Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is a very good amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

And while I certainly concur with the words of the distinguished ranking member of the committee and the earlier words of the chairman for how important NATO is, the fact of the matter is that, as Defense Secretary Gates told us a couple of weeks ago, the European members of NATO are not pulling their weight. They're not spending the kind of money that we are spending. They're not spending the kind of money that Israel is spending on their own defense. They're not putting in very much effort at all. We're carrying the burden.

And the fact of the matter is, as we're seeing in Libya where they're running out of ammunition after a couple weeks' fighting with a nothing power, NATO, or at least the European allies, simply aren't spending money. They're relying on us to do it. They ought to get used to spending a little of their own money on this.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is spending 7\1/2\ percent of its GDP on the military. She has to because she is the object of the Iranians and others who want to destroy her. And we are getting our money's worth because Israel's technical expertise in antimissile defenses in the Iron Dome, which we are helping with, is feeding back to us.

So switching these funds from NATO to Israel will benefit the United States in terms of antimissile technology; will benefit Israel, which is putting in 7\1/2\ percent of GDP; and may give a little more weight to Secretary Gates' words when he says to the European members of NATO that if they want to pull their weight, they ought to start pulling their weight and spending a little more money instead of--I think they're spending under 2 percent of GDP for defense now. And if they want to be allies of the United States, which we need them to be and which they should be, it can't be a one-way alliance.

This amendment will help Israel, will help us, will help the cause of opposing terrorism generally, and send a little message to the European allies: Maybe you ought to start thinking, if you're going to pull your weight in NATO, pull your weight in NATO.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, to sum up, this helps the Israelis; it helps the United States; it helps the general security; and it sends the message to the European allies they should start looking into maybe putting some real effort into NATO, which they haven't been doing in recent years, as our Secretary of Defense Gates said recently.

Let's support Secretary of the Department of Defense Gates and let's get them to start making a little effort and send them a little message here.

So I support the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I am sort of surprised by this amendment. It seems to me that if we want to have control over the contracts in the procurement process, if we want Congress to be able to know what is going on, if we want to be able to save money, which is what we keep talking about, you want the process that we have here.

Perhaps you want an improved process, but you want an inventory. I mean, certainly no one will deny that some, perhaps many, of the private contracts that the Pentagon lets have been wasteful. Many have not been, but certainly an inventory so that Congress can keep a closer eye on it is calculated to reduce the waste, to reduce the wasteful expenditures, to enable us to have better oversight.

So why you would want to change that? And I am given to understand that this provision originated with the Republican Congresses during the Bush administration, and, frankly, it was a good innovation. Congress ought to be able to watch more closely what any government agency that is spending the kind of money the Pentagon is spending, hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it to private contractors--we ought to be able to watch what they're doing, watch what they're doing more closely, keep an eye on it, and be able to rein it in and say, hey, wait a minute, that contract is being well administered but that one isn't; that contract we have a lot of questions about. So why would we want to eliminate that provision that has worked well?

Now, granted, it hasn't worked as well as we have wanted. Granted, we ought to improve it. Perhaps some of you can come up with an amendment with some language that would improve it.

But to get rid of it, to say we don't need that oversight, we don't need that inventory of contracts, let the Pentagon do that in the dark of night, let the Pentagon have their contracts, let their contracts and no one look at it? It seems to me rather unfrugal, rather wasteful, and not calculated to save the taxpayers money. Why would we want to do that? I don't know; so I have to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I will be brief.

First of all, I'm told that the amount in the bill here, $200 million, is essentially the amount that is being spent now; so this is not really a reduction.

Secondly, I just want to add one thing to what the gentlelady from Minnesota said. Over the break we just had, I went to a food pantry operated by a church on Coney Island. There was a line out the door of about 70 or 80 people. They were giving food packets 3 days out of every month; 3 days out of every month, and trying to figure out how to scrounge enough money to give food packets 4 days out of every month. And, of course, we are cutting the budget for Women, Infants and Children. We are cutting the budget for food aid. We are cutting the budget for food stamps. We can maintain the military bands and not expand them. We have to keep this in perspective.

Yes, I love John Philip Sousa. I love military bands. I love marching bands. But people have to eat. And we are being savaged in the budget that we are passing and in the negotiations on the debt ceiling. We are being savaged on things for people to eat.

This seems the least we can do.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, the limitation in the bill will simply make sure that it doesn't expand. The fact is that with all of the negotiations going on and the debt ceiling and everything else, there is going to be pressure to cut everything. This amendment simply says we can expand here even though we are cutting far more important things. I think the language in the bill is sufficient. The committee did a wise job. I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which reaffirms support for a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict reached through negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and our opposition to any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, or recognition of such a declaration by the United Nations.

How can a dispute between two peoples ever be resolved by the unilateral decision of one? The path to peace has been clear for many years, and provided for by Security Council resolutions and by the 1993 Oslo Accords signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians. All these agreements provide for settlement negotiated between the parties, a settlement that will result in two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine.

Unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is a way of avoiding negotiations on the tough issues: final borders, secure borders, Jerusalem, and the status of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and their descendants. It is an attempt by the Palestinians to de-legitimize Israel, to impose indefensible borders unilaterally, and to get their state while retaining the ability to keep fighting Israel and to use the refugees' alleged ``right of return'' to undermine the survival of Israel as Jewish state.

The Palestinian Authority should instead explain to its people that a Palestinian state can be achieved only by conceding the right of a Jewish state to live in peace and security next door. And, for that to happen, there must be a negotiated agreement recognizing two states for two peoples. Evading a negotiated agreement is a formula for future war.

I urge all Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, there will be a number of amendments offered in the next little while by Mr. Garamendi, by Ms. Lee, myself and Mr. Jones and by others all in various ways seeking to speed our exit from Afghanistan. I support them all.

Two weeks ago, the President proposed that we continue fighting in Afghanistan for at least 3\1/2\ more years. In those 3\1/2\ years, more of our soldiers will die, more of our Treasury will be spent and, in the end, we will not be any closer to creating a stable Afghanistan or to enhancing our safety.

The whole premise of this war is wrong. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the United States. Ten years ago we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan, and at that time it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did.

But the CIA tells us that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why are we still fighting there? Why will we still have 70,000 troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2012, troops who will continue to risk their lives every day in a war that has already claimed too many American lives?

And we will continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable mess when we should be devoting taxpayer funds to our own economy, to our own jobs, our own housing, our own social programs and our own education.

Afghanistan is in the middle of what is so far a 35-year civil war. If we continue on this course, in 3 years there will be several thousand more American soldiers dead, several hundred billion more dollars wasted, and two or three more provinces labeled pacified.

But as soon as we leave, now, or in 2014, or 2016 or whenever, those provinces will become unpacified. The Taliban and the warlords will step up the fighting, and the Afghan civil war will resume its natural course.

Our troops are fighting valiantly, Mr. Chairman, but they are in the wrong mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States.

To delay withdrawal of our forces and continue this terrible policy at so high a cost is quite simply unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more lives and more money on this futile endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, we should withdraw our troops now, all of them, as rapidly as physically possible.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes.

I rise to speak in support of the Lee amendment, which I have the honor of cosponsoring. My views on Afghanistan, I expressed a little while ago, but I just want to make a couple of comments.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) said we have to be careful, that we have to be wary of a vacuum should we pull out. He analogized it to what happened with the Soviets when the Soviets lost and there was a vacuum because we turned our backs on it. And he was right. We should not have turned our backs on helping, on helping with schooling and other things in Afghanistan at that time. But the fact of the matter is the world's history is full of empires that threw away their substance on silly military adventures. This is a silly military adventure. It's a total waste, because it is a classic, where we are fighting when we have forgotten why we are fighting.

We went into Afghanistan to get rid of the al Qaeda bases. That took a week. For good measure we spent another week and got rid of the Taliban government. And now what are we fighting for for the last 8 years? To put a government in our image? It's not going to happen. To install and see that there is a government that can rule from Kabul? There hasn't been a government in Kabul who has run the entire country since Alexander the Great. That's not going to happen.

We can't settle their civil war, which has now gone on for 35 years, nor will settling their civil war aid our security, which we can't do anyway, and we don't have to. Our security is fighting the terrorists, but the terrorists are all over the place. And maybe we have to, if they develop a base in Pakistan, maybe we have to bomb it or send in special forces. Ditto for Somalia, Yemen, or God knows where.

Every sovereign country as a condition of its sovereignty must make sure that its territory is not used to attack someone else, and if territory of some country is being used to attack us, or to plot mayhem against us, we have the right and the duty, if necessary, to deal with that. But that's not the question in Afghanistan. The CIA, as I said before, tells us there are fewer than 100 people there. Why do we need 70,000 troops? Those troops could be better occupied back home in the United States training, helping fight disasters. Our money could be better occupied dealing with our serious fiscal problems, building up our infrastructure, building up our schools, building up our social services, and even building up our military for real threats.

There are real threats in the world. Pakistan is dangerous because they have nuclear weapons. We have to pay attention to it. But I fail to see any purpose whatsoever for having tens of thousands of troops, tens of billions of dollars in Afghanistan where we vanquished the enemy 10 years ago. We ought to declare victory, we should have pulled out, and we should do so right now.

I thank the gentlelady for her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment tonight that will save both blood and an immense amount of money. The amendment I am introducing along with Congressman Blumenauer designates already authorized funds in the amount of $15 million to be used to insulate the shelters at forward operating bases in Afghanistan. Properly insulating military shelters can significantly reduce energy consumption, which in turn can decrease the number of vulnerable fuel convoys needed to support our troops.

These fuel convoys cost us dearly. They are an absolutely vital supply link to our troops in the field, but they are exposed to constant and devastating attack. Despite the Pentagon spending $24 billion a year to protect fuel convoys in Afghanistan, more than 3,000 troops and civilian contractors have been killed or wounded while riding on convoy. What's more, fully two-thirds of the fuel used in Afghanistan goes to provide electricity for air-conditioning and heat at military installations. If we can reduce the energy required to heat and cool shelters in the field, then we can reduce the number of vulnerable fuel trucks needed to support the operations. Simply put, insulating the structures in the field will save lives of people who will not be on convoys to be attacked.

We will also save money. Properly insulated shelters use up to 92 percent less energy for their heating and cooling. With more than 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel used every day to power our forward operating bases in Afghanistan, insulating our field shelters has the potential to significantly reduce fuel consumption. A similar insulation effort in Iraq has led to almost $1 billion a year in savings and has taken more than 11,000 fuel trucks off the road. This in turn has helped to prevent an estimated 458 casualties in Iraq.

A little arithmetic will show you that this $15 million invested in insulating the shelters in the forward bases in Afghanistan should save several billion dollars in costs, as well as thousands of lives.

I want to thank Congressmen Blumenauer, Hinchey, and Welch for their support of this amendment. Together, the amendment provides a commonsense way to reduce fuel consumption across the war zone. This would save about two-thirds of the 200,000 gallons used a day. With the total cost of fuel sometimes exceeding $400 a gallon in Afghanistan, including the transport costs, and thousands of casualties suffered by fuel convoys, a small investment of $15 million in energy efficient insulation can go a long way in saving thousands of lives and upwards of billions of dollars in resources.

I urge passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Harry Van Arsdale, Jr. Center for Labor Studies at SUNY Empire State College on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

The New York State legislature created SUNY Empire State College in 1971 in order to provide educational opportunities to adults not adequately served by traditional residential colleges. At the same time, it also established the Center for Labor Studies, which was renamed in 1986 to honor the distinguished labor leader, the long-time business manager of IBEW Local 3 and president of the New York City Central Labor Council, who did so much to support its creation.

The Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies at SUNY Empire State College continues to fulfill its namesake's dream of providing wage-earning adults with an opportunity to develop their labor leadership skills and to earn a college degree in a learning environment that celebrates their achievements and recognizes their particular needs. To do so, the Van Arsdale Center provides flexible, worker-friendly educational programs delivered by highly qualified faculty to ensure that its trade union students and other working adults may acquire the analytical and communicative skills that are the hallmark of a college degree.

The center currently serves several important constituencies in the New York City area, including IBEW Local 3 and United Association Local 1 apprentices, as well as paraeducators affiliated with the United Federation of Teachers. The longest-standing of these partnerships is with the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry in New York City (JIB), and it is one of the center's most successful partnerships. Since 1978 every registered electrical apprentice in IBEW Local 3 has been required to complete, in addition to their related classroom instruction in electrical theory, an academic course of study in which they learn to read and write at the college level and for which they are awarded a college degree; or, if they already have a degree, a 20- credit certificate in ``Labor and the Construction Industry.'' Other programs were added later: the paraeducator program of the UFT in 2006, the college degree program of UA Local 1 in 2008; and others are in development.

The Harry Van Arsdale, Jr. Center for Labor Studies has graduated more than 5,000 men and women, many of whom have gone on to hold positions of honor in the New York City labor movement and beyond. Please join me in congratulating this exemplary educational organization on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hastings resolution and in support of the Rooney resolution.

This morning's paper, The New York Times, says that this is a dangerous resolution because it would allow the financing only for American surveillance, search and rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. It would halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses, and it would damage the Nation's credibility in its leadership of NATO.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Nation's credibility--that is to say its promise to go to war if backed by the President and not by Congress--ought to be damaged. We have been sliding for 70 years into a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the President is becoming an absolute monarch. We must put a stop to

that right now if we don't want to become an empire instead of a Republic. This country was set up to be a Republic where the basic questions of war and peace are supposed to be answered by this Congress. Because of the exigencies of the Cold War, if the bombers are coming over the Pole, you don't have time to call Congress. We lost a lot of that power. We ceded it to the President.

But in a situation such as Libya, whether the reasons for going there are good or ill, the fact is there was no imminent threat to the United States, and the Secretary of Defense said that. There was plenty of time to negotiate with the Arab League, and there was plenty of time to go to the U.N. There should have been time to have, not consultations with Congress, but the authorization from Congress. In the absence of that authorization, we have to put our foot down now and say ``no.'' If foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good. That's a good thing.

The power of the Presidency--and I'm not talking about this President--as was said by Charles James Fox in 1780, the power of the Crown, in this case the power of the President, has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. This country's power to go to war or not must reside here except in extreme and urgent emergencies. It is time to put our foot down now by passing that resolution.

Mr. Chairman, some have argued that the first-to-file provision in this bill violates the constitutional provision giving Congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times for authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.

The first key point to note is that the text does not define inventor. Under H.R. 1249, one still has to be an inventor to be awarded the patent, as the Constitution requires. Indeed, former Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey noted in a May 2011 letter to Patent Office Director David Kappos that ``the second inventor is no less an inventor for having invented second.'' And former Attorney General Mukasey correctly points out that the Constitution grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress of the science and useful arts'' but does not say how it can or should do so. Congress deciding that awarding patents to inventors who are the first- to-file is consistent with that constitutional power.

The Patent Act of 1793 makes no mention of needing to be the first- to-invent. A patent was valid as long as the invention was not an invention already in the public domain or derived from another person. It was not until 1870 that there was a specific process put in place to even determine who the first-to-invent was.

The bottom line is that this bill is a clear exercise of Congress' constitutional power to secure patent rights to inventors.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a little amnesia in this Chamber today. In January of 2009, we were losing 775,000 jobs a month. Then the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress enacted remedial legislation and we stopped losing 775,000 jobs a month. We started gaining. We have gained a million and a half jobs in the private sector in the last year and a half, not enough with a million and a half jobs, but unfortunately State and local government had to lay off 1.2 million people because we didn't give them enough to prevent that. But we did reverse the results of the Bush policy of 8 years, which was 775,000 jobs a month being lost.

Don't forget, in 2000, in the Presidential election, the great debate was what should we do about the $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Bush got elected. They enacted the Bush tax cuts, which they said would stimulate the economy and pay for themselves. What happened? We had the slowest economic recovery of any economic recovery after any recession in the history of the United States, the only 8-year period in which we did not gain one net new job even before the 2008 recession from which we are now recovering, albeit too slowly.

The American people did not vote to kill remedial programs last year. They voted for jobs. They were told, Vote for the Republicans; we'll get you jobs. You don't see any jobs. So let's forget this revisionist history.

I rise in strong opposition to the Republican effort to cut funding for the special supplemental nutritional program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC. This program provides food for low- and moderate-income mothers, babies, and children under 5. WIC provides the food pregnant women need to help their babies grow. After the baby is born, WIC provides the breast feeding support or infant formula to make sure the babies continue to develop and to grow. And for young children, WIC provides staples like milk, eggs, bread, fresh fruits and vegetables. Nearly 50 percent of the babies born in the United States each year rely on WIC to get a healthy start to life.

But in this time of rampant unemployment, the Republicans oppose-- they oppose extended unemployment benefits and now want to ensure that the wives and children of the unemployed who don't get unemployment benefits can't get food and baby formula. This bill says, Let them starve.

This bill will mean that 200,000 to 350,000 pregnant women and children will be denied food. Knocking these families out of the WIC program is an about-face on a 15-year bipartisan commitment to ensure WIC funds cover all eligible women, infants, and children who apply.

Shockingly, at the same time that the Republicans are demanding that pregnant women and children starve, they continue to promote tax holidays for millionaires and billionaires. If we suspended the Bush tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans for just 1 week, we could cover the cost of the Republicans' latest cut of $833 million to the WIC program.

The debate over WIC funding, specifically, and the Federal budget, generally, is about priorities. By supporting the Republican proposal to slash WIC funding, forcing thousands of women and children from the rolls, the Republicans are saying that America prioritizes tax holidays for those who need it the least over providing food to pregnant women, infants, and small children.

Mr. Chair, make no mistake about it. This is about literally taking food out of the mouths of babies. This Republican bill is immoral. Food for women and children is more important than tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies.

Reject this bill. Reject this bill, and maybe, just maybe, the Republicans, given enough time, will find their consciences.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, what we are confronted with today is not primarily a question of foreign policy or even of war policy. We are presented with a question of constitutional law and of the prerogatives of the United States Congress. Shall the President, like the King of England, be a dictator in foreign policy? Shall the President have the unfettered right to take this country to war without so much as a ``by your leave'' from Congress as the King of England could do without authorization from Parliament?

The authors of our Constitution answered that question in the negative. They said, ``No, we don't trust kings, we don't trust executives to make a decision to go to war. We want that to be the prerogative of the people as represented by the Congress.''

A whole series of Presidents since World War II have forgotten that, starting with Harry Truman in the Korean War and Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War right up to the present.

Now, there are reasons for this, and I will go into that when I speak on the Kucinich resolution a little later. I would simply observe now I am going to vote for the Boehner resolution, but I am also going to vote for the Kucinich resolution.

The Boehner resolution is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't deal with the basic problem. The Boehner resolution says the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S. security interests for current United States military activities, that is true. Frankly, I do not understand why we are in Libya.

The Boehner resolution then says the President shall transmit to the House of Representatives all kinds of information, basically saying why we are there, and that's good. You should have done that before we went there, but it's good that we demand this information now. But then the Boehner resolution stops.

All it demands of the President is that he gives us his reasons. And his reasons, maybe we will agree with him, maybe we won't. Maybe they are sufficient, and maybe they are not.

Then it says, ``Findings.

``(a) The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya.''

That's true.

I thank the gentleman.

``(b) Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the U.S. Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.''

That's also true, but so what. It doesn't direct anything. It doesn't say that what the President did was outside his powers. It doesn't direct that the activity stop. It doesn't do anything. I think we should do something, because if in this situation we do not reclaim congressional powers, I can think of no set of circumstances under which the President cannot go to war without going to Congress first, no set of circumstances. And that turns the Constitution and the intentions of our Framers and the intentions of our whole constitutional law system on its head.

Therefore, I urge a vote of ``yes'' on the Boehner resolution and a vote of ``yes'' on the Kucinich resolution, which, unlike the Boehner resolution, actually does something about the situation we find ourselves in.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia earlier said that the Kucinich resolution would tie the President's hands. Yes, it would. The whole point of the Constitution is to tie the President's hands. The President, not this particular President, any President, must not have the power to commit this country to war on his own authority without the concurrence of Congress. That is the point of the Constitution.

George Washington said the Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress. Therefore, no offensive expedition can be undertaken until they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.

Abraham Lincoln said they--meaning the Framers--resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression--meaning war--upon us. And that's what this really does.

Now, over the last 60 years since World War II, during the Cold War, power has flowed to the President--again, Presidents in general. The exigencies of time when bombers were over the Pole, or we thought bombers were over the Pole, you couldn't call Congress into session. And Congress, in effect, surrendered much power to the Presidency.

Korea was an undeclared war and should not have happened that way.

Vietnam, Congress was fooled. They called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution the ``functional equivalent of a declaration of war'' which Congress would not have voted had they known what was in store or what they were voting on, or that it was going to be cited as a declaration of war.

The issue before us is not consultation with Congress; it is not a lack of information to Congress. It's the fact that Congress must act, and that is why the Boehner resolution is beside the point.

Now, in the past, there was a good reason. There was time, there were emergencies. But here, Secretary Gates said there was no threat to the national security of the United States. We had time to negotiate with the Arab League, we had time to go to the U.N., and there was time to go to Congress and ask for an authorization of military war.

The President gave us his reasons for going into Libya. Not everyone agrees with those. But the question is not the wisdom of the war in Libya; it is enforcing the Constitution. And if we pass the Kucinich resolution, the President would have 15 days to come before us and ask us to authorize the use of force, if that is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this extension of the three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. When we last considered these expiring provisions, it was to extend them temporarily so that the House could review them and consider whether to improve them or allow them to expire. Many Members on both sides of the aisle objected to extending these provisions without so much as a hearing or an opportunity to debate changes to the law. In fact, the extension was rejected the first time with the votes of both Democrats and Republicans.

Since that debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner did in fact hold a series of hearings in which members of the Judiciary Committee were able to consider the issues and hear from many thoughtful experts who were able to make helpful suggestions. These three provisions dealing with roving wiretap authority, expansion of the definition of an agent of a foreign power to include so-called lone wolfs, and section 215, which allows the government to obtain business and library records using an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court instead of the normal methods have aroused a great deal of controversy and concern, and rightly so.

Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the thing pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. Section 215 is sweeping in its scope, and the government is not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress should either ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or should allow this provision to expire.

Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps, which permit the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person to be tapped nor the facility to be tapped. There is virtually no particularity required. This seems a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. There are almost no limits on this authority and no requirement that the government name a specific target, either a person or a location.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. persons who are not affiliated with a foreign government or organization. According to government testimony, this provision has never been used; yet we are told it is vital that it remain on the books.

Surveillance of an individual who concededly is not working with a foreign government or with a terrorist organization is not normally what we understand as foreign intelligence. There may be many good reasons for government to keep tabs on such an individual, but there is no reason to suspend all our normal laws under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation.

We are now told we must simply punt for a few years. No need, we have been told, to consider any of the many improvements that many Members believe are important. No need, in fact, even to have a debate or a vote on those changes. It's another ``my way or the highway'' vote. That is no way to protect our Nation from terrorism while protecting our fundamental liberties from government intrusion.

I realize that the Republican majority has the votes to extend these expiring authorities, but I am proud to stand with my colleagues of both parties in opposition to the flippant and reckless way in which our liberties are being treated today.

I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous legislation and demand that the House have a serious debate on the important issues impacted by this legislation affecting our security and our liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we have heard all these arguments before many times on this floor. It's hard for me to believe that a proper investigation and proper procedures would not have been able to improve these provisions in any way, that all the hearings, all the suggestions that were made came to no changes at all.

I am not going to debate for the fifth time with Mr. Lungren his statements. I do not believe they are accurate. He does not believe what I said is accurate. We are on similar ground there.

Let me just say that I believe that these provisions should be amended, they should be changed. They are an overbroad violation of our rights and leave it at that and, therefore, I will oppose it.

Before we conclude, I want to recognize Judiciary Committee counsel Sam Sokol, who is leaving the committee tomorrow for what I know is a bright future. I know that I speak for every member of the committee in thanking Sam for his wise counsel, his prodigious capacity for work, and his friendship. He has been a valued member of our team, and we will miss him greatly. We wish you the best of luck, Sam.

With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, nowhere in this bill is the National Drug Intelligence Center either authorized or funded at all. That was changed a few years ago. It used to be funded from DOD. It's now entirely funded and authorized in the Department of Justice. This amendment has no business in this bill. It ought to be in the authorization or in, perhaps, the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice.

The only reason that the parliamentarian might rule this germane is that the rule waives all points of order. Yet this should not be voted on. This should not be considered in this bill. It has nothing to do with this bill. It's authorized and appropriated in the Department of Justice bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about closing Guantanamo. As was said before, it does not demand the closing of Guantanamo. It does say that detainees, whether they're held at Guantanamo or held somewhere else, can come to the United States if the administration decides that they should be tried in a regular court or can be tried in the military court at Guantanamo or presumably even in a military court somewhere else.

We keep talking about terrorists. Some of these people are terrorists. Some are accused of being terrorists and are not. Some were simply picked up by some rival group in Afghanistan and sold for $5,000 for a bounty to American troops and labeled as terrorists. And it may be that the prosecuting authorities, that the military authorities decide that it will be better justice or for the convenience of the Armed Forces to have this person tried in a regular court. Now, we know that the regular courts have convicted 470, I think, terrorists; whereas, the military courts have convicted all of five or six.

We also know that the statutory underpinnings of the military courts are under challenge and will be under challenge in front of the courts and that anyone convicted there is probably going to go for years before that conviction is affirmed by the Supreme Court. So it may very well be that in some or many cases or a few cases it makes sense from justice and from operational efficiency to try people in a regular court as we have done since the Declaration of Independence.

That's what the gentleman's amendment does. It gives the executive

branch the power, the discretion, and the authority to make intelligent decisions. We can all agree or disagree whether the current or next administration makes intelligent decisions. That's what political debate is about. But we shouldn't tie their hands. We should let them use military tribunals; although, I hope they do that very sparingly. We should let them use Article 3 courts as American tradition and justice would normally dictate, and we should stand on our Constitution and our traditions of due process. And, therefore, I support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for the reasons stated, but beyond that this is particularly badly done.

This says that anyone who engages or is engaged in a terrorist attack in the United States is subject to a military commission. Well, anyone arrested in the United States for anything is subject to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution guarantees an Article 3 trial. Even if someone is accused of terrorism, if this amendment were adopted, you would have to have a trial in an Article 3 court to determine that he was guilty of a terrorist attack before you could then transfer him to the jurisdiction of a military tribunal to try him for that, because until a court convicts him of the act of terrorism, he's simply another criminal defendant and, even under the terms of this amendment, entitled to all the protections that the Constitution gives him.

Either the amendment is read, as it seems to say, that you first have to have an Article 3 trial to determine whether he engaged in conduct constituting a terrorist attack so you could then hand him over to the military tribunal, or it doesn't say that, in which case it's clearly unconstitutional.

So this amendment is either unconstitutional or absurd because if it's unconstitutional--well, it is--but if it

isn't unconstitutional, its constitutionality can only be saved by reading it to say first you have an Article 3 court, a regular court trial, to convict him of terrorism so that you can then, instead of sentencing him, send him to a military tribunal to do it all over again.

The amendment makes no sense. I urge its defeat.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to delete section 1034.

Section 1034 is the equivalent of a new declaration of war, but it contains no clear objective. No longer would we be seeking out those responsible for the attacks of September 11. In fact, all references to September 11 are removed. Instead, it merely affirms that the United States is at war. But it doesn't say why. It doesn't say what we are trying to achieve. It doesn't even mention an identifiable whom, with whom we are at war.

Unlike the 2001 AUMF, it does not contain any description of harm that has occurred or that we are seeking to prevent. How will anyone be able to declare success when the objective itself is so amorphous? How will we know when we have won the war?

Section 1034 expands the targets of military action from those responsible for the September 11 attacks to all members of al Qaeda, the Taliban and ``associated forces'' and those who ``directly support associated forces.'' But ``associated forces'' is undefined and so is ``directly support.''

Does it mean providing a meal to a person who later becomes a suicide bomber, even though they are not affiliated with al Qaeda or the Taliban, and you had no means of knowing that they were a suicide bomber in the future? Does the President have unfettered discretion to take this country to war against any country or any group he deems associated with the Taliban? Under this section, it would seem so.

Mr. Chairman, we must not delegate such power to the President. Indeed, such a broad unlimited delegation is probably unconstitutional. We haven't considered this section in any committee as far as I know, and yet it could profoundly change the scope and duration of our military efforts.

Mr. Chairman, we should pass this amendment, scrap this provision, and send it back to committee to start all over again if we need a redefinition of the existing AUMF.

But this amendment must pass; this section must not pass. The President must not have the total discretion to take this country to war with anybody, at any time, under any circumstances, under his sole discretion.

Mr. Chair, I rise reluctantly to correct the record.

Mr. Reed and Mr. Dreier appear to be confused. What they said about my remarks regarding my two amendments to H.R. 754 is false.

The source of my dissatisfaction was not that the Rules Committee was going to rule one or both of my amendments out of order. I was not frustrated with the Rules Committee for any reason.

My dissatisfaction stems from the refusal of the House Republican leadership to bring something like Senate Resolution 159 to the House Floor. This bipartisan resolution passed the Senate 97 to 0 and provided recognition for everyone involved in the death of Osama bin Laden. Passing something akin to Senate Resolution 159 in the House would have been the best way to mark this momentous occasion and, as such, I filed the same text as an amendment with the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, this amendment is not germane, a fact Mr. Dreier acknowledges. I withdrew that amendment before consideration by the Rules Committee.

I also filed a second, narrower amendment with the Rules Committee, based on Senate Resolution 159, that is germane to H.R. 754. That germane version is identical to the amendment offered today by Mr. Reed. As I said earlier on the House Floor, I did not feel that such a narrow amendment adequately honors all of those responsible for eliminating bin Laden. I decided not to pursue my version of this amendment and thus I withdrew it from consideration by the Rules Committee. I never made any comments as to whether the Rules Committee was going to say this narrower amendment was or was not germane or was or was not in order before I withdrew it. I support Mr. Reed's amendment because at least it gives the House some chance to say thank you to our intelligence services.

Additionally, Mr. Dreier submitted to the Congressional Record the letter I filed with the Rules Committee asking that both of my amendments be withdrawn. However, for some reason only part of my letter was incorporated. I am including with my remarks the complete text of the letter I filed with the Rules Committee.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2011.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, House of Representatives, Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Louise M. Slaughter,

Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member Slaughter: Yesterday I submitted two amendments to H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. I am writing to withdraw from consideration both amendments, Nadler-Bishop-Slaughter-Owens Amendment No. 2, NADLER__ 025.XML, and Nadler-Bishop-Slaughter-Owens Amendment No. 1,

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Grimm-Reed amendment to commend our intelligence community for their role in eliminating Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Chairman, the killing of Osama bin Laden is the most significant victory over our most significant enemy. It deserves recognition in the Halls of Congress. That is why I was disappointed that the House Republican leadership chose not to bring up something similar to Senate Resolution 159. That resolution recognizes the hard work by all facets of our government, from the President to the military to the intelligence community. It honors the victims of 9/11 and their families, and it is bipartisan, having passed the Senate 97-0.

I felt this type of resolution would be an appropriate vehicle with which to commend those responsible for the death of bin Laden, so I filed it as an amendment with the Rules Committee. But it was held not to be germane.

I also filed the more narrow, more germane version with the Rules Committee, a version that commended only the members of the intelligence community who played a role in the operation. The amendment before us from Representatives Grimm and Reed is identical word for word to the version I originally filed with the Rules Committee, and I am gratified that they saw the merit in the wording that we drafted. While it does not adequately honor all those responsible for our great victory over al Qaeda, the President and the military in addition to the intelligence community, it does allow the House to express its appreciation and commendation to the intelligence community, and therefore I support it.

The recent death of Osama bin Laden is a measure of justice that was long overdue. Hopefully, it will bring some comfort to the victims of 9/11 and their families, many of whom live in my district where the World Trade Center was, of course, located.

I ask all Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden murdered almost 3,000 Americans in cold blood. As the House Member representing Ground Zero, many of these innocent men, women, and children were my constituents and my friends. Words cannot do justice to the toll taken by this mass murderer. Of course, the attack on September 11 was part of a war Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization al Qaeda had declared long ago and waged against the United States for years.

After September 11, we vowed as a nation to wage war against al Qaeda and in particular to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. When President Obama made his dramatic announcement almost 2 weeks ago that American troops had killed bin Laden, we knew that our country had finally fulfilled that part of the promise.

While I supported and we passed an amendment today to commend our intelligence community for their role in eliminating bin Laden, I stand by my earlier statement that it was inadequate. This motion to recommit, which I am offering with Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Ellison, properly honors all those responsible. It appropriately commends everyone involved in the long road we took to bring bin Laden to justice--President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, our Navy SEALs, and our intelligence community.

The death of Osama bin Laden was a triumphant victory, but our work is not done. This final amendment reminds us that we cannot rest on our laurels. The threat of al Qaeda remains real and continuing. That is why in this final amendment we make clear to our intelligence community that the highest priority for funding in this bill is the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al Qaeda. We must focus on the materials captured from bin Laden's compound so we can stop them from striking again. I urge my colleagues to join us to ensure that we continue to do all we can to avoid another 9/11.

In closing, I want to state my hope that we have a bipartisan show of support for this final amendment. Commending those who worked so hard to bring justice to bin Laden and recognizing our number one intelligence priority is the defeat of al Qaeda should be expressions that can be supported across the political spectrum.

I yield to a cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota.

I now yield to another cosponsor of the amendment, the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I again want to stress that this amendment commends all those who worked so hard to bring justice to bin Laden and recognizes that our number one intelligence priority is the defeat of al Qaeda. It should get bipartisan support. A very similar resolution passed the Senate 97-0. I ask for support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with creating jobs, reducing our deficit or bolstering our economy. It addresses, instead, the completely fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent the Federal funding of abortion services. This bill has been falsely advertised as a mere codification of existing law prohibiting the Federal funding of abortion.

I have always opposed the unfair restrictions on Federal funding for a perfectly legal health care procedure, but this bill goes far beyond prohibiting Federal funding. The real purpose and effect of this bill is to eliminate private health care choices for women by imposing significant tax penalties on families and small businesses when they use their own money to pay for health insurance or medical care. This tax penalty is intended to drive insurance companies into dropping abortion services from existing private health care policies that women and families now have and rely upon.

This bill claims that a tax credit or deduction is a form of government funding. It follows that tax-deductible charitable contributions to a church, synagogue or other religious institution are also government funding--a position my Republican colleagues have never taken and that, if taken, would prohibit tax deductions for charitable contributions to religious organizations because they would then be violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. Either tax exemptions, deductions or credits for private spending are government funding or they are not. If they are not, this bill makes no sense. If they are, then tax- deductible private contributions to religious institutions are government funding prohibited by the Constitution.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, and here, the taxing power is being used to destroy the right of every American to make private health care decisions free from government interference. This bill is an unprecedented attack on the use of private funds to make private health care choices, and is part of the new House majority's broader and disturbing attack on women's access to health care.

After 2 years of hearing my Republican colleagues complain that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health care choices, I am astounded by this legislation, which is so obviously designed to do just that. It seems that

many Republicans believe in freedom provided that no one uses that freedom in a way that Republicans find objectionable. It is a strange understanding of freedom.

There is also a provision in this bill that might allow any health care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman whose life depends on having that abortion. They could let that woman die right there in the emergency room, and the government would be powerless to do anything. In fact, if the government insisted that the hospital not let the woman die, the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and, in the case of a State or locality, strip that community of all Federal funding until the jurisdiction relented.

Despite the fact that Republicans made a big show of taking out language limiting rape to forcible rape, the committee report now says that the bill still excludes victims of statutory rape in order to close a ``loophole.'' That is right. You women who have been sexually victimized are really just a loophole. Frankly, disgusting.

A vote for this bill, Madam Speaker, is a vote for a tax increase on women, families, and small businesses. It is a vote for taking away the existing health insurance that women and families now have and pay for with their own funds. It is a vote to elevate the right to refuse care over the obligation to provide lifesaving care. It deserves to be defeated.