Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes and then yield the bulk of the time to Mr. Clyburn.

I rise about a particular situation that has happened to me and, I am sure, has happened to other Members that you might not be aware of. Other Members can sign you on to a piece of legislation without your consent, and that happened to me just this week.

Representative Diane Black signed me on to H.R. 217, which is a particularly strong anti-choice bill and a bill that I would never support. Now, it was an honest mistake.

My name is Adam Smith. Regrettably, there is an Adrian Smith, who serves--well, not ``regrettably.'' Adrian is a very nice man, but he is someone who has a name very close to mine, ``Adrian Smith.'' She thought it was Adrian Smith she was signing on to the bill. She signed me on to the bill instead, and that creates two problems and two things that I would urge this body to change.

First of all, nobody should be able to sign you on to a bill without your signature. Now, I know we do that, and that speeds up the process, but it creates a situation where anyone can put you on any bill. In this case, I was put on a bill that is polar opposite to my personal beliefs and my 18-year record in Congress.

The second thing that is really problematic about this is you would assume--well, okay--there is a simple fix: just take it off. To her credit, as soon as she noticed the mistake, Congresswoman Black did just that--she had my name removed as a cosponsor--but that is not what happens.

On the bill that is out there with the original cosponsors, my name does not simply disappear. A line is drawn through it, and it is said next to it ``withdrawn'' as if, at some point, I did cosponsor the bill and then changed my mind.

I don't know how we change this rule, but when this happens--when it is clear that someone signs you on to a bill you had no intention of being on--your name should be removed. Period. End of story. It was never really there in the first place.

Now, as a part of my permanent record, there is my name as having been on a bill--to all appearances as my own choice--that, in a million years, I never would have cosponsored.

I rise to make that point clear to my constituents, first of all. I never signed on to it, and I never had any intention. Second of all, as I will do in a letter that I will send to the Speaker and to the minority leader, I would urge us to at least change that second policy.

Once it is clear that you never intended to sign on to a bill, your name should simply be removed. It should not be there with a line through it as if you did intend to sign on to the bill at one time. I think this is potentially damaging to a lot of Members.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 9, Wednesday, December 10, and Thursday, December 11, 2014, I was out on medical leave continuing to recover from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 552 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 5781); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 553 (on passage of H.R. 5781); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 554 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 775); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 555 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1000); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 556 (on approving the journal); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 557 (on passage of S. 2244); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 558 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4681); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 559 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2719); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 560 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1204); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 561 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 776); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 562 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5806); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 563 (on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 83 with an amendment); and ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 564 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5699, as amended).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 17; Tuesday, November 18; Wednesday, November 19: and Thursday, November 20, 2014, I was out on medical leave recovering from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 520 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5162), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 521 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 756), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 522 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 756), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 523 (on agreeing to the Stewart amendment to H.R. 1422), ``yes'' on roll call vote No . 524 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1422 with instructions), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 525 (on passage of H.R. 1422), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 526 (on agreeing to the Kennedy amendment to H.R. 4012), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 527 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4012 with instructions), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 528 (on passage of H.R. 4012), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 529 (on agreeing to the Waxman amendment to H.R. 4795), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 530 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4795 with instructions), and ``no'' on roll call vote No. 531 (on passage of H.R. 4795).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to join with the chairman in urging the body to pass this important piece of legislation. This bill every year helps our military do its job. It provides pay increases for the people who serve in the military, it provides for military construction, and it provides for the necessary authorities that the men and women who serve in our military need to perform the missions that our country asks them to do.

This is particularly important as we continue to fight in Afghanistan and as we continue to try to figure out how to deal with the challenge in Syria and Iraq. I think this bill is of even more importance because it contains within it the train and equip authority to help deal with ISIS and Syria and Iraq.

I really wish to emphasize for this body that that train and equip mission is just that. It in no way, shape, manner, or form authorizes the use of military force, and I think it is the best approach.

I don't want U.S. troops fighting this war. We have learned that U.S. troops cannot win the battle against the evil ideology that al Qaeda and ISIS have promoted. We need local partners. That is what this bill helps us do: train and equip those local partners so that they can fight ISIS on their home turf locally and in a far more successful way.

I will say that this bill is deficient in one regard. We have a smaller defense budget than we ever anticipated that we would have. If sequestration comes to pass, it will be smaller still.

There are very difficult decisions in terms of what equipment to procure, what equipment to set aside, how to cut personnel costs. The Pentagon has wrestled with all of those issues and made a series of proposals to us about how to make those cuts. We rejected pretty much all of them.

That is not going to happen in the future. In 2016-2017 we are going to have to make some choices, because if we don't make choices, readiness gets hurt. It is the last thing that they can cut. They do not fix equipment. They do not train troops as much. They do not pay for ammunition and fuel to do the training. If we don't make the decisions on how to make rational cuts in the budget in light of how much that budget has shrunk, readiness gets hurt. So in the future, I hope we will make those decisions.

I applaud the chairman for his fine work. I want to thank him for an excellent working relationship. I wish him the best. He has been an excellent chairman. He has upheld the tradition of bipartisanship on the House Armed Services Committee as well as anybody. I really appreciate that working relationship. I thank you for the work on this bill, and I urge its passage.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I want to, first of all, thank all the people who worked so hard to pull this bill together. The staffs on both the House and the Senate side do an amazing job that most people do not understand just how many long hours they put into this.

The process has been made more and more difficult in recent years by the fact that the Senate either doesn't pass a bill or waits until the absolute last minute to pass a bill, so then we have to work through the committee process. So there have been fits and starts back and forth, and the committee has done a fabulous job. This is a very lengthy, very complicated piece of legislation. Without the expertise of our staff, there is no way on Earth we would be able to accomplish it.

I also want to point out, again, how important this piece of legislation is. This is the 53rd consecutive year that we have passed an authorizing bill. I think that recognizes how important national security is and how it is one of the central duties of the United States Congress to make sure every year we give the authorities to our men and women who are serving in the armed services to do the jobs that we ask them to do. So I thank our staff for that. I really want to recognize their leadership.

I also want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman McKeon, as this is his last time as chairman and as a Member of Congress.

Our committee has tried to have two basic core principles: one, we get our bill done; two, we work in a bipartisan fashion. When you look around this body today, you have greater appreciation for how difficult those two things are. We are not naturally bipartisan, and we are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there is always something about any piece of legislation that somebody would prefer to be just a little bit different. That is not any less true in our bill, but we recognize the necessity of getting it done.

The ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. When I arrived here, Floyd Spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through Ike Skelton, who was Mr. McKeon's predecessor, have made it a priority to, number one, work with the other side. Buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment I was elected as ranking, reached out to me and made sure that that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committee.

And the second piece of it is the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. Again, Chairman McKeon has just been outstanding in that regard. It has been a tough, tough, long 4 years. Many challenges have cropped up, but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done, so I thank him for his leadership.

I also want to thank Chairman Levin on the Senate side, as he is retiring as well. This is his last year as chairman. He showed a similar commitment, and he had an even more difficult time over there. In fact, he and Senator Inhofe had a conversation a couple of days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this in which they were trying to explain to us the Senate rules. I said: Look, I am never going to understand them. Just don't explain them. There is nothing I can do about it. That is up to you. You guys figure it out as best you can. So Senator Levin has shown outstanding leadership as well.

On the whole, I think this is a very good piece of legislation. We have to remember that we face a wide variety of national security threats at this point. We still have troops in Afghanistan. We now again have troops in Iraq. We have North Korea, which is very unpredictable. We have the challenge of dealing with Iran and all of its levels. We have Russia and Vladimir Putin that are messing around in Ukraine and a variety of different other areas. This is probably as dangerous a time as we have had since the end of the cold war. Our national security strategy, funding, and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important.

At the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. We have sequestration, and we have this rampant desire to cut, cut, cut, cut everything from government, not contemplate any new revenue, not contemplate any possibility of spending more money; and our national security strategy has to try to wrestle with that, so that makes it very, very difficult.

I will say again what I think is going to be most important in the next few years. I don't think sequestration is going away. I am going to continue to argue that it should, but given the majorities in the House and the Senate and given the last election, it is unlikely to go away, which means that the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of money than they thought they were going to have. They are also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that I mentioned and, undoubtedly, a few that I didn't.

So how do we do that? Right now, unfortunately, Congress is doing it the old way, which is parochial. We all have an interest. We don't want our base closed. We have an airplane or a ship that is stationed in our district or a particular defense contractor that is invested in a particular piece of equipment. So whenever the Pentagon comes up and says, ``We need to cut this,'' you have a predictable group of people who will rally and say, ``Here is why we shouldn't''; and by and large, the rest of Congress has gone along with that group of people.

I am here to tell you that is just not going to continue to work. It is not. The very small minor personnel cuts that are in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. We

would love to have more money, but we don't. On the A-10, on the retirement of the cruisers and the amphib vehicles--I am sorry, not the retirement, the refurbishment, the layup of those vehicles--on the changes to the Guard and Reserve that have been proposed, all of these are things that we would prefer not to do. But we have the money that we have, and until this Congress decides to change that and provide more, it is the absolute worst thing we can do to reject every single change.

We have had things as minor as a guard unit wanting to move five C- 130s from a base in one State to a base in another and proposals on our bill to disallow them from doing that because the people in that State don't want them to be moved. I understand that, but that is not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment.

We are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make if we are going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens when we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for these things. The Pentagon has got to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work, and the cuts always come from readiness.

We have always said that the worst thing that we can do is create a hollow force, a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that we ask them to do. That is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts--we don't do a BRAC, for instance--and leave the military with no choice but to reduce training and equipment, because that is all that is left. That is the last thing on the table. So I hope that we will start making some of those tough decisions in the next year.

Again, I thank the chairman; I thank the staff; I wish Senator Levin the best in his retirement as well; and I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 12, Thursday, November 13, and Friday, November 14, 2014, I was out on medical leave recovering from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 516 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4194), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 517 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 748), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 518 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 5682, with instructions), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 519 (on passage of H.R. 5682).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 15, 2014, I was unable to be present for a recorded vote. I request that the record show that had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 497, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5108, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Bob Dickerson of RESULTS, a grassroots organization dedicated to creating the political will to end poverty in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Dickerson has contributed immeasurably to the local and international community over the last twenty-five years as a volunteer leader.

After working as an attorney in Seattle for a number of years, Mr. Dickerson left his law practice and began working nearly full-time as a RESULTS volunteer. His passionate and ever present voice for the powerless--especially children--is truly remarkable. In 2005, his work was recognized with the Thomas C. Wales Foundation Award for Civic Engagement and Passionate Citizenship.

As the RESULTS Seattle Group Leader, Mr. Dickerson has developed deep partnerships with powerful coalitions, elected leaders and the media. His work inspired Members of Congress and volunteers across the country on both sides of the aisle to serve as vocal spokespersons in support of the Global Poverty Act, the Education for All Act, the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, among many others.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize Bob Dickerson for twenty-five years of excellence. I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Seattle Sounders Football Club (FC) on the 40th anniversary of its founding. Since its formation in 1974 as a member of the North American Soccer League (NASL), the Sounders have consistently brought world-class soccer to our region.

After decades of play in other leagues, Sounders FC was added as a Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion team in 2007. As a nod to the team's history, the notoriously loyal Sounders fans voted to keep the traditional team name alive even after changing leagues.

Since joining the league, the Sounders and their fans have set MLS records year in and year out. In every season of their tenure in the MLS the Sounders have led the league in both average attendance and number of season tickets sold. This loud and passionate fan base at every game has spurred the Sounders on to stellar play, and they have reached the playoffs in each of their four seasons as a result.

The soccer pitch is not the only place that members of Sounders FC have achieved excellence. Many members of the organization have undertaken efforts to better the community they call home. Through partnerships with organizations focused on youth and sports, and through a 2013 trip by team members to Tanzania with the Washington Global Health Alliance, the Seattle Sounders have done much more than just play outstanding soccer--they have made a difference in our region and across the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize the Seattle Sounders FootballClub on forty years of excellence, both on and off the soccer pitch.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and--he insisted I say this-- a fellow graduate of Fordham University.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think one of the things that makes this difficult is there are so many issues swirling around here: the desire; the need that I think, as Mr. Thornberry said, that everyone agrees on to confront and contain

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I too rise in support of this amendment. As the chairman laid out, there is no question that ISIL is a clear threat to our interests, and they are a threat in two clear ways. Number one, a large number of foreign fighters are going over to Syria and Iraq to support them. Some of those foreign fighters--estimates are somewhere in the 100 range-- have come from the U.S., and thousands have come from Western Europe. Many of those have returned to that home country, and they present a clear threat. As long as ISIS or ISIL is there to threaten us, the fighters that fight with them will become a threat to the rest of us.

But in a broader sense, if ISIL is able to control territory in Iraq and in Syria and have a safe and secure haven, they will, without question, plot and plan attacks against the West. They have already said that is their plan, and that is exactly what happened when al Qaeda had safe haven in Afghanistan. So denying ISIL safe haven is clearly in the United States' interests.

I think a humanitarian aspect of this is also worth stating. As was noted by some earlier speakers on the CR debate, you cannot imagine a more violent and dangerous and just hedonistic group of people. The number of folks that they have brutally murdered in Iraq and Syria solely because they refused to pledge allegiance to ISIS and their twisted view of their religion is staggering. This is a group that must be stopped.

Now, the sad fact is, the United States military cannot stop them on our own. This has to be primarily a local fight. The folks in the region have to take up this battle.

And I believe that they have started to in Iraq, but we need to open a front in Syria. Because the problem is, if ISIS can hold themselves out as an organization that is fighting against Western imperialism, that brings supporters to them. If, on the other hand, they are, as they clearly are, just a group of murderous thugs that are killing more Muslims than anybody has killed in a very long time, then we can build support from the local population, from the Sunni population, to oppose them.

Now, we have already seen some success on this in Iraq. And I think the President was absolutely right to take his time in Iraq and wait for a coalition to work with. If the U.S. had simply come in over the top right off the bat and had started bombing ISIS, we would have been perceived as choosing the Shia side in the Shia-Sunni civil war. And in so doing, we would have strengthened ISIS. By insisting that Prime Minister Maliki be replaced, by insisting that Iraq begin to at least start some sort of power sharing arrangement with the Sunnis, we were able to build a stronger coalition by also building support from the Kurds, a Sunni group. We could then be in support of them fighting ISIS and pushing them out.

Now, the great flaw in this theory is, the border between Iraq and Syria is nonexistent, as far as ISIS is concerned, and they can go back and forth across it.

If we don't have any way to get at them in Syria, it gives them an enormous advantage in continuing to press the fight in Iraq and potentially elsewhere, but the challenge is: How do we open that front? Because we face the same dilemma in Syria that we faced in Iraq.

The dominant issue that started everything in Syria was opposition to the Assad regime, a regime very much worth opposing. As the President and many on the floor here have said, Assad must go. He is an illegitimate leader.

If we were simply to come in and appear to be playing the role of Assad's air force in Syria, again, that would strengthen ISIS. That would drive Sunnis and the anti-regime elements in Syria into their arms.

Mr. Speaker, we need a partner in Syria that we can support that is an alternative to Assad and is an alternative to ISIS. The problem is that right now we don't really have one.

We have a small group of people that we have been supporting in a variety of different ways, but we need that group to grow. We need to have a partner to support if we are ever going to hope to contain ISIS in Syria in Iraq. The only way to do that is to start.

I have heard a number of complaints. People say, ``But, gosh, are there really any moderates out there? Are there enough to make a difference? What if they switch sides?''

There are all kinds of problems, but the bottom line is if you believe that we have to open a front in Syria to stop ISIS--and I don't see how you can believe otherwise--to give them Syria and say, ``We are not going to challenge you there,'' I think makes it impossible to even significantly degrade them and, certainly, to ever defeat them; so we need to open a front.

How do you do that, Mr. Speaker? Well, you can't open a front unless you start the process, and that is what Mr. McKeon's amendment does. It starts the process. It gives the ability to train and equip a force that will be opposed to Assad and opposed to ISIS.

Now, I don't think we should have any illusions, and I know Americans--I would prefer this as well--we would say, Look, we are going to win this war, and we are going to win it in 100 days, and here is what we--this is going to be a long process. This is not something that is going to happen quickly.

It is simply the nature of the conflict in that part of the world that it is going to take time to find the people, train them, and equip them, but, if we do not try, Mr. Speaker, then ISIS is going to sit in Syria unchallenged, continuing to brutally murder civilians of all stripes and continuing to spread their unique ideology of hatred and violence. We have to start somewhere, and I think this amendment gives us the opportunity to start somewhere.

I also want to note that I like the fact that the amendment is only effective until the end of the CR and says that this should be contained in the National Defense Authorization Act. This is an authorizing action, and it should be done in an authorizing bill.

Now, we have got to get started, and we don't have time. Regrettably, the Senate has not acted, so we don't have the NDAA yet, but we will in the next month or two. I think we can then put this language into the NDAA and make it more long term in terms of the authorization; so I appreciate that.

I also feel, as the chairman does, that Congress should do a broader AUMF on the fight against ISIS, on what we are doing in Iraq and Syria. We have launched, I think, well in the hundreds, now, of bombing missions against ISIS. This is something where Congress should act.

Mr. Speaker, the only area of disagreement I have is I keep hearing colleagues say, ``Well, the President ought to ask for it. We are the legislative branch.'' I hear all the time, ``Gosh, the President is overstepping our authorities, always telling us what to do, and he is ignoring the law.''

Why does he have to ask? If this is what we want to do--we are the United States Congress. The legislative branch ought to act.

I think the President is right in saying he is going to do what he believes he has the right to do under article II to protect this country, but Congress should act; so we should act. We shouldn't wait for him to ask. We should put together an AUMF to more broadly authorize this, and that is something that should be appropriately done as well.

In the short term, we need to start a front against ISIS in Syria, and the only way to do that is to build a legitimate local force that can begin that fight. Train and equip is the first step, I believe, and then this process that regrettably will not be quick.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The subject of boots on the ground came up, and I think this is a really important point for why this debate has been so divisive. So many people are concerned about this action.

I think what we all want to do is we want to confront the threat that is ISIS, which has been well described. The violence that this group has perpetrated on people in their region and foreigners is unimaginable. Make no mistake about it: if they are allowed to spread, that violence will spread as well.

But there is concern about the U.S. getting again engaged in that part of the world because of Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of my colleagues have raised the issue of: Well, gosh, we put 150,000 U.S. troops into Iraq, we left, and 2 years later it had all fallen apart. We are in Afghanistan, there is still a raging violence of a war going on there. Here we go again, basically. Have we not learned our lessons?

I believe the boots on the ground comment shows in an odd way that we have learned our lesson. We are not going to do a full-scale military commitment to Iraq. Now, I think a lot of people are against ISIS. I think a lot of people mistake that we are not going to do that, not so much because it wouldn't work, but because we just don't want to do that. We don't want to spend the money and risk the lives.

That is not really the case. The reason we are not going to do a full-scale U.S. military commitment is because a lesson that we have learned in the last 12 years is the limitations of the ability of the U.S. military to bend cultures in this part of the world to their will. It doesn't work. That is why we are not going to send in the U.S. military.

Because then you set up a situation where you have a fight between, in the minds of the people in that part of the world, the evil West and Islam. If you set up that dynamic, we cannot win.

Now, that means that we can't do the full-scale military commitment. But what we can do is we can enable partners. I know there is considerable concern about the fact that we spent a lot of money, supposedly enabling partners in Iraq, and when ISIS came rolling across the border of Syria they simply melted away.

Now, two things:

Number one, I would submit to you that they melted away because of what the Maliki government had done to alienate the entire Sunni population. It wasn't that they couldn't fight; it is that they chose not to because they did not want to fight on behalf of what was essentially a sectarian corrupt Shia government. The Sunnis would not fight on behalf of them.

But also I want to point out, we have successfully trained militaries around the world. If you look at the Horn of Africa and the threat that we faced in Somalia, we have trained Ethiopia and Kenya and Uganda.

They have been incredibly effective fighting forces. Across the Red Sea in Yemen, we have trained the Yemenis as they confront al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Not as clearly effective as we have had in the Horn of Africa, but, nonetheless, they have contained the threat.

I was, on a much smaller scale, in the Philippines a number of years back where we trained the Filipino authorities to try to contain various terrorist threats down there.

It has been effective. Just because it wasn't effective in Iraq doesn't mean that it can't be effective to train an indigenous force to effectively fight the fight that we want them to fight. But it can't be just the U.S. military.

Now, the final point on the boots on the ground issue that I think is a bit misleading: we are all searching for that clear-cut way to say: We will do this but we won't do that; we won't go too far, we won't take that step that makes us too big a U.S. military engagement.

The problem is there is no black-and-white line here. There is no way to define that. There is no way to say: Well, okay, if we step across this line then there is no going back. In fact, I have heard the concern raised we are sending in advisers, and, gosh, everybody knows that when you send in advisers the next thing you know you have got 500,000 troops and 70,000 U.S. soldiers dead. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is not what happens every time you send in advisers from the cases that I cited a moment ago. It doesn't have to be that way.

The boots on the ground issue is, I think, effectively simple and straightforward. We have already had boots on the ground, but we are not going to make this a U.S. military-led fight because it cannot be. It would not be successful if it was. This is going to be an effort to train and equip and advise, to build a force that can confront ISIS. Because right now in Syria, it is a choice between Assad and ISIS for too many people. A good number of those people would love to have another option.

Don't read into the fact that some people are joining ISIS the belief that somehow they are absolutely aligned with them. They oppose Assad; ISIS is, in many cases, the only game in town. We need to give them another option: a Sunni-led indigenous force that we train and equip to help begin the process of getting to the point where they can be a legitimate force. It will not be a short process. It just won't. It is going to take time. But ISIS needs to be confronted. This is the first necessary step in doing that. We can't do it without local partners taking the lead. This is a way to get those local partners the capability to get there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, again, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree very strongly with Chairman McKeon on one point. You can raise all manner of different questions, but there are no guarantees. If you are trying to figure out how to vote on this and you won't vote in favor until we are guaranteed nothing can go wrong, then save yourself the argument and just vote ``no.'' This is a very dangerous part of the world, and, in any part of the world, something can always go wrong. We cannot guarantee that there will be no bad outcomes.

I think one of the things that has been lost in all this is that train and equip has been equated simply with Iraq and Afghanistan and has been deemed a failure. I really want to point out to people that the U.S. military--and the U.S. Government more broadly--has engaged in many very successful train-and-equip missions.

In fact, this is the way out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the way out of committing over 100,000 U.S. troops to a battle to try to fundamentally change a country. You build partnerships, and those partners in those local areas are the ones that do the fighting and pursue the interests.

In Somalia, we have a very significant problem with al-Shabaab. We have not, I believe, lost a U.S. life in that region. We have trained and equipped Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. They have helped take the fight to al-Shabaab in Somalia in a very successful manner.

We are working with the Yemeni Government right now to help defeat al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula within Yemen. And believe me, the country of Yemen is not a model of anything. It has all manner of different challenges in terms of its governance. And you certainly could have looked at that and said, Wow, we are going to work with those guys?

But we did not want al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to continue to grow and continue to threaten us, where at least two terror attacks against the U.S. were launched, so we trained and have worked with the Yemen Government in a way that has helped contain AQAP. Train and equip absolutely is a policy that can work, and that is what we are going to try and do in Syria.

So backing up to the policy there, there are several steps to this.

First of all, should we confront ISIS? I mean, that is an initial decision. And I suppose you can decide that it is way across the world. You have got Sunnis fighting Shi'as. You have got Syria. You have got Iran. You have got all manner of different people all mixed up in this. Let's just wash our hands of it and hope it works out.

The problem with that is ISIS has made it clear that they will kill Americans and that they will threaten us. And if they continue to grow and continue to hold territory, they will absolutely plan and plot attacks against the United States. So simply allowing ISIS to go forward doesn't strike me as a good option, which brings us to the second question.

Okay, if you want to try to contain them, how do you do it? And I completely agree with the cautionary notes that have been cited about just sending in the U.S. military to do it. I think the risks there are enormous, and it would not be successful because it would unite all-- not all, but would unite a fair number of Sunnis and radicals against us.

So the option on the table is to train and equip local partners to do the fighting. We have done it successfully with the Kurds. We are making progress now with Iraq now that we have got Maliki out as Prime Minister and we have a new government that at least gives the Sunnis some hope that they will be included in the Iraqi Government.

In Syria, we will have to work with the Free Syria movement. Now, we have already been working with a lot of these folks. We have already been providing humanitarian assistance and some other assistance as well, so it is not like we don't have anybody over there. We do know some folks and we should work with them, because the alternative is allowing Syria to be divided up between Assad and ISIS, and that alternative is unacceptable.

Lastly, I want to say that I fully understand the concerns about mission creep. I fully understand the concerns about open-ended warfare, but this is not what we are talking about.

As the chairman and many others have said, we should have a debate about an AUMF on this floor. This is not an AUMF. This in no way authorizes any U.S. military action against anybody. All it does is it authorizes the Department of Defense to train and equip other forces. Our forces will be hundreds of miles from the battlefield, training and equipping other forces.

So I agree, there is a much larger debate to have if an AUMF is put out on the floor, and we have to think about will this be taken and interpreted way too broadly. We have seen that happen with the 2001 AUMF, for instance. So that will be a worthy debate.

That is not what we are doing here. In fact, this is something that 3 years ago many people suggested that the U.S. Government should do. But we cannot do it unless Congress authorizes the Department of Defense to do it.

So I think this is much more narrow in scope than the broader debate, and the broader debate is one we should have. But here we are talking about a very narrow approach of train and equip that, frankly, can help limit U.S. action.

I have heard some of my colleagues say, well, you know, we understand the bombing. We need to do the bombing because ISIS is a threat and all that. But we don't want to do the train and equip which, to me, is just completely backwards.

If you are concerned about mission creep, if you are concerned about the U.S. getting too involved, then direct military action is certainly a heck of a lot more involvement than training and equipping others in the region to lead the fight.

I think that is an appropriate policy. I applaud the chairman for his work in putting this together.

We do have more work to do. This only authorizes this until the CR runs out, December 11, I believe, so we will have to do this in the National Defense Authorization Act. But I think it is a modest and appropriate step, and whatever criticism you have of all manner

of different mistakes, perceived and actual, that the President may have made before, please don't let that color what is an incredibly important policy decision as we try to decide how to confront a very real threat in ISIS.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are two issues important to this piece of legislation. The first that the chairman mentioned is the legality of this. However, he is wrong in the idea in saying that this is clear on its face and there is no debate. There is actually considerable debate as to whether or not the President's actions were legal.

The President and the Secretary of Defense have stated unequivocally that they believe they acted within the law, and this is actually an issue that comes up repeatedly between the legislative and the executive branch. It has been coming up for a couple hundred years now.

The administration's position is that they acted in accordance with their article II Commander in Chief authority in the interest of national security and in bringing one of our soldiers home, and it is their position that article II of the Constitution, which is a law, supersedes the piece of legislation that was referenced about 30 days' notice that was passed, and therefore, their actions were legal.

The first thing to really understand about this is that this is in no way unprecedented. I am sure if we went back and examined the history, just about every President at one time or another did something contrary to a piece of legislation or a law because they felt article II required them to do so. They felt article II--the Constitution, which is a law--superseded the legislation in question.

In fact, we don't have to go back very far. President George W. Bush repeatedly took actions that were in violation of the clear law post-9/ 11. He basically authorized warrantless wiretapping. He authorized indefinite detention.

Both of those issues were clearly contrary to statutory law, but President Bush asserted his article II authority and said that, therefore, it was legal to do that.

Go back to Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus in the same way. This is a long-running debate between the legislative and the executive branch, and never before has the legislative branch stepped out with legislation like this to censure the President.

So, number one, the President did not violate the law. He followed what he felt was article II of the Constitution, perfectly consistent with what George W. Bush and a whole lot of other folks did, so I think it is wrong to call him out and say that he violated the law when this is simply part of a long-running debate between the legislative and the executive branch.

Now, let me say I feel that the President should have given us 30 days' notice. I do believe that. Now, the reason that they didn't is because they were concerned that the information would be leaked.

This was a very sensitive negotiation, and they were told that if the information was leaked, it would kill the deal, and they were deeply concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health and that if any further delay happened, that he might not survive his current incarceration with the Taliban, so that was their reason for doing it.

While I have said and will continue to say that I think he should have given us that 30 days' notice, that I think Congress has proven repeatedly that we can, in fact, keep a secret--we have been told about a number of very sensitive things and have not revealed that information.

I think it is worth noting that the President isn't completely without reason for that. In fact, Senator Saxby Chambliss, after this was revealed, was asked, ``Well, if you had known about this, what would you have done?''

He initially said, ``Well, I would have let people know, absolutely, because I didn't think it was a good idea, and I would have done everything I could to stop it.''

Now, after having been explained that that is exactly why the President was reluctant to tell Congress, the Senator walked himself back from those remarks and said that he wouldn't, but his initial reaction sort of shows that the President and the administration were not completely out of bounds in thinking that their ability to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home might have been jeopardized by allowing Congress to know that.

Be that as it may, I think they should have. I think we have proven ourselves capable of keeping secrets, and they should have given us 30 days' notice, but on the legality question, this is perfectly consistent with what a large number of Presidents have done in the past.

So to call this President out specifically, I think, is wrong, which brings us to the second issue, and that is the partisan nature of this body. Now, it is not unique to this body. Regrettably, if you go back and you look at instances where the President is of one party and the Congress is of another, that is when investigations are off the charts.

Somehow, when both the President and the Congress are in the same party, we don't have anywhere near the condemnation, anywhere near the investigation for actions, on and on and on; and that regrettably reflects the deepening partisan rift in Washington, D.C.

That ultimately is what I think this legislation reflects. It is simply an opportunity for a Republican Congress to take a shot at a Democratic President. If it was more than that, then back 10 years ago, when President George W. Bush was violating all manner of different statutory law under his articulated article II powers, then we would have had something out of this Congress that said, ``Hey, don't do that.'' We didn't. All we had was silence.

Now, unfortunately, what that leads the public to believe is that this is a partisan exercise, and we need fewer partisan exercises, not more. I think it is perfectly appropriate for many Members, as I did and others, to say the President should have given us notice. He should have given us 30 days.

For this to be the first--or I guess the second issue, since we had the

water bill just before this--that we take up when we come back from recess, when you think of all the economic and national security challenges and everything that is going on out there, I think once again makes the public just shake their head and say, ``Here we go again, another partisan exercise.''

Unfortunately, I think this piece of legislation is unnecessary, and I think it further poisons the well between Congress and the President. Again, I do not feel that the President violated the law. He had a different interpretation of it, as many Presidents before him have.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to respond quickly.

First of all, the GAO study specifically said they didn't address the constitutional issue; they didn't address article II. They simply said on the plain reading of the statute, 30 days' notice was required and 30 days' notice wasn't given, which, by the way, didn't take a GAO study to figure out. That is very plain.

The statute itself is really not in question nor that the President didn't give the notice required. The question is one that we have had repeatedly as to when the President has the authority under his article II authority to go in a different direction of the statute. As was mentioned, that happened many times, most recently with George W. Bush, a warrant with wire tapping and indefinite detention and a number of other issues. That's number 1. The GAO did not comment on that specific issue.

The second thing I would say is we are not really arguing that two wrongs make a right. We are arguing about whether or not it was wrong in the first place. All right? I still haven't heard anyone stand up on the other side who supports this issue and say: Gosh, we missed an opportunity. President George W. Bush was absolutely wrong to have taken those actions that he did and contrary to statute and did something that was illegal, and we are very mad about that. As long as we are talking about it, we should mention the fact that--so I haven't heard anyone say that, because I think the implication is, on that side, they didn't think it was wrong.

And that is the issue: Is it wrong for the President to do something that he believes is in the national security interest of the country under his article II authority? I think most people would say: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is a debatable issue. It is not a matter of saying two wrongs make a right. It is a matter of arguing whether or not it was wrong in the first place. And consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, as the saying goes, but there certainly is enough inconsistency on this issue to make people believe this is more partisan motivated than it is purely policy and conscience motivated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I would again note that it is not a matter of speeding. It would be as if someone were stopped for speeding and said that there is no posted speed limit, how are you saying that I was speeding? That is the argument. It is the argument a number of Presidents have made, that their article II authority for national security purposes gives them the legal right to do this.

I would also note that in a couple hundred years of history, no court has ever said otherwise, has ever reversed one of these decisions by the President.

So this notion that the President knew he was breaking the law and just did it, and comparing it to two wrongs don't make a right or people speeding, it is the President's opinion--and, by the way, not just this President, but every President that I am aware of, including, again, George W. Bush, that this is not a violation of the law, this is not speeding, because of his article II authority. So it is not a matter of simply saying, well, he broke the law but if someone else did it, it is okay. It is arguing that none of those people actually broke the law. That is the argument in the debate.

As far as the bill itself, yes, the President was very much aware of it, that it was in that bill when he signed the bill, and it was part of a much larger bill. It was part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

When he signed that bill, he noted: ``I disagree with this portion. I think it has the potential to violate my article II authority.'' So he absolutely noticed that it was in there and gave us notice that he did not feel that it would legally bind him in certain circumstances.

Again, it is a debatable point. All I know is that in a couple hundred years of history, the Presidents, all of them, have won that debate. And now here we stand today saying that this one President somehow uniquely should be condemned for doing what all before him have done and what all courts have said is perfectly okay.

So, again, I find this to be more partisan than substantive.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The issue here of negotiating with terrorists misses the fact that this happened on the battlefield. The five Taliban commanders were captured on the battlefield, as was Bowe Bergdahl. This was a prisoner exchange, as has happened in every war that we have fought.

Now, it is a slightly different situation because it is the Taliban who are now out of power. We are not actually fighting a government at this point. We are fighting a group of insurgents, but nonetheless, Bowe Bergdahl was captured on the field of battle, as were the five Taliban commanders, and this was a prisoner exchange.

To equate this with negotiating with terrorists I think totally misses the point of that aspect of it, that we were exchanging prisoners, not dealing with a straight terrorist situation. I don't think it sets that precedent at all, and I think we need to be aware that that was what the President was facing.

Was the exchange a good deal? That is highly debatable. I am glad I wasn't the Commander in Chief having to make that call, facing the deteriorating health of Bowe Bergdahl and wondering if five Taliban prisoners were worth saving his life, but these sorts of decisions are made all the time.

I would remind you that Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, no shrinking violet when it comes to terrorism, once exchanged over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for two Israel soldiers because that was a prisoner exchange. That was bringing home the people that Israel wanted brought home, and it was not easy.

So this is not simply a matter of negotiating with terrorists or giving away prisoners. It is the difficult choice of what you do to bring your own soldier home, a difficult choice that every President or Prime Minister whose country is engaged in warfare has to face. I don't think we should diminish the difficulty or the importance of that decision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What is personalities toward the President, just for a point of clarification? Personal attacks, perhaps?

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

On the last point about the people who were noticed how long this was going on for, yes, the negotiations were going on for around 3 years, but the timeliness came in when they actually had a deal. The President's concern was once they got to the point where they had the deal, if the details of it had been leaked, it would have nixed the deal. And they were deeply concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health.

As I have said, this is an extraordinarily difficult call. I don't know if I would have done this deal or not. It is hard. The Commander in Chief has that responsibility. As I have mentioned, other leaders through the world have done it, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who gave up over a thousand prisoners in exchange for two Israeli soldiers. Those choices are difficult, and I am certain that those thousand Palestinians that were released posed some risk to Israel, but that is the decision they made. And that is the decision the President made.

This resolution is not primarily about whether or not the deal should have been done; it is about whether or not we should condemn the President for a clear violation of the law. And I will simply come back to the fact that this President has only done what every other President before him did in exercising his article II authority--under his interpretation and every previous Executive's--that this was legal.

It has been implied throughout this resolution that the President looked at the law and said: I'm just not going to follow it. That is not what he did. He did what every President before him has done. He said that he believed it was within his legal authority to make this decision.

So to put forward a resolution that said he intentionally broke the law, I think, is wrong on its face. This President made a determination about his article II authorities and went forward with it. He did not knowingly violate the law. Secretary Hagel has explained that repeatedly.

Again, I said it a little while ago that President Bush did the exact same thing. He violated any number of different laws and said that article II is the reason. We have been told: Well, that was years ago. I don't know what we would have done then.

I have offered up the opportunity for anybody on the other side to as roundly criticize and condemn President Bush for those actions now that we are here. I haven't heard it. It hasn't been said. All of which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that this is more partisan than principled. This President is the one who is being condemned by a Republican Congress. All the other Presidents have done it and it is just: Oh, we are just not going to do anything about that. That leads to the belief that this is a partisan action.

I think Congress should comment on this. We had great hearings on this. We should have had a hearing on this. We brought in Secretary Hagel. He explained himself. We criticized some of those decisions. That is appropriate.

This resolution is unprecedented and I think once again shows that this body has become more partisan than principled.

I urge everyone to reject the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and also to the bill that will follow. We have a humanitarian crisis on our border in this country, and neither this bill and certainly not the next bill on DACA does anything to address it.

These children are fleeing unimaginable violence and fleeing a life that they simply can no longer bear. It is not a problem of border security. These children are turning themselves in. They are simply fleeing the violence in their home countries, and they are not just coming to the United States. Belize, Costa Rica, and other countries have seen an uptick from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras because of the unimaginable violence there.

Instead of dealing with this, we have a bill that is hopelessly inadequate in terms of funding. We will not provide enough judges and enough people to give these children the due process they deserve, and even worse than that, we are stripping them of any rights and any protections by sending them back as quickly as possible without the due process that this House voted for in 2008, was signed by President Bush, that gave these children the due process they deserve.

Then we are going one step further to undermine the ability of children who were brought into this country through no fault of their own, the DREAMers that we have long supported, and we are telling them that now they will not be allowed to stay in this country. This is a humanitarian crisis, not a border security issue.

I urge us to vote down both of these pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 23 and Tuesday, June 24, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted:

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 339 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1044),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 340 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 316),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 341 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 636),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 342 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 636),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 343 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 4413),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 344 (on agreeing to the Waters amendment to H.R. 4413),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 345 (on agreeing to the Moore amendment to H.R. 4413),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 346 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 4413),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 347 (on agreeing to the Garrett amendment to H.R. 4413),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 348 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4413 with instructions),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 349 (on passage of H.R. 4413),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 350 (on agreeing to the Pallone amendment to H.R. 3301),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 351 (on agreeing to the Waxman amendment to H.R. 3301),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 352 (on agreeing to the Welch amendment to H.R. 3301),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 353 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3301 with instructions), and

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 354 (on passage of H.R. 3301).

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 28, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 241 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 599); and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 242 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 503, as amended).

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound gratitude that I rise to congratulate Norman B. Rice on his retirement after a distinguished tenure as President of The Seattle Foundation. Norm has contributed immeasurably to the Seattle community through a variety of roles over the last forty years.

First elected to the Seattle City Council in 1978, Norm went on to serve on the Council for eleven years. Throughout his tenure, he was a champion for the marginalized, including fighting for the passage of the Women and Minority Business Enterprise Ordinance.

After winning the 1989 mayoral election, Norm became the first African-American mayor in Seattle's history. His two terms were characterized by his drive to create a thriving Seattle that worked for all of its citizens. Norm's initiatives as mayor included rejuvenating downtown, enhancing Seattle's public school system, and developing public-private partnerships to serve Seattle's homeless population. His service as mayor has left a legacy that will endure well into the future.

Since the conclusion of his tenure as an elected official, Norm has continued to work tirelessly for the well-being of the Seattle area. Since June of 2009, he has held the position of CEO of the Seattle Foundation. As a leader of one of the largest community foundations in the nation, Norm has been praised for his commitment to community development and his ability to build consensus.

Norm has used these skills on the national stage as well, serving a two year appointment on the White House's Council for Community Solutions. Norm's service has benefitted many individuals and families, both in Seattle and across the country. His vision for just communities and selfless commitment to public service has left a legacy for future generations to follow.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise to recognize Norman B. Rice. We all owe him the utmost gratitude and respect, and I wish him well in all future endeavors.