Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, if there is one thing everyone in this Chamber should be able to agree on, it is that we need to focus on job creation and relieve the burden on middle-class families, not increase it. Yet the evidence suggests that by taking up this cap-and-trade bill, we are abandoning this fundamental mission.

According to an MIT study, the legislation before us will force America's middle-class families to pay as much as $3,100 in higher prices every year. The EPA, meanwhile, estimates that a family of four will eventually pay an additional average of $1,100 each year.

The impact on jobs is equally dismal. A CRA International study finds the legislation, when fully implemented, will cost America 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs. This, at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs every month.

In the midst of a severe recession, why would we even contemplate a plan that amounts to a growth-killing millstone around the neck of small businesses and all American consumers.

Madam Speaker, it is not the utilities, the oil companies, and the other producers who will bear the cost of this new regime. We already know that the companies will pass their higher costs along to the consumers and small businesses that rely on their services. This means more expensive bills for all Americans on everything from electricity to heating to gasoline to groceries.

We also can't forget that this national energy tax comes down hardest on the poor. The highest income quintile spends less than 5 percent of its income on energy-intensive products, but our families in the lowest income quintile spend over 20 percent on those items--this, according to CBO.

Madam Speaker, with a watchful eye toward the consequences for jobs and economic growth, let us give thoughtful consideration to the limited benefits this unilateral action will bring about. Even if the bill cuts U.S. carbon emissions to 83 percent of current levels by 2050, we still are only anticipated to slow global temperature increases by a mere two-tenths of a degree.

And then there's the real elephant in the room, India and China. Both of these freewheeling nations are growing rapidly and not prepared to slow down. Do we really want to hamstring U.S. industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage to Asia? Can we be so naive to assume our businesses, jobs--and emissions--won't emigrate to China and India?

Moving to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere is a noble endeavor, but taking this kind of action without enforceable carbon commitments from our competitors is only an exercise in futility.

Madam Speaker, Republicans remain committed to bringing a swift end to the recession and paving the path to prosperity. We intend to focus on policies that will put people back to work and grow the economy. That does not include this cap-and-trade proposal. With stakes so high, gambling the house away on such a high-cost, low-reward program is a grave mistake that Republicans will not support.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the rule for a bill to develop and deploy defensive capabilities for the protection of the American people, our stationed men and women, and our allies. The rising threat from North Korea and Iran highlights why our national security strategy must include a comprehensive, multilayered, and robust missile defense program to protect our homeland.

Both of these rogue nations, Mr. Speaker, provocatively flaunt their growing capabilities with long-range missiles and nuclear programs. Just last week, we learned that North Korea is planning to launch a missile towards the U.S. around the 4th of July holiday. To repeat a phrase used by our President just last week, these regimes pose a ``grave threat'' to the safety and security of our citizens and our allies.

Yet the bill which is the subject of this rule, Mr. Speaker, sustains an inexplicable $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense budget. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is very simple: How do we reconcile gutting missile defense when it will defend against what our own President rightfully calls a ``grave threat''? It simply doesn't make sense.

The cuts include a 35 percent reduction to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, a system located in Alaska and California for the purpose of protecting this country against the type of missile North Korea is gearing up to launch.

This is not the time to be reducing our commitment to missile defense. We must fund the current missile defense systems that protect us today and the forward-looking programs that will protect us tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we must restore the $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense programs today.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime's brutalities are on full display for the whole world to behold. I rise today in sympathy with the victims of Iranian political oppression who have been injured or killed, protesting the outcome of their election. I salute the leadership of the gentlelady from Florida and the gentleman from California for bringing this resolution forward, as well as the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership on this and so many issues, and the way that the gentlelady from Nevada spoke.

It is America's moral responsibility to speak out on behalf of the protection of human rights wherever they are violated. And regardless of the outcome of the Iranian election, make no

mistake where the power in Iran lies. It lies with a clerical regime who conducts its most egregious activities in the dark, hidden from the world's eyes and, thus, escaping media attention. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps quietly funnels weapons and funding into terrorist groups from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Lebanon to Gaza. Iranian centrifuges enrich uranium at nuclear plants often hidden from weapons inspectors. And terrorist groups make voyages to Iran to receive training at unspecified locations. This is the regime we are talking about, and this week the true colors of that regime are on broad display. We must rally the world around the cause of the Iranian people. I urge the administration, I urge President Obama to follow the lead of this House, to speak out on behalf of the Iranian people and their quest for freedom and human rights.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in sympathy with the victims of Iranian political oppression who have been injured or killed protesting the outcome of their election.

Yet regardless of whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi wins, we must not maintain any illusions about where true power in Iran rests.

That would be in the hands of the Islamic Republic's clerical regime, extremists determined to advance Iran's nuclear program and use terrorism to bully other states in the region.

Much of the regime's most egregious activities are done in the dark, hidden from the world's eyes and thus escaping media attention. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps quietly funnels weapons and funding into terrorists groups from Iraq to Afghanistan to Lebanon to Gaza. Iranian centrifuges enrich uranium at nuclear plants often hidden from weapons inspectors. And terrorist groups make voyages to Iran to receive training at unspecified locations.

But this week the true colors of the Iranian regime are on broad display. With the whole world watching, the Iranian regime has been embarrassed--called to account seemingly for the first time. This is an opportunity we cannot squander. Let us rally the world around the Iranian people. Let us use this opening to show the international community how dangerous the Iranian regime is--and why a nuclear Iran is flatly unacceptable.

Regrettably, the President and Democratic leadership in congress are failing to respond to the growing threat a nuclear Iran poses to the world.

Today we call on President Obama to immediately condemn the violence the Iranian regime is perpetrating against its citizens. We call on the Speaker to immediately bring to the floor and consider the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act. The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, would impose sanctions on the radical Iranian regime while they continue to seek nuclear weapons and destabilize the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. America has the best military in the world. I think all of us who have traveled and who have seen the commitment of our Armed Forces are overwhelmed by their patriotism. The success of our military has much to do with the character and the courage of the men and women in uniform who fight every single day for our freedom.

And what we can do, as Members of this Congress, to speak to that courage and that commitment on the part of those men and women is to stand up and to remove politics from bills affecting their ability to execute on their mission to protect us.

Mr. Speaker, we can pass a bipartisan bill. This House has shown several weeks ago, we passed a bill with a 368-60 vote, clearly, a bipartisan bill sending the message that this Congress stood for our troops and nothing got in the way.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we now find a conference report that will make its way to this House that is vastly different from the bill approved in a bipartisan way.

Number one, Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the conference report that will make its way to this floor seem to put the rights of terrorists before the security of Americans. When we see that this body somehow wants to remove language prohibiting the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to U.S. soil, when this House allows for that transfer, what that says is we are willing to take on untold risk at the expense of the security of the people that our troops are trying to protect.

Next, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the conferees take out language that would prohibit the release of photographs that we know will endanger the lives of our troops. Our commander on the ground in Iraq, General Odierno, was very clear in his admonition several weeks ago when he said our troops will be put in greater harm's way, and specific units will have enhanced danger immediately, if these photographs are allowed to be released.

And I know that the majority says that we've got protections, that the White House will stand up and not allow for their release. But at the end of the day, we have the ability to stop it and to act now.

And I ask that this House stand up, act now, and make sure that these photos don't make their ways to brochures for recruitment of al Qaeda or make their way on to Internet sites to help attract more terrorists in the fight against our troops.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker, to burden our troops with $108 billion of a loan guarantee to a global bailout is not putting our troops first. That's putting politics before our troops, and that's unacceptable to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the rest of the evening.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would, first of all, respond to speak to the issue of the 127 amendments having been filed. I think that it's certainly a result of and, perhaps, due to the unintended consequences of imposing a preprinting requirement.

As the gentleman and I have discussed, many of our Members felt it necessary to prefile their amendments to preserve their right to proffer an amendment without necessarily having the intention of following through with offering that amendment. There are several amendments that are duplicative. There are many amendments that our Members have already said that they would not offer.

So I would say to the gentleman that it is hard for us on this side of the aisle to stand here and to accept the notion that somehow, 30 minutes into the debate and on page 2 of line 7 of the bill and while in discussion of the first Republican amendment, that was where you drew the line and decided that the tactics by us were going to be dilatory. It certainly seems to me, I would say to the gentleman, with all due respect, that there was some preconceived notion that this was the direction in which the majority was going to head regardless.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman--and the gentleman and I have spoken about this--it is our intention to practice some good faith and to ask the majority to engage with us, to allow our Members to come to the floor, to deliberate in the context of the only constitutional duty of this body, which is the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and to allow our voice to be heard.

I hardly think, Madam Speaker, that the decision to close this process after 30 minutes, to close this process after just the first Republican amendment, is at all being made in good faith.

So I ask the gentleman again: What is the thinking of the majority here? The first appropriations bill. The first Republican amendment. How is it that we can expect a good-faith debate?

Our Members complied with your rule-- unprecedented. The gentleman speaks to prior years and to the number of amendments that came up on this bill and on others. He knows as well as I that the preprinting requirement was not in place. This is the unintended consequence of a preprinting requirement, the 127 amendments. We have had that discussion. There will not be discussion and debate and votes asked for 127 amendments. So we stand here in good faith and want to engage with the Members on your side of the aisle.

So I ask the gentleman: What is it? What is the intention tonight--to go back to Rules? Our Members have already been told their amendments will be accepted. Now how should they proceed?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would respond, first of all, to the suggestion that the discussions that we've had, and others, over the last 2 months as to whether an agreement was possible, frankly, is unprecedented. Because in years past in the appropriations process, time agreements were arrived at once the number of amendments were known, and we worked out the agreements and debate ensued thereunder.

We did not know prior to the deadline and the cutoff of preprinting requirements as to how many amendments there would be. So we do know now how many amendments there would be. But again, Madam Speaker, I say what sticks with us, and not very well, is your decision to cut debate off on page 2, line 7 of the bill after the first Republican amendment. Madam Speaker, again, with all due respect, that does not speak in good faith about the majority's intention to allow us the opportunity to speak to the issues surrounding the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. That is not good faith.

We stand here in good faith, as the gentleman and I have discussed prior, and we want the opportunity to show you that we can conduct debate in good faith, deliberate on the people's business, and not be shut out summarily. And it is very hard, again, Madam Speaker, for us to accept that the majority had any intention of allowing debate if we shut it off after 30 minutes and the first Republican amendment.

So I say to the gentleman, we stand here and we ask you to allow us to proceed this evening, allow us to demonstrate good faith so that then the majority can then match that good faith and we can proceed in this House in normal course in the appropriations process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman that he has noticed two appropriations bills for next week: Commerce, Justice and Science; and the Homeland Security appropriations bills. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he expect the House, as is its custom, to consider these bills under an open rule? And I yield.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, in 2005 this House did abide by a schedule such as the one that he proposes, and did so under an open rule on each bill.

I ask the gentleman if, given this preprinting requirement that we are proceeding under, if there is a need for a perfecting amendment that comes upon the adoption of an amendment, how is it that we will be necessarily guaranteeing Members' perfecting amendments the right to be heard? Will there be a UC granted for such a perfecting amendment? I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker of the House has announced a goal of considering the cap-and-trade bill on the floor prior to the July 4 recess. I would ask the majority leader, does he expect the Speaker's goal to be met? And I yield.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask a followup of the majority leader, specifically for the benefit of the Members who serve on the Ways and Means and the Agriculture Committees. Will we anticipate that those two committees will have an opportunity to hear and mark up the cap-and-trade bill? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to point out to the gentleman, as all of us know, that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have spent the last 29 days waiting for this Congress to authorize the funding that they need to execute their mission to maintain not only their own safety, but the safety of us here at home. We have heard reports since last night that the war funding bill and its provision and primary mission of funding the troops has now been somewhat eclipsed by provisions which have no relation to protecting and supporting our troops in the field. So I would ask the gentleman, could he confirm, number one, that $108 billion--scored at $5 billion by the Congressional Budget Office-- whether that money for the IMF will be included in the troop funding bill? Number two, are the reports correct which have indicated that the provisions prohibiting the release of detainee photos has now been stripped from the measure that we will consider? And thirdly, could the gentleman confirm that the conference report coming to the House will now allow for the transfer of the Guantanamo detainees into the United States?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

And, Madam Speaker, I would respond by going back to the gentleman's

original statement concerning the principal purpose of the war funding bill, and that he said, if I could paraphrase, the intent of the bill is to fund our troops. So I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why we have taken 29 days. We've already had one strong bipartisan vote in this House with nearly unanimity on our side of the aisle to provide the necessary funding for our troops, so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why the delay.

The gentleman speaks of the urgent need for us, as U.S. taxpayers, to fund a global bailout, and the gentleman said that there is indication that somehow if we address the issue of poverty that we will then be lessening the number of terrorists. I don't know, Madam Speaker, if all of us would agree with that or not. No question, reducing poverty is a laudable goal, but we are also in the business here in Washington of setting priorities. Priority one should be the funding of our troops and to secure this country and its citizens. And thank God we have our men and women in uniform there. They should be our priority in executing in terms of advocating for the safety and fighting for the security of this country.

So I am still, to use the gentleman's word from last week, confounded as to why it is we cannot have the IMF funding go through regular order in this House. As you know, reports have indicated that actions have been taken by this administration, especially Secretary Geithner, to cast a vote in favor of increasing access to money and credit for the member nations of the IMF. That is done without congressional approval. And we're talking here specifically about the special drawing rights of nations at the IMF. We have also found out that the nation of Iran will have the ability to access funding of over a billion dollars through this process. To me, that calls for congressional oversight and action. It doesn't warrant delaying this bill. It doesn't warrant putting on the backs of our troops the funding of nations, frankly, that are providing support for the destruction of our efforts and endangering our troops on the ground in Iraq and in the region.

So I have a question to the gentleman of why it is so important that we go ahead and fund a global bailout when the primary mission is to fund our troops.

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I think, as the gentleman knows, we are probably going to have to leave this topic and agree to disagree. It is very concerning, given the new times we are in, and, frankly, the facts and information have come forward about the special drawing rights about the fact and knowledge that we have at this point knowing U.S. taxpayer dollars will help facilitate countries like Iran, Venezuela, Burma, and others to access more money to do what it is that they think is in their interest and certainly not in the interest of the U.S.

But I would like to turn the gentleman's attention back to his statement about the intention of this bill and the primary purpose of the war funding bill, which, again, to loosely paraphrase, was to provide for troop safety and security, and that's the underlying purpose. The gentleman indicated that the President has already taken the same position that most of us, I believe, in this House have taken so far as these photos are concerned and the release of the photos of the detainees. So I am again at somewhat of a loss to understand why it is that even if the White House and the President himself have sided with what I think the majority of the American people feel as well as the Members of this House, why it is that we are doing the opposite in the text of the report that we will be voting on.

And I would say to the gentleman, Commander Ray Odierno, General Odierno, Commander of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, someone that I'm sure the gentleman has had occasion to meet and I as well, who we know is a very respected and serious leader of our troops, he said just a few weeks ago, I strongly believe the release of these photos will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, and civilians, as well as the lives of our Iraqi partners. Certain operating units are at particular risk of harm from release of the photos. And he went on to describe those particular risks that are specific.

The gentleman, I think, can agree with me it is not in the interest of securing the safety of our troops for us to remain silent or for us not to take congressional action ensuring that nothing occurs for us to possibly harm our troops in this bill. That is why I ask the gentleman again, how have we sat here and delayed consideration of the bill because now we had to ensure inclusion in the bill the stripping of the

provision which provides the safety of our troops?

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.

I would simply point to the vote taken yesterday in the House on the motion to instruct conferees, 267 Members of this House support the inclusion of the language barring release of the photos. So I am at a loss to understand the thinking behind this action when we bring this report to the floor that strips that language.

Not only the majority, by far the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle said that they think that language is important. The American people do. It is counterintuitive to think at all that Congress should not take action to secure the safety of our troops and stop the release of those photos.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, we have been somewhat dismayed again about the clouding of the issues and the underlying principle of this bill, which is to fund our troops and provide for their safety, and we've seen this process delayed over unrelated items. It is unfortunate. And I'm hopeful that our troops are not getting the wrong message, that somehow their safety, security and the funding of their efforts doesn't come first.

I would just lastly like to ask the gentleman: How is it that when we left the House and we had the broad bipartisan support of the provisions which fenced off the money so that we would not endanger the citizens and the communities of the targeted facilities that the detainees from Guantanamo would come to that we took that fencing off of the money to preclude the funding of shipping terrorists here, to now say that we're going to be safer, it is a better policy for us to try and achieve the rights and protect the rights of the terrorists at the potential expense of endangering U.S. citizens?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman and his plea for support in his bill, knowing good and well that this bill did not go out of this House without some support from Republicans that were necessary for its passage in its original form.

I would just say to the gentleman and thank him for his description of the POW camp in Texas. But here we are dealing with individuals who are not necessarily soldiers of war, they're enemy combatants, an entirely different set of circumstances that we have today.

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, as he does know, there were applicable provisions at law which govern the treatment of soldiers at war and there is a much less definitive, more nebulous environment in which we are to look towards enemy combatants, which is my point. Because with the trial of enemy combatants on U.S. soil, we are confronting, as the gentleman knows, cases of first impression at every turn, and we are confronting uncertainty as to the disposition of these cases which brings up potential harm for U.S. citizens.

I would just go back to the gentleman's plea that he would like to see us support this bill. If the primary purpose is to maintain, promote the security and safety of our troops and provide them with funding, it is a reach for me to understand how allowing for a release of photos, how allowing for the transfer of enemy combatants-- terrorists--to U.S. soil furthers that end.

So I would say in closing, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is satisfied with deferring to the White House and deferring to this President on the very core purpose of securing this country at all levels and doesn't feel the Congress should take affirmative action, then I believe his support of this bill is well put. But it is certainly the opinion of many of us in this House as indicated by votes as late as yesterday that we can do better, that we can take action to secure our troops, get them the money they need and get rid of the unrelated items in this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his suggestion and counsel, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. It was my sincere hope that this bill would have come to the floor under a process that would have allowed Members to offer amendments. Had we been permitted to do so, I would have offered an amendment to allow individuals to use the credit for the purchase of a fuel-efficient, previously owned vehicle. Even after a generous credit, for many American families, a new car is financially out of reach. Yet with gas prices rising again, these families deserve the same opportunity to upgrade their current vehicle to a more fuel-efficient model. For these families, the credit that can be used towards the purchase of a fuel- efficient, pre-owned car could make all of the difference.

Indeed, there is already a substantial inventory of previously owned, fuel-efficient vehicles on dealer lots available for purchase. As a result, these purchases will promote the goals of the program by increasing the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. It is also important to remember that the livelihood of tens of thousands of Americans depend on the used car market.

Used car sales outnumber new car sales 3-1 in the U.S., and there are more than twice as many used car dealers as new car dealers in this country. Treating cars that meet the same fuel-efficiency standards differently, based on whether they are new or previously owned, effectively picks winners and losers among these dealers. Given the difficult economic situation faced by all Americans, I do not believe that it is wise or necessary to reward some Americans while punishing others.

If we were to expand this bill to include the purchase of previously owned vehicles, it would truly be a win-win. As it helps the environment by encouraging more fuel-efficient vehicles, it would also help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and it would provide another incentive to help jump-start the economy.

Madam Speaker, I'm saddened I was not permitted to offer my amendment, but I'm hopeful as this bill works its way through the process we can work to address the concerns of those who make their living selling previously owned vehicles.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that he just referred to and announced that we would be considering the war funding supplemental conference report next week. I would ask the gentleman: Does he expect the very controversial Senate-passed provision providing for the IMF money to be included in the conference report?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

And, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the belief on our side is the purpose of the war funding bills should be to provide our troops with the support they need, not this controversial global bailout money. Mr. Speaker, I would say more than that, what we believe is-- currently from the reports is that the bill would eliminate $5 billion from the defense spending directly for our troops and provide that $5 billion credit towards the guarantee that the United States would have to provide to the IMF.

Mr. Speaker, even further, we understand that in this provision in the bill, in essence we would be providing for more money for foreign countries in terms of a global bailout than we would be for our own troops.

And the even more troubling part to many of us, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the IMF program allows eligibility for countries like Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma and others. And that these countries, Mr. Speaker, are not necessarily in pursuit of policies that help the national security of this country. And given the fact that our President has said we don't have the money, how is it, Mr. Speaker--and I would ask the gentleman--does he think that we ought to be delaying the funding of our troops by including the provisions that we've just spoken of? And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

And first of all, there is obviously a delay in this bill. We were expecting to see the bill and the war supplemental for our troops to come through tomorrow, and I would ask the gentleman, number one, does he know the amount of support given to the IMF back when Ronald Reagan made those quotes? That's number one.

And is it appropriate in a war-spending bill for the taxpayers of this country to be guaranteeing $108 billion dollars to the IMF when we're only providing our troops $80-some billion? So that's more than we're providing our troops for a global bailout. And that is the first line of questioning, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, does he expect to produce more than the 200 votes that the gentleman's side produced on the first go-round on this supplemental bill? Because if not, then he would need to have some support from this side of the aisle. And Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, the New York Times has pointed out May 27, Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group, has talked with the IMF and the European Union about continued financial support.

So is he aware that this money that we are affording the IMF to extend to countries who are in need would include countries where Hezbollah would have some impact on the disbursal of those funds?

And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I will tell the gentleman, New York Times, May 27, 2009, pointed out Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group involved in Lebanon and its government, had talks with the IMF to discuss the possibility of the extension of credit. And are we not, I would ask the gentleman, affording the IMF the ability to extend credit to groups such as that, in countries such as that, as well as the potential for countries to access the credit, including Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma, et cetera?

We are very, very concerned. There is a real possibility that some of the world's worst regimes will have access to additional resources that will be provided to the IMF, and is he not concerned about that?

And I yield.

Reclaiming.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I just say to Mr. Speaker, he points out the difficulty that the U.S. taxpayers will have in holding accountable this Congress and the IMF for the direction of that spending. And given the unprecedented economic situation this country and its taxpayers are facing, it is a belief on our side of the aisle that we ought not be extending the ability to the IMF to extend $108 billion when the primary purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to provide support for our troops. And let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the gentleman that today, the Speaker of the House acknowledged that she is continuing to receive national intelligence briefings from the CIA. Now, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the Speaker has made serious allegations about the CIA's truthfulness to Congress in the briefings. As the gentleman also knows, the Speaker of the House is one of only four Members of this body who receives the highest level of briefings from the CIA in accordance with the practices of this body in our oversight capacities. These briefings, Mr. Speaker, are an essential part of the House's oversight responsibility of the Nation's intelligence, and in fact, our national security.

So I ask the gentleman that, in accordance with the custom of this House, shouldn't the House temporarily designate a replacement for the Speaker in these briefings to maintain the integrity of our oversight? And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman. If the Speaker has alleged that there is untruthfulness, if there is a lack of candor on the part of those giving the briefings, isn't it somehow compromising in those briefings the national security of our country? And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman and say, what has changed? Because the Speaker has made very serious allegations about the veracity of the briefings that are given by the CIA, and if we are to believe that she is correct, shouldn't we be either having an investigation of those allegations, or is it that she has now changed her mind and believes that the briefings are worthwhile because we can count on the veracity of the information given in those briefings? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman again, hasn't the Speaker of this House--not just any Member, but the Speaker of the House, second in line to the President, the constitutional officer presiding in this House--hasn't she indicated her belief and her position that there has been a pattern of misleading information given to this body by the CIA? And if that is the case, I would ask the gentleman, what value is it for the Speaker then to engage in these briefings if she cannot trust the veracity of the information?

I reclaim my time to try and clarify my logic, Mr. Speaker.

I think the gentleman and I both agree that we have heard the Speaker indicate her position that she is not being told the truth. And if she continues to have the briefings, has something changed? Has something been restored to the process that there is integrity in these briefings? And if so, does that mean that the Speaker of the House has retracted her position that somehow we've been misled by the CIA?

I would yield.

I thank the gentleman for his patience and would say, again, that we have still not given the American people the transparency on this issue that they deserve. The Speaker of this House has made allegations in a very serious way about our intelligence community. This House is given the oversight responsibility for our Nation's intelligence structure and operation. We all are here sworn to uphold our duty in that respect and the paramount duty of this body, to ensure this Nation's security. It is our belief that we should get to the bottom of this. We should have some sense of an investigation that can ensue to understand why the Speaker made such allegations. That is our position, Mr. Speaker. And if the gentleman doesn't agree that there needs to be something to shed some light on this on behalf of the people, then I guess we agree to disagree.

I yield.

I reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the gentleman and I can have a discussion here without such allegations being made on the floor. The position that we have taken is in response to direct statements made by the Speaker. There is no partisan accusation here. This is in response to direct statements made by the Speaker. We have a situation that we need some type of independent third party to intervene here. If there is ever an analogous situation in a court of law when one party accuses another of not being truthful, there must be some way, some independent mechanism to determine whether and what was the truth. This is my question again, and the gentleman may continue to be confounded.

My question again is, what has changed? If the Speaker doubts the veracity of the information she receives from the CIA but continues to receive that information, how is it that that process doesn't harm the national security of this country?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman. I am focusing on the Speaker because that's where the statements came from.

The statements came from the Speaker that she believes she has been misled, and this Congress has been misled. And she said again today that she is continuing the process of being briefed. What has changed? I would ask the gentleman, what has changed in the Speaker's mind that she continues to receive briefings when she alleges mistruths?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying that the American people deserve some transparency. We deserve to get to the bottom of the very serious allegations that have been made about the CIA and their conduct in front of this body.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Supervisory Special Agent Richard J. McCue. After 25 years of distinguished and honorable service, he retires this month from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).

In addition to his service with the NCIS, Mr. McCue has also served his country as an officer in the United States Marine Corps. Since September 11th, Mr. McCue has volunteered for several dangerous overseas assignments, including being part of the first NCIS team in the nation to provide Protective Services support to Coalition Provisional Authority leadership in southern Iraq. During this tour, Mr. McCue conducted over one hundred missions in active combat zones, directly encountering both active fire and several Improvised Explosive Devices.

Among numerous honors and achievements, Mr. McCue was requested by name to formalize the Surveillance Detection Mission for U.S. Forces within Kuwait, as well as forces transitioning to the Theater of Operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition, Mr. McCue volunteered to serve as a forensic expert on the investigative/ recovery team at the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks, providing both his expertise and compassionate care for the victims of that attack. In honor of this selfless service, Mr. McCue received the Department of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Medal as well as the Expeditionary Service Medal.

Please join me in recognizing Richard McCue for his distinguished service to the people of the United States. We wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep and growing concern over President Obama's nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head up the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. My worry isn't merely her position on the question of life. It's that she routinely has taken hard-line stances and made extreme statements that cast doubt on her fitness to manage the power entrusted to her in a responsible way.

Ms. Johnsen has claimed that abortion restrictions ``reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal container.'' Her arguments have compared pro-life advocates to the KKK and pregnancy to slavery.

The Office of Legal Counsel does not need an activist. It needs someone with a temperament to accurately inform the administration on the legality of policies being contemplated.

I encourage Members of the Senate, including my Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, to vote against this nomination.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us which days he expects the House to consider the

bills that he has just announced, and I would yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, the House will break for Memorial Day recess at the end of next week, and since we will not have another colloquy before that recess, I wonder if the majority leader could outline what he expects the House to consider during the 4 weeks that we are in session in June.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And as he has indicated, the cap-and-trade bill and health care reform are items that he indicated may or may not be considered in June, but perhaps during the 2-month period of June and July. But, Madam Speaker, the gentleman did not mention the Panama Trade Agreement or Card Check, and I was wondering if the gentleman, the majority leader, could tell us his expectations as to whether the House will be considering those measures over the next 4 weeks after the Memorial Day recess.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I further say to the gentleman, the majority leader, that we've had a discussion on the floor today about the potential transfer and release of terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay. There's also been significant debate on the interrogation of these terrorist suspects, including the potential for congressional hearings and possible legislation.

I say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, the Speaker of the House has signaled her intent to create a truth commission to investigate CIA interrogation tactics. I was wondering, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman could tell us the status of that truth commission and when we might expect such a commission to be formed and perhaps produce legislation that would come to the House floor to be voted upon.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the majority leader that there is a concern on this side of the aisle to make sure that any investigation, if there is a creation of a truth commission, as the Speaker has indicated she would like to see, that there be a process by which a clear discussion, if you will, revelation as to whether Members of Congress, which Members of Congress and maybe the Speaker herself was briefed on the process, on the interrogation tactic of waterboarding and would ask the gentleman, is it his intention that if such a commission were to be formed that type of open process would be followed?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I think there is certainly a concern to ensure that all laws have been followed. Certainly our primary concern is to make sure that we are protecting Americans in everything we do. And given the growing threat globally, the

terrorist threat that we face, all of us share in that end.

But I would say to the gentleman that somehow there have been statements made by the Speaker and others indicating a certain preconceived bias, like a belief that perhaps the CIA or others have somehow misled us.

I do think the gentleman is correct in saying that we need to focus on what kind of practices occurred, but I also think that in an ongoing manner, to ensure compliance with the law, we need to understand if there is some type of preconceived bias, as was indicated in some of the public statements that may have been made today. And I do think that the gentleman would agree, openness and an indication of a predisposition prior to the revelation now of who knew what when may be somehow shaping the bias in these discussions.

I share with the gentleman the notion, we need to follow the law. But if there is somehow a belief--and I'd ask the gentleman whether he shares this belief--that somehow the CIA or others have intentionally misled this body, because that seems to be some concern that has been raised today.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I remain concerned. And I think it is shared by my colleagues on this side of the aisle that if it is the intent of the Speaker and the majority leader to pursue a truth commission surrounding the investigation of terrorists and the interrogation tactics employed, that we do know what interaction this body had, the Members of this body and its committees had, in the oversight of the tactics that were employed. Because if we are all concerned about following the law, which we should be first and foremost here, and if there was acquiescence, if there was knowledge on the part of this body, but yet now allegations made suggesting that certain tactics were used and were against the law, that raises serious questions about the ability for this body going forward to properly exercise its oversight authority so we do uphold the law.

That would be our concern over here, Madam Speaker, that we make sure that there is a full vetting of what transpired so that we don't repeat the type of mistakes perhaps or we don't repeat the omission of action, if you will, on the part of this body.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Daniel and Kim Irwin and their work with the Faison School--Autism Center of Virginia.

This month Mr. and Mrs. Irwin were honored with a CARE Award honoring the significant contributions they have made in the education of America's youth. Their dedication to children with autism and to the Faison School can be seen in their ongoing professional growth and the tremendous success of their students.

Dan and Kim both started at the Faison School over 5 years ago. During this time they both obtained teacher certifications, board certifications in behavior analysis, and even master's degrees. Over the course of this time they became engaged, then married, and are now expecting their first child.

The Irwins have been an integral part of the school's growth and have helped to teach many children with autism to become successful learners, better communicators, and independent thinkers. In fact, the work they are doing goes a long way in making a difference in the lives of children with autism.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating the Irwins and wishing them all the best in their future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to an activity Americans engage in throughout every day--prayer. Today is the National Day of Prayer, an observation established by Congress and President Truman in 1952.

Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which continue to permeate our daily lives--and need to be preserved. In recent times, these principles and the demonstration of them has come under attack by certain segments of society. From the very beginning of our Nation's history, our Nation's leaders have relied heavily on their faith, a fact that led our Founders to include the constitutional right to freely exercise one's religion in the very beginning of our Bill of Rights. This right is every bit as fundamentally important--and deserving of protection--today as it was in the 18th century.

Since the first call to prayer in 1775, when the Continental Congress called on the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming the Nation, the leaders of our Nation have continued to pray for that wisdom to shape our Nation. We look to God to provide us with the direction to act in accordance with His will, on behalf of the Americans who have sent us here to represent them. The one thing we know for certain is that there's nothing we can't accomplish--here in Congress or anywhere in the world--with God's help and blessing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I would ask the gentleman what days he would think that the measures he discussed would come to the floor next week.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has discussed next week's schedule, I would like to ask the gentleman if he could give the House and the public a sense of what to expect for the following week as well.

I would ask the gentleman to follow up on the prospect of a vote on the D.C. bill and ask whether he could assure the Members on, frankly, both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the Second Amendment, whether there will be the necessary protections for the Second Amendment rights in that measure.

My question was not to get into the substance of the D.C. bill, but just to make sure that those of us who are ardent supporters of the Second Amendment rights would see that actually the citizens of the District of Columbia could enjoy those rights as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman about the omission of the cap- and-trade bill in his discussion for the schedule for the next several weeks. The reports have indicated that Chairman Waxman has now committed to bringing that bill that has been debated, at least, in subcommittee, forward, or at least beyond that subcommittee, to the full committee instead of the discussion in the subcommittee.

It has given some of our Members some cause for alarm because, you know, this is a significant shift in policy. Some of us are very opposed to what this bill would do and have the consequences in mind of what this bill would do.

If we look, Mr. Speaker, at Members on our side of the aisle who are on that subcommittee who would like to have a say in the crafting of any legislation, especially in the area of energy, somebody like John Shimkus who has a district that is very rich with coal, very, very concerning to him in terms of the economy and jobs. People like, on your side of the aisle, the gentleman from Louisiana, Charlie Melancon on that subcommittee, very interested in industry; Baron Hill of Indiana, who also has big concerns on the coal issue; Rick Boucher, from my own State of Virginia. Southwest Virginia is abundant with coal and natural resources. It would devastate that region if such a bill were to go forward.

All of these Members, Mr. Speaker, do have a desire, I am sure, to be a part of the debate.

I would ask, is it the leader's intention that this is a good move? He is the leader. And his chairmen, one of them has decided to move the bill beyond the subcommittee. Is that something he supports?

And then is it the intention, I would ask of the leader, to bring the bill directly to the floor once, I assume, it passes the full committee?

Returning to next week's agenda, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, he mentions that the war supplemental will be coming to the floor, and it provides us with a chance, I know he agrees, to accomplish one of the most important things that we have to do here as a Member of Congress, which is to provide for the national defense of our country.

And as the gentleman knows, many of us, most of us, if not all Republicans, stand with this President in support of his strategy in Afghanistan and the general region, and Pakistan, Iraq, and we stand with the President in his support of our troops there.

I know that there have been, Mr. Speaker, some agreements on the gentleman's side of the aisle as far as the issues having to do with timetables, the issues of having to do with cutting off funding, of transfer of detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention center facility.

So I assume, and maybe it's an improper assumption, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the gentleman if he could comment, if he believes that he will need the help and bipartisan support to pass this bill that we are interested on this side in helping pass for our troops, is it his intention that we will have an opportunity to address some of these concerns on the floor, specifically if he could tell us whether an amendment such as that proposed by Mr. Tiahrt from Kansas and the Appropriations Committee banning any further appropriations being allowed in the area of transferring detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility?

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would say that, just to reiterate my point, my sense is--and I'm not the one that counts votes on his side of the aisle, but as a former whip, I know he knows that there is some difficulty, and it is my hunch that without the support of Republicans that the American people wouldn't see the money flow to their troops.

But I'd like to at this time, Mr. Speaker, if I could, yield to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I thank the gentleman. Again, I would say to the majority leader, I think that that underscores the importance of a bipartisan effort here on this bill and, frankly, if he were to see coming forward a rule that would allow for us to have the disposition of these issues on the floor, I do believe the American people would be better served, and certainly our men and women in uniform.

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