Floor Statements

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, what we really have here is a discussion not so much as to which party has moral superiority here, but it's really a deeper question about what's the purpose of our Nation and whether we are aligned with the Founding Fathers' spiritual principles, because while the Founders separated church and State, they did not intend our Nation to be separated from spiritual principles.

And I think that at this moment, if we really want to sincerely appreciate the dilemma that we have created with these cuts, we need to reflect on some of our own spiritual training for those of us who are Christian, when, in John 21:15, Jesus was dining with his apostles. And so when they dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?

He said unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.

And the Lord said to him, Feed my lambs.

He said to him again, the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?

He said unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.

And the Lord answered, Feed my sheep.

He said unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?

Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things. Thou knowest that I love thee.

Jesus said unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are spiritual principles at stake here. We know what the right thing is to do. We know that feeding the hungry is a corporal work of mercy. We know that we have a responsibility to do this. We know that when the Bible says, Whatever you do for the least of my brothers and sisters, you do for me, in Matthew 25, that we're actually referring to how spiritual is the act of feeding the poor.

This decision that we make with respect to whether or not we are going to fully fund the Women, Infants, and

Children program does have profound spiritual consequences. We cannot escape them. ``For when I was hungry, you gave me food,'' remember that. When I was hungry, you gave me food. You didn't give me war. You didn't give me a tax break. You didn't give me an oil depletion allowance. When I was hungry, you gave me food. Who among you, the Bible asks, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone? These are spiritual principles we're talking about here. This really goes to the core of who we are as a Nation, whether we recognize people who are out there are suffering. People may not have a roof over their head. Mothers may be living in a car, having to tend to their children.

America today is not the country it was at its founding, but it can be a Nation that aspires to great things again. But it cannot do it if we forget the poor, if we forget the children, if we forget their mothers, if we tell them that, No, you cannot have the resources you need to be able to provide proper nutrition to your child so that he or she can grow up in this United States of America to be a full participant in the affairs of this Nation.

This is a defining moment for who we are as a Nation. This isn't about whether we're Democrats or Republicans. This is about whether we are prepared to realign ourselves with the deeper truths of the spiritual mission of the United States of America. Feed the hungry. Feed my sheep. When I was hungry, you gave me food. Restore these cuts.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

In defense of Mr. Burton's description of U.S. involvement already in Libya, I would like to have entered into the Record an article from the Guardian U.K., dated May 22, which talks about the United States having 50 percent of the ships, 50 percent of the planes, 66 percent of the personnel, 93 percent of the cruise missiles.

I just want to say briefly, Madam Speaker, that this article was written about 10 days ago. If it's true, it points out that we've undertaken a huge mission through the United States in the name of NATO--now, without coming to the Congress, and that's what we're debating, of course. Yet if, on the other hand, the information that the administration has communicated as of late to the Congress suggests a lighter footprint, then there should be no difficulty in pulling out of Libya in 15 days. If there is, we need to start asking questions about how deeply enmeshed we are if our participation is truly no boots on the ground.

[From the guardian.co.uk, May 22, 2011]

Libya: Britain's 1bn War

(By Richard Norton-Taylor and Simon Rogers)

Britain's involvement in the Libya conflict will cost the

taxpayer as much as 1bn if it continues into the

autumn as expected, according to expert analysis and data

gathered by the Guardian.

Two months after western powers began bombing Libyan

targets to protect civilians in Operation Unified Protector,

the cost to Britain so far of the dozens of bombs dropped,

hundreds of sorties flown and more than 1,000 service

personnel deployed is estimated at more than

100m, according to British defence officials.

But defence economists have told the Guardian the costings

are conservative. Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence

Analysis newsletter, estimates that by the end of April

Libyan operations had already cost the UK about

300m and that the bill was increasing by up to

38m a week.

Defence chiefs in the UK and US are also said to be

concerned that some NATO countries are unwilling to commit

air power to the campaign. It is not only the cost that is

worrying the Ministry of Defence, and, indeed, defence chiefs

in the Pentagon. The reluctance of most countries to commit

their air forces to action--Norway, which has dropped about

300 bombs, is to pull out at the end of June--is causing

serious concern among military commanders throughout the

alliance about whether NATO countries have the political will

and military capability to continue operations that now have

the stated aim of removing power from Gaddafi, his sons, and

closet advisers.

For Britain, the Libyan conflict has also presented

military commanders and ministers alike with an uncomfortable

reminder of the perilous state of the defence budget. As Paul

Cornish, head of the international security programme at the

thinktank Chatham House, has observed, many of the military

capabilities used in and around Libya--HMS Cumberland, the

Nimrod R1 eavesdropping plane, the Sentinental surveillance

aircraft, and Tornado jets--are among the first casualties to

be scrapped or their numbers reduced (in the case of

Tornados) as a result of last year's strategic defence and

security review.

``The obvious question to ask,'' Cornish writes in the

latest issue of The World Today, ``is whether Britain could

have made a contribution to the intervention in Libya had the

crisis developed later in 2011 when most of the

decommissionings, disbandments, and retirements would

otherwise have taken place.''

The U.S. led the assault, during the first week flying more

than 800 sorties in Libya, of which over 300 were strike

sorties. It fired more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles from

its ships. Britain has fired fewer than 20 Tomahawks, costing

an estimated 1m each, from the submarine HMS

Triumph.

Britain, which has accounted for some 25% of all sorties,

was so worried about the gap left by the U.S. when it ceded

command to NATO, and stood down its aircraft--including low-

flying A10 tankbusting ``Warthogs'' and C130 gunships.

I yield 2 minutes to the prime cosponsor of this important constitutional initiative, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who has been very closely involved in helping construct bipartisan support for H. Con. Res. 51, and I thank him.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has been a driving force behind this resolution.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains for all?

I yield myself 1 minute.

Members will be asked to vote on two resolutions, H. Con. Res 51, and a resolution offered by Speaker Boehner, H. Res. 292, both of which address U.S. military involvement in Libya.

I do not believe that H. Res. 292 is at odds with H. Con. Res. 51, but it's not a substitute for the resolution that Mr. Burton and others have worked on. It's imperative that Members clearly understand this, because the consequence of voting for one--that's the Speaker of the House resolution--and not the other, H. Con. Res 51, ends up being an endorsement of unconstitutional action that was taken by the White House.

So how does Congress deal with the failure of any President to adhere to the Constitution? If Congress does not challenge a President's dismissal of the clear meaning of article I, section 8, then we will have tacitly endorsed a President's violation of the Constitution and guaranteed the perpetuation of future constitutional transgressions. A mild rebuke alone of the usurpation

of a constitutionally mandated war power is insufficient to defend the Constitution.

Many of us want to support our President, but the President has ignored Congress' assertion of the war powers by failing to obey the War Powers Resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

There are those who may hesitate to support my resolution because of the supposed negative impact it will have on the NATO mission and on our image in the eyes of our NATO allies.

In the weeks leading up to the war, the administration had time to consult with the Arab League, the United Nations, and the African Union, but apparently had no time to come to this Congress for approval. If our image in the eyes of NATO is a reason to stay in Libya, the administration should not have committed the U.S. to a war of choice without consulting with Congress for an action that was so far outside that which is allowed by the War Powers Resolution.

Far more damaging is a Congress that ends up being more concerned with our image in the eyes of NATO than our fulfillment of our constitutional responsibilities and the continued usurpation of the war power by the executive. Our loyalty to NATO and to our President, regardless of party affiliation, does not trump our loyalty to the United States Constitution.

May I ask the gentlelady, will she be closing?

I want to thank all Members on both sides of the aisle who have participated in this important constitutional debate.

What does it mean to defend the Constitution? Well, if you know that Congress very clearly has the power to declare war, if you believe the President violated the Constitution in this regard, then you cannot come to any conclusion other than to say that we stand up and defend the Constitution by voting for H. Con. Res. 51.

Let us also defend the Founding Fathers and the doctrine of separation of powers. Let us defend the doctrine of checks and balances. Let us defend the institution of the Congress of the United States. And as we stand here, having taken an oath to defend the Constitution, this, my friends, is our moment to stand up for that oath, to act in defense of the Constitution.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on H. Con. Res. 51. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle, who I know are ready to step forward in this moment, to join me.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, this House has just had a great constitutional debate about the meaning of article I, section 8, where the Founders made it very clear that the war power is placed in the hands of Congress.

This debate that occurred today is not an end. It is a beginning. It is a beginning because we have seen one resolution which derived its presence from a resolution that I put forward on a bipartisan basis. One resolution passed which put the White House on notice that Congress is beginning to take a more appropriate role with respect to the Constitution, and that's a good thing.

But make no mistake that this issue of liberty is not going to go away. With the spending soon approaching $1 billion and with NATO openly talking about the commission of ground troops, we'll be back here another day to consider further what our appropriate constitutional role is.

I want to congratulate Members on both sides of the aisle no matter how you voted. This is our moment to begin to reclaim the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Steven Davies who retires this year after completing thirty five years of teaching visual arts and photography at Westlake High School.

Mr. Davies graduated from Bowling Green University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and received his Masters degree in the Art of Teaching from Marygrove College.

Mr. Davies has been teaching visual arts and photography at Westlake High School for thirty five years. Among art forms which interest him most are drawing, wood, sculpture and photography. During his long career at Westlake High School, Mr. Davies served as the Art Department Chairman and as a member of the Building Leadership Team. He has coached football and baseball and was senior class advisor.

Mr. Davies approaches his teaching profession with diligence and a serious commitment. ``I will do anything in my power to help your child reach his or her full potential. My mission, as a teacher, is to make the learning process a thrilling life-long endeavor. I will promote the concepts of trust and respect within my classroom. And, I will establish high expectations for the students and hold them accountable to fulfill these expectations.''

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition of Mr. Steven Davies as he retires after thirty five years of teaching.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Paul R. King, beloved husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, whose generosity and kindness will be remembered.

Mr. King was born in Olney, Illinois where at the age of 15 he first realized his passion for radio announcing. He was a high school sports correspondent and he worked at the campus station while attending the University of Illinois. Mr. King started his professional career at WPEO in Peoria and went on to Wichita where he met and married Sue Ann in 1963.

Mr. King came to Cleveland in 1966 as one of the WHK radio ``Good Guys'' hosting mornings and then afternoons as the top-40 station switched to pop standards. He left in 1973 to form Commercial Recording Studios in Independence with engineer George Gates where he created and produced radio commercials and other innovative presentations.

Mr. King did commercial voiceovers and announcing work for clients that included the May Co., the Cleveland Browns, the Ohio Lottery, WJW- TV, ``Academic Challenge'' on WESS-TV, Forest City, Sherwin-Williams, Goodyear and Ohio Bell, and he was the voice of ABC-TV's Saturday morning cartoon lineup for five years. He served a term as local president of the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists (AFTRA) and was a National Guard Veteran.

Mr. King was involved in figure skating through one of his sons. He emceed many competitions, arranged music for skaters and was president of the Winterhurst Figure Skating Club.

He was called ``King of Voiceovers.'' In 1984 when Cleveland Magazine named him one of its 84 Most Interesting People, being a humble man, he jokingly claimed to a reporter that he was number 84.

Mr. King's greatest source of joy and strength was his family. For forty eight years, he was the devoted husband of Sue Ann. Together they raised four children: Kathleen, Kelly, John and the late Scott. His devotion to his wife and children, then later to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren was unwavering. He was the treasured grandfather of Shannon and Sean. He was the devoted great-grandfather of Dakota, Lillian, Isabelle, Kevin and Andrew. He was the beloved brother of Richard and the late Ronald. Mr. King was a devoted friend and mentor to many.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Paul R. King, whose life will be framed by love for family. I offer my condolences to his family, friends and to everyone who knew him well. Mr. King lived his life with a generous heart and love for family and friends.

Why are we in debt? We borrow trillions for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, trillions for tax cuts for the rich. We borrow billions from China and Japan.

We have plenty of money for war, Wall Street, and welfare for the wealthy; but when millions of honest Americans need jobs, need wage increases, need health care, need education, need retirement security, they're told no, we don't have the money.

How is it that the Fed can create trillions of dollars to give to the banks but the U.S. can't meet its needs without going into debt to banks? The financial system works for a few at the expense of the many.

The Founders did not intend for America to be run by big banks and Wall Street. The Constitution put the ability to create money in the hands of Congress. The Fed took away that power in 1913. We need to get that power back to invest in our economy, to create jobs, to put America back to work, to rebuild America without going into debt. We must reclaim our destiny by reclaiming control over the money system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Harlell X. Jones, a civil rights leader and community activist whose determination and leadership helped strengthen the Cleveland community.

Prime Minister Jones devoted his life towards his community at a young age, helping African American youth to develop an individual identity within the community and foster a more peaceful neighborhood. He encouraged African American youth to demand economic empowerment by boycotting Cleveland stores to secure private ownership. He also led a movement to increase community safety by securing a truce and cease fire between police and Black Nationalists.

Harlell Jones spearheaded voter registration and get out the vote campaigns that resulted in the election of Carl Stokes as Mayor of Cleveland, as well as his brother, Louis Stokes, as a Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also worked with Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries and prominent civil rights leaders Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Harlell X. Jones, whose life is worthy of celebration and emulation. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Prime Minister Jones' family and friends. Although he will truly be missed, his unwavering devotion to both African American youth and the Cleveland community will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of John Shepherd, the longest-living veteran of the American Revolution, and all of our soldiers and veterans. This Memorial Day, the city of North Royalton will celebrate the life and patriotism of Mr. Shepherd, who lived to be 117 years, 9 months, and 18 days old.

John Shepherd was born near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1729. He was a brave patriot and served in both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. In 1817, Mr. Shepherd moved to Royalton Township in the present-day North Royalton, Ohio, where he spent the remainder of his long life as a farmer. At the time of his death, he was the last survivor of Braddock's Defeat, and he was the longest- living veteran of the American Revolution. He was buried in the municipal cemetery of Royalton Township.

This Memorial Day, the city of North Royalton will honor Mr. Shepherd, as well as all American soldiers and veterans, with a pancake breakfast, parade, and memorial service. The Cleveland Shrine Band, the United States Army Color Guard, the Boy Scouts of America, the Sons of the American Revolution, and a number of other organizations will be on hand to mark this special occasion. This will be a fitting celebration to commemorate Mr. Shepherd, and all veterans who have served their country.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of John Shepherd, the longest living veteran of the American Revolution. His spirit lives on through all soldiers and veterans that we proudly recognize, honor, and thank this Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Reverend Roman Misiewicz, who is celebrating his 50th anniversary of his ordination to the Priesthood. Reverend Misiewicz's continued dedication to serving God, his students, and his parishioners have made him a pillar of the community.

Reverend Misiewicz was born in Drohobycz, Poland shortly before the Second World War. After the war, during which his town was repeatedly bombarded, he and his family moved to Chorzow, where he graduated from high school. He went on to attend Jagiellonian University in Krakow, where he enrolled in the seminary and was ordained into the priesthood in 1961. During his time at Jagiellonian University, one of Reverend Misiewicz's professors was Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope John Paul II.

During the reign of Communism in Poland, Reverend Misiewicz served as a parish priest and as an academic chaplain. In addition, he lectured clandestinely on human rights despite the danger it posed to him. In 1970, he moved to America and began working as a pastor at St. Mary's Church in Lublin, Wisconsin. In 1971 he married Jolanta Machnik in Chicago, Illinois, and soon moved to Cleveland.

Fr. Roman Misiewicz served as the pastor of Holy Trinity Church in Cleveland from 1972 until the close of the parish in 2003. At that time, he became the pastor of St. Mary's Church in Parma, where he continues to preach. In addition to his priestly duties, Reverend Misiewicz teaches Information Technology and has served as a Dean of Education at a variety of institutions of higher learning in the Cleveland area.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring Reverend Roman Misiewicz, as he celebrates his Golden Jubilee. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Fr. Roman and look forward to his exemplification of faith and service in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Chief Joseph C. Kocab of the Brooklyn Heights Police Department and his well-deserved retirement. As an officer of the law, Chief Kocab has served the people of the greater Cleveland area with honor and professionalism for 31 years.

Chief Kocab is a lifelong resident of Brooklyn Heights and attended Cuyahoga Heights High School. He graduated from Kent State University with a major in law enforcement administration. While studying at Kent State, Chief Kocab met his wife Dianne; the two were married in 1979. They have two daughters and two grandchildren.

Chief Kocab was first appointed to the Brooklyn Heights Police Department on March 17, 1980. In 1985, he was promoted to sergeant and on June 1, 1999 made Chief of Police for the Brooklyn Heights Police Department. After completing a professional program, in 2004, Chief Kocab became a Certified Law Enforcement Executive. While serving as Chief of Police, he was an active member and would serve as a board member, Chaplain and president of the Cuyahoga County Police Chiefs Association. Chief Kocab was also a member of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police and acted as district representative, treasurer and president of the organization.

Throughout his career, Chief Kocab was instrumental in providing vital programs to the youth of Brooklyn Heights. He assisted in the creation of the Cuyahoga Heights Safety Town Program in 1982, and in 1988, was one of Ohio's first officers selected to participate in the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program. Additionally, in 1996, he was trained to teach the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program. Chief Kocab taught the GREAT program and served as a DARE Officer in Cuyahoga Heights Schools until 1999. He is also an Ohio Peace Officers Training Commission Police Academy Instructor and teaches police cadets at the Cleveland Heights Police Academy and Cuyahoga Community College.

As a result of his dedication to protecting and educating the citizens of Brooklyn Heights, Chief Kocab is a highly decorated officer. He is the recipient of multiple unit commendations as well as awards for meritorious service, distinguished service, and life saving. He has twice been named both the Mothers Against Drunk Driving officer of the year and Ohio Auto Theft Investigator's ``Top Cop.''

In addition to his career as a police officer, Chief Kocab is an active member of his community. Since 1976 he has been a member of the executive board of the Brooklyn Heights Men's Service Club. He is also a volunteer with the Cuyahoga Heights Schools and has been awarded with the PTA Life Member and Cuyahoga Heights Golden Apple Achievement awards.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Chief Joseph C. Kocab for his exemplary service on behalf of his community. Chief Kocab has served and protected the people of Brooklyn Heights with courage for 31 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor soldier, pilot, astronaut, and former U.S. Senator, John Glenn. His dedication to Ohio and the country has inspired the Great Lakes Science Center to honor him at their Reach for the Stars Benefit.

John Glenn was born in Cambridge, Ohio in 1921. He attended Muskingum College, where he earned his pilot's license. Before he had the chance to graduate, the United States entered the Second World War. He enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in 1942 and was reassigned to the Marine Corps in 1943. During World War II, he flew 59 missions in the South Pacific and he flew 90 combat missions in the Korean War. In the late 1950s, he returned to the United States and served as a test pilot, and completed the first supersonic transnational flight in 1957.

In 1959, Glenn was assigned to NASA, and on February 20, 1962 he became the fifth person in space and the first American to orbit the earth. This marked only one aspect of his illustrious career at NASA, which honored him

with the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. Three decades later, in 1998, John Glenn became the oldest person to ever go into space, at the age of 77, in order for NASA to study the effects of space travel on seniors.

John Glenn also served as U.S. Senator from 1974 until 1999. He served as chair of the Committee on Government Affairs, sat on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, and was the chief author of the 1978 Nonproliferation Act. His exemplary public service was recognized by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which awarded him the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service in 2004. He has also received the Congressional Space Medal of Honor and the Congressional Gold Medal. In 1998 he founded The Ohio State University's John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy, now known as the John Glenn School of Public Affairs.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of a national hero, John Glenn. His dedication to education and country serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to another abdication of our constitutional duty to conduct oversight and protect our most basic civil liberties. This bill extends through June 1, 2015, three provisions contained in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and the USA PATRIOT Act that, at the time of their passage, constituted an unprecedented expansion of government power and infringement on the American people's privacy.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice released its annual report on surveillance activities for 2010. The report reveals that the government quadrupled its use of section 215 orders, named after one of the provisions, poised to extend until 2015 with no reform. Section 215, also known as the business records provision, allows the FBI to order any person, any business, to turn over any tangible things as long as it specifies it's for an authorized investigation. Orders executed under section 215 constitute a serious violation of Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library records or medical records.

The other amendments to be extended include section 601, the lone wolf surveillance provision, contained in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected to any foreign power or terrorist group. It effectively allows the government to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts.

Lastly, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the FBI to obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or the device. These provisions were given a sunset for a reason.

There's an abundance of evidence over the last 10 years that these powers have given the government license to infringe on constitutionally protected privacy of the American people with no accountability. It's time we stop rubber-stamping these provisions, reform the PATRIOT Act, and stop Big Government from reaching into people's private lives.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.

And to my friend on the other side of the aisle, I want to say that I will be offering an amendment to the defense authorization bill which would defund the war in Libya. The war is unconstitutional. The President did not come to this Congress. He went to the U.N. Security Council. He went to a number of international bodies. He didn't come to the United States Congress. Last week, the President did not observe the tolling of the War Powers Act; so he is in violation of the statute.

The action over in Libya has already exceeded the U.N. mandate. It's in violation of the U.N. mandate, and there have been violations of international law. What are we doing there? What does anyone think we can afford, and why aren't we trying to find a path to peace so we aren't called upon to spend more money there?

I mean, these are questions we have to be asking. That is why Congress should start by saying, look, you are not going to spend any more money over there. And there are people who are saying, Mr. Speaker, that, well, it's not the United States; it's NATO.

Now, think about this. The Guardian UK did this study where 93 percent of the cruise missiles are paid for by the US; 66 percent of the personnel involved in Libya, against Libya, from the U.S.; 50 percent of the aircraft, 50 percent of all ships. And they're saying this is a NATO operation?

Come on. I mean, we really have to recognize what's going on here, which is an expansion of the war power by the Executive, and it's time that we challenge that. And one thing we certainly shouldn't do is to support the amendment offered by my friend Mr. McKeon that wants to hand over to the President Congress' constitutional authority to declare an authorized war, substantially altering the delicate balance of power which the Founding Fathers envisioned.

The annual reauthorization of the Department of Defense contains unprecedented and dangerous language, which gives the President virtually unchecked power to take this country to war and to keep us there.

The bill substantially undermines the Constitution, the institution that the Constitution set up, that is, Congress, and sets the United States on a path to permanent war.

Congress has to protect the American people from the overreach of any Chief Executive--Democrat, Republican--any Chief Executive who is enamored with unilateralism, preemption, first strike, and the power to prosecute war without constitutional authority or statutory prescriptions.

Permanent global war isn't the answer. It's not going to increase our national security. Far from ridding the world of terrorism, it will become a terrorist recruitment program. The war in Iraq, based on lies. The war in Afghanistan, based on a misreading of history. Yet in Iraq we will spend over $3 trillion. In Afghanistan we have already spent over a half trillion dollars.

We have people out of work here. We have people who are losing their homes, losing their health care, losing their retirement security, and all we hear from the White House is they want more war or they want authorization for more war. We have to stop that. And while we're stopping that, we have to stop this national security state and stop the extension of the Patriot Act, which is also in this bill.

Mr. Chair, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill which would defund the war in Libya.

The war is unconstitutional. The President did not come to this Congress, he went to the U.N. Security Council, he went to a number of international bodies, but he didn't come to the United States Congress. Last week, the President did not observe the tolling of the War Powers Act, so he's in violation of the statute.

The action over in Libya has already exceeded the U.N. mandate; it's in violation of the U.N. mandate and there have been violations of international law.

What are we doing there? Why does anyone think we can afford it? Why aren't we trying to find a path to peace so we aren't called upon to spend more money there? These are questions we have to be asking; that's why Congress needs to say we're not going to spend more money there.

People are saying it's not the United States, it's NATO. The Guardian in the U.K. did a study which showed that 90 percent of the cruise missiles are paid for by the U.S. Sixty-six percent of the personnel working against Libya are from the U.S., 50 percent of aircraft, 50 percent of all ships--and our government is saying this is a NATO operation? We have to recognize what's going on here, which is an expansion of the war power by the Executive and it's time we challenge that.

One thing we certainly shouldn't do is to support the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. McKeon, which will hand over to the President Congress' constitutional authority to declare and authorize war, substantially altering the delicate balance of power the Founding Fathers envisioned.

The annual re-authorization contains unprecedented and dangerous language which gives the President virtually unchecked power to take this country to war and to keep us there. The bill substantially undermines the Constitution, the institution that the Constitution set up that is Congress and sets the United States on a path to permanent war. Congress has to protect the American people from the overreach of any Chief Executive--Democrat, Republican--any Chief Executive who's enamored with unilateralism, preemption, first strike and the power to prosecute war without constitutional authority or statutory prescriptions.

Permanent global war isn't the answer. It's not going to increase our national security. Far from ridding the world of terrorism, it will become a terrorist recruitment program. The war in Iraq is based on lies; the war in Afghanistan is based on a misreading of history.

Yet in Iraq we'll spend over $3 trillion. In Afghanistan we've spent over half a trillion dollars.

We have people out of work here. We have people losing their homes, losing their health care, losing their retirement security. All we hear from the White House is ``we want more war or more authorization for more war.'' We have to stop that and while stopping that we have to stop this national security state and stop the extension of the Patriot Act which is also in this bill.