mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would remind the lady that we have jurisdiction over the district of columbia but we do not have the prerogative to produce unconstitutional programs for them like h.r. 3803. and i'm not -- i'll now turn to the former chairman of the constitution committee of the judiciary, jerrold nadler, and i'd recognize him for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in op -- opposition to the d.c. abortion ban act. this legislation is a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the right of women to make the most fundamental decisions about their lives and their health. it is based on radical ideology, rather than a long-established supreme court precedent, or on sound science, and it is yet another attack on the right to self-government of the americans who live, work and pay taxes in our nation's capital. it is in short yet another ex

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. to ask the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, mr. tim griffin of arkansas, if he is aware that the president, as he correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle, but that he opposes very strongly h.r. 4078, the regulatory freeze for jobs act of 2012. and i would yield to the gentleman for a response. mr. griffin: well, i thank the gentleman. first of all, i, and don't know anyone who is anti-regulation. it's the excessive and overly burdensome regulations that are the problems. i have a 2-year-old, baby john, and a 4-year-old, mary catherine, i will clean air and clean water for them. i understand the need for reasonable, commonsense regulations. but that's not what we're talking about here. with all due respect. in fact, -- mr. conyers: if i could interrupt the gentleman. this is not about what your opinion is or mine. i'm asking you about the president's opinion. and the president has, as you quite

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm please to recognize a senior member of the judiciary committee from texas, the honorable sheila jackson lee, and we yield her two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i am glad, i thank the gentleman from michigan, and i thank this house, reminded of the declaration of independence that calls upon this great nation to pursue life and liberty with certain inalienable rights. as i paraphrase it. i don't know what the answer is to my friends on the other side . i don't know what the answer is to those who are languishing in the state of texas, when we have our governor rejecting medicaid and politicizing it by in fact, in the obamacare plan the federal government fought to expand medicaid. he says in repeating that the gun to our head has been removed. certainly a personal statement by this governor. i ask him whether or not he has asked 357,000 young people in the state of texas who actually are on insu

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume and i would like to just remark to the distinguished speaker on the republican side that the -- another republican has a completely different point of view who is the former chairman of the house committee on science for over five years, and that is sherwood boller, many of us remember him fondly, and he says that it would be, and i quote, difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the house bill. be and that is referring to 4078. direction the agencies that were created to protect the public to close up shop. and then he goes on to say, quote, there's no indication that this bill would have job growth. indeed, by blocking rules needed to make the economy run more smoothly, the bill could harm our economic prospects for years to come. and so i present to you a point of view of the republican leader of the house of representatives and a distinguished republican former chairman of the committee of science from 2001 to 2006

mr. conyers. >> thank you, very much. chairman, first of all i went to compliment you on pulling together a stellar panel of witnesses whoe from very very experiences have made this a very important and interesting hearing. i wanted to begin with just two observations. one, i'd like any of you that would like to tell us about anything new and to your perspective of this subject of national security leaks in the law, that have come to your attention as a result of the discussions that you heard of your fellow panelists and the members of the committee. does anyone have something they would like to add to the record, colonel? >> mr. conyers, when i talk about the fact that you've got to be very careful in revising the espionage act, i say that not only because i was a special agent myself. i've been subject to four congressional investigations, four federal investigations myself based on this article that came out in 2008. it took this committee -- it took the four agencies three years, $2.3 million to exonnerate these peop

mr. conyers. >> thank you, sir. i think our discussion this morning brings us to this issue, can and should we get more information in the process of reauthorizing fisa? and with exception of the former attorney general of california on the committee, i think everybody that i've heard thinks that there is nothing wrong with getting a little bit more information so that we know what's happening. would you say that's a fair opinion to hold at this point, mr. weise? >> in theory as a matter of principle, more information that the public is better all things being, call, however, in this area where you're talking about intelligence officials coming into the fisa court laying out the most sensitive information about sources and methods -- >> we didn't say -- i don't want to do that, either. so i agree with you. we don't want to throw out sensitive information. that's why i said this is a somewhat tricky sensitive kind of a discussion we're having. but let's agree that we don't want to do that, and i do

mr. conyers, member of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. it's a pleasure to appear before you again. i'd like to use my testimony to outline some of the legal tools the government has available to combat leaks. first, federal courts have held that it's a crime under the espionage act for officials to leak classified information to the press. second, officials frequently sign secrecy agreements when they go to work for the government. and the supreme court has held that these secrecy contracts are enforceable. these tools are useful but not perfect. as we've heard, the espionage act in particular is notoriously vague. and congress might want to consider amending it. so let me go into more detail starting with criminal prosecutions. the basic thrust of the espionage act is fairly straightforward. it's a crime for officials to "reveal information relating to the national defense to any person not entitled to receive it." now this law as the name implies quite plainly applies to spies who give documents to foreign governments. it applies when t

mr. conyers: mr.speaker, i'm please to recognize a senior member of the judiciary committee from texas, the honorable sheila jackson lee, and we yield her two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i am glad, i thank the gentleman from michigan, and i thank this house, reminded of the declaration of independence that calls upon this great nation to pursue life and liberty with certain inalienable rights. as i paraphrase it. i don't know what the answer is to my friends on the other side . i don't know what the answer is to those who are languishing in the state of texas, when we have our governor rejecting medicaid and politicizing it by in fact, in the obamacare plan the federal government fought to expand medicaid. he says in repeating that the gun to our head has been removed. certainly a personal statement by this governor. i ask him whether or not he has asked 357,000 young people in the state of texas who actually are on insur

mr. conyers. mr. coble is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, good to have you with us this morning. the distinguished ranking member pointed out we've been kicking this issue around and we may be in the study of the shadow of the resolution. i hope so. governor, let me start with you and work our way down to the two-part question. the rhetorical question i think i still would like on the record. will this bill creates a new tax? nv, is it feasible for internet retailers to collect and remit sales -- state sales tax? >> no, they won't bring a new tax. it is a sales tax that is paid. you know, when businesses put their p&l together, they don't show sales-tax odin sales tax paid. it is due from the buyer. that is number one. number two, is their capacity to do this? i understand issues and i understand jurisdictions and sales tax holidays in different places, but given the capacity we have today, i am very confident we can solve those issues. >> thank you, mr. governor. >> no, this is not a new tax. what we are asking for is that congre

mr. conyers. mr. coble is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, good to have you with us this morning. the distinguished ranking member pointed out we've been kicking this issue around and we may be in the study of the shadow of the resolution. i hope so. governor, let me start with you and work our way down to the two-part question. the rhetorical question i think i still would like on the record. will this bill creates a new tax? nv, is it feasible for internet retailers to collect and remit sales -- state sales tax? >> no, they won't bring a new tax. it is a sales tax that is paid. you know, when businesses put their p&l together, they don't show sales-tax odin sales tax paid. it is due from the buyer. that is number one. number two, is their capacity to do this? i understand issues and i understand jurisdictions and sales tax holidays in different places, but given the capacity we have today, i am very confident we can solve those issues. >> thank you, mr. governor. >> no, this is not a new tax. what we are asking for is that congre

mr. conyers seemed to urge republicans on. listen. >> we can, we have our own investigative capacity and so why don't, why don't we inquire ourselves? we also have the regular power of subpoena. if there is somebody he thinks we ought to talk to, we should talk to them. >> reporter: but some congressional sources, jenna, suggested that conyers may have not been entirely serious about the offer because why republican chairman lamar smith sent him the letter asking him what names mr. conyers would put on the list to be subpoenaed or interviewed? they're hoping to goat that list later today, jenna. jenna: those names are important because they wouldn't necessarily be the people that have done the leaking or could be or someone that knows something? is that our takeaway? >> reporter: it isn't entirely clear but you would think it would be the people that leaked. lamar smith wrote to conyers and appreciates his suggestion of subpoena and interviewing people and he would love to work with him on compiling a list of names for people

mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds. to tell judge gohmert that there isn't one american in this country that has lost their insurance because of obamacare, not one. and now i turn to the gentleman from tennessee, distinguished member of the judiciary committee, mr. cohen, i yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: i appreciate the time. i was a history major in college. and oftentimes i'm in this hall and think about the history. we have been in this hall for nearly 250 years. and when there was an attempt to pass social security, the republicans were against it. and they're still against it. they want to give it to wall street and let it be invested. and the next great historical advance in our history was medicare. and the republicans were against it. and now they're against the affordable care act and patient protection act. every republican who voted against it and they line up and talk about speaker pelosi and lined up like ducks at the peabody hotel an

mr. conyers, when i talk about the fact that shuts be careful and revising the espionage act, i say that not only because of being a federal agent myself, i've also been -- for federal investigation myself based on this article which came out in 2008. it took this committee, i'm sorry, it took the agency's three years $2.3 million to exonerate these people come that included myself. so guess what? when i talk about the protection of the law, i know what i'm talking about. i had only been a special agent, so guess what? that's a chilling effect it can never forget that. fortunately, i'm here to tell you that they should probably kill me first because i managed to succeed. and leaving lately, when -- if you're not like they're coming after you. so, i would simply say when you try to enact legislation, the very careful because you're going right back to philadelphia. >> thank you. mr. wainstein, what would you offer to this discussion, sir? >> i guess you're asking if there's anything new today. the thing that struck me, we're talking about this at the beginning, this is our third hearing o

mr. conyers, when i talk about the fact, 're to be very careful in visi the espiagt,syt, w a special agent myself. i've also been before for federal investigations myself. bad on this article which cam out in 2008. it took is committee, i thought, ittokten e ers$2.3 million to exonerate these people, including myself. so guess what? when i talk about the fact of the law, i know what i'm talking about. g ha you don't forget that. fortunately, under to tell you that they should probably kill me first because i managed to succeed. believe me when i tell you, if you're not right, they're coming afryou. tr e legislation, be very careful. because you're going right back to piladelphia. >> thank you. . wastwhouo r hiissio i >> i guess you're asking if there's anything new today. the thing that struck me, we're talking about this at the beginning, this is our third hearing on this issue in the la year and a half. 20abuheonache ea tfierfoy al and aftermath of the wiki latest disclosures, and then today, all about what we knew about the espionage act. if anything that reinforces my mind that there's

mr. conyers, who has been such a here o'on voting rights throughout his -- hero on voting rights throughout his congressional career. mr. brady and the assistant democratic leader, mr. clyburn. i'm proud that the fight for voter access has attracted a broad coalition of civil rights organizations as well as the congressional hispanic caucus and the congressional asian-pacific american caucus and that senior citizens organizations and, yes, representers of young people are very concerned about the fact that eligible voters are being discouraged and in some cases suppressed from exercising their precious american right to vote. . let us never forget that generations have held it to be a moral duty to preserve the most powerful guarantor of our liberty. the right of every american to vote. we continue to stand up for it today and hopefully each day as we proceed. mr. speaker, i mentioned a couple of times about what democrats are doing. let me refer now to an article that appeared in the "washington post" today written by charlie crist, the former republican governor of florida. he says, and i

mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. here,ry pleased you are mr. assistant attorney general. i will yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, jerry nadler. >> thank you. i want to rephrase the question the chairman asked differently. first of all, hate speech and hate crimes are different topics. i assume the department would make a commitment, that you are not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, criticism of the religion, or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat. >> we will do this working the way that we have always in a way that is consistent with the constitution. >> which means you can not criminalize hate speech, other than with a direct threat of violence or something like that? >> as a matter of fact, the hate crime laws whether by force or threat of force in candidates or intends to intimidate someone on the basis of color, class. >> so, short of intimidation and threat of violence, you are not endorsing the concept that says you cannot criticize someone's religion or anything else? >> we strongly support the firs

mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pleased you are here, mr. assistant attorney general. i will yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, jerry nadler. >> thank you. i want to rephrase the question the chairman asked differently. first of all, hate speech and hate crimes are different topics. i assume the department would make a commitment, that you are not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, criticism of the religion, or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat. >> we will do this working the way that we have always in a way that is consistent with the constitution. >> which means you can not criminalize hate speech, other than with a direct threat of violence or something like that? >> as a matter of fact, the hate crime laws whether by force or threat of force in candidates or intends to intimidate someone on the basis of color, class. >> so, short of intimidation and threat of violence, you are not endorsing the concept that says you cannot criticize someone's religion or anything else? >> we strongly support the firs

mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased you are here, mr. assistant attorney general. i will yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, jerry nadler. >> thank you. i want to rephrase the question the chairman asked differently. first of all, hate speech and hate crimes are different topics. i assume the department would make a commitment, that you are not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, criticism of the religion, or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat. >> we will do this working the way that we have always in a way that is consistent with the constitution. >> which means you can not criminalize hate speech, other than with a direct threat of violence or something like that? >> as a matter of fact, the hate crime laws whether by force or threat of force in candidates or intends to intimidate someone on the basis of color, class. >> so, short of intimidation and threat of violence, you are not endorsing the concept that says you cannot criticize someone's religion or anything else? >> we strongly support the firs

mr. conyers to the record. i ask unanimous consent to insert an article from the hill to the record. >> article from the hell will appear without objection. >> and quite apart from that, revealing president obama's health care law would let members of congress keep the government subsidized insurance coverage after they retire, and of course the rest of the article would be available for members. >> we look forward to that. >> i would yield back. >> the vote occurs. >> i have not read that article. is the suggestion that the vote tomorrow is somehow a self-serving vote for the members of congress and the health care benefits as opposed to all the other things we will talk about today? >> as a matter of fact it could have been carved out by the republican majority so the republican majority did intend to make sure the members of congress that their benefits i don't know if they are predicting perhaps in a large number of retirements on the other side of the polls were not. but for whatever reason that is in the

mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. our airplanes use diesel and diesel they must have if they continue to protect this nation. i rise today in strong support of this amendment to lift the restrictions on the military's procurement of alternative fuels enshrined in section 526 of the energy independence and security act. i'd also like to thank my colleagues, mr. flores and mr. hensarling, for their work with me on this issue. section 526 prohibits the military from purchasing alternative fuels products that have life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, a mouthful, that are less than or equal to such emissions from conventional fuel. mr. speaker, this prohibition makes no sense to me. several months ago secretary of the navy said our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels are ripe with danger for our nation and it would be irresponsible to continue it. paying for spikes in oil prices means we may have less money to spend on readiness which includes procurement. we could be using that money for more hardware and more p

mr. conyers. >>hank you, chairman seenbrned gon oinsses this is a difficult matter national security leaks in law. my good friend rom texashe woer sprioay a role, and if there were prominent membs of the administration involved in the leaks. that is what weare her to try hen'mentioned in the names, so i presume he's not sure who's doing at. whdnt inquire ourselves.t we alshave regular power of subpoena if somebody thinks he weught to ta towehould lkthef it's somebody that isn't cooperating with us in this investigation which is a legitimate subject for discussion we should subpoena them. he gtl wilyie imat at off chairman of the subcommittee will as well. if you are going to support our efforts to subpoena individuals from the administration, couldn't ask for more. o itlipol atwi t subpoenaed in the full committee chaired as the same and we could have a good subpoena session. >> the only problemi at i initofu odat w to subpoena and neither do i. >> okay. [laughter] >> that's great. we cld have d t

the regular power of subpoena. >> conyer suggested he would provide his own list of names but today he went the opposite direction. expressing concern in a letter to mr. smith that republicans were making unfounded assertions about who might have leaked. conyers' turn-around came after nancy pelosi argued that congress should defer to investigation ordered by eric holder one run by the f.b.i. and directed by two u.s. attorneys. >> i believe right now the administration has put in place a look at how these things occurred. >> she acknowledged that congress has right to investigation since she launched in while in the majority but said the administration own investigation should come first. >> bret: jim, isn't it odd that the former speaker, now minority leader is asking congress to hold off? >> for a congresserrial leader to argue congress should refer to executive branch isn't something you hear every day. any action by the judiciary committee would move faster than an f.b.i. investigation. and be more public. it could also be embarrassing to a president running for re-election. so she wants to preserve congress right to investigate but not yet. >> b

congressman conyers, we are honored to have you here as a witness and the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to your colleague, who is another former house member, if i remember correctly, and senator ben cardin, as well, all of you are working in the backdrop of a huge discussion that has been going on for quite some time. when i came to the congress and asked to go on the judiciary committee in the house and that was granted, emanuel seller was then the chairman, who did such landmark work in the civil rights act of 1964. and then we followed up with the voter rights act of 1965. and from that time on, a group of scholars, activist organizations, civil rights people, and americans of goodwill have all began examining what brings us here today, and accounts for the incredible long line that is waiting to get into this and the holding room today. i come here proud of the fact that there is support growing in this area. only yesterday we had a memorial service for john payton, known by most of us here for the great work that he has done and contributed in civil rights, not just

mr. berman, john kline and george miller, chairman smith and ranking member conyers, chairman doc hastings and ranking member ed markey and certainly senator jeff bingaman and senator murkowski who serve as chairman and ranking member of the senate committee on energy and natural resources for all they have done on behalf of the insular areas. i cannot thank my colleagues enough for standing with me because i know that passage of this bill is only possible today due to their support. i thank the committee and staff leadership for their working in close association with my office which will benefited the associated states of micro neice yeah and the territory of american samoa. as my chairman alluded to about the section, it is very simple. this is located -- for the benefit of information to my colleagues, the area is located in the marshal islands. this is where we exploded 43 of our nuclear bombs out of the 67 nuclear bombs that we exploded in our testing program from 1943 to 1962. in the process, this is where we exploded our hydrogen bomb, which is only 700 times more powerful than the