Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Free Trade Agreements with Panama, Korea and Columbia. These long overdue trade agreements will increase exports, lower the trade deficit and stimulate much-needed economic growth in the United States.

Free market competition is the proven way to create wealth and jobs in the economy. When the Federal Government attempts to create winners and losers, the American people get the short end of the stick.

South Florida is the gateway to Latin America, and the trade agreements with Colombia and Panama will support and create jobs in Florida and throughout the nation by leveling the playing field for United States goods and services.

Today, nearly all imports from Colombia and Panama enter the United States market duty free, but these countries continue to impose tariffs on our farm and manufactured goods exports that often soar into the double digits. Colombia currently collects $100 in tariffs on United States exports for every $1 the United States collects in tariffs on Colombian goods, and a similar lopsidedness holds back American export sales to Panama.

The free trade agreements will eliminate these tariffs and other barriers United States exporters face, and will create new opportunities for the sale of American products. In addition, they will secure the intellectual property of United States inventors, researchers, and creators; open services markets; and protect American investors and the jobs they support in the United States.

The independent United States International Trade Commission estimates that implementation of the three pending trade agreements would increase American exports by at least $13 billion and add at least $10 billion to our nation's Gross Domestic Product per year, which would mean 250,000 new jobs in the United States. Passing all three pending trade agreements will directly benefit small and medium- sized businesses, as well as the hundreds of thousands of American jobs they create.

Exports are critical to United States economic growth, and will have a significant, positive impact to my Congressional District that is home to two major ports--Port Everglades and the Port of Palm Beach. In 1986, exports equaled 7.2 percent of GDP. In 2010, exports equaled nearly 13 percent of GDP.

In 2010 alone, the State of Florida exported more than $4.2 billion to Colombia, Panama and South Korea combined. This represents a significant increase over the last decade. With the passage of the Free Trade Agreements, all indications point to significantly increased exports for the State of Florida.

Finally, the implementation of each of these Free Trade Agreements is important for our security and geostrategic goals. Each of the agreements will strengthen the United States' relationship with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, some of our country's strongest partners in advancing both regional and global security.

However, in May of 2011, President Barack Obama's Administration announced that it would not submit these three long-pending, job- creating trade agreements to the United States Congress unless ``trade adjustment assistance'' benefits (TAA) were renewed and expanded.

Quite simply, TAA is a federal program that sends cash and provides other benefits to workers whose jobs are purportedly affected negatively by trade. As a letter that was sent to Republican Leadership earlier this year states, ``TAA is undoubtedly--and deliberately designed as--a federal wealth redistribution program that has no business existing in a free society.''

Furthermore, the central components of these TAA programs--job- training, unemployment subsidies, and health-care subsidies--are available under dozens of other federal programs. In all, there are currently 47 government-sponsored and taxpayer-funded job training programs that received over $18 billion in Fiscal Year 2009. There are eight taxpayer-funded programs that provide unemployment insurance, and six taxpayer-funded programs that provide health insurance--all duplicative to programs found within TAA.

TAA accepts the premise that free trade is bad and needs to be offset by another federal program paid for by the American taxpayers. By strictly assisting workers who claim job losses due to trade, the program provides an incentive to exaggerate the negative impact on jobs due to free trade. In my assessment, TAA programs amount to subsidized excuses. Americans can openly compete with anyone in the free market-- we do not need government creating victims.

I will not support H.R. 2832 because TAA programs allow the Federal Government to pick winners and losers. As The Heritage Foundation recently analogized, ``the worker who loses his job to a foreign competitor should receive the same treatment as the Blockbuster employee who lost his job to Netflix.''

Free trader benefits all parties involved--from consumers to business owners and farmers, to the port employees in my Congressional District. Free market competition and enterprise through free trade agreements should not be held back by what amounts to another duplicated, wasteful Federal Government program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for Representative Hastings of Washington to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2881 and be replaced with Representative Hastings of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise, with my colleague Congressman Bennie Thompson, to introduce the Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act.

As our nation approaches the 10th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, it is important to acknowledge that the attacks in New York and Washington, DC, were not the first shots fired in this war, but rather just an escalation of previous attacks against the UnitedStates.

Over the course of the upcoming weekend, Americans will reflect on the events of 10 years ago. Where were they on that terrible day? What were they doing when the towers fell and when the Pentagon was hit? How did they react when it became apparent that it was a terrorist attack on our country?

The events of that day have guided our Federal Government's approach, and indeed our society's approach, to preventing future attacks in many different ways.

However, there is another significant date--a date that may be less familiar to many Americans. That date is August 7, 1998. I know that for many Americans, if not most, it is difficult to recall what they were doing or where they were that day.

For the Department of State, and for many Foreign Service Officers and members of the State Department family, that date is a defining moment in each of their lives.

On the afternoon of August 7, 1998, over 8,000 miles from Capitol Hill on the continent of Africa, Al Qaeda terrorists set off two simultaneous truck bombs at the entrances to our embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dares Salaam, Tanzania.

When the smoke finally cleared, 300 people were dead. Twelve Americans and 40 citizens of Kenya and Tanzania who were working for the United States Government were among those killed. More than 5,000 were injured, and two United States embassies were destroyed.

Although the attacks were directed at American facilities, the vast majority of casualties were local citizens.

Fifteen years earlier, in 1983, a suicide bomber attacked the United States Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. In that tragedy, sixty people died-- mostly embassy staff members and U.S. service members. At that time, it was the deadliest attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission, and isconsidered by some to mark the beginning of attacks by Islamist extremist groups on the United States.

After the Beirut attack, a Commission was set up under the leadership of former Navy Admiral Bobby Inman. Recommendations were made, funding was provided, and the State Department was charged to replace 77 embassies and consulates that failed to meet basic security standards.

The Commission stated that ``a large number of facilities around the world, which once may have represented the optimal site for the conduct of American diplomacy, [should] be replaced by more physically secure sites and buildings. The Panel believe[s] that it [is] essential that a substantial relocation and building program be initiated and carried out with dispatch.''Despite this recommendation from the Inman Commission, a lack of appropriate sites and a lack of funding resulted in the Department completing only 22 of the planned Inman embassies.

By the time of the East African bombings, the Department had only one new embassy under construction. After the 1998 East African attacks, another Commission was set up, again under the leadership of retired Navy Admiral William Crowe. Once again recommendations were made, funding was provided, and the State Department was charged to replace 187 aging and unsecure embassies. The State Department worked closely with the Office of Management and Budget and the United States Congress to ensure that a funding commitment was put in place.In response, Congress passed the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999.

Over the last 13 years, the Department of State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations has completed, or has under construction, more than 100 facilities around the globe. Approximately 25,000 federal employees have moved into safer, more secure, and functional facilities overseas. With this latest building program, the State Department has moved one-quarter of all U.S. Government overseas employees into new facilities.

Since the East African bombings, American diplomatic facilities have been attacked over 140 times. Recently, attacks in Belgrade, Serbia; Sanaa, Yemen; Nuevo Laredo, Mexico and many others have been covered on the news. When they happen, these events are breaking news stories, but are often quickly forgotten. The State Department has been fortunate in each of these attacks that the perpetrators of the violence have never breached the hard line of the embassy building.

While the State Department continues to build secure facilities, the 13 years since the East Africa bombings have seen the world become more dangerous. The goal of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings is to construct facilities that provide American diplomats with safe and functional facilities where they can advance foreign policy, and ultimately make the world better, safer and more secure. Until that day comes, however, these Federal employees who bravely serve our nation continue to be at risk of terrorist attack.

Many of the Foreign Service Officers who work in United States diplomatic platforms serve alongside and face the same hazards and risks as our military personnel and intelligence officers.

As Foreign Service employees engage more visibly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is important

that they know that their contributions and sacrifices are as highly valued as those of our military personnel.

The Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act would authorize the Department of State to provide compensation for the families of fallen Foreign Service employees that is comparable to what is provided to the families of fallen military personnel.

Under current law, the surviving family members of an American Foreign Service employee are entitled to one year's salary and the proceeds of their federal life insurance benefit. In contrast, the family of a fallen member of the military is entitled to an enhanced life insurance and death gratuity that was authorized by the United States Congress in 2005. This is a disparity that can no longer be overlooked.

The Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act would ensure that the families of Foreign Service employees receive, at a minimum, a death gratuity equal of $100,000, matching the benefit provided to military personnel. An enhanced life insurance benefit of at least $400,000 for Foreign Service employees serving at a recognized danger pay post also matches the benefit available to military personnel participating in combat operations or stationed in combat zones. Foreign Service employees with a higher yearly salary or life insurance payout will maintain their benefits as they exist under current law.

This legislation also recognizes our moral obligation to the families of the twelve Americans killed in the August 1998 Al Qaeda bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Many of the surviving family members of that incident have endured significant and continuing financial and personal hardships that serve as a poignant example of the burdens faced by such survivors. These families have been unable to seek damages through the courts as other families in similar situations have because such actions are limited to state-sponsored acts of terror.

Similar legislation has passed the House of Representatives in previous Congressional sessions, but failed to clear the hurdle of the United States Senate. Then-Congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO) continually led this effort over the years, and I am honored to carry the torch during the 112th Congress.

As we approach the 10th Anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we need to recognize the individuals who died at the hand of a terrorist attack three years before 9/11, and uphold our foremost responsibility to our courageous and dedicated Foreign Service employees and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Sunday, July 31, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, free markets, free enterprise, innovation, and entrepreneurship are the foundation for economic growth and job creation in America.

For the past 4 years, Democrats in Washington have enacted policies that undermine these basic concepts which have historically placed America at the forefront of the global marketplace. As a result, most Americans know someone who has recently lost a job, and small businesses and entrepreneurs lack the confidence needed to invest in our economy. Not since the Great Depression has our Nation's unemployment rate been this high for this long.

Enough is enough. More taxation, regulation, and litigation will not create more jobs. Government takeovers of the economy have failed while the size and scope of the Federal Government has exploded. Washington has tied the hands of small business owners and job creators with onerous regulations and backward fiscal policies that have stalled the economy, slowed innovation, and destroyed jobs.

We need commonsense growth policies to give small businesses and entrepreneurs renewed confidence in our economy and to remove Washington as the roadblock to job creation.

America is at a crossroads, and House Republicans are committed to taking every possible step to spur private sector job creation and get our economy back on track so that Americans can do what they do best: create, innovate, and lead.

Tonight, my colleague and I will convey the frustrations of small business owners and those who have received the bad end of the stick of horrible policies created by the Obama administration.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, my friend and colleague, Mr. Schweikert.

Mr. Speaker, we must empower small business owners and reduce regulatory burdens. Job creators are being bogged down by burdensome regulation from Washington that prevents job creation and hinders economic growth. These regulations are particularly damaging for the real job creators in the country, our small business owners. We must remove onerous Federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private-sector investment in job creation.

The Small Business Administration has reported that government regulations are estimated to cost our economy over $1.75 trillion a year. To make matters worse, in 2009, the administration considered adding another 184 regulations that are estimated to cost the economy in excess of $100 million each and are likely to cause more Americans to lose jobs.

At this time, I yield to my friend and colleague from Colorado.

I thank my colleague from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, we know that not all regulations are bad, but so many of them are obstacles to job creation. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at least 1981.

The cost of regulations is a big obstacle for American job creators. But when you think about regulations, here are examples of some of the ones that can make you laugh.

The Department of Energy requires microwave makers to measure the amount of energy their products use in the ``off'' position.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants stricter regulations on the amount of dust on American farms.

The Department of the Interior wants to impose a fee on Christmas tree sales to promote Christmas tree sales.

When you think about how government regulations destroy American jobs, these are the statistics that will make you cry. According to a Louisiana State University professor, the Department of the Interior's de facto moratorium of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico could cost 36,137 jobs. In addition, more than 80,000 jobs could be lost due to the EPA regulations targeting the cement industry; and, finally, EPA greenhouse gas regulations could cost $1.4 million jobs.

The American people placed an upper limit on the damage that Washington Democrats could inflict on the economy by firing House Democrats in the last election.

In January, we began to implement the Pledge to America, which is focused on providing an environment for economic growth and job creation. We voted to repeal the government takeover of health care, roll back costly Obama administration regulations, cut job-destroying spending and change the culture of Washington, D.C., from one which talks about how much more they can spend, to one which now talks about how much we can cut in spending.

The United States Congress in 2009 passed the President's almost $800 billion stimulus package, which we now have convincing proof it did nothing to reduce unemployment. Today the House of Representatives has sent nine real-life job creating bills to the U.S. Senate, yet those bills continue to sit, waiting to be voted on, similar to the Cut, Cap, and Balance that we sent over that the Senate majority leader tabled.

I have introduced my own piece of legislation to do my part to try to reduce unemployment, The Small Business Encouragement Act, H.R. 1663.

The President continues with an economic policy based on job-killing overregulation, the specter of increased taxes and the implementation of ObamaCare. How many more months are we going to see this stagnant job growth? We are now at 29 months of unemployment in the United States of America being at or above 9 percent.

The President has to realize his policies have failed. They have failed the American people, and it is time to go in a different direction. The solution lies in economic taxation and regulatory policies which incentivize long-term private sector growth. We must restore confidence, provide access to capital which will create economic certainty. Now is not the time for more rhetoric on spending, borrowing, and raising taxes. Our country is in a crisis, and time is running out.

We must remember that it is those same mom and pop stores on Main Street back in our respective districts that create the jobs for our teenagers during these summer months. It is the local hair salon back home that my wife and my two daughters visit often that would be affected by the uncertainty that persists throughout this Nation.

Economic uncertainty created by our massive Federal debt, burdensome regulatory environment on small businesses, and uncertain tax policy for 2012 is slowing commerce; and we must turn the corner. Today's somber GDP announcement in the last quarter of 1.3 percent growth and the previous quarter, 0.5 percent growth, is further proof that President Obama's administration's economic strategy is not working.

Unemployment still remains above 9 percent, at 9.2 percent nationally; in the inner city and our black communities is at 16.2 percent; and, unfortunately, for our veterans, of which I am one, that unemployment rate is 13 percent.

We just talked about our quarterly GDP growth. That is unacceptable for the most powerful economy in the world. Providing certainty for America's small businesses should be the number one priority for Washington, considering they are the backbone of our Nation's workforce and the engine of our economy.

In May, House Republicans put forth a plan for America's job creators. That includes commonsense policies to remove uncertainty by reducing regulatory burdens, lowering business tax rates to 25 percent, spurring exports by quickly passing the pending free trade agreements, and introducing a budget that gets our Nation's fiscal house in order. The sooner we enact policies like these into law, the sooner our small businesses will be able to lead us out of this economic downturn.

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

I do need to correct my colleague from Vermont: I'm not from South Carolina; I'm from Florida, but that's okay. I'm the guy with hair.

I would like to start off by saying this very simply, I rise in support of H.R. 2560 because when I look back a few years, 2007 to 2011, $8.67 trillion, $10.4 trillion, and now we're at about $14.5 trillion in debt. From 2009 to 2011, $1.42 trillion, $1.29 trillion, and an estimated $1.65 trillion in deficits.

The President's budget for fiscal year 2012, 0-97; 800-plus days the Senate Democrats have not passed a budget; $1 trillion of wasteful spending of the stimulus. We still have unemployment at 9.2 percent nationally, 16.2 percent in the black community; and 13 percent of my brothers and sisters who are coming back from combat zones are unemployed. Our debt to GDP ratio is about 70 percent. Our government spending to GDP ratio is 24.4 percent; 47 percent of our debt is owned by foreign nations, 27 percent with China.

We are going in the wrong direction. I stand in support of H.R. 2560 because this is insanity, and we cannot continue to do the same thing expecting different results.

Mr. Chair, I rise to commend my colleague from Florida on his decision to withdraw his amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.

Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. However, the EPA's new Numeric Nutrient Criteria regulations are not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what cost.

For several years now, Florida has been working to improve its water quality. Until 2009, Florida was working cooperatively with EPA to improve our water quality standards.

However in 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that cooperative approach, federally preempt our state water quality standards, and impose new criteria on the state.

Many are concerned that these new Numeric Nutrient Criteria are not based on sound science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, which has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA to support the regulation.

The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review of the science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed to complete an economic analysis.

This EPA mandate will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Floridian families, and destroy jobs. By some estimates, this will cost Florida taxpayers an estimated $21 billion and impact over 14,000 jobs in the state.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that this federal mandate may force municipal wastewater and storm water utilities--many in my Congressional District--to spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. These costs will be passed down to the citizens of South Florida.

Given the reality of Florida's economic situation, this is completely unacceptable.

This morning I placed a call to Ron Bergeron, the Commissioner for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and renowned expert on the Everglades, to discuss this amendment and the underlying EPA Numeric Nutrient Regulations.

Commissioner Bergeron told me in no uncertain terms, I quote, ``The EPA is setting standards that can hardly be achieved. Water standards of 10 parts/billion required by the Numeric Nutrient Criteria is more stringent than rainwater, which is 15 parts/billion, and is a quality of water that is humanly impossible to achieve. EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''

Let me repeat what Commissioner Bergeron stated--``EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''

Like all Floridians, I cherish the Everglades--a unique wetland ecosystem--and want to protect and preserve it for future generations of Floridians.

I applaud my colleague from Florida for recognizing that his amendment would have been an attempt to use the Everglades as a political pawn to give the EPA the authority to have carte blanche on setting state-wide water regulations--regulations that Commissioner Bergeron said are humanly impossible to achieve, and thus withdrawing his amendment.

EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that the state government can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on sound science.

Mr. Speaker, today we close another chapter in the history book of manned space flight. Today Americans around the Nation watched the final launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, a journey that began 30 years ago with the first flight of Space Shuttle Columbia.

For 135 times the Nation has turned their eyes to the State of Florida to watch the solid rocket boosters ignite and lift the Space Shuttle through the bounds of our Earth's atmosphere. Each mission of the Space Shuttles' primary goal was to continue to push the bounds of space exploration. With each mission the United States achieved another milestone of expanding man's frontier in space earning the respect and admiration of the world.

The State of Florida has been the epicenter for manned exploration of space. Over the last 50 years from Gemini, to Apollo, to the Space Shuttles, hundreds of thousands of Floridians have contributed their talents, energy and knowledge to explore space. Some have dedicated their lives to the exploration of space.

Today I would like to recognize the men and women over the last 30 years who worked on

the Space Shuttle program. While the names of the astronauts will be recorded in the history books, we must also note the thousands of individuals who worked behind the scenes to make history by challenging the final frontier.

I am concerned about losing the workforce that has dedicated their knowledge to the exploration of our universe. I believe that we could lose a competitive and innovative edge that we maintain at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Soon the Space Shuttle Fleet will be shipped off to museums around the country and will become items that school children will visit to see America's past glories in space. These children will see these space exploration vehicles, then look towards the stars sparking their imagination to ask the question ``what lies beyond?'' However, when the Space Shuttle Atlantis lands in the next several days for the first time in my entire 50 years on Earth we will not have a vehicle or a plan to send humans from our planet into space.

The space program is essential to the State of Florida. Thousands of the brightest scientific minds reside in the area surrounding the Kennedy Space Center and billions of dollars of economic activity are generated in the States of Texas, California and my home State of Florida. In addition, since the Mercury Program, the Space Program has placed our Nation on the cutting edge of innovation.

President John F. Kennedy challenged our Nation to land a man of the Moon. In the space race with the Soviet Union, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin placed an American flag on the lunar surface in 1969. Now the former Soviet Union is our taxi cab ride to the International Space Station at a cost of approximately $63 million a seat. Further, China is now building their ability to be the leaders in space exploration. This is unacceptable and the antithesis of American exceptionalism.

While we have had failures in the space program along the way, such as Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia, when some individuals felt we should stop manned space flight after the Challenger accident, President Ronald Reagan stated: ``We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.''

I am concerned that the United States has no plans for human exploration capability to go beyond Earth's orbit for an indeterminate time into the future. Space will always be challenging and dangerous, but we are Americans and we have always met our challenges and faced danger. And with regard to space we must continue the journey, focus on the stars, reach for the heavens, and be a leader in space exploration in the 21st century.

Americans, by our nature, do not accept being in second place. I am committed to ensuring that one day we again will be the leaders in manned space exploration.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of House Resolution 268, which does reaffirm the strong support of this body politic to a negotiated solution for Israel and Palestine.

The important thing that we have to see happen, though, is to urge the Palestinian leaders to first and foremost ensure that any Palestinian government will seek peace with Israel, as we sat here and listened to Prime Minister Netanyahu say, ``There will not be peace until we have a dedicated peace partner.''

The second thing, we must make sure that the leaders of the Palestinian people cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the United Nations.

But third, and probably most important, that the Palestinian leaders must take appropriate measures to counter the incitement to violence and fulfill all prior Palestinian commitments, including dismantling the terrorist infrastructure that is embodied with Hamas.

Israel is a bright and shining beacon which is in a sea of despots, dictators, theocrats, and autocrats. The Palestinian leaders can choose to be a part of this light.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Very simply, the War Powers Act of 1973 states: ``The President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress, or in case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.''

So as we look at the mission--or the perceived mission that we have in Libya--it does not even meet this criteria.

I stand here today as someone who has been sent forth from these shores in the 22 years that I've served in the United States Army. I stand here as the son of a man who left these shores to go defend this great country in World War II. I stand here as the younger brother of a man who left these shores to go defend this country and fight in Vietnam. And I stand here today as the uncle of a young man, a captain, who has already done two tours of duty in Afghanistan.

Many of my friends have called me--some call me colonel, some call me Allen--and they say, we need you to do one simple thing: understand that the oath that you take is to support and defend the Constitution, to support and defend the laws of this country. They need us to stand up and be the guardians of the laws of this country.

Just before I came here today, I promoted Jerry Lee Stern to be a major, and I read him that oath of office, that he would greatly take what we must do now as this body, as legislators of this great Nation, uphold the laws and not send our men and women into an undefined and unspecified mission. They want the fight; they want to stand up for us. Let's do the right thing by them.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 493 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Chair, the most sweeping patent reform legislation that has come before the House of Representatives in over half a century, the America Invents Act, H.R. 1249, makes significant substantive, procedural, and technical changes to current United States patent law.

Article I, Section 8 gives the United States Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''

Congress passed the first patent law just one year after ratifying the Constitution when it enacted the Patent Act of 1790. The law granted patent applicants the ``sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used'' of his or her invention, clearly maintaining the intentions of patent protections the Framers had when they drafted Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Intellectual Property Clause.

Before discussing the ramifications of the America Invents Act, it is important for the American people to understand the reasoning behind the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution. The Framers recognized that a crucial component for success of the newly formed United States was economic strength and security, and they knew that American ingenuity and innovation was key to economic success.

Thus, for more than 200 years, American patent law has used a first to invent system that addresses the circumstances when two or more persons independently develop identical or similar inventions at approximately the same time. When more than one patent application is filed at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) claiming the same invention, the patent is awarded to the applicant who was the first inventor, even if the inventor was not the first person to file a patent application at the PTO.

Section 3 of H.R. 1249 would change this established system for determining which inventor obtains patent protection to a ``first inventor to file'' system. Under this new ``first inventor to file'' system, the law would not recognize the patent of an individual who did not file an invention first even if he or she was the first to complete an invention.

Proponents of Section 3 will argue that the United States is the only patent-issuing nation that does not employ a ``first inventor to file'' system, and that making this change will simplify the process for acquiring patent rights.

However, I believe that Section 3 on its face is unconstitutional. Over 200 years of evidenced-based, legal determination as to who is the true inventor of an invention should not be overturned because the rest of the world does it, or to make it easier for government bureaucrats to resolve patent disputes.

The United States is the greatest Nation on the face of the earth not because we conform our ways to the rest of the world, but instead because we operate in a way that makes the rest of the world want to follow our example.

Finally, and most importantly, I believe that awarding a patent to an individual who simply files before the inventor, violates the Framers' intent laid out in the Intellectual Property Clause. There can be no such thing as a ``first inventor to file'' since there can only be one inventor. Small inventors--the backbone of the American spirit of innovation--who do not have the funding or the legal staff to race to the PTO to file a patent will without question lose inventions to well- funded and well-staffed corporations.

I also have constitutional concerns with Section 18 of H.R. 1249. Section 18 of the America Invents Act would create a new Transitional Review proceeding at the Patent and Trademark Office that would only apply to ``business method patents'' dealing with data processing in the financial services industry. The Transitional Review would be available only to banks sued for patent infringement--even if the patent has already been upheld as valid by the PTO in a reexamination, or upheld by a federal court jury and/or judge in a trial. This new review process would ultimately lead to a delay, via a stay, of court proceedings that would interrupt inventors from capitalizing on their patents.

Constitutional scholars Richard Epstein and Jonathan Massey have concluded that Section 18 language constitutes a government taking by allowing banks to challenge all business method patents--even those that have been reexamined and affirmed by the PTO and upheld by a jury in federal court.

The House Judiciary Committee's consideration of H.R. 1249 proceeded rapidly. The committee held a hearing focused primarily on the broader patent provisions of the bill, and only the banking industry was invited to testify with regard to Section 18. Furthermore, there have been no hearings specifically relating to the implications of Section 18.

I have met with and spoken to a number of individuals representing both sides of this issue in order to fully understand the intent of H.R. 1249, as well as both its intended and unintended consequences. I have spoken to Director Kappos of the Patent and Trademark Office, and more importantly I have spoken with constituents in the 22nd Congressional District of Florida who are inventors that have received patents who would be adversely affected by certain provisions of this bill.

Madam Chair, I voted against H.R. 1249 because I believe that the major sections I have outlined raise serious Constitutional questions. Section 3 clearly violates the intent of our Framers when they drafted the Intellectual Property Clause. Section 18 opens the door for the Executive Branch to overturn the Judicial Branch, a clear violation of the separation of powers laid out by the United States Constitution.

As a 22-year Army combat veteran, and now as a Member of the House of Representatives, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Voting in favor of passage of H.R. 1249 I believe goes against this very sacred oath I took, both as a young Second Lieutenant over 25 years ago, and as a Congressman in this body earlier this year.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 451, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 44th Anniversary of the Six Day War, in which Israel--our greatest ally in the Middle East--turned a massive buildup and aggression by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan into a tremendous victory in just six days.

After months of continued aggression against it, Israel launched a preemptive attack against the massive Egyptian buildup in the Sinai, destroying most of the Egyptian Air Force and Army in a number of hours. After repeated air and artillery attacks by Jordan and Syria, Israel liberated all of Jerusalem two days later on June 7, 1967, including the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter in the Old City. For the first time in decades, Jerusalem was unified and the Jewish people could visit their holiest site, the Western Wall.

By June 10, just six days after it began, war was over. Israel's superior fighting force had destroyed the armies and air forces of their Arab aggressors, and had captured the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Mas'ada, and the Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal.

However, this victory came at a great cost to the Israeli people. Nearly 1,000 Israelis were killed, and over 4,500 were wounded. Last weekend Americans celebrated Memorial Day with cookouts and a day off of work. However, when Israel commemorated their Memorial Day--Yom Hazikaron--a few weeks ago, they honored the memory of the tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers who gave their life in defense of their country by sounding a siren that can be heard all over the country.

During this one minute sounding of the siren, Israelis stop whatever they are doing and stand in silence to commemorate those who were lost--traffic stops in its tracks, throughout the country, people pray. The names of those who gave what President Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion for their homeland are displayed on television screens throughout the day.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I believe the United States Congress has a solemn duty to ensure that the homeland of the Jewish people remains as such. The State of Israel is the one bright light shining in a dark ocean of tyranny and oppression.

Israel must be allowed to defend itself from external and internal aggression; the Israeli people must be allowed to continue to build within their borders, and Jerusalem must be recognized as the nation's only capital.

Furthermore, the United States must stand by Israel's side in the face of a United Nations who clearly views the State of Israel through the lens of anti-Semitism and hatred. Anything less than full support for Israel and its citizens at the United Nations by the United States government is simply unacceptable.

The United States and Israel share the common bonds of freedom, liberty, democracy, and the right to worship in the name of any religion you see fit. We share a common enemy in radical Islam, and have both seen our citizens murdered and maimed by terrorist thugs who kill women and children in the name of religion. We are indeed each other's greatest ally--without the United States, Israel would not exist; without Israel, the United States would soon fall.

Next week, Israel will mark the 44th anniversary of the Six Day War. It will be a time of reflection and remembrance, and will undoubtedly render memories of when Jews--from Israel, the United States, or anywhere around the world--were not allowed to pray at their holiest of sites.

At this time of great challenge for our strong and loyal ally, America must take a stand and show not only Israel, but the rest of the world, that Jerusalem--an undivided Jerusalem--is the capital of the Jewish State, and that security will always come before a two state solution.

Mr. Speaker, I realize education is essential for every child in our nation. Education is the great equalizer and with a sound education any child can live the American Dream.

As a former teacher in Broward County, Florida, I am proud to congratulate Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) for the 11 high schools in their county receiving top national ranking in the Washington Post.

The Washington Post named 11 Broward County high schools in its High School Challenge list of top 1,900 public high schools in the nation. The schools were Fort Lauderdale (109), Marjory Stoneman Douglas (238), Nova (285), Miramar (355), Cooper City (376), Stranahan (431), J.P. Taravella (507), Flanagan (554), Plantation (739), Coral Springs Charter (983) and Pembroke Pines Charter (1,108) high schools join an elite group of public high schools nationwide. The Washington Post list represents only seven percent of schools across the United States.

Fort Lauderdale High School placed top among Broward high schools, with a national ranking of 109 and a state ranking of 24. According to the Washington Post, the Challenge Index's formula is to divide the number of Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB) or other college-level tests a school gave in 2010 by the number of graduating seniors.

The Washington Post advises that while the index is not a measure of the overall quality of the school, the rating can reveal the level of a high school's commitment to preparing average students for college. With a few exceptions, public schools that achieved a ratio of at least 1.000, meaning they had as many Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests in 2010 as they had graduates, are noted on the national list.

The Broward County Public School System is the nation's sixth largest public school system and the largest fully accredited district with over 234,600 students in more than 230 schools and education centers. The Broward County Public School System is committed to giving all students access to a college-ready, job-ready curriculum that meets rigorous expectations which prepares students for post-secondary options and also ensures that students are able to be successful and complete post-secondary schooling once they begin.

To ensure student's can succeed in the 21st century, I will always focus in Congress on what's best for students, parents, teachers, and communities. This means helping children achieve their full and unique potential by equipping them with the tools and knowledge to succeed in the 21st century workforce. I believe the Federal Government must restore local control, empower parents, let teachers teach, and protect taxpayers. These principles should guide our efforts to reform federal education policy and protect the rights and responsibilities of states and local communities when it comes to educating the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res 51 by my colleague Congressman Dennis Kucinich, which directs President Barack Obama to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than 15 days after the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

Let me be perfectly blunt--the reason we are here today voting on two resolutions that deal with the President's role and responsibility under the War Powers Resolution is because of President Obama's failure to abide by the law, and our failure to address this issue before day 74.

The War Powers Resolution was enacted into law on November 7, 1973, overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. The law states that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to introduce United States forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to either (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories and possessions, or its forces.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President--in every possible instance--to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization, such as the Congressional Resolution that provided President George W. Bush authority to engage in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

The War Powers Resolution also requires the President to report to the United States Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, into foreign territory while equipped for combat, or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation. Such a report is required within 48 hours. Once this report is submitted--or required to be submitted--the United States Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 days, or the forces must be withdrawn within 30 days from the 60 day mark.

Before discussing the current situation the United States finds itself in, it is important for the American people to understand the reasoning behind the passage of the War Powers Resolution in the 1970s.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the power to declare War, not the President. However, Article II, Section 2 declares that ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' Many Presidents have cited their authority under Article II, Section 2 to defend the United States against attacks, or to take actions in our nation's national security interest, through military action without a formal declaration of war.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon used their authority as Commanders in Chief in order to send American combat ``advisors'' forces into Vietnam beginning in the late 1950s. By the 1968 Tet Offensive, the United States had over half a million troops on the ground in Vietnam engaged in intense military conflict. Unclear about the American strategy in Vietnam, many Members of Congress became concerned about their eroding authority granted by the Constitution to debate, decide and declare when to involve the United States in a war.

As such, the War Powers Resolution enacted in order to ensure the checks and balances mandated by the United States Constitution would remain intact during times of armed conflict.

On March 19, 2011, U.S. military forces began operations in Libya. Two days later, on March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed the United States Congress that Operation Odyssey Dawn was aimed at ``assisting an international effort authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security.''

To date, President Obama has not provided a clear and defined mission for the United States involvement in Libya. Since the opening hours of military action on March 19, the President has had no clear direction in Libya. President Obama has not defined the mission, defined success, nor defined the end state. Further, the President has still not identified who the so-called rebels are that are receiving millions of dollars of American support in terms of weapons, ammunition, and resources, as well as attacks against Moammar Qadaffi's forces.

As a 22-year Army combat veteran, I can tell you from experience that successful mission completion is obtained by properly defining the very things I have mentioned, which

President Obama has failed to do. As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I swore an oath to protect and defend American citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Is Moammar Qadaffi an enemy of the United States--absolutely. But because President Obama has not informed us of whom the rebel forces we are supporting are, how can we be absolutely certain that they will not be an enemy of this country? Quite simply, we cannot because the President has failed to define our strategy.

It has now been 74 days since President Obama informed the United States Congress on the introduction of American forces into Libya as required by the War Powers Resolution. Since March 21, 2011, the United States Congress has not declared war or enacted a specific authorization for the use of force, has not extended the 60-day period required by the War Powers Resolutions, nor is United States Congress physically unable to meet as a result of an attack upon the United States. In fact, United States Congress has met nearly 30 times since March 21, 2011. Therefore, President Obama is in violation of Title 50, Chapter 33 of United States Code--the War Powers Resolution.

Section 5, Paragraph C of the War Powers Resolution states that ``at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by Concurrent Resolution.''

The Concurrent Resolution offered by Congressman Kucinich falls right in line with Section 1544 of the War Powers Resolution, and simply states that pursuant to Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution, the United States Congress directs the President to remove armed forces from Libya within 15 days of enactment.

President Barack Obama is in violation of the law--plain and simple-- and he must comply with the law. The very foundation of our Republic lies on the rule of law, and is guarded by a system of checks and balances, and as a Member of the United States Congress, I have a Constitutional obligation to ensure this system is upheld.

I support the Concurrent Resolution offered by Representative Kucinich.