mr. lungren. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for his comments and thank him for his leadership on many, many issues of human rights, not only in the united states but around the world. i was astounded when i heard the comments of the leader of the minority party in the house of representatives just several days ago when she referred to those who are concerned about this decision by the president of the united states and the secretary of h.h.s. as using religious liberty as an excuse. what an insult to those men an women of good faith who have expressed their concern about how this will require them to either violate their consciences or pay fines in tribute to the federal government. interestingly enough, alex de tocqueville said this about catholics -- american catholics are faithful to the observance of their religion, nevertheless they constitute the most republican and most democratic class of citizens which exist in the united states. although this fact may surprise some observers at first, the

mr. lungren is not the chairman. >> i would ask you to submit it for the record and let's go to mr. thompson for any questions he might have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, i'm concerned that comments about privatized screening has resulted in a misunderstanding of what this would mean for the flying pub c public. we created this entity, tsa after 9/11. if a similar incident occurred today, would you have the authority to direct private screeners to other locations? >> under the existing contracts, no. they would be limited to the airport to which they are assigned. >> so basically the ability to respond based on incident is hampered by your inability to move private screeners where that situation could potentially be? >> yes. that is one of the limitations. that is part of the contract process which we could address in future contracts but under existing contracts that would be a voluntary aspect. >> in your experience negotiating public and private contracts, has it been your experience private contract screeners involve more than federal contract screen eers.

mr. lungren: certainly. mr.onyers: i will take back to everybody on this side of the aisle, don't rush out and trto do any last-minute deals because it's already illegal. if you do the same with the members on your side. mr. lungren:'d be happy to if they don't know that already. but when you read the newspapers, you would think that somehow it is proper and appropriate. and i want to make it clear not only to our colleagues but to the american public, it is against the law now. it has been against the law, and if anybody has evidence of this, they should report it to proper authorities because it is against the law. mr. speaker, the amendment before us, when applied to the underlying bill, creates the clarity and accountability necessary to ensurthat government officials, elected, appointed and otherwise adhere to federal insider trading laws. it prohibits members, officials and employees of every branch of government from using nonpublic privileged information for personal gain, and it creates a disclosure mec

mr. lungren. with all due respect to the ranking member, mr. brady of pennsylvania, i have to agree with the chairman that this runaway spending that we have seen occur over the last four to six years has got to stop. the american people clearly, madam chairman, are looking to members of congress to tighten their own belts and that's why i think it's very important that we give them the message that we're willing to cut our own salaries, we're willing to cut our own benefit package, an we have done that. we have voted to do that. and these cuts, as painful as they are in regard to house committees, indeed, 9.5%, when we include this cut overall of the committees, although we do cut the house committee on armed services by a lesser amount, and we plus up the house ethics committee and we think that's very important, it is so crucial that we bite the same bullet that everybody else has to bite. . this rupp away spending that occurred during the previous majority in this house has got to stop. spending $850 billion on a failed stimulus program, in

mr. lungren: certainly. mr.onyers: i will take back to everybody on this side of the aisle, don't rush out and try to do any last-minute deals because it's already illegal. if you do the same with the members on your side. mr. lungren: i'd be happy to if they don't know that already. but when you read the newspapers, you would think that somehow it is proper and appropriate. and i want to make it clear not only to our colleagues but to the american public, it is against the law now. it has been against the law, and if anybody has evidence of this, they should report it to proper authoritiesecause it is against the law. mr. speaker, the amendment before us, when applied to the underlying bill, creates the clarity and accountability necessary to ensure that government officials, elected, appointed and otherwi adhere to federal insider trading laws. it prohibits members, officials and employees of every branch of government from using nonpublic privileged information for personal gain, and it creates a disclosure m

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 serv

mr. lungren has dropped out of subcommittee. can you give folks a sense of what's in the bill, maybe some of the differences and some of the belly button questions and the department of homeland security or other entities are addressed there. let's go from there. >> essentially the building on with thornberry it task force, the house homeland security committee took it upon themselves to draft a bill within its jurisdiction. not meant to be comprehensive in any manner, but strictly within the jurisdiction of our committee. it's essentially three big pieces. first the roles and responsibility of the department of homeland security with regard on a cyber security mission. i know the secretary is well familiar with the lack of legislative authorities that dhs has with its mission. it's been doing an admirable job based upon executive order and public expectation, but we wanted to codify that current mission of dhs and make sure that they have the roles and responsibilities clear to protect critical infrastructure in this country. t

mr. lungren has dropped his bill. i know it's in the subcommittee.can you give folks a sense of what is in the bill and maybe some of the differences because i think some of the questions vis-À-vis the department of homeland security or other entities are addressed there and go from there. >> so essentially, building on what tom talked about with the thornberry task force, the house homeland security committee taught themselves to draft a the bill within its jurisdiction. not meant to be comprehensive in any manner but strict way within the jurisdiction of our committee. essentially with three big pieces. first their roles and responsibility of the department of homeland security with regard to the mission. no the secretary is well familiar with the lack of legislative authority that dhs has with its mission but it has been doing an ample job based upon executive order and public implementation that we want to codify that current mission of dhs and make sure that they have the roles and responsibilities clear to protect critical infrastructure in thi

mr. lungren has dropped its bill.talked-about, the porn very task force, the committee took upon itself to draft a bill within its jurisdiction. it was not meant to be comprehensive in any manner, but within the jurisdiction of our committee. it was essentially three big pieces. burt, the role and responsibility of the department of homeland security. i know the secretary is familiar with the lack of legislative a authorityt dhs -- o4 that dhs has. we wanted to codify the mission of dhs and make sure they have their role and responsibilities clear. the second piece touches upon the various aspects we have already heard, including the protection of critical and infrastructure. we take a bit of a different approach to it. of the throne very task force found that while regulation is not our first choice, there is a role or the government in protecting the most critical. in trying to determine what was regulated, how it was regulated, and who did the regulating was the path we had to determine in the committee. what we tr

mr. lungren, and mr. chairman, i will defer to you but let me just put this question on the record. and mr. london, you are not the chairman at this time. >> the time is expired. >> we have four other members -- excuse me, mr. lundgren you one of the chairman and i'm asking to this question on the record. i will not ask for an answer. mr. lundgren is not the chairman. >> i would ask you to submit it for the record and go to mr. thompson for any questions he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, i am concerned that the comments by some lobbying extension by the privatized screening has resulted in as understanding of what this would mean for the flying public. we've created this entity, tsa, after 9/11. if a similar incident occurred today, would you have the authority to direct private screening to other locations? >> under the existing contract, no. they would be limited to the later part to which they are assigned. >> so basically, the ability to respond based on incident is hampered by your inability to move private screening where the situation could poten

mr. lungren: madam speaker, just a couple of weeks ago this administration announced a position that a amounts to an assault on religious liberty in this country. their narrow definition of what constitutes religious action, religious belief and whether or not the federal government can cause you to take actions against your own conscience is a serious matter that ought not to be determined by the friday release of a decision made by the secretary of health and human services. this is an issue that goes beyond the catholic church and catholic institution. it goes to the essence of the first amendment protections contained in the constitution with respect to religious freedom. we better understand exactly how important this issue is and we had better understand how it has to be addressed directly and cannot be compromised by saying we're not going to take away your religious liberty for a year. that is not a compromise. that is a form of political extortion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous conse

mr. lungren has dropped in his bill out of subcommittee, can you give folks a sense of what is in the bill? maybe some of the differences? perhaps other entities are addressed there? >> essentially, building on what tom talked about, the house of homeland security committee took it upon themselves to draft a bill within that jurisdiction. it was not meant to be comprehensive with in any manner, but certainly within our committee. essentially, it was three big pieces. first, the rules and responsibility -- responsibilities. i know that the secretary is well familiar with the lack of authorities that vhs has with its mission, -- dhs has with its mission. we wanted to codify the current mission and make sure that they have the roles and responsibilities clear to protect infrastructure in this country. the second piece does touch upon various aspects that have occurred, and includes the protection of critical infrastructure. we have taken a bit of a different approach to it. the form very task force found that while regulation is not our first choice, there's a role in the government in protec

mr. lungren has dropped his bill. i know it's out of subcommittee, can you give folks a sense of what's in the bill, maybe some of the differences 'cause i think some of the bellybutton questions vis-a-vis the department of homeland security or other entities are addressed there. and go from there. >> so essentially, building on what tom talked about with the thornberry task force, they took it upon themselves within its jurisdiction it's not to be comprehensive in any manner but strictly within the jurisdiction of our committee. and it was essentially three big pieces. first, the roles and responsibility of the department of homeland security with regard to its cybersecurity mission -- i know the security is well familiar with the lack of legislative authorities that dhs has with its mission. but it's been doing an admirable job with based upon executive order and public expectation but we want to codify the current mission of dhs and make sure they have the roles and responsibilities clear to protect critical infras