Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to attempt to be of some service to the Obama administration and others in the House that may be concerned about a decision he made not too long ago. And I'd ask unanimous consent that we put Executive Order 13492 in the Record at this point.

Yes, I do.

It is amendment No. 118.

Amendment No. 118 Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this executive order put in the Record at this point.

Presidential Documents--Executive Order 13492 of January 22, 2009-- Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained At the Guantanamo Bay

Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities

By the authority vested in me as President by the

Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in

order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals

currently detained by the Department of Defense at the

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Guantanamo) and promptly to close

detention facilities at Guantanamo, consistent with the

national security and foreign policy interests of the United

States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as

follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) ``Common Article 3'' means Article 3 of each of the

Geneva Conventions.

(b) ``Geneva Conventions'' means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of

the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12,

1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition

of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at

Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners

of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) ``Individuals currently detained at Guantanamo'' and

``individuals covered by this order'' mean individuals

currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities

at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of

Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy

combatants.

Sec. 2. Findings.

(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals

whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or

treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at

Guantanamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500

such detainees from Guantanamo, either by returning them to

their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a

third country. The Department of Defense has determined that

a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo

are eligible for such transfer or release.

(b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have

been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained

for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns

raised by these detentions, both within the United States and

internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the

individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of

the facilities in which they are detained would further the

national security and foreign policy interests of the United

States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the

facilities without promptly determining the appropriate

disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately

serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt

and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at

Guantanamo should precede the closure of the detention

facilities at Guantanamo.

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have

the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness

of their detention.

(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the

executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of

the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of

all individuals currently held at Guantanamo, and of whether

their continued detention is in the national security and

foreign policy interests of the United States and in the

interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated

with detentions at Guantanamo require a comprehensive

interagency review.

(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate

disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently

detained at Guantanamo.

(f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantanamo may

have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted.

It is in the interests of the United States to review whether

and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.

(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the

executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the

circumstances of the individuals currently detained at

Guantanamo who have been charged with offenses before

military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act

of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military

commission process more generally.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantanamo. The

detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by

this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no

later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any

individuals covered by this order remain in detention at

Guantanamo at the time of closure of those detention

facilities, they shall be returned to their home country,

released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to

another United States detention facility in a manner

consistent with law and the national security and foreign

policy interests of the United States.

Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantanamo Detentions.

(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of

each individual currently detained at Guantanamo (Review)

shall commence immediately.

(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with

the full cooperation and participation of the following

officials:

(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

(2) the Secretary of Defense;

(3) the Secretary of State;

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(5) the Director of National Intelligence;

(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time

employees of the United States, including employees with

intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal

expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the

concurrence of the head of the department or agency

concerned.

(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review

participants shall include the following:

(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney

General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in

coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all

information in the possession of the Federal Government that

pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantanamo

and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of

any such individual. All executive branch departments and

agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the

Attorney General to provide information in their possession

or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney

General may seek further information relevant to the Review

from any source.

(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine,

on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect

to the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo, whether

it is possible to transfer or release the individuals

consistent with the national security and foreign policy

interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how

the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or

release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State,

and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to

effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals

for whom release or transfer is possible.

(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United

States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantanamo

not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to

determine whether the Federal Government should seek to

prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may

have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute

such individuals before a

court established pursuant to Article III of the United

States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in

turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such

determinations.

(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any

individuals currently detained at Guantanamo whose

disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of

this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means,

consistent with the national security and foreign policy

interests of the United States and the interests of justice,

for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate

authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the

United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal,

logistical, and security issues relating to the potential

transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantanamo to

facilities within the United States, and the Review

participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation

that may be appropriate.

Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall

expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and

diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary

and appropriate to implement this order.

Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual

currently detained at Guantanamo shall be held in the custody

or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or

other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility

owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of

the United States, except in conformity with all applicable

laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of

Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the

conditions of detention at Guantanamo to ensure full

compliance with this directive. Such review shall be

completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall

be implemented immediately thereafter.

Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense

shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during

the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this

order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military

commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the

Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of

such military commissions to which charges have been referred

but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all

proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military

Commission Review, are halted.

Sec. 8. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of

the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any

detainees not covered by this order.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with

applicable law and subject to the availability of

appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any

right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at

law or in equity by any party against the United States, its

departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,

or agents, or any other person.

Barack Obama,

The White House,

January 22, 2009.

As we all know, Mr. Chairman, the President signed Executive Order 13492 to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility in January. More than 4 months later, there is still no evidence of a plan to carry out this order and no consultation with the Congress. Yet the administration is raising to move detainees, all the while withholding information from the Congress and the public.

First, let me say that last week a suspected plotter of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa arrived in New York for a high-threat trial.

Second, last week, the government of Palau announced that it would accept some of the Uyghur detainees. Press accounts linked this announcement to some significant level of assistance on the part of the American government to Palau.

The Uyghur detainees are affiliated with a listed terrorist group and received weapons training in camps in Afghanistan run by leaders affiliated with al Qaeda. To say the least, we ought to be concerned about any group that's been trained under those circumstances.

Finally, last week, the Department of Justice announced that four of the Uyghur detainees have been resettled in Bermuda, a visa waiver country.

The Congress and the American people found out about these actions and efforts after the fact.

And there is more. Three detainees have already been transferred to Saudi Arabia, one to Chad and one to Iraq. And we are hearing rumors about possible deals with Yemen, Italy and Albania.

All of this has been done without an assessment of the risks to the American people at home and abroad or without an assessment of the risk to our U.S. forces by such releases. The Guantanamo detainees include the perpetrators of some of the most horrific terrorist acts against Americans, including 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings in Africa.

Director Mueller of the FBI attested to Congress 3 weeks ago that bringing detainees to U.S. soil poses risks to national security, including providing financing, radicalizing others and undertaking attacks in the United States. Additionally, the Department of Defense has reported that at least 14 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity in the region. To say the least, we ought to be concerned about the release of people of that kind who threaten our interests anywhere in the world.

This administration is ignoring or is disregarding those risks, and it is stonewalling the Congress. We need to stop this administration from rushing to transfer or to resettle anymore detainees at the expense of an increased risk to Americans. We need to help the President simply fulfill his campaign promise.

The President has been very busy since his inaugural. There is little question he has been down many a pathway, and he has even found that some of those pathways might very well have been mistakes. Well, this is a case where I believe a decision was made without its being carefully thought through, let alone knowing the serious implications of the actions to be taken. We are attempting by this amendment to help the administration rethink that decision that they have made.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I think it's very important that we understand what is at play here.

The current plan by the President through executive order is to close Guantanamo Bay down. Now, this facility is a state-of-the-art, modern facility. It includes the right strategy as far as the layout of the facility. It also has a modern, new courtroom--a state-of-the-art courtroom--well-suited to handle the challenges that we have in trying to deal with these detainees, these self-proclaimed terrorists.

Now, I've been to Guantanamo Bay twice. I've been to other facilities, like Fort Leavenworth. The idea of moving these self- professed terrorists to American soil is a bad idea. It is a worse idea to put them in our prisons. We've had two incidences within the last month where American citizens have been recruited by radical Islamists in our own prisons. When they were released, they committed acts of terror in our country. It is a bad idea to send these detainees to our prisons. It is a terrible idea to send them to our American streets.

Now, this prison cost less than $100 million to build. Yet the President's plan, as reported, is to send some of these Uyghurs, some of these Chinese terrorists, to Palau, and we are going to give the Nation of Palau $200 million to take care of the Uyghurs--only 17 of them. This does not make financial sense. It does not make sense for our culture or for the safety of our people here in America.

One of the excuses that I've heard is that, Well, we've got to close Guantanamo Bay because it's used as a recruiting tool. Well, let me tell you: On September 11, 2001, Guantanamo Bay did not exist. It was not used as a recruiting tool. What have been used as recruiting tools are the pictures of these detainees, themselves. Yesterday's bill, the supplemental, which was passed by this House against my vote, did not prevent the release of detainee photos. Those will be used. Those will be used to recruit other terrorists, so don't give us that as an excuse as why you've got to close Guantanamo Bay.

Financially, it makes sense to keep it open. As far as the safety of our country, it makes sense to keep it open. So pass this amendment. Do the right thing for our country. Vote for the Lewis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Obama administration told us the stimulus bill was going to be the salvation of our economic woes. They predicted unemployment would top out at 8 percent, and they claimed that jobs would be created or saved immediately. Well, there has been a significant amount of time since it was passed, and our economic woes haven't changed. In fact, the numbers are in stark contrast to what we see today.

Unemployment now is at 9.4 percent, and it is headed toward double digits. Just this week, CNN reported that Americans saw $1.3 trillion of wealth vaporize in the first quarter of 2009. Despite the massive government spending, foreclosures continue. Car dealerships are closing and layoffs continue. Home values have continued to decline, and the stock market is down 40 percent from last year.

Our government is borrowing money it does not have. It is inflating programs and projects we do not need. Recently, it was reported that over 100 wasteful projects were funded through this stimulus bill.

There is a project that includes thousands of signs, at $300 each, to brag about the projects paid for under this bill. There are projects here that could have been funded under regular order. There is $2.2 million for a State-run liquor warehouse to put skylights in the installation. There is $3.4 million for road tunnels for turtles. Tunnels for turtles. Now, it seems like maybe the turtles will need the signs to find the tunnels. There is over $40 billion in a State slush fund, and there is money for education. Secretary of Education Duncan has admitted he doesn't know how to spend it.

This is your stimulus money at work here in America. Taxpayers don't understand why so much money is being wasted so quickly with nothing to show for it. My amendment on the floor today would keep a quarter of $1 billion from our deficit by taking the stimulus dollars to pay for this legislation and for other legislation. Now, at a time when Americans are pulling back on their spending and are saving more, our government should do the same.

In the first quarter of this year, household debt fell by an annual rate of 1.1 percent, which is $13.8 trillion. Instead of following our constituents' actions, though, our government continues to spend money that we do not have. When our government spends money that we do not have, one of two things happens: either we borrow it from countries like China--and since China isn't buying our debt now, the other solution is that our Federal Government prints money. We have had the Fed pump over $1 trillion of new money into our economy. The problem with the infusion of new money into our economy like this is that it causes inflation. When you have more money available for, roughly, the same amount of goods, you get inflation. The equation is very simple. The more money we print, the less our money is worth.

Inflation hits our retired Americans the worst. They're on fixed incomes. It hits the working poor the hardest--people who are just getting by. When you take purchasing value away from them, they're worse off. These Americans have worked too hard for their money to see the actions of the Federal Reserve drastically reduce its value.

Our economic instability and uncertainty is making America's bonds toxic. Even countries like China and Brazil are turning up their noses at U.S.-held securities in favor of International Monetary Fund bonds.

Let's follow our constituents' lead. Let's slow the Treasury's printing press. Let's cut up our Chinese credit card and act responsibly by repealing the portion of unobligated funds in the stimulus and pay for the portion of this bill today before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, the reason that we would repeal the Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, is that it simply doesn't work.

In the 1930s, we tried a similar philosophy. We borrowed money from other countries and we started programs that had never before been tried, and throughout the 1930s, we had double-digit unemployment. In May of 1939, Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau said that we have borrowed all of this money; we have spent all of this money, and we have nothing to show for it. The Recovery Act does not work.

In the 1990s, Japan tried the same thing. They had a recession. They borrowed money. They started government programs, and it didn't work there either. They call that their ``lost decade'' where the average per capita income in Japan went from 2nd in the world to 10th in the world.

If you want something that works, it's not borrowing money and spending money. Instead, we need to provide opportunity for our economy. Four out of five jobs in America are small business jobs. We need to provide small business jobs. Remember, General Motors started out in a garage, Boeing started in a barn, Pizza Hut started in a building that's smaller than your office, because they had opportunity. And we can provide opportunity without borrowing money from China or printing new money at the Treasury. We can do it by reforming our regulations, put them on cost-based analysis. We can do it by reforming our health care, making it market based. We can do it by reforming our litigation policy, using loser pays. We can do it by lowering our taxes and making capital welcome in America.

Capital is a coward, and we are scaring it off. And you can't create an economy that is strong and recoverable if you don't create small business jobs. So if you really want to do it, you can do it on the cheap and do it successfully.

If you want to borrow this money and force this debt on our kids, this $250 billion, then you can go ahead with this plan. But there is something better. There is an alternative that actually works, and historically it's proven.

So what we want to do is repeal the Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, and provide the opportunity to allow America to grow because when America grows and our economy grows, the Federal revenue grows.

That's how we balanced the budget in 1990s. It wasn't Bill Clinton's budget. It was the House of Representatives coming up with opportunity for small businesses. We limited the growth in government, and we saw our economy expand at over 7 percent per year. And that's how we balanced the budget. We can do that again if we just start by getting some common sense and repeal the unobligated funds in the Recovery Act.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time.

And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I sincerely believe the majority will come to regret this decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

Yesterday, the House passed an already unorthodox rule that broke the precedent. It was restrictive. And pursuant to that rule, 127 amendments were filed by Members of this House.

After debate on the first Republican amendment, the first one, the majority decided to halt consideration of the legislation, and called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee, which began at 10:45 p.m. last night.

In response to that first Republican amendment, the majority is now bringing forth this rule that will block consideration of most of the amendments that were made in order under the previous rule proposed by the majority and passed by this House. So all those Members who followed the rule previously passed and filed their amendments by the deadline will be left without the chance to represent the interests of their constituents.

I think this rule is unjust. I think it's unnecessary. I think the majority's making a big mistake.

During yesterday's late-night meeting, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee cited the large number of amendments that were preprinted pursuant to the previous rule as a reason for shutting down the appropriations process. He went on to cite what he considers to be his obligation to move the appropriations bills on schedule. As a matter of fact, he was kind enough to hand out to the members of the Rules Committee this copy of a proposed schedule.

I understand his concern. But the reason, precisely, for the high number of amendments that were filed yesterday was because the majority had abandoned the use of the traditional open appropriations rule, and they had required Members to pre-print their amendments, and that forced Members to submit all of the amendments that they conceivably thought they might wish to introduce, to consider, rather, even if they eventually did not plan to offer them.

Under the previous rule, Members were also barred from making germane amendments to their amendments, changes to their amendments, so Members submitted duplicative amendments to cover all possible angles.

Members have an obligation to their constituents to represent them on appropriations bills and to represent the interests of their communities.

Now, yes, even though over 120 amendments were set for debate, the reality, Madam Speaker, is that we never would have considered all of those amendments. Members were hedging their bets. They were submitting duplicative amendments that, in most instances, they didn't plan to actually offer for debate.

Mr. Burton, for example, came before the Rules Committee last night. We were there till almost 2 in the morning, and he testified that he had submitted a number of amendments, but he only was going to ask for one of the amendments to be actually debated.

So I ask, Madam Speaker, if the majority really believed that the minority was using dilatory tactics, why did they stop debate after the first minority amendment and call for an emergency Rules meeting?

They should have followed the advice of my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Perlmutter, and allowed debate to continue last night and proceeded to work through the amendments. Instead, after one minority amendment, they halted the floor process so that the Rules Committee could meet late last night.

Now, by the time the meeting was over at almost 2 a.m., the House could have actually considered already a number of the amendments, and most likely could have agreed by unanimous consent, which is the tradition on appropriations bills, to limit time on remaining amendments and the debate time.

If, after debating for a reasonable amount of time, the majority sincerely came, then, to the conclusion that the minority was using dilatory tactics, the majority then could have called the Rules Committee to seek a structured rule.

Instead, the majority gave up after just one minority amendment and immediately decided to use the heavy hand of the Rules Committee to close down the deliberative process. So I wonder if they really had any intention at all to follow through on their initial call for Members to be allowed to offer amendments that were preprinted in the Congressional Record.

Now, under the rule that we're considering at this time, only 22 specific amendments chosen by the majority are made in order. The rule also calls for the Appropriations ranking minority member to decide which 10 additional earmark-related amendments will be considered. So the majority is bucking the decision to the minority on which of their amendments they will block.

The minority must now have to silence our own Members even though it was not our decision to limit amendments. I think that really is unfortunate by the majority. If the majority wants to block amendments, they should have the courage to say whose amendments they wish to block.

So, Madam Speaker, I think, today, we're witnessing a sad page in the history of this body. I think we're witnessing a day that, without doubt, will come to be regretted by the majority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow an open rule consistent with tradition and with fairness.

I urge my colleagues to consider what we are about to do and to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if not, the majority will come to regret this decision and close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can uphold the tradition of openness on appropriations bills and fairness.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

As part of his argument in support of the amendment to strike all funds and language for the Legal Services Corporation, the gentleman appeals to our concern about the national debt.

Well, we all have a concern about the national debt, and it's all about priorities. This amendment would attempt to effect a balancing of the national debt or a reduction of it on the backs of those who are the absolutely least able to afford it and making an extremely small contribution in the process.

Now, more than ever, the Legal Services Corporation really needs a healthy Federal appropriation. Difficult economic circumstances across the country are driving record numbers of Americans under the income thresholds that establish eligibility for Legal Services Corporation. Fifty-one million Americans are now eligible for legal aid, including, Mr. Chairman, 18 million children.

At the same time, non-Federal funding sources for legal aid are declining as State budget deficits and pressures on private charitable organizations have reduced legal aid contributions by outside entities. Now is the very time that legal aid needs Federal support. LSC providers already turn away one out of every two eligible clients who seek assistance. So already, in a difficult economy, when those seeking legal aid are becoming increasingly eligible, we're turning away 50 percent of those who need the service.

With no Federal funding, as the gentleman has proposed in his amendment, Legal Services Corporation grantees would be forced to turn away even more clients who are in desperate need of help.

I urge Members to consider the true human impact of that proposal and oppose the amendment. And I go back to where I started. This is the wrong place to try to balance the budget, on the backs of those who are least able to make a contribution.

I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would essentially prohibit any funds to be spent with regard to the implementation of the Executive order requiring the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay.

I believe that the closing of Guantanamo is the right policy decision. The President believes that, and the President has acted on that. It's an embarrassment to the country. It's a symbol that has really fomented a lot of opposition to the United States around the world. The continued existence of Gitmo is a basic assault on our values, and it undermines the success in our counterterrorism programs.

President Obama and I aren't the only ones who believe this. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the Nation's top civilian and military defense officials agree that it should be closed. Also, both President Bush's Secretaries of State and a variety of other bipartisan political officials agree that it should be closed. So this is a bipartisan position.

We have already clearly communicated to the White House that they must submit a plan showing how they intend to proceed. The White House has agreed, and I am confident that their plan will show a reasonable path forward.

The bill before you today, Mr. Chairman, includes provisions to ensure that the Congress will have sufficient opportunity to weigh in on that plan, when it is submitted, and to preclude most activities prior to that. This legislation before us tonight does not permit the release of Gitmo detainees into the United States during fiscal year 2010. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. for detention or prosecution purposes until 2 months after we've received the plan. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to foreign countries without notification and certifications to the Congress, and it does not provide any funds for activities relating to the Gitmo closure. This will ensure that we have additional opportunities to debate this issue when the administration requests a budget amendment or a supplemental to fund this plan.

We have established a good process for the consideration of this issue, and it should be allowed to play out before we start prejudicing a plan that we don't even have before us. This bill postures this issue in a good way. I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

I scratch my head as I did in full committee. Why would the gentleman be offering an amendment to jerk the rug out from under the Recovery Act at a time when the Recovery Act is beginning to stimulate and to help the recovery of our economy in the Nation? It is just the wrong time to do this, and

I still question the gentleman's logic in this.

Mr. Tiahrt's amendment attempts to prevent the obligation of Recovery Act funds for the Economic Development Administration. If there is one agency in the Federal Government that is focused on fomenting economic development, it is the Economic Development Administration. This agency is charged with stimulating economic development in areas that are most needy head on and the amendment is trying to undermine its ability to do its mission.

NTIA's digital-to-analog converter box program is attacked, as is the NIST research construction account. There is criticism in a lot of areas, and certainly in some quarters on the other side of the aisle, by those who oppose the Recovery Act, that funds are not getting out quickly enough for construction. Those are the areas that demonstratively provide real jobs in real time.

So it's unclear why Mr. Tiahrt is singling out these agencies when so many other agencies in this bill also receive funds under the Recovery Act. It is the wrong time to reach back and to try to undo the stimulus package at a time when the economy is recovering. Recovery is measured by a lot of things--by the recovery in the credit markets, by improvements in the capital markets.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is an unwise time to do this, and I would hope that the body would oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would close by repeating again that this is the wrong time. The markets are improving. Credit is being reestablished. Confidence in the economy is increasing. This is the wrong time to jerk the rug out from under the stimulus package, which has gone a long way in achieving this progress. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

I commend him for his efforts in this area, environmentally conscious, and I appreciate his contribution to our bill.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his contribution to the bill. It is a real one, and we are pleased to accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, while I may not be in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, today it's been 628 days since many of my colleagues and I requested this Congress to take action to avoid a collapse of civil society in the San Joaquin Valley. Only 3 months ago I again warned Congress that an economic catastrophe was looming. Despite this warning, the leadership of this Congress sat back and did absolutely nothing. The result, 40,000 workers laid off, unemployment nearing 20 percent with some Valley communities nearing 50 percent. This man-made drought in California is the direct result of this government's action to protect the 3-inch minnow. The situation has now been compounded by a recent Obama administration action that now blames cities and farms in California for the plight of the killer whale. This is absolutely absurd. What is wrong with this government? We are starving people to save the killer whale now. This highly controversial opinion was rushed into print by the Obama administration without public comment or debate. This is a clear violation of the Endangered Species Act and has since been challenged in court. Nevertheless, the Obama administration, just like the captain of the Titanic, declared full steam ahead and mandated further reductions on California's water supply. This has caused water shortages to spread not only in the San Joaquin Valley but now to Los Angeles and even to San Diego. The Democrat Congress is directly responsible. You were warned, you failed to act, and now this Congress must accept the responsibility for their actions.

A government that cannot provide water is a government that has failed. Throughout history, dictators like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe have used water as a weapon to starve their enemies of water. But what we've never seen in history is a democracy starving its own people of water.

Mr. Chair, my constituents are not enemies of the state. Quite honestly, offering this amendment today is the worst of all options. But because of the actions of this Democrat majority, I had no other choice. They have refused to allow debate on this issue or even a vote on a bill that would end this crisis for good. This amendment is a small step in a long process that must be made to build a case that this Congress has failed its constitutional duties to provide for the general welfare of its citizens.

Mr. Chair, this is a bipartisan amendment. I would urge support of this amendment. My colleagues Mr. Cardoza and Mr. Costa have been very helpful in drafting this amendment. I hope that the Congress would adopt it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, excuses, excuses, excuses. What we've had throughout my entire career in Congress is more and more excuses. I appreciate the gentleman spent three decades in this body systematically destroying the Valley's economy. And so to hide behind the courts, to hide behind the bureaucracy, to hide behind the Obama administration, it may sound good to the gentleman from California. But the reality of it is, there are people living in their cars. People don't have food. Food banks are out of food. Workers are trying to have work. Farmers are going bankrupt because of the actions that Mr. Miller has taken throughout his entire career. It's okay. It's okay to value fish. That's okay. But understand that you're starving families while you value the fish. It's unfortunate.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleagues' support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my other friend from California. But the facts are, it's absurd to think that pumping some water out of a delta is killing killer whales, and that's what is in this biological opinion. When the government gets to the point of blaming killer whales for problems, the government has much bigger problems than just this little amendment.

So when you look at the fisheries in California that have been destroyed, the fishing industry was run out of San Diego a long time ago. There used to be Portuguese American fishermen that controlled the tuna industry in San Diego. The Democrats ran them out back in the seventies and eighties. So to now blame little minnows and pumping water to allow people to work are now destroying all the fish and killer whales in the ocean is absurd. We have starving people in the Valley. When is this Congress going to act? When? How many more days? It's been going on for 2 years. How much longer? Is 40,000 people enough people out of work? Do we need 80,000 people out of work? How many more people must starve because of the inaction by this body? That's what I want to know.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I wish that my friend, Mr. Costa, was the Speaker and not our current Democrat leadership because it's the current leadership that's destroying the economy of the San Joaquin Valley--not Mr. Costa and Mr. Cardoza, who are trying their best to deal with their leadership to try to bring some attention to this problem.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for giving more time to this amendment.

As you know, we had to go to the Rules Committee last night to try to get this amendment made in order. We had many of our colleagues who weren't even allowed to offer amendments. The Republicans have completely been shut out of the process, and I don't know how we're supposed to come to commonsense resolutions to the problems in this country if we don't even have time to debate issues.

My friend, Mr. Cardoza, wanted to have time to come out and debate these issues; my friend, Mr. Costa, had to fight with his leadership to have time to come down and debate these issues. What's wrong with the leadership over there? How long are you going to let these people starve? How long? Two years. It's 2 years now since we've asked.

The pumps in California have to run, and sooner or later, your colleagues in Los Angeles--whether they like it or not--the Democrats in Los Angeles who have refused to do anything, their water rates are going up. They're running out of water. San Diego's water rates are up 40 percent this year. So you can run, but you can't hide. This isn't going away.

I would encourage the leadership of this body to get some people with common sense to get control of this body.