance. Patients would be provided with support through the Centers for Disease Control patient and provider outreach programs. A hot line and Web site for newly diagnosed patients would be established, and peer support groups and network would be formed to provide personal support. My wife, Cheryl, has a sister living with Down Syndrome. I have witnessed firsthand what a wonderful and capable woman my sister-in-law has become. Tara Rae Warren completed her high school education, is financially independent, and lectures to students of special education on the challenges of the disability. Cheryl's family has always been there for her, and we have worked through the challenges by having a positive support structure. My hope is that all families with diagnosed children can gain access to positive current information and the network of supportive families. Informed decision-making is better for everyone involved. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.