Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Next Generation Public Safety Device Act of 2010 with my Energy and Commerce colleague Representative John Shimkus, Co-Chair of the E-911 Caucus. Our legislation is intended to spur development of 21st Century public safety communication devices that will provide the highest-speed transmission of data, voice, and video services over the Internet.

Almost a decade after 9/11, America's first responders still do not have the communication tools they need to support their mission.

Currently, the public safety device market is a monopoly. There are two reasons for lack of competition: first, this particular market is relatively small, and second, the device requirements are unique. As a result, first responders and local governments can pay up to $5,000 per radio. The money spent on these devices

has not enabled seamless on-the-ground coordination between first responders or the ability to access databanks, fingerprint records, facial recognition software, or streaming video.

To solve the problem, our bill authorizes $70 million for a research and development grant program to build devices that support data, video, and voice communications.

This bill charges the National Telecommunications and Information Agency to coordinate with a working group, consisting of the Federal Communications Commission, the DHS Office of Emergency Communications, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and public safety stakeholders, to develop criteria, evaluate devices in multiple stages, and select products for funding and licensing. This process will produce devices ready for first responders' use within five years-- hopefully sooner. Thereafter, the GAO will study the process by which the program was carried out, the impacts of the grant program on competition in the market and the development of first responder devices. The cost of this program will not add to the deficit because it is offset by extending the authority of the FCC to auction spectrum.

Directed research and development is essential to achieving interoperability because it will drive down cost and develop devices that public safety has a hand in selecting. Equally as important, this bill will accelerate the development of those devices, quickly giving public safety more options with new cost savings to states and localities, and assurance that the technology can be trusted for their important work.

This bill has the support of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, which has identified research and development as one of its top priorities. The Fraternal Order of Police and the National Emergency Numbers Association also endorse the bill, as do Sprint and the Rural Cellular Association.

We in Congress must ensure public safety officials have access to a competitive, dynamic, and innovative market for the devices that are used to save lives and help protect our communities.

I hope that this effort will bring technologists, first responders, and government together to create innovative solutions for a major national security concern, and urge prompt action on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution with my California colleague Representative McKeon and members of the Los Angeles delegation to honor the service and sacrifice of Los Angeles County soldiers and their families.

In the midst of two of the longest engagements of U.S. forces in American history, our troops are enduring some of the most challenging and dangerous conditions imaginable.

More than 6,000 Angelenos are now deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, serving with honor while enduring hardships and lengthy separations from their loved ones. Since the two wars began, more than 100 county residents have been killed in battle. More than 1,200 have suffered physical wounds, and many more suffer from PTSD.

They fight a war unlike those of their predecessors, against an enemy who targets and brutalizes its own citizens--innocent women and children--to advance its agenda.

While the enemy is cruel, our troops practice restraint. Where the enemy levels schools, clinics and businesses to demonstrate its power, our troops show even greater strength by helping to rebuild them. They do this to build trust and win the confidence of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan--the people who must ultimately stand up and fight for their own countries.

This generation of troops shows a level of bravery and discipline every day few of us possess in the face of grave danger, and they face those risks to protect their fellow Americans.

Thousands have returned home with physical and emotional wounds. Some heal, but other wounds remain with them and their families for a lifetime.

We declare our support for providing veterans and their families with the best medical care, and our support for veterans' continuing education, vocational training, and opportunities to enter new careers as civilians.

We support efforts to break the cycle of homelessness that haunts so many veterans, and to prevent more from suffering the same fate.

We encourage all Americans to show their support and enduring gratitude for our returning troops, many of whom face a difficult adjustment to a life not at war.

They answered a call for service in the midst of two brutal wars. We owe them and their families a great debt. Our resolution today is but a small testament to their dedication and valor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the strongest- ever sanctions package.

This sanctions package is not targeted at the Iranian people. Its passage signals that our government is united in Bipartisan opposition to the Iranian government's flagrant disregard of the United Nations and the world community as it recklessly pursues a nuclear weapons program.

Iran and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah encircle Israel and threaten U.S. troops--as well as Sunni populations--in the Middle East.

Increased economic sanctions pit our strength against Iran's weakness. And this package, which builds on recent U.N. and E.U. actions, bans companies from selling refined petroleum, blocks correspondent banking relationships with Iranian banks, and targets financial activities by the Revolutionary Guard or Iranian human rights abusers.

It also authorizes divestment by state and local governments from companies involved in Iran's energy sector.

Kudos to Chairman Berman, who negotiated a very narrow Presidential waiver, and to the Treasury Department's indomitable Stuart Levey, whose focus and talent over many years have shown lawmakers, literally, how to ``follow the money'' and have brought us to this point.

Madam Speaker, the stark image on millions of television screens around the world is of a broken pipe one mile underwater, spewing tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean each day.

This deadly and disturbing horror could be replicated should we have a major cyber attack--broken networks spewing tens of thousands of terabytes of information about critical infrastructure, national security, mission-critical data and personal financial records.

Indeed, damage caused by the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history could pale in comparison to the chaos that could ensue after a major cyber attack.

So today, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce with Rep. Peter King the companion bill to S. 3480, The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. Authored by Senators Lieberman, Collins and Carper, S. 3480 was the subject of a legislative hearing yesterday in the Senate, and is moving there on a fast track.

In the words of former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Policy Stewart Baker, ``we are going to have a meltdown'' if we fail to act to protect our cyber networks.

Right now we are chasing the problem. We need to get ahead of it. As described in the report released today by the Government Accountability Office--we face daunting challenges in tackling this problem, including: a lack of sustained leadership, insufficient resources, authority to enforce actions in the event of an imminent cyber attack, the need to partner with other federal agencies and private sector entities and insufficient education and training.

All of which this bill aims to correct.

First, the bill would establish a coordinating mechanism at the White House--an Office of Cyberspace Policy--to develop a national strategy for securing and improving the resiliency of cyberspace.

Second, it would create a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security to identify and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities. The Center would be charged with providing situational awareness, conducting risk-based assessments of threats, identifying vulnerabilities, managing external access points for federal networks, overseeing operations of US-CERT, and working with the private sector to establish security requirements to strengthen vital components of critical infrastructure like the electric grid and telecommunications networks.

Third, the key section of the bill provides the President with authority--in consultation with Congress--to impose emergency security measures on critical infrastructure networks in the event of a catastrophic cyber attack. Presently, this authority is ad hoc.

Fourth, this legislation requires development of a supply chain risk management strategy to address risks and threats to information technology products and services upon which the federal government relies.

Finally, the bill requires the new Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Office to consult with the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board mandated in the 2004 Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act. Sadly, this Administration has yet to nominate individuals to serve on the Board. Additionally, the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications is required to designate a privacy officer to review activities of the Center and conduct privacy impact assessments to ensure information is being collected in a manner that protects privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons.

With strong leadership to implement it, this bill will plug the gaping hole in our cyberdefenses--while we have the chance to do so-- and, hopefully, prevent another potential devastating disaster.

I urge its prompt enactment.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce with Rep. David Dreier the bipartisan Investor Deposit Yardstick (INDY) Act.

On July 11, 2008, 6,500 depositors in IndyMac bank woke up to find huge chunks of their life savings had vanished. IndyMac collapsed, and with it went $233 million in deposited funds.

These small business owners, retirees and working families were not speculating wildly on the stock market--they were saving money in a bank they thought was secure.

Three months later, as the economy cratered, the federal government rode to the rescue of customers of other failing banks. In October 2008, the government raised the FDIC insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.

But it came too late for IndyMac customers, and for customers of five other banks across the country that were taken over by the FDIC. The new limits applied only prospectively to banks that would fail, not retroactively to those that already had.

IndyMac was the largest savings and loan in the Los Angeles area and its downfall hit California especially hard. Imagine your child's education fund practically wiped out overnight. Imagine your retirement nest egg decimated. And when you go to claim your FDIC insurance coverage, you are told you can't recover up to $250,000 but your neighbor can.

And many customers claim they were misled by IndyMac employees into believing their savings in excess of $100,000 were fully insured.

I am pleased to have partnered with Chairman Frank and the FDIC to resolve this problem, as well as my co-author David Dreier, and I urge prompt passage of this legislation, which is fully paid for out of fees assessed on financial institutions.

I thank the esteemed Chairman Skelton, my dear friend, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, over eight terms in Congress I have served on every security committee, including three terms on the Armed Services Committee whose bill I am once again proud to support.

As a rookie Member of Congress in 1993, I sat in the most junior chair on the HASC, just a few feet away from the witness table. Then- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, testified in favor of the Clinton administration's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I drew a deep breath and told the general that I thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was unconstitutional. I opposed it then, and I oppose it now.

No good has ever come of that policy. And I applaud the personal courage of current Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen who told Congress, ``No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.''

The en bloc amendment which we are now debating includes language I coauthored with Rules Committee Chair Slaughter to give victims of military sexual trauma the ability to seek a base transfer. MST is an epidemic which subjects a growing number of servicemembers to serious assault and rape. It is horrifying that women in our military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq or Afghanistan. MST must end, and this bill makes a very good start.

Let me make some general comments about our national security. We can't wish away the threats facing our Nation. We, like generations of Americans before us, must rise to meet them. We must be realistic about our vulnerabilities, about the capabilities of our adversaries, and of our allies to help us. We must be wise enough to recognize that we will not prevail through military might alone.

Our military, diplomatic, and development efforts are tools to an end--security, and eventually peace. These are dangerous times, and they require a tough response. We have the strategy in this bill, we have the strength in men and women who serve courageously in our military and intelligence services, and we have our values. We will not fail.

Support this bill. Support the Murphy amendment. Support the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, my district makes most of our Nation's intelligence satellites. I have served on our key security committees, and I devote enormous attention to helping develop legal and operational strategies to keep our country safe.

The Obama administration understands that security and liberty are not a zero-sum game. We will either get more of both or less. We must capture or kill high-value targets, which this administration is doing in far greater numbers than did the Bush administration. But we must also live our values. Most important among them is the principle that the rule of law applies to all.

Tomorrow, my Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism and Risk Assessment will hold a hearing to examine how the Internet is used by terrorists to train, recruit, and plan attacks inside the country and what the U.S. Government should do about it. It is the third in a series of hearings on violent extremism.

The Internet is a forum for free speech and global commerce, but the dark underside of that is it can also be a forum for violence and global terror. As difficult and controversial as this subject is, we need to find the right ways to intercept those who would do us harm. Developing a strategy around the Internet has to be part of that equation, and so does protecting security and liberty.

Madam Speaker, three years ago, Congressman Upton and I introduced legislation--which became law in 2007 as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act--that will revolutionize the way Americans light their homes.

Our legislation banned the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, will phase out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today's 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020.

That bill was the product of bipartisan and bicameral efforts to forge a consensus between industry and environmental groups. The result was not only broadly accepted, it was groundbreaking. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that the provisions will eventually save $18 billion in energy costs every year, and prevent the emission of 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030. That's the equivalent of taking 20 million cars off the road.

If we are serious about getting our arms around both climate change and reducing our dependence on oil, we now have to address outdoor lighting. It is the other side of the coin. Lighting consumes 22 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S. Outdoor lighting for streets, parking lots and area lighting consumes about 20 percent of that total. Up to 25 percent of household electricity goes to light outdoor spaces, according to the California Energy Commission.

H.R. 5201, the bipartisan bill we are introducing today, is identical to legislation introduced by Senators Bingaman and Murkowski. It reflects a compromise with industry and the environmental community. And it builds on the provision we added to the American Clean Energy and Security Act reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last May.

The legislation imposes standards for outdoor lights in three tiers. The first tier takes effect three years after the bill becomes law, the second in 2016 and the third in 2021.

By 2030 the new efficient outdoor lights are expected to save the equivalent power output of three to six nuclear plants or 6 to 10 large coal fired plants every year.

It will also save us money. As the Grandma of the Blue Dogs, that's important to me. And given skyrocketing deficits and the ongoing recession, it ought to be important to this Congress. Annual savings will be in the range of $2.8 billion to $5.1 billion by 2030.

By 2030 carbon emissions will also be reduced in a major way--from 4.48 to 7.95 metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking approximately 3 to 5.4 million cars off the road

The bill also protects the efforts of early innovators like California, which has already passed an aggressive outdoor lighting standard.

And this bill is consensus legislation at its best. It shows what we can do when Democrats and Republicans and manufacturers and environmentalists work toward the same goal.

I urge its prompt enactment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and commend her leadership. As a former member of the Science Committee myself, I think this is a very important resolution which highlights an issue that directly impacts not just national security but employment in my district and many others.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are the backbone of California's 36th District economy. We are the home to the Los Angeles Air Force Base Space and Missile Systems Center and to large facilities of all of the major aerospace firms, as well as critically important innovative second and third tier suppliers. As I am fond of saying, my district is the aerospace center of the universe.

L.A. County's unemployment rate is over 13 percent, but the 36th Congressional District's unemployment is half that, almost entirely because of science and technology jobs, especially in the aerospace industry. But the industry faces a coming ``gray wave.'' Some 60 percent of aerospace workers are over age 50, and almost 26 percent are already eligible for retirement. Not enough young scientists and engineers are coming out of college to fill their ranks.

Mr. Speaker, we can't build rockets without rocket scientists, and other countries know that. The United States graduates about 70,000 engineers annually, a meager 15 percent. China graduates over half a million engineers every year. We not only need the next generation of spacecraft to reach Mars and beyond; we need the next generation of space engineers to get us there. And if we are to maintain space dominance when others, especially China, challenge us, we need more engineers.

While we are struggling to educate enough engineers to assume the torch from those retiring, we are also losing many of them to the sexy new world of Internet technology. Building rockets is losing luster to Facebook, eBay, Google and other IT firms. If we want to continue to be the world's leader in space, we have to get our young people dreaming bigger, literally dreaming out of this world. We need to inspire our young people the same way President Kennedy did 50 years ago when he committed the United States to winning the space race.

STEM education is the key, Mr. Speaker. I urge our colleagues to support this worthy resolution.

I thank my California colleague for yielding to me, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my service on virtually all of the security-related committees in this House, I have visited some of the most dangerous and austere places on the planet--rugged, remote areas that provide sanctuary to the most ruthless and cunning terrorists. As a result, I am often asked to name those countries which I think pose the greatest threat to the security of our country and to the world. Iraq? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Yemen?

My answer every time is: Iran, Iran, Iran.

Given the zeal with which it promotes and supports instability in the Middle East, given its myopic obsession with the destruction of Israel, its arming of and financial assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas, and its implacable, duplicitous march towards a nuclear weapons capability, in my view, no other country comes close.

The question that confronts us is how to cause Iran's government to abandon interest in a nuclear weapons program.

Most agree--certainly, I do--that a multilateral approach is most likely to succeed. Our efforts with the EU, led by the indomitable Stuart Levey, have been effective, but they haven't yet changed Iran's course.

Our country must continue its leadership role. Our efforts at diplomacy and at unilateral sanctions must drive stronger multilateral diplomacy and sanctions. That is why Congress must move to conference on Iran sanctions legislation and why it must enact by an overwhelming bipartisan vote the strongest package. That package should include divestments, and it should expand sanctions on individuals, institutions, as well as on nongovernmental entities, and it must cripple Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Our problem is not with the Iranian people but with its government's reckless policies. Iran with nuclear weapons not only poses an existential threat to Israel; it poses an existential threat to us and to countries everywhere which espouse Democratic values.

Mr. Chair, estuaries, the coastal wetlands where fresh and salt water meet, are both a vital filter for urban runoff that would otherwise flow out of the river and into the ocean, and a cradle for marine and wildlife.

We are not able to create new estuaries. We either restore and protect them, or we lose them.

They are a foundation of our economy. The tourism industry needs estuaries to keep the sea clean and healthy. The fishing industry relies on them to replenish the oceans. Estuaries provide the habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch and as much as 90 percent of the recreational fish catch, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Research Council.

Estuaries are critically important to human life. They filter our groundwater, and are a buffer from flooding. The phytoplankton nursed in estuaries remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and produce oxygen in its place. In fact, phytoplankton in estuaries and oceans produce about half the world's oxygen.

So it is imperative that the House passes H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.

The bill protects and supports 28 estuaries with grants, including the Santa Monica Bay and the Ballona Wetlands in my district.

Dozens of local groups fought for decades to acquire for the public's benefits 600 acres of Ballona Wetlands. They succeeded in 2003. Since then, the habitat has attracted more than 200 species of birds, some of which are now returning to nest after more than a 70-year absence. Ballona is home to many rare species, including the Belding's Savannah Sparrow and the recently discovered Orcutt's yellow pincushion.

Citizens have similarly banded together to protect the Santa Monica Bay. Backed by the Clean Water Act--part of which this bill reauthorizes--my dear friend Dorothy Green worked with other citizens out of her living rooms for years to force the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment plant to update its filtering system. Since then, the plant has cut its waste by 95 percent, literally bringing life back to parts of Santa Monica Bay that were once declared dead zones.

The stimulus bill in 2009 funded several innovative storm drain projects in the South Bay and a series of low impact development rain

gardens along Ballona Creek, all of which help prevent polluted storm water runoff from entering Santa Monica Bay.

The communities of Santa Monica Bay have been more than worthy partners for Washington. This bill will help to make sure the federal government lives up to its end of the deal. It will require that federal agencies participate in the management planning process for the estuaries that receive the grants, incorporate local priorities into their actions and increase coordination between the many federal agencies that either work in or impact estuaries.

But the bill also looks forward. Estuary management programs will be required to identify their estuary's vulnerability to climate change and prepare adaptation responses, and will work to educate the public on estuary health issues.

Over my eight terms in Congress I have worked to obtain federal grants and strongly supported efforts to preserve the Ballona wetlands and Santa Monica Bay. I again stand in support of those areas, vital both to our environmental and our economic health.

Madam Speaker, in a few hours, the House leadership will finally introduce a rescission package on health care which will reduce our deficit over the next two decades to lower numbers than would either the House-passed or Senate-passed health bills. As a Blue Dog, I commend this.

But I stand here this morning specifically to say that information just released by the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve, shows a very favorable impact on my district from the bill, which I intend to support.

I have received thousands of calls and emails from constituents. I will post this information on my Web site immediately after speaking this morning. But in a nutshell, the bill improves coverage for 427,000 of my constituents who already have health care. It gives tax credits and other assistance to up to 137,000 families and 15,100 small businesses. It improves Medicare coverage for 81,000 constituents by helping to close the doughnut hole. It extends coverage to 67,500 uninsured, guarantees coverage for people with preexisting conditions, and permits kids under 26 to stay on their parents' policies.

I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of my friend Jon Jones, the Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems (SAS)--and to celebrate his life.

Jon was a single father with sole custody of his two beloved daughters. He was a proud family man and was pleased to see them grow successfully into adulthood--Alexis, a nurse practitioner who does research at USC, and Ashley, a student at the University of Arizona. He was looking forward to Alexis' wedding in May.

Jon led a life devoted to others. In addition to supporting numerous veterans' charities and causes, Jon is remembered for his authenticity, his even temper, and the kindness with which he treated others.

He was a proud native of California and a true Bruins fan serving on the Dean's Advisory Council at UCLA School of Engineering, where he was scheduled to give the commencement address in May.

He was Raytheon Executive Diversity Champion and throughout his career served as a model for inclusion and embracing diverse viewpoints to solve some of our nation's most difficult technology challenges.

He pioneered the development of the Sidewinder missile and the Tomahawk cruise missile, both of which have provided critical capabilities to our nation's military.

Jon served as Vice President and Deputy General Manager of Space and Airborne Systems before becoming its president in 2005. He demonstrated for his 12,400 employees the professionalism and self-confidence that allows them to serve their country so well. He demanded excellence and got it, turning a troubled Raytheon contract around after some major challenges.

Jon was an admired innovator. He won the Malcolm R. Currie Innovation award in 1996. He was named the State of Arizona's Innovator of the Year in 1997, and he received Raytheon's corporate Excellence in Technology Award for advancements in infrared guided missiles in 2001.

He was an advocate for the warfighter, a patriot, and a successful businessman and innovator, but most importantly, a devoted and wonderful father. My colleagues and I who knew and worked closely with him mourn his passing.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Aerospace Corporation's 50th anniversary.

Fifty years ago the United States Congress had the foresight to create the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research and development center.

The Aerospace Corporation doesn't make the things that orbit in space. It makes the things that orbit in space work properly, and helps get them there safely.

The Aerospace Corporation has been involved in every Defense Department space program since 1960. From blueprint to launch and system architecture, the Aerospace Corporation is the Pentagon's technical conscience, its independent math checker.

The Aerospace Corporation has played a key role in developing and maintaining the space systems Americans and people around the world now take for granted, like GPS and weather satellites. And it makes sure the launches of those satellites are safe and successful.

Fifty years after its creation, we need The Aerospace Corporation more than ever.

The United States is at a crossroads in space. China launched a shot across our bow in 2007 when it destroyed a satellite in low-Earth orbit. That sent me a very clear message. While the United States may still enjoy superiority in space, we're no longer the only player.

We must protect our space assets, and build a constellation of robust, redundant, low-cost communication, navigation and reconnaissance satellites that can withstand an attack or a catastrophic accident. If we don't start now we are going to be too late.

We not only need a new generation of spacecraft, we need a new generation of space engineers.

Our space workforce is aging. Some 60% of aerospace workers are over age 50, and almost 26% are eligible for retirement this year. Not enough young scientists and engineers are signing up to take their place.

While the United States graduates 70,000 engineers, a meager 15 percent of our college graduates every year, China graduates more than half a million.

China has decided the most important asset to a space program and its future as a super power is human capital--the scientists, engineers, and technicians that design and build satellites, rockets, and space vehicles.

And while we struggle to educate enough engineers to keep up internationally, we're losing many of them to the sexy new world of Internet technology.

It used to be that being a rocket scientist was synonymous with genius. Now it seems that mantle has slipped onto the shoulders of those who invented Facebook, eBay and Google.

If we want to continue to be the world's leader in space, we have to get our young people to dream again--dreaming out of this world, literally. We need to inspire our young people the same way President Kennedy did nearly 50 years ago when he committed the United States to winning the space race.

I've lived through a half century of U.S. space superiority. Only with sustained focus and leadership will my kids and grandchildren enjoy another half century of U.S. dominance. At this milestone, let us chart a path to that century.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, our colleague, Mr. Kucinich, should be commended for causing us to debate this issue on the House floor. This is a good and thoughtful debate, and I applaud especially the passionate statement of Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

Madam Speaker, the war in Afghanistan has continued for 9 years, and the Obama administration continues to rely on the almost decade-old authorization to use military force which Congress passed, as we have heard, by an overwhelming vote a few days after 9/11/2001. Most who voted for it, including me, thought it was limited in time and place, but it became the basis for many actions taken by the Bush administration. In my view, the AUMF has been overused and abused as the basis for policy. It is time for us to consider whether it should sunset, and I believe that it should. But the resolution before us is not, in my view, the right place to address that issue.

After years of giving Afghanistan short shrift, tolerating rampant government corruption, and standing by as the Taliban reestablished itself, we now have a better strategy. That strategy, developed by President Obama late last year, includes a promised drawdown of our troops beginning in July 2011--or possibly sooner, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who visited there earlier this week.

Let me be clear, I do not support the surge of an additional 30,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan. I do support multinational, NATO-led efforts to clear, hold, build, and transfer to a noncorrupt Afghan Government control over parts of that country which are or could become training grounds for terrorists intent on attacking the United States.

The good news is that Pakistan is making greater effort to crack down on Taliban and al Qaeda terror groups on its soil, and those efforts are yielding results which should help stabilize Afghanistan.

Like Mr. Kucinich, I want the U.S. military out of Afghanistan at the earliest reasonable date, but accelerating the Obama administration's carefully calibrated timetable could take grievous risks with our national security. I share Mr. Kucinich's sentiment, but not his schedule.