F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, first, congratulations on setting history today by presiding over the House of Representatives. I promise you that there will be no points of order from the Republican side while you're in the chair. I also rise to support House Resolution 1504, which celebrates the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is important to acknowledge the achievements the disability community and its allies have accomplished in the past two decades. This anniversary represents another positive step taken in ensuring that all Americans are included in our communities and places of work. It has been a long road to guarantee that our fellow Americans find equal protection under the law. Upon the signing of the ADA, President George H.W. Bush said, ``Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.'' Through bipartisan efforts, the societal barriers that for far too long kept disabled Americans from fully participating in our communities did indeed crumble with the passing of one of the most effective civil rights laws ever. Because of this monumental piece of legislation, our country has been able to capitalize on the talents of millions of Americans with disabilities in the workplace. The ADA has protected the rights of children and students who once encountered educational discrimination and barriers. The accessibility of buildings, public transportation, and sidewalks has made our society more inclusive. The achievements of the ADA and the thousands of advocates who fought tirelessly for its passage represent the country's endless commitment to empower all American citizens with disabilities with the capacity to fully participate in his or her community. In response to several Supreme Court decisions that restricted ADA coverage for individuals with diabetes, epilepsy and cancer, to name a few, in 2008 Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act. This legislation broadened the definition of ``disabled'' and brought more people with disabilities under the umbrella of protection and reaffirmed Congress' promise to integrate people with disabilities. Furthermore, it's important to recognize the change in societal attitudes towards people with disabilities as a result of the ADA. Since its passage, more and more Americans enjoy increased educational and employment opportunities. These opportunities have produced higher graduation rates and higher employment rates. Because of the ADA, the disabled are no longer confined to isolation. We now see our fellow Americans with disabilities in our restaurants, movie theatres, sporting events, schools, and places of work. As of today, this Congress will see a fellow Congressman from Rhode Island and quadriplegic, Mr. Langevin, preside over the House. Because of changes made to the Speaker's rostrum, this House now joins the ranks of thousands of buildings across the Nation that have made architectural changes which serve to increase accessibility for people with disabilities. This is a proud moment for this Congress and reflects the progress that has been made in the past two decades. The ADA, along with passage of the ADA Amendments Act, reminds us that this progress has been made over the last 20 years, as well as the continued effort that must be made to advocate for people with disabilities who still experience discrimination. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing House Resolution 1504.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me reiterate to my good friend from Massachusetts what the gentleman from California said. Citizens United did not do anything to repeal the ban against foreign money influencing American elections. So this bill has nothing to do with what the gentleman from Massachusetts just said. I rise in opposition to the bill and to the rule. While H.R. 5175 is being touted by its supporters as increasing disclosure and transparency, the bill will ultimately serve as a roadblock to Americans who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court explicitly stated in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that there is ``no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.'' We've sure heard a list of those disfavored speakers from the other side of the aisle. However, this is exactly what this unconstitutional bill will do. The Citizens United decision struck down provisions of campaign finance law because of the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, a right explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The bill is simply a legislative workaround to Citizens United. The Supreme Court was very clear that prohibitions on full legal speech are unconstitutional and will only be a matter of time should this bill become law that it's struck down as well. The most glaring of this bill's unconstitutional provisions is the banning of political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80 percent ownership by American citizens. While a business may receive only a limited portion of its revenue from a government contract, under this bill, that business would be prohibited from engaging in political dialogue on issues that are vital to its operations. Additionally, this bill punishes companies that attract overseas investors by banning political speech on companies where foreign nationals have at least a 20 percent stake. It is unfortunate that the supporters of this bill want to silence the voice of predominantly American companies. The bill further complicates matters for publicly traded corporations by forcing them to determine the percentage of company stock ownership by the nationality of the investor, which will most likely prove to be impossible. It is clear that the DISCLOSE Act will institute unconstitutional restrictions. However, the crafters of this legislation have been careful to exempt labor unions from the restrictions. The desire to treat unions and corporations differently abandons the government's long-standing policy that treats them equally. However, this is not unexpected given a story published in The Hill newspaper last month which revealed that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees plan to spend in excess of $50 million in this fall's elections, part of which will go to protecting incumbents. It is no wonder that the Democratic supporters of this bill----

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It is no wonder that the Democratic supporters of this bill have made special exceptions for unions, and that any attempts in the House Administration Committee to rectify this discrimination between unions and corporations were defeated on party- line votes. It is evident that, while this legislation increases disclosure requirements, it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech just in time to influence the outcome of the midterm elections. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DISCLOSE Act and vote ``no'' on the rule and uphold their oath of office.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 140th anniversary of the Department of Justice. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which was passed by the First Congress and signed into law by President George Washington, created the office of Attorney General, which eventually became the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Department of Justice began its work on July 1, 1870, through an act of Congress, with the Attorney General at its head. Since then, the Department has evolved into the world's largest law office and the central agency for the enforcement of Federal law. Today, the Department strives to meet four goals in its pursuit of justice: First, protecting the public against foreign and domestic threats; second, ensuring the fair administration of justice in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; third, assisting both State and local law enforcement agencies; and, fourth, defending the United States and its foreign interests. Over the past decade, the Department has made significant efforts to protect the children of America. In 2006, through the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, the Department of Justice created a national sex offender registry to better protect children by organizing sex offenders into three tiers. The act also created a nationwide DNA database and allows law enforcement to monitor dangerous sex offenders through the use of GPS technology. Recognizing the dangers of technology-assisted exploitation crimes against children, the Department of Justice launched Project Safe Childhood, an effort that resulted in record numbers of arrests and prosecutions of individuals seeking to commit sexual crimes against children. The AMBER Alert system, a Department of Justice directive, works to protect and save the lives of abducted children. Since the expansion of the system in 2003, more than 500 missing or exploited children have been safely recovered. Alerts are broadcast over the Internet, television and radio programming, electronic highway signs, lottery tickets, and text messaging. Shortly after the September 11 attack, I introduced the USA PATRIOT Act, which afforded the Department of Justice new tools to detect and prevent terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking. The provisions of the act updated laws to reflect new threats and new technologies, facilitate better cooperation amongst government agencies, and updated and increased penalties for convicted terrorists. Since the act's passage in October 2001, the numbers of terrorist convictions and prosecutions by U.S. attorneys have soared. Make no mistake, the USA PATRIOT Act has contributed to the prevention of another large-scale terrorist attack on American soil. The Justice Department has also made a commitment to protect Americans residing in areas riddled with gun and gang violence. It responded to the significant increase in the number of firearms-related crimes in small geographic areas by creating the Violent Crime Impact Team initiative. Since 2004, it has arrested more than 14,000 gang members, drug dealers, felons in possession of firearms, and other violent criminals, including more than 2,800 who have been identified as the ``worst of the worst'' criminals. I applaud the work of the Department of Justice in its efforts to defend the American people and to administer justice while respecting and ensuring the rights and dignity entitled to all. I encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 1422.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2010, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 31 preceding years I have served in the Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. Madam Chairman, I support efforts to invest in science and technology. In these tough economic times, we must look ahead and recognize the necessity of research and experimentation in developing new products and improving existing ones. If the U.S. wants to remain the leader in technological innovation, it is imperative that we invigorate investment in private sector innovation so that we can expand our global leadership in high technology and spur greater economic growth domestically. As the former chairman of the House Science Committee, I understand the importance of promoting policies that strengthen America's technological leadership, and recognize the endless economic benefits when innovation takes place. However, once again, we are seeing the majority ignore rising deficits and continue on the path of reckless spending. As some of my colleagues have already noted, this legislation includes $22 billion in new funding over this year's base. Our national debt stands at $13 trillion, and our deficits are up 50 percent over the past 3 years. The majority cannot continue to pile the debt upon our children and grandchildren. It strikes me as odd that we are ramping up funding for this act when the programs that it funds are only starting to be implemented. Without having the opportunity to perform proper oversight to know which programs are effective and which are not, it appears that we are simply here today to throw another $86 billion at the wall to see what sticks. The legislation before us goes beyond basic research and development activities. It creates several duplicative and unnecessary programs. Take, for example, the creation of the new Energy Innovation Hub program. The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget included funding for a hub on batteries and energy storage; however, budget documents indicate that there are at least five other DOE programs which conduct similar energy storage R&D activities. Unfortunately, this is not the only example of a proposed hub that appears to duplicate existing R&D efforts. Additionally, this legislation not only dramatically increases spending, but shifts the focus of the original America COMPETES Act of basic research to increased spending on later-stage technology development and commercialization efforts. I do not believe that the government ought to be in the business of picking winners and losers; however, that is exactly what the provisions of this legislation attempt to do. Throughout the legislation, there is an emphasis on climate change research and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It troubles me to see in a competitiveness bill the prominence of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a policy objective. This legislation effectively seeks to prohibit the pursuit of technologies that would advance energy independence through expanded supplier production of domestic energy resources. In order for the U.S. to continue to compete and to be an innovative leader throughout the world, we must ensure we devote the proper resources and incentives in basic research and development. However, this legislation is not the answer. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of my good friend from Japan, Mr. Iwao Matsuda. He is a patriot who has dedicated his life to his country and to the people of Japan. I have worked with Mr. Matsuda for many years and am saddened by his retirement from the United States-Japan Legislative Exchange Program (LEP). Mr. Iwao Matsuda served Japan for many years in a variety of roles. One such role was as a civil servant in the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Having served in the Ministry for more than twenty years, he learned the importance of the United States-Japan friendship. Later in his career, as Member of the Japanese Diet, Mr. Matsuda constantly forged new pathways to improve United States-Japan relations and he recognized that at the core of improved relations was a deeper cultural understanding of our two countries. As a Member of the Diet, he was in a unique position to forge a pathway to closer ties. Thus, Mr. Matsuda helped launch the LEP which is now one of the most successful exchange programs in Congress. As a founding father of the LEP, Mr. Matsuda has been a leader in building a long-lasting friendship between the United States and Japan. His in-depth knowledge of the United States has been a key to building the LEP into the successful program that it is today. Members of Congress, including myself, welcomed the knowledge and wisdom that Matsuda shared at LEP meetings. Under his leadership, Members of Congress and the Diet have been able to break down barriers and build lasting friendships that we all cherish. My wife Cheryl and I wish our good friend Mr. Iwao Matsuda all the best. As he makes a change to the private sector, we both know that Matsuda will continue make Japan proud. I look forward to finding new ways to work with my friend and I wish him well with future endeavors.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this resolution. A lot of times people come to Members of Congress saying, Why do you need to have a Chaplain? And I tell them that we need to have a Chaplain here because of the tremendous pressures that are put on Members of Congress and their families, whether it's politically, whether it's spiritually, whether we have family crises and things like that, and in order to keep the Members of Congress grounded so that they can better discharge their duties, we need to have someone to talk to and to counsel us from a spiritual standpoint. Father Dan Coughlin has done that for the last 10 years. He is the first Roman Catholic priest who has been named as a Chaplain to the House of Representatives, and there was a lot of chatter about that at the time, but I would just remind everybody that most of his predecessors as Chaplain were ordained in specific non-Roman Catholic denominations and they had the same job in dealing with Members of all faiths, and sometimes even no faith at all, and their families when times of crises came, whether it be a personal crisis or a political crisis. And I think that in the last 10 years, a tribute to Father Coughlin's immense talents is the fact that he is universally respected in this House of Representatives and beyond. And I can say personally that I think I am a better person for having known Father Coughlin and having been counseled by him. Father Coughlin also is respected in his home diocese in Chicago. Last Saturday my wife, Cheryl, and I accepted his invitation to join him and others at a mass celebrating the 50th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood. There were many priests celebrating with him, the church was filled, and it was an extremely moving demonstration of the respect that Father Coughlin has both with his colleagues as priests in Chicago as well as the laity that did show up to fill the chapel at the Archbishop Quigley Center. Cardinal Francis George, who is Father Coughlin's ecclesiastical boss, showed up during the reception, and I think that his presence there also is a tribute to the fact that Father Coughlin had done a very, very good job in Chicago before he was plucked by former Speaker Hastert to become our Chaplain of the House of Representatives. All that being said, this House is in Father Coughlin's debt for the work that he has done with us as an institution, has done with us as individuals, regardless of what our faith is, and has done with our families in helping keep our personal lives as well as our official lives in a proper perspective. We are much in debt to Father Coughlin for that, and I hope he is with us for many more years, rather than days, to come.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1257, and I support the goals of Financial Literacy Month. I recognize the importance of encouraging Americans to educate themselves on financial responsibility. However, the irony of this legislation is not lost on me. If April is to be recognized as Financial Literacy Month, might I suggest that Congress take the time to educate itself on fiscal responsibility and restraint? Last year, the federal deficit reached $1.4 trillion, undoubtedly an unsustainable figure. Additionally, as the House considers this resolution, the chairman of the Budget Committee ponders whether to forgo a budget resolution for the next fiscal year. While Americans across the country evaluate their priorities and make tough choices to responsibly adhere to their budgets, Congress ought to do likewise. When times get tough, it's not the American way to stick our head in the sand, but to address our issues head-on. This resolution ``recognizes the importance of managing personal finances, increasing personal savings, and reducing personal debt in the United States,'' yet this Congress has consistently operated counter to the principles of managing, saving, and reducing debt. I encourage my colleagues to heed the advice we are giving the American people, and take a serious look at our finances. I believe the time has come for Congress to manage our nation's finances, increase our national savings, and reduce our national debt.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is right on. This bill expands abortion funding to the greatest extent in history. I have heard that the President is contemplating issuing an Executive order to try to limit this. Members should not be fooled. Executive orders cannot override the clear intent of a statute. Secondly, yesterday everybody in this House voted in favor of the TRICARE bill, which preserved the DOD's right to administer this program. If an Executive order moves the abortion funding in this bill away from where it is now, it will be struck down as unconstitutional because Executive orders cannot constitutionally do that.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have listened to this colloquy and, frankly, it doesn't state the law. The proposed Executive order, which I have a copy of, specifically states that nobody can force the Executive order in any court. So the Executive order is merely a piece of paper that certainly will not have any effect of law. Earlier today, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) was quoted on Fox News saying, Well, it can't be changed by Executive order because an Executive order can't change the law. She was right on in that respect. An Executive order can't change the law. But even on a policy question, President Obama, at a campaign rally when he was running for election, criticized the Bush administration's excessive use of Executive orders. Congress' job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or sign it. Executive orders are not part of his power. The President also said, I'm not comfortable with doing something this significant through Executive orders, relating to trying terrorists in military commissions. Now, finally, it is basic law, as reiterated by the Supreme Court as late as 2006 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that an Executive order cannot trump or change existing law. The Executive order that is being talked about now is a piece of paper. It will have no force and no effect. If one is concerned about preventing the exchanges that are established under the Senate bill that we will be voting on in a few hours, then the only thing that one can do is vote against that Senate bill to preserve the Hyde amendment from being expanded to programs that are created under the Senate bill. I'm sorry, but the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from California have misstated the law. It is pretty clear. And even the President said it during the campaign, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said it on TV earlier today.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, 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. 101] Ackerman Aderholt Adler (NJ) Akin Alexander Altmire Andrews Arcuri Austria Baca Bachmann Bachus Baird Baldwin Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett Barton (TX) Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blumenauer Blunt Boccieri Bonner Bono Mack Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Bright Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Calvert Camp Campbell Cao Capito Capps Capuano Carnahan Carney Carson (IN) Carter Cassidy Castle Castor (FL) Chaffetz Chandler Childers Chu 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) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt Dent Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Doggett Donnelly (IN) Doyle Dreier Driehaus Duncan Edwards (MD) Edwards (TX) Ehlers Ellison Ellsworth Emerson Eshoo Etheridge Fallin Farr Fattah Filner Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Fudge Gallegly Garamendi 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 Harman Harper Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Heinrich Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Himes Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes 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 Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kilroy Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kirkpatrick (AZ) Kissell Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Kosmas Kratovil Kucinich Lamborn Lance Langevin Larsen (WA) Latham LaTourette Latta Lee (CA) Lee (NY) Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lucas Luetkemeyer Lujan Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Maffei Maloney Marchant Markey (CO) Markey (MA) Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul McClintock McCollum McCotter McDermott McGovern McHenry McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers McNerney Meeks (NY) Melancon Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Minnick Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Tim Myrick Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Nunes Nye Oberstar Obey Olson Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone 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 Rangel Rehberg Reichert Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Roe (TN) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Salazar Sanchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Scalise Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schmidt Schock Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sestak Shadegg Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Sires Skelton Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Space Speier Spratt Stearns Stupak Sullivan Sutton Tanner Taylor Teague Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Tierney Titus Tonko Tsongas Turner Upton Van Hollen Velazquez Visclosky Walden Walz Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch Westmoreland Whitfield Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Woolsey Wu Yarmuth Young (AK) Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Before I begin, I demand a division of the question for a separate vote on each of the four Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, both the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment and the full Judiciary Committee unanimously adopted and reported out House Resolution 1031. The overwhelming support for this resolution is indicative of the weight of evidence supporting the four Articles of Impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous. Impeaching a Federal judge is not something that the House of Representatives takes lightly, and impeachment proceedings are not something that we consider too often around here. By my count, this is only the 20th time that the House of Representatives will impeach a civil officer under the Constitution, and these tasks are not pleasant. When we need to do them from time to time, it is our responsibility, as Members of the House of Representatives. I have been involved in a number of impeachment proceedings over the years, but never before have I seen the overwhelming and blatant corruption we have before us here today. Judge Porteous is one of a kind, and it is time for him to receive his comeuppance. The FBI and Justice Department have spent years investigating the wrongdoings by this judge. After their investigation, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously voted to refer this matter to the United States House of Representatives. In addition to the Justice Department's investigation, the staff of our Impeachment Task Force conducted a systematic investigation. This investigation resulted in four evidentiary hearings over the course of 5 days late last year, and it culminated in the full Judiciary Committee unanimously voting to approve four Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous. The Impeachment Task Force hearings laid out overwhelming corruption orchestrated by Judge Porteous. My colleagues on the task force have detailed the specific actions taken by Judge Porteous, but I think it is worthwhile to focus on a few of them. Judge Porteous was engaged in a crooked kickback scheme with his buddies at the law firm of Amato & Creely. The firm received tens of thousands of dollars in curator fees, and they kicked back about half of it to the judge. The kickback scheme wasn't the only shady dealing Judge Porteous engaged in with Amato & Creely. He was so emboldened that he would solicit gifts and cash while sitting on the bench. Sometimes he accepted trips. Other days, it was an expensive lunch or dinner. On another occasion, Creely helped pay for the judge's son's bachelor party in Las Vegas. He didn't just solicit from Amato & Creely but also from others with business before his court. With this information alone, there should be no question about his blatant ethical lapses, rendering him unfit to serve on the Federal bench, but there's more. Judge Porteous made false and misleading statements under the penalty of perjury with regard to his debts and bankruptcy proceedings. He misrepresented his name on court filings and used a post office box to conceal his identity. He also attempted to conceal assets and violated court rules. While it's sad to say these actions almost seemed innocuous compared to his other actions and corrupt relationships, our task force spent a day focusing our attention on Judge Porteous' relationship with a bail bondsman named Louis Marcotte and his sister Lori. This hearing included testimony about the judge soliciting meals and trips like he did with the lawyers but also other things of value, such as auto and home repairs. In return, Judge Porteous assisted the Marcottes. Judge Porteous had the opportunity to testify before the task force, but he chose not to participate in the proceedings. The entirety of the record by the task force plainly shows a pattern of unethical conduct that is not worthy of a Federal judge. The evidence demonstrates that he clearly abused his office and had complete disregard for the laws that he took an oath to uphold. Soon, the onus will fall on the Senate to hold a trial. The clock is ticking, and it's important this trial take place promptly. Judge Porteous' suspension is set to expire in September, making him eligible to return to the bench. It is imperative that the Senate act expeditiously to ensure that this corrupt judge does not resume his perch on the Federal bench and preside again. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to impeach Judge G. Thomas Porteous on each of the four Articles of Impeachment.

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 in opposition of this so-called jobs bill. The incentives in this bill are a rehashing of the failed policies of the Carter Administration's stimulus in 1977, and I do not believe these measures will truly create jobs. The news reports daily that Americans are not only hurting with the downturn of the economy, but they are also fearful that their government will continue to recklessly spend in the name of economic recovery. Last year, stimulus legislation was passed in this House, promising that a trillion dollars robbed from future generations of Americans would create jobs immediately and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. The truth, however, is that since this boondoggle became law, unemployment hasn't fallen below 8 percent; it has risen to over 10 percent, and still hovers at just under 10 percent. Millions of jobs have been lost since the recession began, and Washington's only answer has been to spend money. Wisconsinites have been contacting me with their concerns daily since President Obama first announced this plan in the State of the Union Address. While it is noble for Washington to suspend payroll taxes for employers that hire new workers, enact a $1,000 tax credit for retaining employees, and increase the expensing of new equipment purchased by small businesses, I fear that these measures are merely a superficial solution. Employers will not be able to take advantage of these incentives if they do not have work to offer. It is common sense that employers hire workers because they have work that needs to be done, not because they will get a tax credit. The fact remains that businesses in this country are scared. They are scared by the uncertainty that Congress is projecting. The threat of increased taxes, increased government regulation, and costly government mandates are creating an environment that does not bode well for job seekers. We must focus on increasing businesses' confidence that their government will not further hamper their abilities to create work. At the end of the day, this legislation is a drop in the bucket, it is not the solution. Only after long-term tax relief can we realize long-term economic recovery.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to extend three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are scheduled to expire on Sunday. The attacks of September 11, 2001, tragically affirmed the urgency of updating our laws to address the clear and present danger presented by international terrorism. Although the memories of this day may have faded in the minds of some Americans, including some of my colleagues, the danger we face from terrorists and terrorist organizations has not faded. We continue to face an imminent danger, made clear by the attempted Christmas Day attack. The three provisions scheduled to expire are, first, section 206, the roving wiretap provisions of the PATRIOT Act; second, section 215, the business record provisions of the PATRIOT Act; and, third, section 6001, the ``lone wolf'' provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Of particular importance is the lone wolf provision, which closes the gap in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that, if allowed to expire, could allow an individual terrorist to slip through the cracks and endanger thousands of innocent lives. When FISA was originally enacted in the 1970s, terrorists were believed to be members of an identified group. That's not the case today, and we need to respond accordingly. Many modern-day terrorists may subscribe to a movement or certain beliefs but do not belong to or identify themselves with a specific terrorist group. Allowing the lone wolf provision to expire could impede our ability to gather intelligence about perhaps the most dangerous terrorists operating today. Regarding the lone wolf provision, FBI Director Mueller stated that ``while we have not used it with regard to an indictment, it continues to be available for that individual whom we lack evidence to put with a particular terrorist group but does present a threat as an international terrorist.'' The close call we had on Christmas Day demonstrates the need for tough laws like the PATRIOT Act. Terrorist organizations appear to be stepping up their efforts against us, and we cannot let this happen. Our national security is at stake and so are the lives of thousands of innocent people, both Americans and visitors to our country. Our law enforcement officials must be provided with the needed tools to keep us safe, and we in Congress cannot drop the ball on our national security. We must reauthorize these provisions now. For too long opponents of the PATRIOT Act have transformed it into a grossly distorted caricature that bears no relationship whatsoever to the legislation itself. The PATRIOT Act has been misused by some as a springboard to launch limitless allegations that are not only unsubstantiated but are also false and irresponsible. The fact remains that the USA PATRIOT Act is vital to maintaining America's safety. The White House and Attorney General have called for extension of the three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and I commend the administration for recognizing the value of these important national security tools and for rightly urging the Congress to reauthorize each of them. This is your administration, Mr. Speaker and majority Democrats, not our administration, and they have recognized the reason for that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of reauthorizing these provisions before they expire.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, listening to the arguments that have been advanced by the proponents of the bill, all I can say is what you hear is not what you are going to get if this bill is enacted into law. There is a reason this antitrust exemption has survived now for 65 years, which is that it actually has encouraged competition because it allows smaller insurers to use the actuarial data that larger insurers are able to amass. If the smaller insurers can't get this actuarial data, which is what will happen if this bill is enacted into law, then they will either be gobbled up by the larger insurers, which get the data in-house, or they will go out of business. As a result, there will be less competition rather than more. So what you hear today about competition is not what you are going to get if this exemption is repealed. Now, repealing the limited exemption that health insurance carriers have under the McCarran-Ferguson Act is, at best, going to change little and, at worst, is going to be counterproductive. As the CBO concluded in October, repealing the exemption would have little or no effect on insurance premiums because State laws already bar the activities that would be prohibited under Federal law should the bill be enacted. Instead, additional regulatory burdens on insurers will likely be passed on to the policyholders in the form of higher premiums. This, my friends, is the majority's higher health insurance premium bill in the name of competition. It's not going to happen. The bill would subject to new Federal enforcement a variety of ongoing collaborative practices among health insurers which are currently permitted by the States because they allow the small insurers to compete. Now, shouldn't we be for small insurers? Shouldn't we be for having new companies enter the market? This bill will prohibit that. Small insurance companies rely on the data collected from their larger competitors, and share it industrywide in order to accurately set their rates. However, this would be forbidden under the bill. If small insurers can't get the data, further consolidation is likely. Small insurance will either merge to gain a competitive edge or get swallowed up by the big insurance giants. Again, the majority is putting together an insurance company consolidation bill--less competition rather than more. Worse, a repeal could result in the small insurers' going out of business altogether. Meanwhile, for the big insurance companies, the big, bad insurance companies with the means to collect and analyze this data in-house, it would simply be business as usual.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. This legislation attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist. First, there is no evidence that the exemption has increased health insurance prices or profits or that it has contributed to higher market concentration. Second, the effort to repeal McCarran-Ferguson is based on the belief that it allows individual insurers to collude on prices and policy coverage. State laws prohibit insurers from bid-rigging, price-fixing and market allocation to restrain competition. State insurance regulators actively enforce the prohibition in these areas, and this legislation would only add another layer of Federal regulation and litigation to an industry that operates under a robust and well-established State regulatory regime. There are ways, however, to promote competition in the health insurance market. One change Congress should consider is permitting individuals and businesses to buy their health insurance policies from any willing provider in any State. Under current law, an insurance firm registered in one State may not cover individuals in another without registering in the second State and being subject to all its taxes and laws. This raises the cost of doing business across State lines, and it prevents many smaller or mid-sized companies from entering the markets to compete. Simply put, this is not the type of reform that is needed, and it is not the type of reform that Americans were promised. I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, to come up with commonsense reforms, one that will do in fact what appears in speech. This bill fails on both counts.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, as the new year begins, we are back to debating the seemingly old health care legislation. This bill would cost Wisconsinites and Wisconsin businesses. The legislation essentially puts the government in control of health care)--an industry that comprises nearly one-sixth of our economy. And, as I've repeatedly heard at dozens of my Town Hall Meetings, Wisconsinites overwhelmingly oppose this legislation. Until the Federal Government can effectively manage Medicare and Medicaid, it shouldn't be creating a new program. Additionally, there are 27,156 seniors in Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District who use Medicare Advantage and who would likely see reduced benefits. And in another bad move for my State, the Senate version proposes an additional $2 billion annual tax for each of the next 10 years on medical device manufacturers. This would negatively affect good companies, such as GE Healthcare in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and hundreds of our small business suppliers. In addition to stifling innovation and hindering research and development, the added costs would hurt consumers, as anyone purchasing medical products, such as wheelchairs, or whose care includes the use of equipment, such as an MRI machine, would feel the pinch. Making backroom deals to pass health care reform is a far cry from the transparency President Barack Obama promised. Every Wisconsinite will be affected by this legislation so they have a right to be in the know and to watch the debate unfold on C-SPAN. It's common sense that the people who elect us be included in the process. Yes, health care needs to be reformed in our country. However, patching two pieces of horrible legislation together into one awful bill that would cost Wisconsinites more while lessening their care will not receive my support. The bottom line is that this legislation is bad medicine that would make our health care system sicker.