mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings, minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspondence. mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself sa

mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings, minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspondence. mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself sa

mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. this legislation takes h.r. 81, the shark conservation act of 2010, which passed this house in march of last year, and adds several other fisheries provisions, all of which i support. my colleague has adequately explained and described what is in this small fisheries package, and i do not object to this legislation. action by this house will clear these measures for the president and with that i ask my friend from guam if she has any speakers because i'm prepared to yield back if she's prepared to finish. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority. mr. hastings: i will yield back my time and urge adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentlewoman from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, in closing, i urge all members to support this bill. and in our last business before the house for the natural resources committee this year, i would like to thank the gentleman from washi

mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings, minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspondence. mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself sa

mr. hastings said that people perceive they pay too much. i read an extraordinarily excellent study that was done several years ago. it has now been several years. it said they did a study in this country, one of the best that has been done. a survey every income level, every category you can possibly think of, and they came up with basically the same information. people believe paying about 25% of what they earn is a fair tax rate. it was a superb study. that is my field and i read the study and look at it carefully. it is true that people say they perceive they paid too much but people understand when the government has overreached. people happily pay up to 25% of their income in this country. what happened in the bill before was we actually lowered taxes for the lower income people. we went from 15% down to 10%. if the tax increases are not stopped, the people currently paying 10% go up to 15%. what past 10 years ago was a pretty good bill. it was not because there were trucks being played. it was because it took 60 votes to do a reconcil

mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings, minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspopondence. mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself

mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from alabama for yielding time. for over two years, i served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving mr. rangel and we found a substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was, that violations occurred. because the facts of this matter are not disputed, i will not comment on the evidence. i will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made by mr. rangel regarding the confidential work on the investigative committee. first on the length of the investigation, chairman green and i, when i was ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th congress. but events intervened. in september of 2008, mr. rangel publicly pledged he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and financial disclosures. however, we did not receive t

mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. and i want to thank my friend from texas for yielding. this legislation is a good piece of legislation and i urge my colleagues to support it. but there are other issues that i think need to be addressed today. there has been bipartisan agreement across this country and in congress that blanket moratoriums on offshore drilling hurts america when it comes to jobs and energy. yet the obama administration has suddenly imposed a moratorium that closes the eastern gulf of mexico and the entire atlantic coast. madam speaker, this is the wrong way to respond to the b.p. oil spill. it hurts our economy and job creation. the answer is not to say, america can't figure it out and we should rely on other countries to produce our energy. the right answer is to find out what went wrong and make the effective, timely reforms that ensure that u.s. offshore drilling ithe safest in the world. the deep water horizon spill was a terrible tragedy but this is a great coun

mr. don young. i would note that this measure is fully supported by the ranking member of our full committee, doc hastings of washington. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from alaska, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3910. this is a brilliant -- very important bill to the state of alaska and washington. i'd like to complement my friend, mr. larsen shall for his work on this legislation. i was originally co-sponsor of this. this is a much needed bill for the management of fish in alaska as well as the state of washington where most of my fishermen do come from. i'd also like to thank steny hoyer, the majority leader, for bringing this b

mrs. rice says that miss buckley's accident in her car was all my eye. she says miss buckley's a terrific liar. >> really? that is most interesting, hastings. it is interesting for itself, and it is interesting that madame rice has said it. but why should she say it, even if it were true? ah, these are curious things. i like to see them appear. they point the way. ah. >> this is all very well, poirot, but what we're trying to do is impossible. we're trying to detect a murderer before he's committed the crime. >> well said, hastings. >> i don't know where to start. i don't know that there were friends very much, except commander challenger, of course, he's obviously a pakisar. >> you know, hastings, you have the most extraordinary effect on me. >> really? >> yes, you have so strongly the flair in the wrong direction, that i am almost tempted to doubt the commander. >> who's there? >> it is i. poirot. >> the office isn't open. >> ah, mais oui. i pushed the door downstairs, it was not locked. you are monsieur vyse? >> yes. >> it is very good of you to see me at the weekend. hercule poirot. >> poirot? >> poirot. what kind of a place is this? te

haste or dog materialism. that makes america the final th fighting military in the world. >> i too, wish to thank mr. johnson and carter and as well as everybody for the extraordinary efforts over the past year. i fully endorse the report. findings and implementation plan recommended by the working group. it was given a tall order. indeed nothing less than producing the first truly comprehensive assessment of not only the impact of the law governing but also about how best to implement a new policy across the joint force. the secretary indicated surveyed our troops and spouses. consulted proponents of repeal and examined military experience around the world. they also spoke with serving gays and lesbians as well as former members of the military that are gay and lez i an. the result is one of the most expansive study done on military personnel issued and i applaud the time committed. the working group focus and findings and recommendations, rightly on those that would be most effected by a change in the law. our people all of our people. so for the first time the chief's and i have more than just ane

perjury, as in the hastings cairks and have purge us are statements and i could stand here and tell you why there was no intent to commit perjury or why the statements were in fact true. while mr. schiff referred to perjury, once again perjury is not one of the articles of impeachment. and what i would caution, even though it can be, i would again caution that this should not be an ad hoc process by which you could graft on actual criminal claims by implying them in language issued by the house. the president pro tempore: congressman schiff? mr. schiff: thank you. this is essentially what article 4 is about which charges judge porteous with make false statements to the f.b.i. and to the senate during his confirmation process. the answer is, yes, absolutely. i think what is very telling here is that counsel has conceded that yes, if someone perjures themselves in the confirmation process, they should be imeesmed but by definition that is conduct that has occurred prior to their assumption of federal office. if someone can never be impeached on the basis of prior conduct, his answer should have been no. but plainly counsel recognizes there are circumstances where impeachment is