journal." later, live coverage of the house as members continue work on the stock act, a bill to ban insider trading by members of congress and their staff. and in about 45 minutes, we will hear from colorado democrat diana degette and louisiana republican steve scalise about the host: in just a few hours, the house is in at 9:00 a.m. to work on the insider trading bill, as well as the payroll tax cut. the conservative political action committee kicks off its annual d.c. conference today. and the healthcare rules regarding contraception continue to be an issue with more press conferences being held today. all that will be covered by c-span, but we want to start with the house passing the line-item veto yesterday.

want to get your opinion on that piece of legislation, whether you support support it, oppose it, if you think it's constitutional or not. 202 is the area code. 737-0002 for republicans. 737-0001 for democrats. and independents, 202-628-0205 is the number for you to call. please allow 30 days between your calls. you can contact us electronically as well. by email, or by twitter. no hyphen in c-span in that case, and no hyphen on our facebook cage, facebook facebook/cspan, where you can continue the conversation. here is the "washington times" this morning, reporting on the line-item veto, "house passes bill giving president line-item veto." the house has taken the unusual move of agreeing to cede some of its highly guarded

pursestring power to the white house, voting wednesday to give the president a modified line-item veto on spending bills.

host: this article goes on to say that this is not the first time that a line-item veto has been passed. republican-controlled congress passed line-item veto authority in 1996. president clinton used the authority 82 times and congress overrode his veto in 38 cases. but in 1998, the supreme court declared the law unconstitutional saying that congress -- not the executive branch -- weeleds the authority to control federal spending. well, one of those opposing the line-item veetsandow voted against it yesterday was representative hal rogers, a republican of kentucky and chairman of the appropriations committee. here he is. >> not only does the line-item veto fly in the face of our constitution and the framers' protections, but budget experts also doubt its effectiveness as a spending reduction tool. look back to congress' experience with the line-item veto under president clinton. he wielded this authority to little effect, in saving

taxpayers' dollars. in fact, congress declared that the "misuse," that he misused that authority and overturned nearly half of his cancellations. so, to summarize the line-item veto, it's likely to be abused and not likely to save money. >> the bill passed the house yesterday by a vote, 254-173, 197 republicans joining 57 democrats, 41 republicans and 132 democrats opposed the measure. the vote caused some oddities in the tally. minority leader nancy pelosi broke ranks and supported the measure, as minority whip steny hoyer, james clyburn, and john larson voted against it. a similar bill was filed last year by senator mccain and harper, a delaware democrat, and has 42 cosponsors. what duppinge about the house passing this legislation? we're going to begin with a

democrat in michigan. brian, you're on the "washington journal." good morning. caller: good morning to you. i just don't think that it's going to pass muster in the courts. it happened last time, it was challenged by the republicans. it's going to be challenged by somebody, and they're going to find it's not constitutional, a constitutional means of opinion. host: what's your pick -- what's your opinion of it though? caller: my opinion of it is that i think the chief executive should have line-item veto rights. maybe it would save some money and save us some embarrassment down the line. host: and one of our twitter followers agrees with you. this is anthony, who says line-item veto is unconstitutional, or he doesn't agree with you -- well, he does agree with you in the sense, even with president that i like. next call comes from utah, pat on our independent line. pat, what do you think about the line-item veto? >> i think it's probably a good thing, as long as the senate and house have the ability to challenge it should it be misused. i think that's important.

i think we're going to have to have a balanced budget amendment at some point, and in order to do that, we're going to have to use something similar to this. it's kind of sad that we have to do that, but we haven't learned that we've got to live within our budget. we just don't seem to get that. but i do think it's something we're going to use in one form or another. do i believe in a balanced budget amend snment yes, and i think this might be a way to get to there. host: thank you. caller: maybe we'll quit spending ourselves in a hole. host: cliff is from california. good morning. caller: hi. the president will veto it. reid will not allow it to get through his senate. reid has announced he will not be passing a budget for the third year. steny highwayer, number two in house -- steny hoyer, number two in democrat leadership, has said that passing a budget is

not needed in times like these. we just have a complete ax of leadership in the white house. host: and you can see the history of the line-item veto, 1996 it was first passed. president clinton used it 82 times. congress overrode president clinton's veto 38 times. and it saved almost $2 billion before being declared unconstitutional. some of our facebook comments this morning, danny says i don't think it should be done because they develop laws in committees, and that shouldn't be undone so easily. jesse says, i think it is great if they use it to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. and peter says, a hopeful step to the post-obama presidency, america reset, sign of good things to come. middletown, connecticut, tricia on our democrats line. what do you think about the line-item veto being passed? >> caller: i was just thinking about what they're doing, if

you know the bible, all money belongs to god. host: next call, victor in new york city, another democrat. hi, victor. caller: thank you for c-span. you do a good job. but in a sense, the house is sort of passing the buck here and their responsibility. but i think that's ok. you know, we need more tools to save money and cut the deficit, and perhaps this is just another one, another tool. you know, for example, if you allow me real quick, this pipeline, the pipeline that we already have, the alaskan pipeline can be seen from outer space, right? it's not a small matter, yet republicans want to just rush it through. why the rush? it reminds me of the rush into

the iraq war due to some cockamamie weather, you know, scenario, that we had a rush in. this pipeline is not nothing, and, you know, there's no guarantee that oil is going to be consumed here in the united states. it's going to go on to the world market. host: we're going to leave it there because we're talking about the line-item veto. you tied in a couple of other topics. john is from chantilly, virginia, here in the suburbs. good morning, john. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i think politicians are playing -- they're playing games with us. the reality of it, line-item veto has been used by every president. americans should never worry about it. they should worry about how you create jobs. these guys should sit together, work together, and create jobs. this is not the interest of the united states. this country needs jobs, not line-item veto to argue about

whether the president can use it or not. host: the associated press just reporting in that president barack obama on thursday will free 10 states from the strict requirements of the bush-era no child left behind law much the move goes long-sought leeway to states that promise to improve how they prepare and evaluate students. the white house official says the states are colorado, florida, georgia, indiana, kentucky, massachusetts, minnesota, new jersey, oklahoma, and tennessee. that announcement is expected a little later today. and wnd.com, worldnetdaily.com, is reporting that 20% of republicans are leaning to obama. critics of barack obama, 2012 has been portrayed as a do or die year for the country, an election that will determine whether america stays on the road to european-style socialism or veers right to reclaim its position as the most vibrant economy in the

world and the home of individual liberty, but the 2012 election is looking more like a replay of 2008 than a do-over. the latest wnd poll shows none of the current crop of republican presidential candidates has solidified the base of the party with one in five g.o.p. voters leaning towards support of obama in november. and wnd is a conservative website. jacksonville, florida, robert on our democrats line. what do you think about the house passing the line-item veto this morning? robert, you with us? we're going to let that go. we can't hear you. nashville, tennessee, you with us? caller: yes, i'm here. host: what do you think about the line item veto? caller: i think if you have 100 good items and one that's horrible, then there shouldn't be -- you know, one at a time. there's enough paper to have each field separate.

yes, i'm here in nashville, tennessee. caller: host:, yes, i'm listening to you. caller: i wonder why they have to have so many items that you have to have 100 good ones and one bad one that's terrible and veto it. host: all right, rocco. just a reminder to our viewers to turn down the tv because there is a daily, and you can hear everything through the telephone. thank you very much. poconos, pennsylvania, robert, independent line. what do you think about the line-item veto? >> caller: well, i think it's a good thing. for one thing, it establishes responsibility. we live in a time where the answer to the problems of spending is more spending. what's the answer to that? more massive debt. it just keeps going, and it's spiraling out of control. so i suppose it could be a step in the right direction. but, you know, truth be known,

as far as i'm concerned, the whole thing needs to be regarded as a ron paul supporter. i think wee seen what business as usual has brought us. and it brought us to this point. can anybody say that they're doing a good job down there? host: all right, that was robert in pennsylvania. a couple of twitter comments. gary says congress isn't capable of doing what's needed, to is needs the president to stop them. we need people capable of making tough choices. this comment from mike, line item is a gimmick. ledge force need to take a long constitutional look not at who is in office now. well, the lead story this morning in the "new york times" is this, $26 billion deal is said to be set for homeowners. nelson schwartz is a business reporter with the "new york

times." mr. schwartz, what is this deal? how is it developing? who does it benefit? guest: basically this deal has been in the works for more than a year. the negotiations have taken place between state attorneys general, h.u.d., d.o.j., and the five biggest mortgage servicers. so the idea of the deal is to hold the banks accountable for the mortgage servicing abuses people may have heard about, like robo-signing, where, you know, these evictions were done with barely an examination of people's documents. so that investigation has been going on since the fall of 2010. and they reached an agreement to settle those claims. the banks are going to provide

about $26 billion in credit and principal reduction. refinancing, plus payments to stay. the idea is to help people who are delinquent and who owe more than their houses are worth, and while at the same time there's going to be checks to about 750,000 or so people who are foreclosed who already lost their homes between -- that would be between the beginning -- or september 2008 and the end of 2011. they'll receive about $2,000. host: each? guest: each. host: and mr. schwartz, is this separate than what the obama administration announced last week regarding helping homeowners? guest: yes. think of it as sort of another

frong of the same effort. they're trying to get the housing market going again. the plan announced last week is aimed at people who are still current on their mortgages and who are looking -- you know, who need help, but are still current, not delinquent, not in danger of foreclosure. this is more aimed at people who are behind on their payments, you know, want to get a loan modification, or may have already been foreclosed. host: now, you say in your article that california and new york were the two big holdouts. what were their objections to it, and have they agreed to sign on? >> guest: both were concerned that this agreement gave the banks too much of a pass, you know, in terms of future investigations. i mean, the banks wanted to sort of what they call a release, which, basically once the bank is settled these claims, they couldn't be

investigated by the states for the same claims. they wanted that kind of indemnity. the california, new york, especially new york, felt like it went -- you know, those went too far. so those were kind of reined in a bit. california wanted the ability to pursue these banks under their false claims act. so if there was improper securitization, putting the mortgages together in securities, they could investigate the mortgage servicers under that and recover money for like the big state pension funds. host: and you say also that the final details are supposed to be announced wednesday or worked out, i'm sorry, today. when should we expect an announcement on this? guest: the last i heard is we could get a deal announced later this morning, in washington. host: and finally, there's a --

in "the wall street journal" this morning, there's another article that i wanted to ask you about. i don't know if this is something you cover or want, but there's a headline that says banks can face lawsuit by u.s. federal security regulators claim to warn several major banks that they intent to sue them over mortgage-related actions link toed financial crisis. host: is this related, do you know? guest: well, again, it's part of the same effort to kind of -- some would say belatedly bring the banks, make the banks accountable for contributing to the housing boom and bust in the financial crisis. you figure this goes into -- this deal today, the one we talked about earlier, goes to

how people were foreclosed upon and people who -- the later end of the process, this s.e.c. thing, they're looking at how these mortgages were packaged by wall street banks and whether the banks should have known that a lot of these mortgages were going to people who couldn't afford them. and were improperly originated. it's sort of two sides of the same coin, if you will. host: nelson stwharts, business reporter for the "new york times," has the lead story this morning in that paper, nytimes.com if you want to read it for yourself. $26 billion deal is said to be set for homeowners. thank you. mr. schwartz. guest: thank you. host: and this is the hill's newspaper's article on the veto.

host: a democrat in staten island, what do you think? what do you think about the line item? caller: good morning, c-span. understanding it, i believe it should be a good thing. actually, it seems to be somewhat of a tool that they use to check each other, so it just shows that they're just playing games down there. they're not getting spew what's really going on. i would like to make a caller on the previous "new york times" article that you mentioned about the settlement with the banks and the suing of the u.s. to the mortgages. there are a lot of people out here who are not harmonious per se, but it's almost like they're occupied. they're living in houses,

taking care of the houses. they're doing things that normal homeowners would do. people have walked away from these properties, they're in line to possibly have to be evicted if all of this gets said. so what's going to happen to those individuals who are helping by occupying their property, taking care of the billed, taking care of the pipelines and taxes that are going on with the property? host: we're going to leave it there. thank you for calling in this morning. here is "the new york post." congress in latest gallup survey, the public's contempt for congress continues to grow. the poll's latest gauge of public sentiment of the job congress is doing sank to a record low.

host: there's this also, depend i incident nails. americans have grown more dependent on the federal government for help than any time in the nation's history. a staggers one in five americans rely on the feds for food assistance, income, student aid, housing, healthcare, college tuition, or retirement aid, the report by the conservative heritage foundation concluded. >> paul in lincoln park, michigan. hi, paul. >> well, the supreme court said

that the line item veto is unconstitutional. there's an easy way to accomplish the same thing, but they'll never do it. the constitution also says that the house and the senate get to make their own rules about how they pass legislation. all they have to do is make a rule that says any bill that spends money can only be for one purpose, and any amendments to it have to be germane to the legislation. they'll never do it, because that will also kill any ear marks that they want to put in. >> here is the democrat from maryland on the floor yesterday. >> i want to make clear. this is not a criticism. appropriations committee. this is a criticism of the process that we've had in this congress, whether you have democratic houses in control or

republicans in control. and what this bill does is try to provide a small fix to that process so that we have a little more scrutiny. the president can already propose savings. but under current law, the appropriations committee can totally ignore it. all this does is say let's take up those recommends savings in the light of day, have an up or down vote in the united states congress, and if we agree the president has identified additional savings that will help reduce the deficit. host: and back to your calls. valerie in berkshire, massachusetts, independent line. hi, valerie. caller: hi. my comment basically is that i do believe this is a bit of a ploy on the republican party's side considering the fact that their votes were substantially larger than the democratic votes for this bill to be passed.

to essentially corner obama, the open administration into having to make savings decisions where everyone knows that he's right now in the process of trying to continue to spend in order to later save. you know, save jobs and infrastructure improvements, and his basic spending patterns will be expressively ones that are geared towards spending now so that we can build ourselves up to a stronger position so that we can get stronger over time. and i just think that considering the fact that this is an election year, that's why they're largely supporting, pigeonholing him and making him have to make spending cuts and making him look as though he has not basically accomplished

that, even though he was given the opportunity to do. host: kathleen, massachusetts. you're on the air. coup hi. what i'd like to talk about is the balanced budget amendment. i'd like to -- just say, suppose we want to start a new war. maybe we can invade iran. suppose we want to finance this war with supplemental spending and just keep all that it costs off the books. remember, this is exactly what we did in iraq. how much interest on this borrowing money did all this un accounted spending cost? how much does this contribute to our massive deficit? the war morningers are the freeloaders on our economy. host: minneapolis is next. sarah on our republican line. sarah, what is your thoughts about the line-item veto the house passed yesterday? host: hi, good morning, yes. i was wrneding what the house requires a mandatory review.

because how i understand, living in the city of new york, that was a central problem. i was wondering if you're aware of that. host: why is that important to you? caller: how i understand this, going against the city of new york, that is why it was unconstitutional because the senate and the house was not reviewing what the president was vetoing in every situation. however, if they would review it both sign off on it, then it could be considered situation. that's how i understand it, but it may not be correct. so, i was wrneding if the house did require a mandatory review. host: that was an excellent question, which i have the answer. michelle in denver, independent line. what do you think? >> hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say president clinton did a you is t suburb job to

bring down the deficit. i think we need to think about ear marks, it's the job, job, job. host: that was denver. and this is dr. jo jo, i think. dr. jo jo tweets in, harry reid refuses to pass a budget. some democrats said don't need one. i don't trust any of them to be good stewards of our money. and stella says this is another attempt to consider the constitutional a thing of the past. they keep cutting around the edges to change it. no way. more facebook comments as well. evan says, i'm fine with the line-item veto. touchdown on ledger tos attaching stupid riders to wills that have no connection to the main purpose and only if the veto goes back for a chance at a majority majority override before the president can sign it into law. next call is from stuarts

draft, virginia virginia. charlie, how are you? >> my question is, what is it about the bettering of this bill that makes you nervous. host: well, according to the "washington times," it's because this is what they say regarding the previous 199 owe's line-item veto that did pass. the current bill's authors say it meets constitutional muster because congress could reject any spending cuts proposed by the president. under terms of the measure, the president would have up to 45 days after an appropriations bill passed to propose discretionary spending cuts of any amount. the revised measure then would receive consideration in congress and an automatic up or down vote without amendment. so that's from the washington

times. i hope that answers your question. jamestown, tennessee, gary on our republican line. line-item veto, what are your thoughts? caller: i approve of the long-item veto the house passed. he maintains our checks and balances that the government needs we need to work as long as the house and senate long ase house and senate to overlook the vetoes. whenever clinton had them, it was a line item veto, but the house did not look at it. i do approve of this. it can save money, if done right. host: miss lilly e-mails in -- ralph is a democrat in syracuse, new york. he says --

in "the washington post" --

mrs. in "the wall street journal" -- monroe, michigan. marilynn is a democrat. what do you think about the line-item veto? caller: this means they can put

in earmarks and whatever they want to put in, under cover. what is going on with that? host: the president can delete out and fee to a certain items within the spending bill. caller: so, on a jobs bill that congress is trying to fight, the president can veto if they do not put in the right bills? host: the president can veto any bill he wants. caller: i understand that. why are they putting in bill that they know he will veto? i do not understand that. host: we are going to leave that as a rhetorical question. next phone call is from parker. what do you think?

it helps if i punch in the right number. sorry about that. parker. las vegas. good morning. caller: it seems to me ridiculous to pass a rating on congress. all the democrats are going to vote against republicans and republicans will vote against democrats. the rating would naturally benefit the republicans because they are in the majority of congress. i do not understand why the polling company does not tell you the facts of the poll, who they are pulling, how many democrats, how many republicans. host: the definition of a line item veto.

spring lake heights, new jersey. michael, we are talking about the line item veto. caller: thanks for taking my call. of course, the line-item veto is necessary. if you do not recognize the fact that republicans have tried to stymie the sky every chance they can get, and these attacks on the pipeline from canada, a fix to meet with another energy bill, despite the fact it will not do anything to improve her our energy options in this country, you have to understand something. this government is fixed. the people that are in opposition to the president, who i voted for -- i am never mr. republican. i voted for barack obama because he is the only hope we

have to bring back some semblance of normalcy to the individual vote meaning something anymore. a line item veto is necessary, because at this point, these guys are going to pay the every goddamn piece of nonsense they can get. the only way this country can cut back is to empower the president come in the face of republican opposition. host: patricia is an independent in wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch and listen carefully to the house, regarding the line item veto. i can say, even back in the clinton administration, i was for it. however, i can understand why they deemed it unconstitutional. since they added yesterday the

amendments of the house and senate, to be able to challenge whatever the president vetoed, i can agree with that. i think it would save money coming out special interests, such as earmarks. everyone remembers the bridge to nowhere. that was in one of our bills. we have to understand, these are pages and pages long with all of these things slipped in there. i have heard in the past, most of the house and senate do not have time to read it all before it comes to the floor of for a vote. all of these earmarks that are unnecessary spending get included. host: from the new york -- "the new york daily news" --

this is also from "the new york daily news" --

next call on the line item veto comes from hamdan, conn. caller: i think it is time for americans to get serious about the an electoral process. we actually need to vote for people who care about us, and not just big fix this -- business. it has to be in balance. perhaps congress need to look at alternative candidates. no seat is safe. if we want to support a democratic president, we should vote for democrats to help them get the job done. the fact that we do not

understand that eludes me. on a separate issue, i am surprised people do not understand why it is required catholic institutions, a lot of whom receive federal funding, would have to allow women to have birth control. host: that is an issue we will be discussing with our two guests this morning, diana degette, and steve scott lease. -- scalise.

that is in "the wall street journal." this is in "the new york times" -- redmond, ore.. rb is on the line.

what do you think about the line-item veto? caller: i think we should bring it back. our debt is a good example of why congress needs to be challenged. i do not know too much where it goes from there. i am rather stunned, really, at the caliber of conversation in america and how well we seem to understand how the argument runs, who is running it, who is in charge -- government runs, who is running it, who is in charge. considering the position of the find ourselves and, and how we are so gullible, misinformed,

easily led. i just wish people would step back and consider line-item would be more than just president obama. people that think in that way, my god, give him power. i do not know. i have seen governments that have cost us a lot worldwide. host: we will go to our last call on this topic. bill is a republican in orlando, fla. caller: longtime watcher, a first-time caller. i was a stone cold liberal when i started watching. i have just joined the military in the 1970's. this line item veto may go down

as one of the best pieces of legislation that have come up lightly. it will tell everyone who is telling the truth. host: thanks for calling in. on page of "the washington times" and their top story. this is talking about the conservative political action committee, sea-tac -- cpac, which begins its meeting today. coming up, steep scalise of indiana will be here to talk about the social issues being talked about now in washington, as well as the health care rules

on contraception. diana degette is up next, and that is what she will be talking about. she is a democrat from colorado. we will be right back. >> when i first part of the book, i thought, this is an american story, a country that worships the idea of self- reliance and individual listen. it turns out, we are laggards. it is in fact, much more common in european and scandinavian countries, and even more common in japan. >> we look at the growing trend of american adults choosing to live alone, and what that means

for the country. also this weekend, sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of condoleezza rice, on her work to reduce gang violence in l.a. and starting a dialogue between gang leaders and police. and then george 10 university's bonnie morris. >> in here than 60 days, japan will lower its combined corporate rate to 14%. that leaves the u.s. with the highest corporate tax rate in the highest -- in the industrialized world. this dubious distinction will make that much more difficult to attract businesses at home. >> someone is saying that seen this tax made is like seeing sausage made. you do not want to see it. >> it is time for businesses to

put aside our industry-specific wish list and time to work together for a more coherent and equitable tax policy and taxation structure. house, ways, and means to cut corporate taxes for publicly traded companies and how to look and jobs growth. follow the discussion on line at the video library. host: joining us here is diana degette, democrat of colorado. she is a member of the energy and commerce committee, as well as co-chair of the house pro- choice caucus. she is here to talk about some of the issues around planned parenthood and the rules regarding contraception with the

health care law. first of all, i want to ask you about the investigation that your chairman has instigated against planned parenthood. this is a letter he sent back in september to cecile richards of planned parenthood, saying he was investigating. were you aware of this, were you supportive at the time? guest: as you may recall, there were allegations that planned parenthood had come and go public and private money. 97% of what they do is prevention, breast cancer screenings, and by that. they are allowed to use public money for that. 3% of what they do is abortions, and they cannot use public money for that, only private money. the chairman wanted to know whether planned parenthood was combing going their private and private -- public money.

he sent a letter to the head of planned parenthood, and she responded by producing many pages of documents showing the audits are correct, that planned parenthood does not coming of these moneys. henry waxman, who is on the committee, sent a letter to my chairman saying this investigation was unwarranted, and called for, and asked him to cease and desist. since last september there has been no activity. in my opinion, the chairman request was satisfied, and the investigation is moved. host: -- moot. host: is there any connection to that and what happened recently to the susan g. komen

foundation? guest: the reason for taking away funding for planned parenthood was there was a congressional investigation. i think they were referring to that letter that was sent. but that was six months ago. i have seen no activity in my subcommittee. i think there was a request for documents, which was satisfied, and we have gone down the road now. host: the white house, in regard to the health care law, contraception rules, do you support the white house's position on perhaps extending the waiver for religious organizations? guest: i think we should have science-based policies as we implement the affordable health care act. the national institutes of health found first control and

pregnancy prevention, family planning, were a core part of women's health care services. in these service exchanges, that is part of what had to be offered in the insurance policies to american women. just as there are in 28 states, the department of hhs, secretary sebelius said we will give a narrow religious exemption for, say, a church opposed to providing birth control coverage, if their employees are all of the same religion. they would not have to offer it. but if the church decide to go away from its core mission of religion and decides to start a business, such as a hospital, university, insurance business, that they would have to comply with the all -- the laws that all other businesses have to comply with.

let's say a captured its sides to set up a soup kitchen. they have to comply with anti- discrimination laws, tax laws, every other law if they are doing a business that a separate and apart from their core religious mission. host: in "usa today" this morning, it says it is no consolation for religious leaders. the general counsel of the u.s. council of catholic bishops -- guest: the catholic bishops are

apparently saying, because and mirror group of catholic bishops cannot believe they should offer birth control coverage for the millions of american women who use it. it should be removed entirely from the health care law. that is not a tenable position. there already was a compromise which the press has, frankly, overlooked. the rule gives an exception for religious institutions and their employees, like the local catholic church, or any other church with a religious objection. but if they are going to go off and have a separate business. for example, a university. i know george and university student will have a rally today. many of those that go to georgetown are not catholic. even the catholics and go to georgetown university want to have the choice to buy birth control or not.

we are not talking about abortion, we are talking about family planning. 95% of catholics use family planning methods. the question i have is, where does the conscious rest? does it rest with the individual buying the insurance policy, the university, or does it rest with the individual who makes their own personal decision, do they want to buy up birth control coverage or not? i think it is the latter. host: this is "the new york daily" lead.

guest: i agree with "the new york daily news" that the administration should be able to offer policies that reflect their philosophy. but if they are born to go out and have a separate business that is not essential to their core religious mission, it seems to me to get attenuated, at that point. and there is that kind of exemption in the law. last week, when we had the komen first cancer issue, my social media, facebook, a twitter, was lighting up without rage from women that komen would pull funding. this week, it is radio silence.

the women of america do not see why this is such a big deal. it is birth control. virtually every american family has used at at some time or another. people are asking, why should that be part of my health insurance? it is part of the health care i am getting. host: diana degette is a democrat from colorado, member of the energy and commerce committee. first phone call comes from baltimore. frank is on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the first thing i want to say, i think the congresswoman is very wrong when it comes to the freedom of religion. no congresswoman, no president has the right to force me to support something that is against my religion. it is unconstitutional.

the other thing is, when it comes to the susan g. komen institute donation, my donations to cancer, which is different from abortion, should not go to funding other abortions. the last thing i want to say is, there are a lot of conservative women in the congress who can be invited on to c-span to speak on this issue. i would like to bring up a male conservative congressmen. it is not a good match against a liberal woman. you should invite some other congresswomen who is conservative. host: thank you for that suggestion. representative degette? guest: when it comes to a group like komen, a private

foundation, people should be able to donate whether they want to or not. i will not be -- tell people whether they should go into a private foundation or not. i do think this situation last week brought up the situation of -- issue of research. if people are going to donate to any nonprofit foundation, they need to find out what their money is being used for. is it being used for research, how much is being used for research, and then decide whether they will donate their money or not. that is a personal decision. i will not tell them what to do. host: beaver falls, pennsylvania. tin is a democrat. caller: i am almost sorry to call. she speaks so well. she is just amazing. host: why? caller: she is so clear on it.

it is so sad that individual liberty is frowned upon by republicans. i do not understand that because they are always talking about liberties. but institutional liberties, corporations, big churches, they are all for that. i do not understand that. it just does not make sense to me. i am 63 years old. i have worked in a catholic institution, when i first got out of the service. i will tell you, that is a very authoritarian place. a lot of the lower paid workers have nothing. i mean nothing. no freedom, no ability to organize, fear to organize. it is just so sad. this is america. i do not understand it. caller: there are about 3 million american women that

would be affected by this rule. work for religious organizations the court church organizations, church hospital systems, and some of them are catholic. they could lose their ability to get family-planning. there are the ones who should be deciding. those employers have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws. they will have those secondary type of businesses. this is a part of that. host: the speaker yesterday spoke on the house floor. [video clip]

>> an objection to a rule put forward by the obama administration that constitutes an attack on religious freedom in this country. employers like catholic charities in schools and hospitals would have to provide services they believe are immoral. those services include abortion and inducing drugs and contraception. the government has gone beyond its constitutional boundaries, the encroaching on religious freedom and harms some of our most vital institutions. host: diana degette, your response. guest: i don't think the speaker must have read what the proposed rule is.

many of the things he said are in there are not in there. catholic hospitals would have to cover abortion-inducing drugs. that is not correct. this is part of the continuum of women's care. with this rule says is we should have family planning, birth control, pregnancy prevention as part of the core of women's health services. if you have a strong program of family planning, you avoid unnecessary abortions, and that is everybody's goal. 90% of catholic women have used some kind of birth control -- 98%. to say that is not a part of women's health -- we have

gynaecologist and doctors, and to talk about how family planning and birth control is essential to women's health because it helps avoid so many other physical problems as well as help a woman plan her family. i think people need to stop grand standing around this issue and they need to talk about what it is that this rule does. host: we have a tweet from darrell. host: we have an e-mail from joan from vermont.

guest: i do not think that is accurate as the health care bill is going to be implemented. another part of the affordable care at says you cannot discriminate against people for gender. insurance companies charge many women more money for their insurance policies because they might have a baby. we have some insurance companies tell us that if you require birth control and family planning to be covered, insurance premiums will go down because you're not having unwanted pregnancies the result in a lot of medical expense. host: next call comes from west virginia, kristin on our republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. gettingprised we're away from freedom of religion. whether it is a business or church is separate from the government and the government does not have that kind of control. what about the vouchers -- i should say exemptions that have been given to the unions, big unions that religion cannot wonder? go under? why is this such a big issue for the democrats and make it sound like you are denying care. you're mandating free birth control. how was that legal? guest: 28 states mandate that

insurance policies cover birth control in those states. dislike with anything, if a religion -- just like with anything, there are many more tenants of the religion that can be exercised within the church itself. that is why the administration is very sensibly excluded th ose folks from having to cover birth control. the people who work at the churches tend to be the same religion and have the same believfs. the courts have said those provisions are going to institute separate type of businesses. catholic charities is a good example. they do have to comply with the same laws. this has been litigated in

court. the courts have said if there will be broader and businesses, they have to be able to let the people who work for those businesses exercise their own conscience. where does the -- where is the conscious attached? is it attached to the individual? host: representative degette got her law degree at new york university. she's in her eighth term representing denver. robert is on the air. caller: do the insurance companies reduce the premiums for the catholic church or any

if that is the question, maybe we could get a lower premium for men who do not want any pregnancy coverage. guest: well, actually, what happened was the institute of medicine said family-planning and birth control is an essential part of women's health care services. it is part of what women need to have to have good health care. they said it is an essential part and it has to be covered under insurance policies. some of the actuaries say not offering birth control would make the cost of insurance policies go up because there be many more unplanned pregnancies and that would cost a lot more in terms of maternal care and delivery and so on.

from a cost perspective, it will probably reduce the insurance cost if you offer a family planning to everybody. host: was the komen foundation decision on planned parenthood, was that a politically motivated decision? guest: i have looked at it and i thought it had to be politically motivated decision because the komen foundation has for many years given planned parenthood money for breast cancer screening. planned parenthood is maybe the largest provider of preventative health care for women in the country. suddenly it six months after this letter from the german, the komen foundation announced -- from the chairman.

i have been very active in promoting embryonic stem cell research over the years. the komen foundation posted on its website an article saying embryonic stem cell research is one of the most promising research avenues for curing breast cancer last fall. they announced they were not going to give money for breast cancer screening and said they would not pay for embryonic stem cell research. that has since been taken down. i think it was part of a political agenda. i'm hoping komen is beyond that now and that they realize that women want to have science- based research and want to have breast screening at planned parenthood. host: have you been a supporter

of komen in the past? guest: all of us have. host: this is how they divide up their money and their services, according to komen. host: they have received federal funding since 1970 and federal money cannot be used for abortion by law. guest: planned parenthood in some areas of the country, it is the only entity providing well women visit and an annual exam

for women. i spoke with a woman from montana and she said there is no other clinic within 300 miles of where she lives or she can get pap smear.yoa host: next call comes from dallas. jackie is a republican. caller: good morning. everybody is making such a big deal about the catholic church. anytime a religious organization transfers into which you would call a private enterprise like the hospitals, why shouldn't they be required to provide services? why is some of the companies

like the federal government and social workers -- do you know that women -- birth control is not covered but a man's by ag va and all that kind of stuff is covered? most women do not get birth control. host: we will leave it there. guest: in lot of people have said to me that this debate will be different if men were the ones facing a potential unwanted pregnancy. i met yesterday with a baptist minister who said exactly what jackie have just said. there's a lot of other religions and will have tenants, too. our conversations want to be able to buy health insurance

bedcovers their healthcare needs. host: jason from new york on our democrats line. caller: i want to comment on planned parenthood. this situation -- they want to say the president is taking over religion. i think it is a republican gimmick. guest: i think that certainly it fires up the republican base in an election year. people need to think about the millions of american women who will be affected by this policy. in this day and age, we are now in the 21st century. for us to be debate about whether people can buy health insurance bedcovers pregnancy prevention is almost a ludicrous thing.

people support this. host: we have a tweet. this is not about birth control. guest: i think it is important to balance religion and health care policies. the courts have held again when a religion is setting up a business that is not central to its core purpose, which is the worship of god, they have to comply with the laws that every other business have to comply with. it is not an absolute under the constitution. host: is birth control mandated to be part of the health insurance that an employer offers?

guest: what happened was on the affordable health care act, we said the institute of medicine will determine what the essential benefit of any insurance package should be. what the essential health care that any american should be getting if they are getting a high standard of health care. for every american, it would be annual checkups and different kinds of screenings. kinds of things people do when they going to get to and no exams. the institute of medicine sat down with a gynecologist and said what are the essential things that a woman needs for women's health? they had breast cancer screening, ovarian cancer screening and pap smears. they said birth control is a central park.

if you cannot -- is a central part. it would cause severe a fax to women's health if you cannot have that -- it would cause severe a effects. all other kinds of health care risks. this is andy essential part and must be covered under any insurance policy that is offered. >> arthur in pennsylvania. -- host: arthur in pennsylvania. caller: the church-run hospitals are there just to serve people physically. i don't care what the court rules. the court is wrong.

hospitals are there to treat people physically and spiritually. the hospitals are there as an extension of the church. we start meddling around -- this is an issue the country came into existence for at the first place, and that is religious freedom. guest: remember what we're talking about. we have had sometimes a painful debate about what services religious hospitals have to provide. if a woman walks into a hospital bleeding to death, do we require the hospital to perform an abortion? these are difficult issues and hard to think about. this is even a step beyond that. do these systems that are run by

a religious institution, do they have to provide insurance plans that cover what has been scientifically determined to be a full range of women's health care. ann you're talking about insurance plan for the employee, i think the employee of that hospital should be exercising their conscience. they might be any religion at all of them might say, i want to have birth control or a do not. to me, it should not be the employer putting that on to the employee. it should be the employees deciding that. host: and finally, we have a tweet --

guest: i -- i resent in this characterization that this is an attack on the church. look at what the administration did. they made an attempt to balance the needs for a full health care by women against the very real religious concerns of the church. that is what one may announce the permanent role, they do have an exemption for religious institutions. some people have argued to me that they should not have that exemption for religious institutions because this is women's health care. if you have a church and the employee of that church abide by the precepts of that church, then they should not have to offer that coverage. i think that is a good

compromise. the church has very much been taken into account. the interest have been balanced. preserving the ability of american women to get birth control, which is part of their will woman care -- their well women care. host: moving a bill soon that would repeal the mandate. the policy requires some organizations to cover contraception in their health care plan. guest: this is a debate. i'm sure we'll have this debate began. if everybody looked at what this will was and is, this is an attempt to balance those important religious freedom issues against the issues of

fall and comprehensive women's health care. we're talking about family planning and birth control. that is something almost every american family has dealt with. host: we have been talking with diana degette. thank you very much for being on the "washington journal." we will continue this conversation in just a minute with steve scalise. >> john mccain says the syrian government is "killing its own people." he said the united states should find ways to help the syrian people without putting boots on the ground. he would not send nato troops into syria.

he is the senior republican on the senate arms committee. the pentagon is changing its rules on allowing women to serve in jobs closer to the front lines. women have been fighting and and afghanistanq for a decade. an announcement is expected later today. joseph kennedy iii has moved to a different suburb to replace barney frank. he came to town hall on tuesday and register to vote as a democrat, listing in brookline as his address. he is looking at a possible run for the seat.

those of some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> when i first started the book, i also thought, this must be an american story. this is about a country that worships the religion of self- reliance and individualism. this is a legacy of thoreau and emerson. but it turns out that we are laggards when it comes to living alone, that it's in fact much more common in european nations, especially in scandinavia. and it's even more common in japan. >> on "after words," in "going solo," eric klinenberg looks at the growing trend of american adults choosing to live alone, and what that means for the country. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. also this weekend on book tv, sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state condoleezza rice, connie rice, on her work to reduce gang violence in l.a. and starting a dialogue between gang leaders and police. and at 8:15, georgetown university's bonnie morris on her one-woman play and book of the same name, "revenge of the women's studies professor." book tv, every weekend on c-span

2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us is representative steve scalise to continue our conversation about the health care rules. there was a letter that was sent to kathleen sebelius. latest decision to make contraceptives sterilization and abortion coverage is an unprecedented overreach by the government that infringes upon rights guaranteed by the first amendment. why? guest: most americans are offended that this is an opportunity for the government to trample on religious freedoms.

we find this highly offensive that the obama administration can now with this rule and there was internal debate over this and they realize this would offend catholics and they did it anyway. they don't have respect for religious freedoms. there would force a religious organization to provide abortion-inducing drugs as part of a basic health care plan. that violates the religious freedoms. host: we want to get your reaction about what jay korff had to say -- jay carney. [video clip] >> yes today, when this decision was announced, secretary sebelius said it will continue to work closely with ledges

groups to discuss their concerns. 28 states have similar requirements. eight states don't have the exemption that this provision requires for churches and houses of worship. we want to work with them to implement this policy. let's be clear. the president is committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra cost no matter where they work. guest: you could see what the white house intended with this. they don't care about people's religious freedom. there will force this mandate on religious organizations. this is an about contraceptives.

this is about religious freedom. nobody should be forced to violate their own conscience to comply with american law. host: what about the states -- the 28 states. guest: no state has this kind of intrusive mandate. there is a narrower exception for the church. they would have to buy their own conscience if they ran a hospital. they know that this is an overreach. they decided they didn't care about people's religious freedoms. this is not the way america was founded.

host: we have a tweet. guest: that is the slippery slope. once government starts to mandate what you can do even if it violates your religious beliefs -- there are 10 different amendments to the constitution. this is the first one that was guaranteed under the bill of rights. we cannot point to let it stand in the house -- we cannot let it stand in the house. host: hot-button social issues back onto radar. the front page of "the washington times." guest: i don't think this is a

political issue. this gets at the heart of our freedoms. our founders declared war against england over was religious freedom. that is why it is in the constitution. the president wanted to appease a certain group. this is most offensive to so many people. host: representative steve scalise is in is there a term in new orleans. the first call comes from florida, karen. caller: i think this debate points out why our insurance should not be placed without employers. if we had a universal health

care system, anybody can be covered for their health care totally and not be subject to the whims of what their employer believes. this points out the flaw in the system. bring it on. guest: this is not a war on anybody. this is a war on religious freedom and that is what we're trying to fight. i support to reforms to health care that give individuals more freedom. this is something that i agree with, to give individuals more freedom and so they have more options to choose a health care plan that best fits their family.

we have legislation we are pushing to try to do that. we have to repeal the present cost health care law. host: the gop is looking at legislation to repeal this. guest: i was talking to the chairman of the house energy committee and we're going to be bringing legislation in our committee over the next few weeks to address this issue. we have called on the president to reverse this offensive ruling. i would hope the president would reverse it. he can do today. host: any thought this could open the door for other exemptions for other groups who may be objecting to other parts of the health care bill? guest: i want to repeal the entire law.

the roll approach to -- it made the problems worse. the bill has been scored to increase health care by about 10%. that goes in the wrong direction. i would like to lower the cost of health care and fix the things that are broke but keep the things that make our system the best. host: anita from chapel hill. caller: good morning. i will not vote for obama under any circumstance with his thinking. i wanted to say that i'm concerned about women in massachusetts wanted to give 11- year-old contraceptives in the school. woman under the age of 80 -- or

boys under 18 --that is an emotional issue when they are having a relationship. i feel insurance shouldn't cover 11- to 17-year-olds. i think they are too young and to be concentrating on that. we do not allow them to drink. about what you're talking is important to note. a big concern in the law was that the government is getting in the way between the relationship of a patient and doctor. it is dangers when the government tries to get between the relationship between a parent and child. host: we have been talking about

this as the catholic exemption. anita was a muslim. is there other groups that are interested in this? the catholic bishops have been out front on this. guest: the have been the loudest. i infer from somebody other faiths that feel the same way. even pro-choice people find this offensive as part of a mandate from washington, d.c. i think this transcends religious beliefs. host: this tweet -- guest: that is one of the proposals that i have supported

in general on health care. let individuals get the same tax benefits the corporations get so they can buy the health care plan that suits their family. that would lower cost that would give families many more options that are better suited to what they have today. guest: if you look at what we're dealing with on this you, it is not about a male issue or a female issue. the government is saying that a religious organization would be forced by the government to provide abortion-inducing drugs. that is in his ruling. i think the obama administration has crossed over a line that

people think the government should not be treading into. host: john from louisiana. caller: hello. guest: good morning. caller: i'm catholic and on the church board. all catholics in some form use birth control. the roman catholic church needs to step out of the 17th century and into the 21st century. catholics, if they want birth control, they will find it. if they do not, there will not. -- if they did not, they will not. this is not between church and state.

this is political nonsense. guest: callback and look at the first amendment -- go back and look. this guarantees the free exercise of individuals' religious beliefs. it is you're right not to agree with all the tenants of the catholic church. that's the beauty of america. you have to do something that violates it. you have to provide abortion- inducing drugs. that violates all the religious freedoms that america was founded upon. it goes way beyond an individual's belief in their own faith. it is whether the government to make these mandates on individuals or religious

organizations. host: ann from new york city. caller: i am outraged. when you talk about things that we have to do that we do not like that the government does, i'm not in favor of the wars, but my tax dollars go there. i think this is outrageous. guest: you're not forced to go out and buy anything. that will be the heart of the supreme court debate. the government is forcing you to go out and by government- approved health care as a condition of being a citizen. the issue here is whether or not

you can force a private institution to go and do something that violates their own religious beliefs. that is not something the constitution allows. host: planned parenthood has received $336 million. contraception accounts for about 1/3 of services. do you think the government should be giving money to planned parenthood? guest: i don't think the government should be giving money to organizations that provide abortions. host: the money cannot be used for abortions. guest: alton late to take a shell game -- ultimately it is a shell game.

if they want to do something the law allows them to do, that is one thing. i think most americans think that is another line that is crossed. there are the largest provider of abortion in the country. host: miami, a republican, denny. caller: the catholic church teaches artificial birth control is wrong. they teach abortion is wrong and birth control pills actually cause an abortion. they teach sterilization is wrong. if the government forces them to engage in these activities, how can they teach that these things are wrong? they will silence the catholic church.

i have some other points. they say the 28 states have laws similar to this. i would question whether they are similar. 28 wrongs do 28 wrongsdo not ma right. the fact that they have nationwide risen up and said no to this should explain just how grave the situation is. guest: denny, i agree strongly with you. it is rare that a catholic priest will call on congress to take action, called the parishioners to ask congress to take action. i want to commend the catholic church for being so vocal.

this is something that goes well beyond the catholic faith and so many others. this is an area that government should not be able to tread into. the catholic church said there will not comply with this law and they are challenging it in court. host: this is an e-mail for you, sir. guest: since the health-care law was passed, we have seen consolidations and the health- care marketplace because so many people are getting out. so many doctors have said they will get out of the practice of

medicine because they will not allow the government to tell them how to practice medicine. this is many doctors. look at what the law does. this rule is one of many offensive rules that are starting to roll out. there are tax increases on the middle class. there are many things offenses about the law. host: we have about 50 minutes left with our guest -- 15. steve from massachusetts. caller: i think everybody is missing the big picture on this. are these places of worship, or a church or business that provides health care? guest: you have many hospitals that are run by the catholic

church and other religious organizations. they will continue to provide health services. is the government going to be able to mandate that. that you then have to provide abortion-inducing drugs to your employees. that is not something the government has the right to do. that's the question. they want to be able to provide health care. they do not want the government tell you how to practice their religious beliefs. host: the government in its weekly employment news is reporting that the number of people seeking unemployment 8 fell.

host: rochester, new york, edward, republican line. caller: i am an african-american republican and i have problems with planned parenthood and their agenda. everybody need to know how they are a strong supporter to the democratic party. my daughter cannot get her to the cold without me or my wife's consent. the nonprint consent for my daughter to have an abortion without me and my wife knowing. i have problems with obamacare, a specialist with the mandate.

i do not want the government to tell me if i did not buy anything. i could be fined under obamacare if i buy those items. i do not understand what the democratic party would not allow you to purchase insurance over state lines. guest: thank you. you can buy your car insurance across state lines. difficult to buy health insurance across state lines. we need to do it liability reform. 1/3 of the tests that doctors run -- we passed a bill that would address that problem and save $100 billion a year. it is stuck over in the senate. there are common-sense solutions

to solve the problem and to ensure that nobody can discriminate against somebody based on a pre-existing condition. host: representative scalise, cliff stern sent a letter to planned parenthood last september asking for records and starting an investigation. did you support the investigation? guest: i do support that investigation and we will see if it leads to hearings. we have had a number of hearings. we're trying to find out what we can about planned parenthood. host: long beach, new york, grace. caller: good morning. i have a cold.

50 years ago i was put on birth control pills. that is how i conceived four children, because of female problems. i have two younger sons. to have a vasectomy is cheaper than to have a woman has of her tubes tied. i don't know about you people. host: that was grace in new york. amanda from kentucky. caller: good morning. i am a christian, not a catholic. we're worried about the catholic ability with birth

control. why don't you have investigations -- why don't we put bishops into jail for covering it up for years? that is what makes me mad. the republican party says they are a party of the christian faith. callback and read what jesus said -- go back and read what jesus said. it is scandalous that companies make money off of people with cancer and other diseases. i cannot understand -- see what the early church did. guest: you brought a lot of things that are unrelated to the topic of the government mandating abortion-inducing drugs be carried by any american. you talk about the abuses in the catholic church.

that is something that many of us have spoken out against. people have gone to jail for violating laws. should the government be able to violate the religious freedoms of any religious organization? not just the catholic church. president obama have brought together catholics and protestants and jews all for one, believe. host: we have a tweet from lee. guest: the a administration put in a narrow exemption just for religious organizations to be able to seek an exemption but that does not apply to the relief work that many organizations do. many organizations run schools.

it does not apply to the hospitals that many organizations run. there are so many individual employers, people who own small businesses that have those same religious beliefs that share those beliefs and they would be mandated to do this even under the exempt the president put out. the government should not be able to mandate. an american who owns a small business should not be forced to do the same thing. host: removing the permission from the healthcare law altogether. the problem would create --

host: frederick, los angeles. caller: i think one. you brought up -- this affects other religious organizations. when you have a mandate to say what kind of insurance to buy, you're opening up a hornet's nest. i cannot believe this country. i have a religious bias against psychotropic drugs. that may minority viewpoint. i have to buy insurance for a service on may never use -- i may never use. the government should get out of the health-care industry.

host: frederick in los angeles. guest: there are many democrat members of congress who voted for the president's health care law that also think this goes beyond what they voted for an of pilots promises that were made to them that these kind of mandates would not come out. it is natchez people of religious faith -- it is not just people of religious faith that think as many crosses the line. host: 5 minutes left with representative steve scalise. minot, north dakota. caller: i have one question. what gives my government the right to tell me everything i have to do? when is is going to stop? will it stop when i am only

allowed to have one child? when does this stop? guest: this is the first amendment in the bill of rights, the right to religious freedom. the government does not have this right. there are lawsuits out there that are challenging this. one group will be faced with about half a million dollars in fines if this mandate or to take effect and that was shut this down. so you have a christian university that the government will be shutting down. the government does not have the right to do this. we're calling on the president to stop this today. this is an attack on religious freedom. we hope he will do that. host: when do you see the

hearing starting? guest: within weeks. this is something that addresses the problem of across-the-board, not just an individual group of people but for every american that shares those same religious beliefs. host: we have a tweet from matt. next call, baltimore, rennie, a democrat -- randy. i. caller: this is a republican thing against the president. a hospital is not a church. this is all ridiculous. republicans are going too far. this is going to backfire.

will find out at the election what will happen. guest: i encourage you to go back and look at the ruling. this was not a republican ruling. kathleen sebelius issued the ruling and the president's had an internal debate with his own leadership including the vice president who let problems with this. the president decided to go forward and gave in to its radical left and did this anyway. we're talking about the people that run the hospital. any organization that runs a hospital. this is the employees of that hospital that the church will have to provide abortion- inducing drugs in their health care plan. that is what is at stake here.

host: or other employment discrimination laws at play here? -- are there employment discrimination laws apply here? guest: if they want to run their hospital, they turn around and say we will not comply with the law. does the government wants them to shop that possible down? if they are shut down, they cannot provide a good health care. there's a lot more at stake here. it is the people that used the services that will be shut down by the mandate. host: we have about 30 seconds left on the republican line. caller: ok. what gives the president of the united states or capitol hill the right to involve themselves in my freedoms, religious or

otherwise, when this country was not founded on communism? it was founded on a religious beliefs and american freedoms. guest: the president is trying to say that the health-care lot that he sign isn't that right. i want to appeal that law. the president does not have the ability to violate individuals' freedom. every individual has the right to believe in any religion they want and practiced how they choose. the president is trying to trample on that. host: representative steve scalise has been our guest and we appreciate you coming on the "washington journal." the house is coming into session early. they will be working on the insider trading bill.

guest: we plan to levy vote today on the-- we plan to have a vote today on the stock act. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] our conferees are trying to get a deal so that we have some certainty that people's taxes will not go up. hopefully the democrats in the senate will agree with us that this needs to happen. host: the house is now in session. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our

chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you once again that we, your creatures, can come before you and ask guidance for the men and women of this assembly. send your spirit, wisdom as they enter into a long weekend for constituent visits. may their ears and hearts be open to listen to the hopes and needs whom they represent. please keep all the members of this congress and all who work for the people's house in good health that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given to them by the people of this great nation. bless us this day and every day. may all that is done here this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. mr. lankford: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lankford: to address the house for one minute and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: madam speaker, with less than three weeks to go with the payroll tax extension expires, it's time that the conference committee bring up their proposal to the house and senate.

the house passed a full year extension on the payroll tax deduction, major reforms to the unemployment insurance and a two-year extension to the medicare doc fix eight weeks ago. since that time nothing has been done in the daylight to resolve this issue. our delay will cause companies all over the country to work overtime this month to revise their payroll formula. we should help the people who create the jobs around the country, not give them even more consternation. chad richardson, the c.e.o. of one company said, he's frustrated when we delay our decisions than dump on the last-minute work for them and thousands of companies around the country. if we expect american companies to pay their taxes on time, we should get the tax rates done on time. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker.

just a minute ago we heard our chaplain beseach us to be open to the hearts and minds of the people we represent. that is exactly why today we need to pass the stock act, to stop inside trading on congressional knowledge. ms. hochul: this has waited too long, madam speaker. my colleague from upstate new york, louise slaughter, has led the charge for this for six years. it's time for us to take action and not a watered down version. we should not give members an unfair advantage over americans who sent us here to represent them. this practice must stop. i am calling on my colleagues and the leadership, give us a bill we can support, put an end to this insidious practice and let us begin the long process of restoring the faith in this institution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker.

this school year marks the 50th anniversary for glen brook south high school in glen view, illinois. mr. dold: i want to congratulate them on this impressive achievement. over the past five decades, over 27,000 students have graduated and are now proud alums. glen brook south has a rich tradition of preparing students to be future leaders, including two of my team members here in washington, d.c. glenbrook south has received many accolades over the years and that is due in large part to the dynamic teachers, the families who support the school, the students who work hard to excell in academics, sports, music, debate and more. i've had the privilege of visiting with the students at gleanbrook south and talking with them about how their government works. i'm deeply impressed with the students' insights, their desire to get involved, to make the world a better place. congratulations, glenbrook south high school on your achievement. i know there will be many more

to come, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? mississippi castor: to address the house for one minute. -- ms. castor: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: thank you, madam speaker. i ask my colleagues to support the stock act when it comes up later today. the stock act is the stop trading on congressional knowledge act. it essentially bans members of congress from using their position and information that is not available to the general public for their own personal gain, such as purchasing stocks based upon information we learn from a briefing here on capitol hill. public office is a public trust , and rules that apply to our neighbors and americans all across the understand should equally apply to members of congress. i'd like to congratulate my colleague, congresswoman louise slaughter from new york, and

congressman tim walz from minnesota, who have worked on this legislation year in and year out. colleagues, we should all vote in favor of the stock act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this much-needed reform will increase transparency and accuracy in budgeting for federal credit programs like fannie mae and freddie mac. in addition, this reform will require fair value accounting for programs that make direct loans or loan guarantees. earlier this year with the solyndra debacle we found out when washington makes a bet the american taxpayer is often left with the bill. mr. crawford: since the financial crisis began, fannie mae and freddie mac have become the financial responsibility of

the federal government. however, the office of management and budget has not accounted for the fannie and freddie burden. this bill will fix that mistake. we have to be honest about how much we're really spending. this is a commonsense reform that will help lawmakers to be better stewards of our hardworking constituents' tax dollars. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today because i believe this congress needs to stop playing blame games and start working together to reignite the american dream by helping our nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs and empowering the thriving middle class. small businesses are the pulse of the american enterprise and the creators of jobs and economic growth up and down main streets across the united states of america. entrepreneurs are the dreamers, movers, shakers and builders

that take ideas and inventions and turn them into the manufacturing jobs of the future. and the thriving middle class, that is the underpinning support to make reigniting the american dream possible. a strong middle class leads to a strong america. the best functions democracies around the world share one thing in common, a thriving middle class. so, mr. speaker, i rise today to ask my colleagues to enact policies and legislation that achieve these ends, to reignite the american dream by building up our small businesses and encouraging our entrepreneurs and empowering our middle class. we can start by extending the payroll tax cut for the remainder of the year without delay and without games. i look forward to continuing to work toward these ends throughout the year. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker.

those who say that conservative opposition to the obama administration's rules on forcing religious groups to provide birth control coverage in their insurance plan is an assault on women are wrong and shortsighted. that rule is an assault on all americans and on the first amendment of the constitution. it remind me of a famous quote attributed to pastor martin miller. first they came for the communists and i didn't speak out because i wasn't a communist. then, they came for the trade unionists and i didn't speak out because i wasn't a trade unionist. then, they came for the jews and i didn't speak out because i wasn't a jew. then, they came for the catholics and i didn't speak out because i was a protestant. then, they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. mr. speaker, we have to speak out on this issue. it is an assault on the first amendment. it's an assault on the rights of all americans, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house, mr. speaker and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. green: mr. speaker, members, when the u.s. economy is showing signs of progress, our house majority's threatening to take 2% of the gross domestic product out of our economy, killing the gains we've made and doing it on the backs of the people who need help the most, the middle class and the unemployed. even though we were able to extend the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance and also the medicare physician payments for just two months, millions of americans dodge an average of $1,500 from a g.o.p. tax hike. now, it's time to get to work and pass a year-long extension of these three important programs. we cannot afford to take more risk with incomes of 160 million americans the way the house majority did at the end of 2011 and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? -- the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. capito: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. capito: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the stock act, the stop trading on congressional knowledge, banning members of congress from profiting financially from their position. it is absolutely unacceptable for those in any branch of government, to profit from nonpublic information. insider trading is not only unethical, it is illegal no matter who you are, but if it takes a stronger, tougher bill to set the record straight then so be it. the american people elected us to lead and we must do everything in that power to have that trust. i am proud to support the bill. i hope my colleagues will join me in passing this into law, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on

the motion to suspend the rules if a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or if the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record votes on the postpone question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules the stop trading on congressional knowledge act of 2012 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2038, an act to prohibit members of congress and employees of congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 2038, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, every member of this house has sworn a solemn oath to support and defend the constitution and to faithfully execute the office to which they have been entrusted by their constituents. the stop trading on congressional knowledge, or stock act, goes to the heart of what it means to faithfully execute public office. the government exists to promote the public good, not to enrich government officials and employees. those who are entrusted with public office are called public servants because their work should always serve the public rather than themselves. no one should violate the

sacred trust of government office by turning public service into self-service. the risk of government self-dealing is heightened by the huge growth in recent years of the federal government and its increasing entanglement with the private economy. the risk of self-dealing increases when the government undertakes to spend nearly $1 trillion in stimulus money on private companies like solyndra. . or when the government inserts itself into the 1/5 of our economy represented by health care and dictates the terms of private insurance policies. the decisions made by big government can have big money consequences. big government can move markets. that's why we need strong rules to reassure the public the decisionmakers are not enriching themselves by investing based on insider knowledge of government policies. this is the goal of the stock act.

in the house version of the stock act achieves this goal. it strengthens the senate proposal by expanding the scope of the bill to require more disclosure and prevent all office holders from profiting from insider information. the house bill expands the legislation so that the ban on insider trading applies to all legislative, executive, and judicial branch officials and their staffs. the american people deserve to know that no one in any branch of government can profit from their office. all three branches should be held the same standard because all three branches must be worthy of the public's trust. and the bill ensures that members of congress who commit a crime do not receive a taxpayer funded pension. the stock act clarifies that members of congress and other government insiders have to play by the same rules against insider trading that have applied to the private sector

for nearly 80 years. under the house bill, no federal government official may use nonpublic information which they learn by virtue of their office for the purpose of making a profit in the commodities or stock market. the bill strengthens financial disclosure rules for public officials. financial disclosure forms will be made publicly available in searchable, downloadable data bases on government websites. the bill requires prompt reporting of significant securities transactions by key legislative and executive branch officials. this will bring the financial dealings of public servants into the light of day. the stock act also strengthens disclosure of officials' mortgages so public servants do not receive special rates and offers by virtue of their office. the bill expands the list of crimes that result in a forfeiture of government pension rights and it prevents fannie mae and freddie mac from paying

lucrative bonuses to the executives who bear so much responsibility for the housing crisis. the house bill adds a provision to prevent government officials from receiving special early access to the initial public official of stock, which can result in measured profits for the well connected. the bill requires executive branch officials to disclose their negotiations for private sector jobs just like legislative branch officials do under current law. the bill makes it a crime for executive branch officials to pressure private businesses to hire employees of a certain political party, a government law that currently only applies to congress. the stock act increases disclosure and accountability for every branch of the federal government, and ensures that public servants don't breach the trust of the american people. madam speaker, for all of the above reasons i support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. members of the house, we come here this morning as the leaders of the judiciary committee and i have to assume that the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. smith, like myself, are deeply disappointed that we are bringing a bill that we never had a hearing on before the committee for -- before the congress for a disposition. here is a bill referred to six committees -- financial services, agriculture, judiciary, house administration,

ethics, and the rules committee. only one hearing was held in one of these committees on this measure. it's never been before judiciary or any other committee. and so i want to begin by complimenting the author of this measure, the ranking member, former chairman of rules committee, the gentlelady from new york, luis slaughter, for -- louise slaughter, for a serious and important amendment that has never been treated fairly. now, i don't know what the explanation is. maybe we can get to it during this proceeding, but i think that this is not the way that we want to move forward with a bill that was supposed to get to insider trading ban that

everybody wanted, because there's no reporting requirement in this bill. and so i'll reserve the balance of my time and look forward to the discussion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, who is an active member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. ross: thank you, madam speaker. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the stock act today and in support of extending its reach to the executive branch. all of us who have been honored by our fellow citizens with the enormous responsibility of protecting the liberties of this republic have a duty to hold ourselves to the highest of standards. you know it's ironic that in

2012 we are here debating a bill that would prevent public officials from enriching themselves through our positions. it's ironic because one of the great causes that impels the separation from great britain was the common practice of public officials using their office to increase their personal wealth. madam speaker, 236 years ago those patriots said enough. that spirit is in america's d.n.a. and we would do a disservice to all who came before us if we failed to act. i know that a vast majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle share this belief as well. a calling to service noes -- knows no party label. madam speaker, i urge a yes vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to recognize the original author of this bill, and because of her deep concern

about this matter i'm going to yield her as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. slaughter: good morning, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his generosity. try as i may the majority leader cantor and the house republican leadership were unable to move forward with the stock act without keeping at least some of the reforms that we included in its bill six years ago. however when it comes to k street it appears that republican leadership couldn't stomach the pressure from the political intelligence community. after working behind closed doors the majority removed the major provision that would have held political intelligence operatives to the same sands as lobbyists who come before the congress. i need to put into the record that political intelligence is worth $400 million a year. it is unregulated, unseen, and

operates in the dark. fortunately democrats, republicans alike are fighting to keep political intelligence as part of the final bill. senator grassley shares my outrage that mr. cantor would let the political intelligence community off the hook. together with the supermajority of democrats and republicans in the senate, senator grassley followed my lead and included political intelligence requirement in the senate version of this bill. i think his statement yesterday tells you-all you need to know about his desire to see this language inserted back into the stock act before it reaches the president's desk. i would like to read that into the record if i may. it is astonishing and extremely disappointing, senator grassley said, that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broad, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping

the provision altogether? i hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference or other means. if congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. it's hard, the stock act is a statement of how we in congress view ourselves and our relationship with those who sent us here. no matter how powerful our position may be or we believe it is, no matter how halo the walls we walk -- hallow the walls we walk, none of us is above the law. with the passage of the stop act we can move one step closer to the faith and trust bestowed upon us by the america people, the citizens whom we serve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, who is also a member

of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: thank you, madam speaker. i certainly want to thank the chairman for yielding. i thank you for your leadership. i also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ms. slaughter, mr. walz for your leadership with regard to the stock act. madam speaker, the american public believed that congress has the ability to profit from their position. and while this is illegal today in insider trading laws, i think that we've got an obligation to make it even stronger and even clearer to the american public and to everyone that we here in the united states congress hold ourselves up to a higher standard. i think this is expected of us as public servants. i am pleased to say that in the stock act, in this legislation, moving forward, this language from my bill, h.r. 2162, the no pensions for felons bill. this language will strengthen and expand the existing law to

require that federal lawmakers convicted of a public corruption felony forfeit their taxpayer funded congressional pension. i know this sounds like common sense, but actually today there are those that are collecting taxpayer funded pensions that have been convicted of a public corruption charge. while serving in public office. this provision adds 21 new public corruption offenses to the current law, including violations for insider trading and others. additionally this will prohibit the former members of congress from receiving a congressional pension if they are convicted of a covered offense that occurred while they are subsequently serving in any other publicly elected office. sadly we have seen this before where former members of this chamber like one from my state, former governor rob blagojevich, convicted of a felony, corruption charges, and yet at age 62 he'll be eligible for

taxpayer funded pension. not only is this wrong, this is an insult to the american taxpayers. and this provision will address such violations of the public trust in the future. i want to thank the chairman for your leadership -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dold: i want to urge my colleagues, not just on my side of the aisle, but across the aisle, to support this important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from minnesota, who joined with the ranking member of the rules committee, in introducing the original bill, tim walz. i yield to him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for as much time as he may consume. 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 six-year jury to pass this reform. it's taken hard work and bipartisan effort. the american people expects and deserves 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 the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, and brian baird, a former member from washington state, he said you were sent here to make a difference and do things differently. if you believe in reform 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's done this not -- ethics seems to be in vogue right now. it's been in vogue her whole lifetime. she has lived that sermon of ethics and living by the rules instead of just giving it. that i appreciate. understanding the integrity of this institution stands above all else. we must as the sacred holders of

the privilege, honor, and responsibility given to us by our neighbors to self-govern ourselves, make sure that this institution is never tarnished. and this bill goes a long ways to doing that. the perception is that members of congress are enriching themselves. that's not only affront to our neighbors we are not playing by the rules, it is a cancer that can destroy the democracy. each member of congress has a responsibility to hold themselves not just equal to their neighbors but to a higher standard. the public wants us to come here and debate how we educate our children. . that's what makes us strong. to come to a compromise and move forward. if there is a perception that someone is enriching themselves, it undermines our ability to do those things. we are not here today to get a pat on our back.

we're here to say, this is a victory not for us. 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 heart that we are wrong. they cannot believe that we are corrupt. they will have us and we will pass and we will bedust and this building, this podium right here will still stand and that's what we're doing here today. so i implore folks, let's come together in a bipartisan manner. every -- and 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 in order to move forward. i feel it's a bipartisan compromise. i ask my colleagues, give this win to the american public and then let's get back in here, 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. i think showing the american public we can come together, let's get this passed and have the president sign it and let's get on to real business. with that i thank the gentleman for the time. again, i thank the ranking member and members of this and 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, has been a stalwart supporter of this. this is truly a bipartisan piece. ethics crosses the aisle. our folks in here are good people coming together for the good of their citizens and for that i'm grateful for today. with that, madam speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my texas colleague, mr. canseco, who is a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague, chairman smith. madam speaker, too often the american people feel that members of congress live by a benefit personally -- live from

a different set of rules and -- than which ordinary americans live. to me that is unacceptable. it is imperative we rebuild the trust of the american people in their elected representatives. the stock act will help do just that. it explicitly bans members of congress and congressional staff from using information obtained on the job and using it to profit from securities trading and gives the securities and exchange commission the ability to investigate and prosecute them just like any other american. the american people expect that those who serve in government to do so with integrity. the stock act will help ensure that those in government meet this expectation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize bobby

scott, the chairman of the ranking member of the subcommittee which this measure would have gone had we been able to hold hearings, i yield to him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. scott: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, the bill we're asking today, the stock act, would pro-- prohibit members of congress and other branches of government to use information derived from an individual's position or gained from an individual's duty for personal benefit. today we're amending the senate-passed bill with a substitute which makes changes to the senate tax which is regrettably, requiring political intelligence activities be disclosed under the lobbying disclosure act.

they sell that information to investment firms and the public should be informed about these types of contacts. with this bill our goal is to hold members of congress as well as other government officials to the same standard as those in corporations who have the duty not to trade on information that is not available to the general public. now, most members of congress believe that this type of activity was wrong. whether explicitly prohibited by criminal law or at least subject to the ethics committee sanctions. and most of us assume that a federal -- a food and drug administration official could not call a stockbroker shortly before a blockbuster drug is approved and profit off of that insider knowledge. we just assume that was wrong. but this bill codifies what most of us thought was already the law. this is not a complicated issue. this is the same standard that applies to those in the

corporate context. it is wrong to trade on nonpublic information for our benefit and to the detriment of the public. the public has the right to expect that public interest comes first and that people should not have to worry about what would be motivating our actions as we make decisions that impact them. i acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, for drafting and introducing the house version of the stock act. this legislation represents an appropriate acknowledgment of what most of us thought already was the law, that the national government officials of all branches should not benefit financially from nonpublic information they learn by virtue of their positions and so i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, who is a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is

recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i think we are all aware that this issue came out when peter wrote a book called "throw them all out." after that, "60 minutes" did a special story of how members of congress were benefiting by using whether it was insider information or information that the rest of the public wasn't privy to. and i think that story and the succeeding several months has created a deficit of trust between members of congress and the american constituents. what i did is i introduced a version that would deal with this issue i think very simply. i thought what we should do is mandate that members put their assets into a blind trust so there is a bright line between information that they have as members and their trading portfolio. if they chose not to do that they would have to aggressively disclose every trade within three days. now, my bill is not on the floor today, but the version we have here today i think is much

improved from the original version that came out. we have an improved reporting requirement that goes from 90 days, not to three, but it goes to 30 days, which is much improved from the original legislation. we've included the executive branch, which i think is imperative, and we have language that uses the blind trust as a potential opt out if you are not actually managing your funds. now, as we gather out and vote on this bill, vote on this bill, i think this is important that this is the first step, a step in the right direction, but as we come together and re-evaluate what we have done here, i think there's many more steps to take to ensure that members of congress don't profit from the information they come across as a member of this institution. with that i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize a

member of the judiciary committee that's worked on this matter even though we couldn't hold hearings, the gentleman from tennessee, steve cohen, and i recognize him for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam speaker. this is a very important bill, and i appreciate the efforts put in it by ms. slaughter and mr. walz who have championed this for many, many, many years, and i appreciate the republicans for coming in with a bipartisan effort. the bill has indeed been improved by the senate, and it was improved through the honest services statute that was added to it which our committee debated and passed i believe in a goodly fashion. i don't know if it's unanimous or not, but that was the most important aspects, in my opinion, of this bill. there are public officials throughout this country who have abused their position of trust and that has hurt all of government by using the position for personal gain. the honest services statute

used to be a vehicle by which u.s. attorneys could go after them. the supreme court ruled there was a defect in that law. it has been corrected in this bill. it means we got more effective ways to clean up folks who are using public service for their own benefit and restore public trust in public officials from the courthouse to congress. further, it makes clear that nobody can be using their inside information here to be making money in the stock market and other places. all of which destroys the public trust which we hold. this congress is so, so, so much better than the ratings the public gives it. some of us because of a few bad apples and some of us a misunderstanding of what we do. this bill will go a long way to cleaning up congress and the impurities of impropriety which is important as impropriety. we need to be like caesar's wife, beyond reproach, and this

bill will do a lot towards it. i take my hat, again, to ms. slaughter and mr. walz, and i'm proud to be one of the original nine. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas. madam speaker, our government was founded on a promise. this promise was built on the trust between the people and its elected officials. we all have a duty to honor the trust of the american people and to work faithfully on their behalf. madam speaker, it is unacceptable for anyone, any elected official or their staff to profit from information that is not available to the public. people in this country have a right to know and trust that officials at all levels of government are living under the

same rules they are. if there is even the slightest appearance of impropriety we ought to go ahead and prevent that from taking place. it is incumbent upon each of us to start restoring the trust between the people and their elected representatives. that's what the stock act is all about. madam speaker, members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this issue. i'd especially like to express my appreciation to representatives tim walz and louise slaughter for the years of work on this effort. congressman walz has been a leader on the stock act since he took office at the start of the 110th congress, and i particularly want to recognize his willingness to reach across the aisle and keep the lines of communications open as we work to make clear that elected officials abide by the same rules as the american people.

this bill we are bringing to the floor today puts in place measures that both strengthen and expand the senate's work on the stock act as well as remove provisions that would have made the bill unworkable or raised far more questions than it would have answered. we expanded the bill to ensure that executive branch officials and their employees are subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as those in congress. we must all live under the same rules. we also included a provision championed by representative robert dolled to ensure that members of -- robert dold to ensure that members of congress who are convicted of a crime do not receive a taxpayer-funded pension after the fact. and finally, madam speaker, we added a provision that prohibits members of congress, executive branch officials and their staff from receiving special access to initial public offerings due to their

positions. madam speaker, we intend to act quickly to send the president a strengthened workable bill that delivers on our promise to uphold the trust of the american people. and i urge all my colleagues to support the stock act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself briefly. may i ask the distinguished majority leader one question why he took political intelligence out of this provision and i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: sure. i respond to the gentleman. i think that is a provision that raises an awful lot of questions. i think there's a lot of discussion and debate about who and what would qualify and fall under the suggested language that came from the senate. and that is why in the stock act we're calling for a study of that issue to ensure that the integrity of this process

is maintained. but i'd remind the gentleman the thrust of this bill is about making sure that none of us in elected office or those in the executive branch are able to profit from nonpublic information. the political intelligence piece is outside of this body and we are talking about us and the perception that has gathered around our conduct and i yield back to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: well, i thank the gentleman, because there are some members on the gentleman's side of the aisle that says if congress delays action on the political intelligence industry , we will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. . i think we ought to think about that and i'm hoping that the leader will continue the examination of the political

intelligence industry piece. i am now pleased to yield to the distinguished leader on our side of the aisle, the gentlelady from california, nancy pelosi, one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for giving us this opportunity to discuss an important matter, the integrity of congress on the floor of the house. i, too, want to join the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor, in praising the leadership of congresswoman louise slaughter, our ranking member on the rules committee, and congressman tim walz, for their extraordinary leadership over time, their persistence, the approach they have taken to this to remove all doubt in the public's mind if that is possible. that we are here to do the people's business and not to benefit personally from it. i listened intentatively to the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor's, remarks about the

stock act and its importance, and it does raise a question to me if it is so important, and it certainly is, why we could not have worked in a more bipartisan fashion either to accept the senate bill, which was developed in a bipartisan fashion and passed the senate 94 shall 6, it's hard to get a result -- 94-6, it's hard to get a result like that in congress these days. they were able to get the result because they worked together to develop their legislation. we had two good options. one was to accept the senate bill or to take up the slaughter-walz legislation which has nearly 300 co-sponsors, almost 100 republican co-sponsors on the original stock act, the discharge petition has been called upon the leadership to bring that bill to the floor. what's important about that is when we pass that bill we could go to conference and take the best and strongest of both bills

to get the job done. instead secretly the republicans brought a much diminished bill to the floor. it has some good features so i urge our colleagues to vote for it to bring the process along. what's wrong about it is, though, it makes serious omissions. i want to associate myself with remarks that have been made earlier, i think they bear repetition in any event. senator grassley's remarks are stunning. a stunning indictment of the house republicans in terms of their action on this bill. he said, and i know my colleagues have read this into the record already. senator grassley said, it's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. that would be the provision on political intelligence. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry

that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broad as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? i hope to see senator grassley said, a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference and other means. if congress delays action, as mr. conyers has said, if congress delays action, said senator grassley, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. well, the senator's statement is very widely covered. "the hill" today has a big front page. grassley republicans caved. iowa senator says, house doing wall street bidding. i think it's important to note that on the senate side there was interest in doing this study that is now in the house bill, and it was rejected by the senate by a 60-39 vote to

include the intelligence -- political intelligence provision in the bill, rejecting the study. now that that's already been rejected in the senate, it's resurrected on the house side in weakening of the bill. whether it's the political intelligence piece proposed by senator grassley or senator leahy's piece about corruption, i think it's really important that those two elements be included in the bill. a good way to do that, to find a path to bipartisanship in the strongest possible bill is to pass the bill today despite its serious shortcomings, and it's hard to understand why we are -- why these shortcomings are there, but nevertheless they are, pass the bill today, and go to conference. two paths earlier were to accept the senate bill or take the original stock act, strong stock

act, to the floor. both of those were rejected. pass this bill, go to conference. it's very important that the house and the senate meet to discuss these very important issues. with all due respect to a study on political intelligence, that's really just a dodge. that just is a way to say we're not going to do the political intelligence piece. so, again, with serious reservations about the bill but thinking it's the better course of action is to pass it and i don't want anybody to interpret the strong vote for it to be a seal of approval for what it is. but just a way of pushing the process down the line so that we can move expeditiously to go to conference for the strongest possible bill. i want to close again by saluting congresswoman louise slaughter and congressman tim walz for their relentless persistence, dedication to this issue. had they not had this discharge

petition and the 300 -- nearly 300 co-sponsors, bipartisan, nearly 100 of them republicans, i doubt we would even be taking up this bill today. so congratulations and thank you. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, who is a senior member of the judiciary committee and also chairman of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, let me just point out a couple of things in response to what has been said on the floor about the bill before us. had we adopted, had we accepted the senate bill, we would have had 16 drafting errors not corrected. 16 mistakes in the senate bill that drafted the wrong provisions of the ethics laws that already exists and would have ensured that what was said on the senate floor and is being said here would not be enforced in law, number one. number two, if we had taken the

senate bill, the absolute prohibition about members participating in i.p.o.'s would not be before us. that is an addition we have in the house bill. that is an additional prohibition. that makes that an illegal act. it has not been in the past. the senate bill did not even talk about it. third, with respect to the question of political intelligence, i respect the senator from iowa very much. but i doubt he has ever prosecuted anybody and put them in prison for conflict of interest during a public service. i have. i understand that when you -- could i have 30 seconds more? mr. smith: an additional minute. mr. lungren: i understand when you do that you have to deal with the very careful constitutional questions of people dealing with their right to apply before the government their grievances. that has become known now as lobbying. it is a actually protected

activity. and the idea that we have a congress committed to transparency means that we give out as much information as we possibly can. those are difficult, conflicting interests that have to be carefully determined if we are going to deal with the question of political intelligence. it does us no good to pass a bill that will be rendered unconstitutional. and it does us no good to not carefully consider this. as a matter of fact on the senate floor it was senator lieberman who asked his fellow colleagues to give them time on the senate side to study the issue so that precisely they would not render the bill unconstitutional. i might add that senator lieberman also served as attorney general of his state and knows whereof he speaks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. we know that -- i yield myself

30 seconds. i'd just like to compliment the distinguished gentleman from california who was an attorney general himself and is very sharp on these matters. could you make available to us these 16 draft errors of the senate? i would be delighted to get them from you. mr. lungren: if the gentleman would send somebody over here you can make a copy of it right now. mr. conyers: thank you very much. i am pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of oversight and government reform, elijah cummings, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. cummings: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank ms. slaughter and mr. walz for your tremendous work. i stand here and urge our members to support this bill, but certainly i have my

concerns. the house republicans stripped out of a bipartisan bill that passed the senate overwhelmingly key provision that is were supported by democrats and republicans alike. senator grassley and senator from iowa who i worked with quite a bit as ranking member was among the first who criticized their actions. and after they stripped out his provisions to require greater transparency over so-called political intelligence, consultant senator grassley said and has been said again and again and i think it needs to be plated in the d.n.a. of every cell of our brains it's astonishing, these are his words, and extremely disappointing the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. that is an incredible indictment and i share his disappointment this bill does not go far enough to require the transparency that we need. will the me be clear, no members

of congress should be able to benefit personally from information they gained by virtue of their service in the congress. however, house republicans have rushed to the floor a weakened legislation that members have not had a chance to read the way they should have had. perhaps as a result of the bush this bill also appears to have drafting problems that need to be corrected. for example, the office of government and ethics has indicated that the current bill could be interpreted as requiring the confidential financial disclosure forms filed by low-level employees such as staff assistance in the executive branch must be posted online. mr. speaker, while i support the purpose of this legislation, while i will vote for this legislation, i have my deep concerns, but as mr. cantor said, hopefully we'll be able to address these issues in the future and come out with a better bill w that i yield back and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. smith: madam speaker, we are prepared to close. so i yield to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am prepared to close and i would do so by yielding to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the members of the judiciary committee on both the chairman and the ranking member, and as all have applauded congresswoman slaughter, mr. walz for their continued leadership, and i'm

very pleased to have been one of the long, as they say, suffering co-sponsors since i believe the 110th congress. it's important for our colleagues to understand that i think we all come here with the intent to serve this country and to serve it well. and i believe that when we self-regulate we only enhance this institutional body that has such enormous history because of the changing times. i don't believe that members of congress are spending their time dwelling on information that they have and using it for self-purpose. but we now stand here united saying that members of congress, employees of congress, and all federal employees, are prevented federal employees, are prevented from using any