Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for his generous grant of time,

especially because he will probably disagree with almost everything I have to say.

I'd like to thank Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for bringing together the best ideas of so many Members--and, of course, of her own--to move toward another important step toward dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons and for her ability to build a coalition that has over 300 Members cosponsoring this bill.

We have to create circumstances where the regime in Tehran has to choose between its nuclear weapons program and regime survival. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the mullahs who are running Iran, because it is their incompetence and their corruption that creates a risk to regime survival even at a time of very high oil prices. And we owe a debt of gratitude to the Iranian people, who rose upon against this regime in the summer of 2009 and whose desire for freedom poses a real threat to regime survival.

Looking at the particulars of this bill, I want to thank the chairwoman for including in this bill, in title III, provisions dealing with the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. These are based on the Revolutionary Guard Corps Designation Implementation Act, which I introduced in 2009 along with the chairwoman, Ed Royce, and Dan Burton. This title III makes it clear to foreign companies that, if they do business with the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, they cannot do business in the United States.

I also want to thank the chairwoman for cosponsoring, both last year and this year, my bill, the Stop Iran's Nuclear Program Act, and for including many of those provisions in this legislation that's before us today, in particular, including a provision that would sanction those companies that loan money to Iran, whether in dollars or in euros or in any other currency, that tell the foreign incorporated subsidiaries of U.S. multinational corporations that they, too, cannot do business with Iran.

To build upon the provision that Chuck Schumer and I were able to write and was included in CISADA, which was adopted last year, to indicate that those who give Iran the technologies to suppress the Internet and to apprehend dissidents through the Internet will be sanctioned. Companies should not be providing that kind of technology to Iran. Now, this bill would require the State Department to actually implement those provisions by designating the technologies that cannot be sold to Iran.

This bill also includes the provision of the Stop Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program Act that allows States to do even more to help this Federal policy, by providing that those insurance companies that are helping Iran may not be able to do business in their particular State.

Finally, I want to point out that this bill includes provisions aimed at the Central Bank of Iran, but that is not a reason for us not to also pass the Menendez-Kirk language that's in the Defense authorization bill.

The Menendez-Kirk language would, like this bill, sanction those U.S. banks that violate our law by doing business with Iran and would freeze those assets that the Central Bank of Iran has foolishly left in the United States or may have done so. But the key thing about the Kirk- Menendez language is that it tells European and Asian and other non- U.S. banks that they must stop their business with the Central Bank of Iran and virtually all the major banks of Iran as well. It imposes secondary sanctions. And I believe the Kirk-Menendez language will make it difficult for Iran to sell oil or to buy anything with its oil revenue.

I urge the passage of this bill, the Kirk-Menendez language, and other sanctions against Iran.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his generosity, especially because he will probably disagree with most of what I have to say.

As to the consistency of America's nonproliferation policy, I believe we are consistent. We are consistent with the nonproliferation treaty, which I believe is the most important peace treaty of our lifetime. It identifies five states as nuclear states. Three major nations in this world did not sign and do not benefit from the treaty. But Iran, North Korea, and Syria all agreed, as non-nuclear states, agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and all of them have violated that agreement.

I want to commend Chairman Ros-Lehtinen for putting forward this outstanding bill, one of the toughest nonproliferation bills ever to come before Congress. I am the lead Democratic cosponsor of this bill, and I want to thank her for the opportunity to work with her on this important legislation.

Iran, Syria, and North Korea are proliferators of nuclear weapons technology, and work together to threaten U.S. interests and allies around the globe.

This bill includes an important provision that I put forward in a bill that I introduced in May of 2009. That is, it poses sanctions against those firms that provide North Korea, Iran, or Syria with equipment or technology relevant to mining or milling uranium. Iran in particular is facing a uranium shortage, and has been searching for foreign sources of uranium as well as trying to improve its own domestic capacity to mine uranium. Under this bill, anyone who assists that effort would be subject to penalties.

This bill includes other very important provisions. The U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission identified a loophole in current law that arguably exempts from sanctions Chinese companies that are providing short-range, anti-naval cruise missiles to Iran. I think it is critically important that we protect our naval crews, especially when Iran has recently conducted exercises to game the possibility of shutting the Strait of Hormuz, which is so critical to world oil supplies. We need to do everything we can in this Congress to protect our naval crews from Iranian weapons acquired from China.

Also, following on the shipping sanctions that have been put into place against Iranian shipping firms, this bill would go further. It effectively bars from any U.S. port any ship that has visited North Korea, Iran, or Syria in the last 2 years.

The bill would also close a loophole in existing sanctions. It would require that sanctions be imposed on the parent entity when one of its subsidiaries engages in sanctionable activity.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, this is one of the strongest, perhaps the strongest nonproliferation bill to come before Congress, and I urge its adoption.

Thank you.

The adoption of H. Res. 306 would add the powerful voice of the United States Congress to the defense of religious freedom for Christians in present-day Turkey and reinforce the traditional leadership of Congress in defending freedom of faith around the world.

I want to identify myself with the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) on putting this resolution in context by noting the Armenian genocide and how that sets the stage for everything we're talking about here.

H. Res. 306 is urgently needed to address the destruction of Christian religious heritage as a result of the Turkish Government's theft, desecration and disregard of ancient Christian sites and churches, many of them holding great significance to Christian heritage.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom raises the following alarm in its 2001 report: ``The Turkish Government continues to impose serious limitations on freedom of religion or belief, thereby threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority religious communities in Turkey.''

Churches in Turkey have been desecrated. The adoption of H. Res. 306 would support the Christian communities within Turkey that remain vulnerable and are forced to endure restrictions on their right to practice their faith in freedom. For example, and this is just one example, of the over 2,000 Armenian churches that existed in the early 1900s, less than 100 remain standing and fully functioning today.

This resolution is supported by the co-chairs of the Armenian, Hellenic, and Human Rights Caucuses. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has for 3 years straight placed Turkey on its watch list.

In 2009, Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Christian Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, appeared on CBS's ``60 Minutes'' and reported that Turkey's Christians were second-class citizens and that he personally felt ``crucified'' by a state that wanted his church to die out.

Church property is routinely confiscated through discriminatory laws. The United States Commission on Religious Freedom reported that over the

previous 5 decades, the Turkish state has, using convoluted regulations and undemocratic laws, confiscated hundreds of religious minority properties, primarily those belonging to the Greek Orthodox community, as well as the Armenian Orthodox, Catholics, and Jews.

It is time to add the voice of the American Congress in an effort to make sure that Turkey meets its international responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary leadership and service of Dr. Jolene Koester. Dr. Koester began her appointment as the fourth president of California State University, Northridge on July 1, 2000, one of the largest campuses in the 23- campus California State University system. In May 2011, she announced her plans to step down as president at the end of December 2011 and subsequently retire from The California State University.

California State University, Northridge is a vibrant, diverse university community of more than 36,000 students served by 4,000 faculty and staff. The University plays an indispensable role in the San Fernando Valley as an intellectual, cultural and economic driver.

Under her leadership, the University has improved graduation rates, received record levels of fundraising, and become known for its culture of collaboration. Dr. Koester's vision and determination led to the development of the Valley Performing Arts Center at California State University, Northridge--the first world-class concert hall for nearly 2 million residents of the San Fernando Valley. During her tenure, she has increased the overall stature of Cal State Northridge, resulting in improved visibility and relationships in the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles.

Known nationally for her leadership in the area of higher education, Dr. Koester is a member and past chair of the Board of Directors for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Dr. Koester serves the greater Los Angeles community on the boards of directors for the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Valley Economic Alliance, and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. She also is a board member of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council and the Los Angeles Jobs and Economy Committee. She has received numerous awards and recognitions for her leadership in the Los Angeles region.

Prior to her appointment at Cal State Northridge, Dr. Koester served as provost and vice president for Academic Affairs at California State University, Sacramento. Before her service as provost, she held other executive positions in the academic affairs division at Sacramento State, and was a faculty member there, as a professor of communication studies, since 1980. She earned a Bachelor's of Arts from the University of Minnesota in 1970, a Master's of Arts in communication arts from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1971, and a Ph.D. in speech communication from Minnesota in 1980.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Koester for her commitment to furthering the excellence of California State University, Northridge. She is an extraordinary leader whose legacy will succeed her for decades to come.

It looks like the only thing Congress is going to do this year about jobs is to ship them overseas. Trade adjustment assistance is being authorized tomorrow, but not a penny is being appropriated tomorrow; and any penny that is appropriated will, no doubt, be taken from health and education spending necessary without the trade agreements.

This South Korean Free Trade Agreement will increase our trade deficit by tens of billions of dollars, and every billion dollars of increase in our trade deficit costs us tens of thousands of jobs. The agreement is being sold as if goods made in South Korea are the only goods that are going to come into our country. That's wrong in three ways.

First, if goods are 65 percent made in China, 35 percent finished in South Korea, they come into our country duty free; and that 35 percent of the work done in South Korea can be done by Chinese workers living in barracks in South Korea, so the goods may not ever be touched by a South Korean.

We are going to be talking in this Congress, I hope, about Chinese currency manipulation. There are proposals that would impose tariffs on Chinese goods. This South Korean agreement is a prebuilt loophole in anything we try to do with China over currency manipulation. They manipulate their currency. They make 65 percent of the goods in China. They ship them to South Korea. They come in free to the United States without having to worry about our tariffs or our sanctions against their currency manipulation.

Second, goods that are 65 percent made in North Korea, 35 percent made in South Korea have a right to come in under this agreement; but we have an executive order that will bar them at our ports, so we will be in violation of this agreement on the first day. That means South Korea can impose sanctions and take away whatever benefits you think we're going to get under this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on the Moore amendment to H.R. 2401. I would have voted ``aye'' on this amendment (rollcall No. 730).

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, let me begin with a completely irrelevant digression on a completely different matter. Today it was announced that the United States will recognize the Libyan rebels as the legitimate Government of Libya. If that is true, we should make an immediate demand on that government that it use the $33 billion, or some portion thereof, of Qadhafi money that is frozen in the United States to reimburse the American taxpayer for all of the military actions and humanitarian actions we have taken for the benefit of the people of Libya--there is no reason that these actions should be done at the expense of the United States taxpayer--and that the real cost of our military actions in Libya should be calculated on the basis of full cost accounting, not the marginal cost accounting that has been used in press releases from the Pentagon.

Now for my amendment. This amendment deals with the international programs carried out by the Department of Energy. It is in some ways a rival to, or an alternative to, the amendment presented by Mr. Harris last night. Mr. Harris' amendment would eliminate all of these programs with the exception of one and thus reduce roughly $6 million in costs.

My amendment eliminates those programs that go to China while leaving the remaining programs. So if you don't want to see American taxpayer money used to benefit Chinese manufacturers, you have two alternatives. Maybe you'll vote for them both. But some will just vote for my amendment that focuses on the $2 million we spend in China.

The Harris amendment would have you also--perhaps in an effort to eliminate the money going for the benefit of Chinese manufacturers--cut our cooperative programs that are chiefly with Latin America and Canada.

I believe that it is in our interest to continue to provide energy- efficiency assistance to our partners here in this hemisphere. First, these are our allies. These are, in most cases, poor countries that we're trying to help. Their energy costs are very high, particularly in recent years. And one of the best ways to help them is to help them reduce their energy bill.

But it also helps the American consumer, because if you can reduce worldwide aggregate demand for energy, particularly oil, you reduce the worldwide price. So it is in our interest to carry on the very small programs that have been effective in helping Mexico and Costa Rica and Dominica and other Caribbean States to achieve higher levels of energy efficiency.

However, I do not think it is in our interest to spend the $2 million that we provide to provide fancy American consultants to go over to China at no cost to them to give them ideas on how to reduce their energy usage.

If the Chinese wanted this advice, unlike poor countries in Latin America, they can well afford to pay for it. If you can afford a consultant, and you choose not to hire one, you probably don't want one, and you are probably not going to listen to the consultants.

So if China needs American technology to reduce their energy usage, they can and should pay for it. They could just send us back an infinitesimal portion of the U.S. bonds being held in Beijing.

This amendment that I offer today eliminates the possibility that this bill will be used to provide foreign aid and corporate aid to the Chinese Government and Chinese businesses. I may have sounded a little confused as to where it's private sector and public sector in China, of course, that's because in China those two things are confused.

So I hope that you will support my amendment, view it as an alternative to the Harris amendment. I hope that you will vote against the Harris amendment, because it does make sense for us to spend a very small amount of money in cooperative programs, chiefly here in this hemisphere, to help reduce energy usage by countries that we are providing foreign aid to for the most part because they are poor countries and our allies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just build on the remarks of the ranking member, which the chairman chose to associate himself with, and say if those are speeches against my amendment, I welcome them.

I hope those that are listening will not just note on which side the gentleman rose, but what they actually said. The content of what they said, I think, supports my amendment far more eloquently than I can.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 79: Page 62, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to fund any portion of the International activities

at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of

the Department of Energy in China.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise to offer an amendment that is coauthored by Chairman Bachus and by my friend Gregory Meeks from New York. It is a bipartisan and, I hope, noncontroversial amendment.

This flood insurance program is usually a partnership between private companies and the Federal Government. The Write Your Own Program involves the companies servicing the policies. And one major company that used to write policies in this area decided to pull out of the program and turned over 800,000 policies to the Federal Government. The whole idea behind the program is that the Federal Government will administer as few of these insurance policies as possible.

The purpose of this amendment is to require that the vast majority of these policies be made available to be handled by private insurance companies. It is simply a privatization amendment. This includes language in the amendment designed to protect the agents of State Farm, which is the company that is no longer in this business, ensuring that they will be able to continue servicing the policies that shift from the Federal Government to private insurance companies. This is an effort to ensure that these policies are taken off the taxpayers' books without interfering in the relationship between consumers and their insurance agents.

I would hope that this would be a noncontroversial amendment. As I said, it is supported by the chairman of the committee and is offered on his behalf as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I move the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I ask that the Clerk read the amendment.

I had the Clerk read the amendment to show how short and how simple it is. It simply says that none of the money appropriated in this bill can be used to violate the War Powers Resolution, which is the law of the land found in title 50.

The War Powers Resolution simply states that a President may not deploy our troops into hostilities or our military forces into hostilities for more than 60 days if the President does not have congressional authorization. In the absence of such authorization, the President has 30 days to withdraw.

This is the exact same amendment that we considered 3 weeks ago on the MilCon appropriations bill. At that time it got the support of 60 percent of the Republicans and 61 percent of the Democrats, and I hope that those who voted for the bill or the amendment 3 weeks ago would vote the same way today. I hope to be able to persuade a few who voted the other way last time.

This amendment is important, even if we weren't engaged in Libya at all, because for the last several administrations, Presidents have been captured by the siren song of extremist lawyers who are part of the permanent executive branch. They tell the President that the President of the United States, acting alone, can deploy our troops into hostilities for unlimited duration, for any purpose, and, in any quantity, any assets can be deployed.

We are told that there are no limits on the President's power as Commander in Chief. Well, the War Powers Act says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Now these extremist attorneys in the executive branch have gone a little further. They have added insult to injury by floating the idea that a resolution by NATO, the Arab League, or the United Nations can substitute for an authorization from both Houses of Congress, or they have said that briefing the leadership of Congress is a substitute for enacting an authorization. But even the most extremist attorneys in the executive branch admit we have the power of the purse, and we can prevent the funds provided by this appropriations bill from being used to violate the War Powers Act.

If we were to do otherwise, we would be abdicating our own responsibility, for if Congress habitually appropriates funds knowing that they will be used to violate the law of the land, then we would be complicit in undermining democracy and the rule of law here in the United States.

Now we on this side admire the President of the United States. But even if you would grant this President unlimited power to deploy unlimited forces for unlimited duration, if you ignore the War Powers Act today, you are granting that power to the next President. And those of us who are in good health will all live to see a President that we disagree with. And even if you agree with exactly what's happening in Libya, it is important that we draw a line and say that the conduct of our foreign policy must be consistent with U.S. law.

Now as a practical matter, this President has taken the extreme position that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya. So what will be the practical effect of this amendment? First, I think he will reconsider that decision, because I think the lawyers behind it took refuge in the belief that the War Powers Act was somehow not binding on the administration. With this amendment, the War Powers Act is binding because we do have the constitutional right to limit the use of funds.

Furthermore, at a minimum, this amendment would prevent the President from deploying regular ground forces to Libya. Now I realize he doesn't intend to do that at this time. But, clearly, this President could not claim that armored divisions deployed in a war zone were not engaged in hostilities. So the minimum practical effect of this amendment is to limit Presidential power to what is going on now and not to introducing major combat operations.

Now, I support a limited effort to bring democracy and the rule of law to the people of Libya. That's not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about democracy and the rule of law here in the United States. I think that if we pass this amendment, and if we can get the Senate to do likewise, that the President will come to Congress and seek an authorization for what is going on in Libya. And at that time, Congress will be able to influence our policy. I think we would insist on a legal limitation to limit our efforts to just air forces and perhaps ground rescue operations. I believe that we would insist that we have the right to review that policy every 3 or 6 months. I believe that we would insist that the $33 billion of Qadhafi assets which have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury be used to finance this operation, instead of American taxpayer dollars. And I believe that we would insist that the rebels in Benghazi disassociate themselves from the al Qaeda operatives in their midst and from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

But we can't insist on anything if we accept the view of extremist attorneys in the executive branch who view Congress as merely an advisory body. A review of the law and a review of the Constitution indicates that Congress has and should not be derelict in exercising a role in forming American foreign policy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have said that I would vote for a resolution granting authority to the President if it was appropriately limited and conditioned. I would like to see conditions that require the Benghazi Transitional Government to remove from their midst the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. I would like to see the condition that we use the Qadhafi money that we seized, some $33 billion, rather than taxpayer money.

But putting those conditions aside, the one thing we almost all agree on is that we would want to limit this to air forces and perhaps a ground rescue mission if necessary. That's not what this resolution does.

Section one grants authority to the President to do whatever he decides to do, including armor divisions on the ground, in support of the NATO mission. Don't be fooled by section 2, which provides the President with non-binding, unsolicited advice that we think that he should limit our ground operations to rescue missions and diplomatic security.

This is a grant of authority to the President to put armor divisions on the ground, if that's what he chooses to do.

Mr. Speaker, this bill defunds Libya unless authorized specifically by law. If it passes, long before it's passed by the Senate, the President will come to us and ask for authorization, and I, for one, would want to grant limited, conditional authorization.

Now we just rejected an authorization provision that was, in effect, all authority and no limitation--at least that's certainly how it would be interpreted by the White House legal counsel given how it was drafted. The House should consider real binding limits and conditions because democracy and rule of law for the people of Libya is important, but democracy and rule of law for the people of the United States is more important.

There are those who regret that they cannot offer an amendment to this bill--yes, they can. The motion to recommit will be in order just as soon as we end debate.

I know that we've had important resolutions from the Arab League, the U.N., and NATO. Those are not substitutes for Congress. The War Powers Act is the law of the land, and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? And if this President won't obey it, what President will?

I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Colorado, but I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment would cover not only those patent applications that were on file yesterday but, as I understand it, also those that are filed tomorrow. Tax strategy patents are a bad idea, as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants states. ``It's bad public policy. No one should be granted a monopoly over a form of compliance with the Federal Tax Code.''

This amendment is opposed not only by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants but also my colleague, co-chair of the CPA Caucus, Mike Conaway, and a majority of the CPA and accountants caucus, together with the American College of Trusts and Estate Counsel and the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.

Keep in mind, the purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation. What interest does the Federal Government have in encouraging innovative ways to avoid paying taxes to the Federal Government? It is now time to draw a line against patents on tax compliance.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I join the gentleman from Georgia in opposing this amendment and associate myself with his remarks.

The Federal Government is in a different position from a private company having construction done, for two reasons: First, one of the greatest social problems we face in this country is the eroding wages of middle class families. We see that even in times when there are sufficient jobs, the average American doesn't make any more on an inflation-adjusted basis than a decade or two decades ago. The Federal Government should not play a role in pushing down people out of the middle class. We have a social responsibility to work to a return to what used to be the American norm, and that is that each generation does better than the last.

But the second, even from a crudely proprietary position, the Federal Government is in a very different position than a private homeowner, private property owner. I know I was tempted the last time we fixed our home, maybe I should go with the slipshod, cheapskate company. After all, I'm only going to live there a few more years. Even many private owners, they're only going to own the building for a few years.

So many of us in our daily lives use government-constructed projects from the 1930s. When the government builds something, it is normally going to be owned and operated by the government and used by our citizens for many, many decades. Why do we want slipshod construction? Why do we want those who are not looking to have skilled craftsmen and craftswomen but, rather, are looking to slap it up there in the cheapest possible way?

Our public works need to be built by those with the proper construction skills; it's not a matter of just hiring as many hands as you can as cheaply as possible.

And so I support the gentleman from Georgia and his comments, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

May the Clerk read the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk read the amendment because it's a simple one-sentence amendment. It says that none of the money in this act can be used deliberately by the President to violate the law, in particular, the War Powers resolution, often referred to as the War Powers Act, which is found in title 50 of the United States Code.

This is the same amendment I offered to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Some 208 Members of Congress voted for that amendment. The only argument against the amendment at that time was that it wasn't exactly appropriate or relevant to the Homeland Security bill. After all, I was preventing the funding of violation of the War Powers Act with the funds provided to the Department of Homeland Security.

Now that I offer this amendment to the MilCon bill, it is relevant. This is a bill that provides tens of billions of dollars for the Defense Department. And it is necessary and appropriate, if we are going to adopt a policy that says that money is not going to be appropriated for deliberate violation of our law, that we apply this amendment not only to the Defense Appropriations bill, but to this second bill that funds the Pentagon.

Why is this amendment necessary? Because so many administrations have embraced the idea of an imperial Presidency, the idea that a President can send our forces into battle for unlimited duration, for any purpose, unlimited in scope. This is not what the Constitution and the law provides.

The War Powers Act is the law of the land, and it says the President may indeed commit our forces, but the President must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw within 60 days if that authorization is not provided by the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress.

In Libya, we face not an attack on the United States, not an attack on our allies. But even in this circumstance, this President, like others, claims that he does not have to follow the law.

The administration has implied that there are substitutes for congressional authorization; they have implied that resolutions by the United Nations, the Arab League or NATO can be a substitute for congressional authorization; and they implied that consulting congressional leaders, a lunch with leadership, is a substitute for the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress. It is time for us to stand up and say, No, Mr. President, you actually have to follow the law.

Obviously, this amendment is even more apropos to the Defense appropriations bill, but we will be dealing with that weeks from now. The President has been violating the War Powers Act for many weeks. It is time to act today.

Moreover, if we put this amendment only on the Defense appropriations bill and don't put it on this bill, then we invite the administration to try to figure out clever accounting ways to use the billions of dollars provided to the Defense Department in this bill to carry out operations in Libya. We should not invite a loophole hunt. We should put the same restriction on both of the bills that fund the Defense Department.

Now, if we can pass the amendment, the President will, I hope, request an authorization from Congress to take action in Libya, and he will have to accept an authorization that will, I expect, be limited in time and scope. Perhaps it will say that only air forces and not ground forces can be committed. Perhaps it will require renewal every 3 or 6 months. There may be conditions on funding sources. For example, perhaps we use some of the $33 billion that Qadhafi was stupid enough to leave invested in the United States in ways that we could find and that we have frozen rather than use taxpayer dollars.

Congress will ask some tough questions. And we may put some conditions requiring certain action also by the Benghazi transitional government. We would ask why the Benghazi government has refused to disassociate itself from the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group men who are in their midst and why they will not remove from that transitional government those that have American blood on their hands from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is not just the issue of an aggrandizing President. It is also the issue of a derelict Congress. Continuing military action in Libya should be conducted only consistent with American law. If Congress habitually appropriates funds knowing that those funds will be used to violate the law of the land, then we are complicit in undermining democracy and the rule of law in the United States. The question is not democracy and the rule of law in Libya; the question is democracy and the rule of law in the United States.