Timothy Walz

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for his support and for his work on this. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for his support. At this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He's a good friend and colleague and an honest broker on things. I agree with the gentleman on the categorically excluded bridges; 96 percent are now. So we can decide now, do we want to bog down on that last 4 percent, or do we want to get a bill forward? I think there's agreement here. I think we're in a clear-cut case of if the perfect gets in the way of the good, the American public pays for that. But I appreciate his support on this and his desire to get a bill done. And I think it's been obvious that he wants this transportation bill done, so I thank the gentleman. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for being here. I know his commitment to building infrastructure in this Nation is unquestioned. He's been a good friend and a gentleman on the committee. I think what we're here for today, Mr. Speaker, is the American people deserve better from us. We have a need in this country that is obvious to everyone. The infrastructure in this country is crumbling: 70,000 deficient bridges; nearly half our highways in disrepair. And being a Member from Minnesota, that hot August day almost 5 years ago when the I 35W bridge fell into the Mississippi River is a stark testament of what we can do. The Transportation Committee, by command of the Constitution, if you will, has always been there to build the post roads. This Nation has built canals, locks, dams, and ports. We've built railroads that connected the continent and spurred the industrial revolution. We've built an interstate highway system that made the American economy the envy of the world. We have possessed vision, we've possessed willpower, and we've done it in a manner that incorporated bipartisan support and, at the end of the day, compromise. The last bill that passed, SAFETEA-LU, passed by a vote in this House in 2005 of 412 8; in the Senate, 91 4. The previous bill, 2007, 297 86, and 88 5 in the Senate. In 1991, 372 47; the Senate, 79 8. In 1987, over the last 25 years, 350 73. We have the will. We simply need to exercise the political willpower to move this piece of legislation. So this motion to instruct is very simple. A hundred days ago, the Senate passed their version. It received a vote of 74 22. It is a bipartisan bill. Now, I will be the first to tell you the prerogative of the House to lead is sacred to us here. We need to have a say in this. We need to make sure that the people's House has their voice in things. The problem we have is we've been sitting in conference committee for 45 days with a deadlock and no end in sight. So this motion to instruct, yes, it's a nonbinding sense of the House, but I would argue it's far more than that. This is a sense of the American public. They sent us here to do some basic work. They did not send us here to agree with each other on everything, but they did have that understanding that the glue that binds the Nation together is compromise. And there are a very few things that historically have been bipartisan. The transportation bill has been one of those. So what this MTI asks is: rectify the differences and compromise to the point that we can get something on the floor and finish the work by June 22, this Friday. Then give us the opportunity to exercise the American will by having their Representatives discuss what needs to be there. If we can't come to a compromise, bring us the Senate bill and let's have the up-or-down vote. If it passes, we can move forward. If it doesn't, then we start and go on from there. But I have to tell you, we can't afford to kick this can down the road--and I would say the proverbial ``crumbling road.'' The Chamber of Commerce has made the case: Failure to keep up with infrastructure needs in the U.S. cost this economy $2 trillion between 2008 and 2009. Every year we do nothing, we spend over $100 billion on idling tax. We waste 1.9 billion gallons of fuel yearly. That's 5 percent of our fuel needs. That's money going to foreign countries who hate us. They'll hate us for free. We can be more efficient. We cannot waste Americans' hard-earned dollars staring at the bumper in front of them. We can do it safely, and we can move our products to market faster; and we have that power. I said it this morning. I'll continue to say it. Up above the Speaker's chair up there is the quote from Daniel Webster. How about we do something worthy to be remembered for. How about we come together and pass a bill that the people say, They did the peoples' work. They compromised. It's not about getting what each of us wants. It's about getting what the American public needs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee, a leader on this. He has the institutional experience and knowledge and is always gracious. I would have to say you're going to find a lot of agreement from me on this. I certainly think that is the case. The American public deserves better. I think they deserve a debate like they're seeing tonight. They see a sense of respect that goes back and forth. Frustrations get high in this House, but I keep thinking back to the immeasurable sacrifices that went into self-governances. It would be a lot easier--I had a gentleman one time tell me that there's too many Members of Congress; we should cut the numbers in half. I said, Why think so small? Get rid of all of us and just name a king, and then you don't have to worry about this messy democracy. That's not what Americans do. We understand that there's 435 good opinions here, differences, strong opinions for the right things about this country, but we disagree on how some of those things should get done. At the end of the day, those differences are a strength if we can get the glue that holds us together as a Nation in a compromise. I will be the first to say that I certainly don't want to see this House capitulate its responsibility, but I also understand that at times there are certain realities of what can move and what cannot. I think deadlines like this motion to instruct puts in makes that deadline solid and it asks what can we give. Many of the provisions my colleagues were talking about, whether it is Keystone pipeline--I am personally supportive of that. If it's in here, I think that's a good thing. But I understand that a lot of my colleagues don't, and there's no way the Senate does that. The American people have elected us. They've elected a Senate that doesn't agree with that. So at the end of the day, I have to make a choice and all of us do. Is it worth holding up a highway bill over a piece of legislation that I personally like but don't believe that it outpaces the point of getting these roads built? I think the public wants to see us do that. I certainly am willing to compromise, as my friend from Tennessee has always proven to me, to try and get it right. And I think the public wants us to stand by our principles of trying to get it there. But at the end of the day, something has to be done, something has to move forward. The country depends on a workable infrastructure. I can't tell you, in watching this happen, of seeing how important moving those products is when the I 35W bridge was in the river, not just in terms of the loss of life, the tragedy that happened there, but the disruptions that happened also, that sprung out and rippled into the economy. I think all of us understand that tragic incident, that we don't want to see it replicated, and we also know that smart investments prevent it from happening. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the Members who came and spoke passionately tonight. I'm appreciative of the folks who understand that this deliberative body has to come to some type of resolution. I would urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, simply asking us to do the work we were sent here to do, get it done on time, and get America working and moving again. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, tonight we saw what's possible. When we come together and know that the good of the American public, their will, if it is worked in this House as it has for 236 years, as we began to deliberate and try and move forward on what helps the American public, bringing in our differences, debating, and at times passionately debating what we feel, but at the end of the day understanding the ultimate goal is what strengthens and moves this country forward; and I think tonight, in seeing an agreement on a bipartisan motion to instruct, just asking us to do the public's work, get a transportation bill done, put people back to work, build our highways, bridges, and infrastructure necessary to move people safely back and forth, but also to move goods to compete in the 21st century, it's not that big a lift. We can do it in a safe, efficient, and modern manner, and we can pay for it in a responsible way. The American public are willing to invest in America. They're simply asking us to do it smartly and do it in a way that compromises for the good of all. I'm incredibly proud, as always, of this deliberative body. We have the ability to move it forward.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348, the transportation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Walz of Minnesota moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to resolve all issues and file a conference report not later than June 22, 2012.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Winona, Minnesota Area Chamber of Commerce on their centennial celebration. On April 22, 1912, at the then-urging of then-President Taft, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was established by a gathering of 700 delegates from across the country, including innovative people from Winona, Minnesota. Even before the national chamber was formed, those very people in Winona had the foresight to establish their own local association of community and business leaders that would give rise to that great city on the Mississippi. While the last 100 years have seen many changes, one constant in the Winona community has been the chamber. Since its inception, the Winona Area Chamber of Commerce has been working to ensure local small business owners have the tools they need to succeed. While it's important to note their rich history, the Winona chamber also has an eye on the future. By offering low-cost or free educational programs for young professionals in leadership, microenterprise and business management, the local chamber works to ensure future small business owners will continue to have the tools to succeed. Today I pay tribute to the foresight and leadership and wish the Winona Area Chamber of Commerce a happy 100th anniversary. Here's to another 100 years of promoting opportunity, small business growth and community involvement in Winona, Minnesota.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor. More importantly, I thank you both for your unwavering defense of this Nation in smart policy and an unwavering commitment to make sure we get it right. I, like my colleagues and millions of other Americans, spent Monday at Memorial Day observances. That's the date we give thanks to those brave patriots who gave the supreme sacrifice so we could all live in freedom. But as the gentleman from Mississippi also said, it's also a time to think of the responsibility we have for those who have served and have come back. Our responsibility to our veterans is our Nation's highest moral responsibility. After years of war, we have millions of returning veterans who deserve our respect and support. This piece of legislation helps us keep a promise to those brave warriors. As you heard from my colleagues, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act was passed by this Congress--a smart piece of legislation--in 1994. It simply says if you serve this Nation in uniform, you will not be disadvantaged in your civilian-sector job; you will have prompt reemployment when that service is done; and you will not be discriminated against because of current or past military service. It's keeping that commitment that if you put your life on the line, you put your health on the line, you shouldn't have to sacrifice your career progression against your peers just because you were willing to serve this Nation. That piece of legislation was very clear also that the Federal Government should be a model employer. Also as the gentleman from Mississippi stated, TSA has a very important job of securing this Nation. They have done a wonderful job of hiring veterans. The issue at hand here is asking TSA to abide by the same rules as countless other agencies have. There is not a police force, a firefighting force, a school, or a private employer that hasn't sent a guardsman or a reservist off to do duty. They've had to change schedules and bring them back. In many small towns in my district, when you get a call up from the National Guard unit, most of the police department is gone with them. They've figured out how to do this, and they've done it by abiding by USERRA when they came back home and welcomed them back. It's absolutely unconscionable that TSA wouldn't. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) noted, they say they're already complying with most of the regulations. They've had time to adjust to this. We need to make sure at a time of high unemployment against our veterans, that we of all people--the Federal Government-- throws up no barriers in front of them, but welcomes them back, replaces them in their jobs, and moves them forward. That's not only morally the right thing to do; that's the right thing to do for national defense. These are our best and brightest willing to put their lives on the line. I want them at the front lines at our airports and ports and other places, and we should get them back into it. I want to thank these two gentlemen for their unwavering work and also the chairman of the VA, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Filner. As was stated earlier, I thank an absolute champion of veterans rights, Mr. Bilirakis, who is the original cosponsor of this.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady from Guam who, as always, is an absolute stalwart supporter of our military forces and has a long tradition, coming from Guam, in defense of this Nation. Also, a special thank you to Colonel Kline, my colleague from Minnesota, for his unwavering support of our veterans and for bringing this forward and trying to correct this injustice. You've heard it today, Madam Speaker, about a change in policy. And while a stroke of the pen at the Pentagon may not seem like that much, it impacts our veterans and their families. These are folks that have deployed, in many cases, three times. For example, the Red Bulls from Minnesota: once for 9 months, once for 22 months, and once for a year. We came up, as a Nation, to make the determination that these folks should have a little bit of time of leave when they come back, readjust with their families, see children they maybe have never celebrated a birthday with, and then try to go back and get into the job market. As a Nation, these are our best and brightest. These are our future leaders. We want them getting readjusted. We want them back into the job market. And by the Pentagon changing this midstream, it's not so much the financial or the monetary insult; it's the insult to what these folks went through. When they went, they were promised a benefit. When they came back, we had cut it in half. We hear a lot about a 99 and a 1 percent. There is a 99 and a 1 percent in this country--1 percent who are serving in uniform and have served overseas, 99 percent of us who have benefited from that sacrifice. So I commend the delegation. I commend this House. If there is an issue that binds this Nation together, it's the absolute unwavering support of those who are willing to lay down their lives and sacrifice time with their families to serve each and every one of us. The least we can do is make sure that the benefits that were promised, that were guaranteed, are delivered upon. It's the right thing to do. It's the right thing for the country. It binds us together. And I want to thank all of the folks here who made this possible. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: New Hope From out of that darkness of most evil war! From out of that pain and such heartache that one must endure! From out of that death and destruction, and oh such suffering of all the more! As from out of this most dreadful of gores! Come, all of those and their loved ones . . . whose daily lives are but filled with such anguish for sure! And from out of all of this, must now all somehow, someway so endure! To find the strength and the courage, to rebuild with not much more! Then Hope to insure! As comes their most swollen of tears so for sure! That which their Mothers and Fathers, their so Sisters and Brothers, and their Husbands and Wives, and all of their most precious of all Children whose eyes must now pour! And just when all so seems lost! All out of this darkness of war, with its most tragic of all costs! With but nothing so left, but to so cling to Hope to so bless! To so give us the strength to take just one more most courageous of steps! But, comes only our very best of the best! Our most brightest of all lights, as are you Mark so yes! So shining above all of the rest! Such brilliance, to all of our souls to caress! That with all of your courage Mark, our Nation you have so blessed! Bringing Hope, from out of your most magnificent heart's breath! So splendid and pure, so very special for sure! Giving us Hope! With something which so reaches so deep down inside all of our souls! To have and to hold, which so helped you to so somehow endure! While, against all the odds Mark . . . your victory it now so insured! With that kind of Hope, that which so let's one so march off to war! And come back home from a battlefields of honor so injured, and still somehow to give more! With Such New Hope! All In Your Profiles In Courage! All in what you so bore! Teaching us all, what Heaven is for! And Heather, your most magnificent wife! all in her devotion and love, and so selfless sacrifice! Standing by her Man! Bringing tears to even our Lord eyes! Yes Mark, with all of your Hope and fine faith . . . You have, to all of us so shown us the way! Because, no matter the cost . . . your fine heart would never so wave! As we've so watched you Mark, so heroically moving onward day after day! To So Teach Us! To So Reach Us! To So Beseech Us! All in what your fine heart has all to say! All in your Most Splendid Shades of Green . . . Ooo . . . Rah, Jar Head! For you are but a Marine's Marine! Because, all in you . . . There Is New Hope for all human beings! And you and your family, are some of the best things that this county has ever seen! Coming back without an arm and both of your legs . . . Teaching us all about, what the word selfless sacrifice all so conveys! As on that morning when you so awoke . . . All there in that darkness, as it was there somehow that you so found such Hope! That so gave you the strength, all in what your fine heart so meant . . . but to so help your fine soul to somehow to cope! Showing us all, the very meaning of the word Hope! And as we look into your eyes, it's the tears we now find . . . As so easily you could of so given up, or so given in and so died! And yet instead, you so chose all in your most gallant heart to so keep Hope alive! Because, just in a few short month's my son . . . Marine . . . already, look what you've done! And look at all of what you've so begun! As you've climbed mountains! Took beaches! Won major battles, to so beseech us! So Fearless! So Brave! For Mark, you are one of America's greatest of all son's! And you and your fine wife, shining there ever so bright . . . have so shone us all how so to behave! As you've come so far and so fast, all from that grave of a past! Shining like a Star, to so carry our heart's far! Yea Mark . . . That's who you are, A Shining Star! A Star of Hope! And as long as one finds, so very deep down inside . . . That kind of courage and strength! From all of that Hope and what it so meant! Then, so surely, there is no mountain that we can not so climb! With New Hope we will find!

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, child abuse is an unacceptable behavior in our society that must be condemned and prevented. Our children deserve to grow up in safe and loving environments. As a parent and teacher, I am always in search of ways to eliminate this problem in homes, schools and child care centers. I would like to commend the committee for its support of the Missing Children's and Exploited Children programs. This funding is essential to combating child abuse, which is a national problem. In order to end child abuse, it is essential we support programs that train child protection professionals to better recognize, react and respond to abuse. Each and every day, child protection professionals work directly with maltreated children across the country. They fight tirelessly to reduce cases of child abuse and to respond effectively to child maltreatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these professionals leave college inadequately trained to handle cases of child maltreatment. And, once in the workforce, it is often far too difficult for them to access the quality training they need to do their jobs more effectively. In my district, I am proud to have the National Child Protection Center located in my district at Winona State University. The National Child Protection Center works to end child abuse, neglect and other forms of child maltreatment through education, training, awareness, prevention, advocacy and the pursuit of justice. The Center trains future and front-line child protection professionals around the nation so that they will be prepared to recognize and report the abuse of a child. This work should be applauded and supported. I.would like to commend the Senate Commerce Justice and Science committee for including language in their Committee report that would support efforts to train current child protection professionals, continue prevention programs and to develop undergraduate and graduate curricula on the maltreatment and exploitation of children. As we continue through the appropriations process, I would like to encourage my colleagues in the House to support this language and to include it in the final report.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Sydney Schmidt. Sydney hails from Hayfield, Minnesota, the First Congressional District of Minnesota, and was recently named the Military Kid of the Year. She is the daughter of Mary Kay and Lieutenant Colonel Brad Schmidt and a sister to Dani Schmidt. As a high school teacher and a 24-year veteran of our military, I understand how challenging it is for families when parents are deployed overseas. We know that when a parent is called to duty, they aren't the only ones who serve this Nation. The family serves us as well. Sydney maintains a 4.0 grade average, volunteers as a Big Sister, tutors elementary students, spends time with senior citizens, and, as well, excels at band and sports. I applaud Sydney's ability to set an example for her peers, not only in Hayfield, but across this country. Sydney's remarkable achievements at such a young age are a testament to her passion for community, her involvement and her love of country. We honor those achievements and the example she has set for others. Congratulations to Sydney, all the military kids, families, and servicemembers. I and the rest of this Nation thank you for your service to America.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Representative Louise M. Slaughter to note the end of a successful journey in good government reform. Six years ago, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act was introduced for the first time in the House of Representatives. We reintroduced this bill for the fourth time on March 17, 2011 and a little over a year later, we are proud to see the language we introduced to ban insider trading, signed into law. Since the President signed the bill (S. 2038, 112th Congress; P.L. 112 105) on April 4th, 2012, we would like to submit for the record our intent in regards to banning Congressional insider trading with the STOCK Act. This overwhelming bipartisan legislation is a significant accomplishment for Congress, and we would like to have the record state our original intent. Though Members of Congress and their staffs, executive branch employees, and federal judges and other federal judicial employees were not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions at the time, we deemed it important to affirm explicitly that no such exemption existed and that these individuals do in fact owe a duty of trust and confidence to the U.S. government and the American people. [See, e.g., Statement of Robert Khuzami, SEC Director of Enforcement, to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Dec. 1, 2011); SEC v. Cheng Yi Liang, et al., Exchange Act Rel. No. 21097 (March 29, 2011 (bringing insider trading charges against a FDA employee alleging that he violated a duty of trust and confidence owed to the federal government under certain governmental rules of conduct when he traded in advance of confidential FDA drug approval announcements); United States v. Royer, 549 F.3d 886 (2d. Cir. 2008) (affirming a conviction of an FBI agent for tipping information about ongoing investigations and information on law enforcement databases); SEC v. John Acree, Litigation Rel. No. 14231, 57 SEC Docket 1579 (Sept. 13, 1994) (announcing a settled action with a former employee of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for trading on the basis of material non-public information concerning banks); United States v. Rough, Crim. No. 88 425 (D.N.J. 1988) (indictment of former New York Federal Reserve Bank member for revealing highly sensitive nonpublic information regarding changes in the Fed's discount rate); SEC v. Saunders, Litigation Rel. No. 9744, 26 SEC Docket 75 (September 2, 1982) (announcing settled action with the former Director for Communications for a division of the Naval Electronics Systems Command for purchasing securities while in possession of material nonpublic information concerning a contract award); Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 4(D)(5) (stating ``A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge's official duties''); Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, Canon 3(D) (stating ``A judicial employee should never disclose any confidential information received in the course of official duties except as required in the performance of such duties, nor should a judicial employee employ such information for personal gain.'').] In affirming that the insider trading prohibitions applied to these individuals in the same way they apply to everyone else, we made it perfectly clear that nothing in the Act--not the affirmation of the duties, nor the instructions to issue interpretive guidance, nor the interpretive guidance that may be issued as a result--can be construed to limit or impair the construction of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws or the authority of the SEC under those provisions. We included an unambiguous rule of construction applicable to the entire Act, as well as unambiguous savings clauses in the amendments being made to the Exchange Act, that make that clear. Thus, when the Act instructs the Ethics Committee, Office of Government Ethics or Judicial Conference of the U.S. to issue interpretive guidance to clarify that government officials cannot use nonpublic information as a means for making a ``private profit'', this is not intended to--and in fact does not--limit or more narrowly define any insider trading requirements that currently exist in the law, nor limit or more narrowly define any ethical prohibitions that may currently exist. Similarly, when the Act says that nothing in the Act shall be in derogation of the obligations, duties or functions of Members or employees of Congress, this is not intended to permit Members or staff to use this provision as a shield to forestall liability for insider trading.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring an important concern to my colleagues. Every one of us here has a sacred commitment to care for those warriors who are willing to serve us overseas, and one of our major concerns is making sure they're employed when they return back home. What's alarming is the Department of Defense recently issued a change in their policy that will undermine our ability to do that. I'm referring to the Department of Defense Post-Deployment Mobilization Respite Account. This important policy is designed to give our brave warriors sufficient time to transition back into the private sector. PDMRA, as it's called, is an important tool that gives them that opportunity. The change by the DOD reduces the number of paid transition days that were promised to our men and women after they deploy to the war zone. Halfway through, for many of them, their third or fourth deployment, DOD is now taking that back when their plans were set this spring when they returned home. While they're in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is certainly not the right thing to do. Every single one of us wants to balance the budget and must focus us on that, simply not on the backs of veterans and warriors serving this Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in asking the Department of Defense to reverse course on this policy, hire our veterans, and keep our moral commitment to them.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, last week this House did something that should be common but is getting rarer and rarer. We passed a bipartisan piece of legislation with a vote of 417 2. That was the STOCK Act, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge bill, making sure that we have the audacity to say Members of Congress should play by the same rules as everyone else, restoring faith in our market. The Senate did the same thing, 96 3. But I remind you of those famous words from Saturday morning cartoons in ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' I'm just a bill, sitting on Capitol Hill. It's not the law. No conference has been decided yet. The President, while in the State of the Union, from that very perch, said he would sign that bill the very next day, but there's nothing on the horizon bringing it up. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, and I encourage all Americans to make sure they hold us accountable. Casting that vote for a bill still keeps it a bill. We need to follow through and make it the law of the land.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I'd also like to thank the chairman for his support of this bill and eloquent response on it. It's been a long 6-year journey to pass this reform. It has taken hard work and a bipartisan effort. The American people expect and deserve that. When I first came to Congress in 2006 after spending a lifetime of teaching social studies in the public school classroom, I was approached by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and Brian Baird, our former Member from Washington State. He said, You were sent here to make a difference and do things differently. If you really believe in reform, take a look at this bill. I got involved right after that, and Representative Slaughter, I can say, has been a stalwart supporter of this bill. She understood this is far more than just about clarifying insider trading. This is about restoring faith to the institution. She was concerned about the ethics of this body before ethics seemed to be in vogue. It has been in vogue her whole lifetime. She has lived that sermon of ethics and of living by the rules instead of just giving it, and that I appreciate. The integrity of this institution stands above all else. As the sacred holders of the privilege, the honor and the responsibility given to us by our neighbors to self-govern ourselves, we must make sure that this institution is never tarnished; and this bill goes a long way to doing that. The perception is that Members of Congress are enriching themselves. That's not only an affront to our neighbors that we're not playing by the rules; it is a cancer that can destroy the democracy. Each Member of Congress has a responsibility to hold himself not just equal to his neighbors but to a higher standard. The public wants us to come here and debate how we educate our children, how we serve our veterans, how we build our roads, how we protect this Nation, how we spend those taxpayer dollars. That's what makes us strong--all these differing ideas coming together for a compromise and moving forward. If there is a perception that someone is enriching himself, it undermines our ability to do those things. We're not here today to pat ourselves on the back. This might be the only place where doing the right thing gets you kudos when it's expected of everyone else. So we're here to say that this is a victory, not for us, but it is one tiny step on a journey, which is about restoring the faith of the American people and the institution. They can believe with all their hearts that we are wrong. They cannot believe that we are corrupt. They will have us and we will pass and we will be dust, and this place--this building, this podium right here-- will still stand. That's what we're doing here today. So I implore folks, let's come together in a bipartisan manner. I agree with the gentlelady: I'm disappointed the political intelligence piece isn't in here; but as I said, I believe this is a first step. We can't wait for the perfect to move something forward, so I think it's a good bipartisan compromise. I implore my colleagues to join us on this first step. Give this win to the American public, and then let's get back in here and start working on jobs. Let's get back in here and start working on the national debt. Let's get back in here and figure out how we're going to protect this Nation and educate our children into the future. This lets us do that and, I think, shows the American public we can come together. Let's get it passed, and let's have the President sign it. Then let's get on to real business. With that, I would be remiss not to mention a person who was one of the original seven folks on this bill. Walter Jones has been our Republican colleague, and has been a stalwart supporter of this. This is a truly bipartisan piece. Ethics crosses the aisle. Our folks in here are good people who are coming together for the good of their citizens, and for that I am grateful for today.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from New York has a long history of service and was concerned about ethics before ethics were in vogue, and certainly before ``60 Minutes'' came on. All of us here enjoying in this people's House the incredible honor and responsibility and privilege that we have been given by our neighbors, we gather in here as teachers and soldiers, as microbiologists, as new Members, attorneys who join us here, and were sent here from across this Nation, from the plains of Minnesota to the high rises of New York City to the beautiful areas of Oregon. Our newest Member is joining us tonight. And the responsibility of standing here and self-governing calls the responsibility of us to conduct ourselves in a manner not just equal to every other Member, every other citizen, but to a higher level. And the absolute perception, whether real or not, the perception that Members of Congress or elected officials are somehow using their office to profit, or somehow tipping people to profit for themselves, is not only an affront to our neighbors who sent us here, it's a cancer on the democracy. This institution and deliberative self-government will survive long before us. The giants who came before us and the words that we stand in front of, they will last into the future. This institution requires us to conduct ourselves in this manner. So that's why, coming from the high school classroom as a teacher, one of the first people I met in this Chamber was the gentlewoman from New York, and she knew that I was sent here to try and do things differently; yes, to be passionate about how we see our political differences, to be passionate about how we educate our children, how we care for our veterans, how we build our highways, how we bring about a system of health care that's fair, and to respect our neighbors and to respect our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their differences, but what's happened and what the American people have lost faith in is not the idea of democracy, but the idea that we all play by the rules. So I think it's important, when the gentlelady from New York speaks and speaks about this idea of tightening the rules on insider trading, she's talking about protecting the democracy. She's talking about making sure no one gains access, so that when the teacher walks through the door, when the microbiologist walks through the door, when the attorney walks through the door and they're representing 650,000 people in their district, that those constituents know the decisions we make are based on what's best for the Nation, the things we talk about are not being used to enrich someone personally, because it's not only wrong--and now, after tomorrow, we're going to, hopefully, say illegal--it also is so undermining to the system. So I think this debate, and this decision we have, the gentlewoman's point goes much deeper than what's possible politically; it's what's required of us. And what we're asking for, and what the gentlelady has so eloquently talked about, is just give us the opportunity to talk this through. The genius of this system put us here. It put the Senators on the other side of this great Capitol, and it told us to get together. They passed a piece of legislation. We compromised over here with something. Let's bring them together. And the argument being made on political intelligence and supporting the system is absolutely correct. I think today, and I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, none of us here are patting ourselves on the back and saying, Look, we passed the STOCK Act. The gentlelady's worked at it for 6 years. It feels like a sense of accomplishment not for her, for me, or our colleagues who have been stalwart supporters. It's an affirmation to the American public that the system works, and they owe us to do the best job we can before we move that forward. So this isn't, Good job, we passed a bill to do the right thing. Americans live by this rule every day. What we did was we closed a loophole that existed, and we went further and talked about how could this be construed to enrich others and corrupt the democracy. So you're hearing terms like ``political intelligence.'' What we're saying is, do it in the light of day. Sunshine cures many ills. And so I support the gentlelady's point. I support it because I know it didn't come about by a born-again ethics. It came about by years and a lifetime of not giving the sermon but living the sermon. So I ask my colleagues, listen to what's being said here. Take this into consideration. Compromise. Get this to the Senate, and then let's give the American public a real unique gift in this political environment, a win on something important that makes them believe that things can be better. We owe that to them.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. As the American people watch us here, the previous gentleman from Florida was right in that the frustration levels are as high as they've been with this sacred institution, with this idea of self-governance. It would be a lot easier if we didn't have to go through all of this. I hear some of my constituents sometimes say, We need to get rid of some of you Members of Congress. There are too many of you. I say, Why think small? Get rid of all of us and name a king. Then we don't have to do a dang thing, do we? They can think for us. The idea is coming here together to self-govern ourselves. And the gentleman and all the speakers were right: It's about the integrity of this institution. It will be here, and it will stand when we are long gone and forgotten. Our children will inherit this place and the things that happen here. The integrity of this institution stands above all else. That's why when I walked through this door, coming out of a classroom in Mankato, Minnesota, after a career in the military and in teaching, I was approached by Louise Slaughter who said, You were sent here to do things differently. It's about making this place work, and I've got a bill for you. And for 5 years, Louise and I and seven others have tried to make this case. So I am pleased today that it's here. It's not perfect. As one of our former colleagues, Dave Obey, used to say, Of course it's not perfect. You'll get perfect in heaven. And this place is a lot closer than hell, so let's take a compromise. Let's get something done for the American public that restores their trust, and then lets move on to debate the important issues of employment, of caring for our veterans, of educating our children, of securing our Nation. Louise Slaughter has been there every step of the way. This was not a twelfth-hour comeback to the righteousness thing. Louise has lived this way. When she says this issue of political intelligence and gathering here is undermining our markets and our trust, she knows something about it. We're going to make a compromise. We're going to move a piece of legislation forward that is a step on a journey, not a destination. It is a quest towards a more perfect union. This is one small step. This is the only place in the world where doing something right lets us pat ourselves on the back. This is what Americans do every day. We need to assure them we're there. But this offering of adding this piece is all part of the bigger puzzle. I am in full support. I am proud to serve with the gentlelady from New York. She has been a champion. And it's not about our political differences. I thank all the Members here who spoke eloquently about restoring faith in this. The public wants us to come here and debate differences for the direction of our country. They don't want us to tear each other down, and they don't want us to game the system.