Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 47: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 48: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act requires nearly all Federal construction contracts to pay a prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor. Under the law, construction contractors and subcontractors may not pay their own workers wages lower than the department's pay rate, even if the workers bargain for a wage below the government-set rate.

My amendment blocks application of Davis-Bacon to the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill. There are two main reasons why the House should block Davis-Bacon.

First, Davis-Bacon wastes taxpayer dollars on overpriced contracts. A recent study showed that, on average, nationwide, the government-set rate is 22 percent higher than the true market rate. For example, if sheet metal workers in Long Island, New York, are paid $28.79 per hour, while the government-set rate for that area is $45.40, factoring in the cost of materials and other supplies, studies suggest that the Federal Government overpays for construction contracts by between 10 percent and 15 percent.

Second, Davis-Bacon gives an unfair advantage to union employees. Small businesses, many of which are nonunion, lower their prices to compete against larger union firms. The trade-off for nonunion employees is a lower-wage rate but more work. We should not disadvantage nonunion employees who are willing to perform more construction for less money. By eliminating government-mandated wages, we can better allocate resources, increase efficiency, and put hardworking Americans back on the job.

Providing for our national defense and the care of our veterans are critical priorities. Construction projects in the appropriations bill include VA facilities, family housing, schools and infrastructure for our National Guard troops stationed on the border. We owe it to our constituents to stretch every taxpayer dollar and spend wisely.

Blocking Davis-Bacon's application to military construction and VA projects will honor our commitment to fiscal responsibility and to our veterans. Let's let competition determine wages, not the Federal Government. Please support my amendment to block Davis-Bacon.

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the start of this Congress, the House made important changes to the way the institution operates. We began by ending earmarks. Americans understood that the practice favored Representatives' pet projects while the taxpayer was left to foot the bill. Earmarks diverted our constituents' hard-earned money to low- priority projects and, even worse, appeared corrupt. Americans started to lose confidence in their government when they saw their Representatives using public funds for personal gain.

In a similar vein, this Congress continued last Congress' prohibition on ``monuments to me.'' Like earmarks, when House Members name Federal programs and buildings after themselves, Americans can't be sure whether the programs are funded because they are worthwhile or because they benefit a House Member personally.

The appropriations bill we are considering today has a prohibition on ``monuments to me'' that mirrors the House rules and bans naming programs and buildings after current House Members. My amendment extends that same prohibition to current Senators and the President.

Ending ``monuments to me'' is an important step to preventing the waste of taxpayer dollars and to ensuring that our appropriations are in the best interests of the public, not the personal interests of elected representatives. I ask you to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 71: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz). My constituents and I share the concerns of the distinguished gentleman from Utah and his constituents and millions of Americans regarding the use of advanced imaging technology machines, also known as full body scanners, at airports.

We are concerned not only about the efficacy and safety of such machines, but also about the serious violations of privacy and our rights as protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution resulting from the government's use of such machines. It is in that spirit that I offer this amendment.

I ask my colleagues for your support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I again offer this amendment on behalf of the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

As I mentioned previously, millions of Americans have serious concerns regarding the use of advanced imaging technology machines, also known as full body scanners, at airports. In light of our serious concerns about efficacy, safety, and privacy, and the violation to our liberty, we ask that these machines not be funded for use as mandatory or primary screening devices. I ask my colleagues for your support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have one final amendment at the desk.

My amendment prohibits political meddling in the Department's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, commonly known as FOIA.

FOIA gives citizens the right to know what their government is doing. As President Obama stated shortly after taking office, ``In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act, which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.''

Countless instances of waste, fraud, and abuse have been exposed by using FOIA. In September 2009, political appointees in DHS implemented an unprecedented policy to review FOIA requests and documents proposed to be released.

The current DHS political review process of FOIA is extraordinary. Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley wrote to 29 offices of inspectors general to request that they determine whether and to what extent political appointees have a role in responding to FOIA requests. According to the IGs surveyed, the level of involvement of DHS's political staff in the FOIA response process is uniquely high.

While it is the case that political staff at a very small number of agencies have prior notice of newsworthy releases, at no other agency do front office staff have the opportunity to withhold or otherwise delay such releases to avoid embarrassment or for political reasons.

FOIA is vital to our democracy. It is the most powerful single tool citizens and the press have to discover what our government is doing. And the law has a long track record of exposing corruption and inefficiency to improve government for all Americans.

My amendment protects FOIA from politicization at DHS. It prohibits DHS political appointees from improperly blocking the release of FOIA documents. My amendment allows DHS political appointees to continually be aware of FOIA requests in documents proposed to be released, but it prevents the political appointees from interfering with the public's right to know.

I ask for your support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 71: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Amash

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It deletes section 1034, the new Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Section 1034 contains, perhaps, the broadest authorization for use of military force Congress has ever considered. In doing so, it essentially delegates nearly all of Congress' constitutional war powers to the President. It expands Congress' use of force to include ``associated forces,'' a group the bill does not define. Under section 1034, associated forces don't need to be connected to 9/11. Associated forces don't need to have fought against the United States, and associated forces may even include American citizens.

There is no geographical limit to the authorization. Force may be used worldwide at the President's discretion. Please join me in opposing this broad, new AUMF. Please support amendment No. 50.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Recognizing that this new AUMF goes beyond the original AUMF, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

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

Recognizing that Osama bin Laden was killed under the old AUMF, not the new broader language, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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

In closing, Mr. Chair, make no mistake: the power we were asked to give the President is beyond the power Congress gave the President in the wake of the largest terrorist attack in our history. Support amendment No. 50 and turn back this broad delegation of Congress' constitutional authority.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Free societies are founded on a core set of rights--rights that are beyond the reach of government and that no other person or group can take away. The Founders created our government to secure these unalienable rights, and chief among them is the right to life.

President's recognize this right when they weigh carefully whether to put our soldiers in harm's way. Our judiciary respects this right when it spends years reviewing each and every capital punishment case. Yet this same government authorizes, and in some cases pays for, the routine taking of the most innocent of lives--the lives of the unborn.

It is unconscionable that in a country founded explicitly to protect individuals' fundamental rights we allow the regular violation of the right to life. Worse yet, the government forces each of us to pay for the killing of innocent life.

I urge you to vote for H.R. 3, to strengthen our protection of the right to life.

Mr. Speaker, President Ford served the State of Michigan and the United States with distinction during a time of immense upheaval. Placing a statue of President Ford in the Capitol is a great tribute and is well earned.

I admire President Ford's willingness to take principled stands for what he believed was right, even if those decisions were unpopular at the time. I am honored to represent the same district that President Ford served, and I will continue to strive to live up to his principled example.

Thank you to the people of Michigan for providing this statue. It is my hope that this statue will serve as a symbol of political courage to future Capitol visitors.

Mr. Speaker, the Founders were keenly aware of the threat a powerful and overbearing Federal Government poses to our liberty. With this concern in mind, they wrote a Constitution that created a Federal Government with limited powers. Later they proposed the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the States or the people powers not delegated to the Federal Government.

The debate we are having today goes beyond health care, although there is no doubt health care coverage is an important and difficult issue. What we are discussing today goes to the core of our Constitution's design. It asks Members of Congress whether we take constitutional limits on our power seriously.

We have all witnessed everyday Americans' renewed interest in the Constitution. As they have asked tough questions about the constitutionality of this law, the law's proponents have tried to dress up their answers in constitutional language.

They say Congress's power to tax upholds this law. But when this law originally was being considered, those same proponents were the first to claim the bill included no new taxes. They try to find support in Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. If forcing Americans to start commerce is the same as regulating existing commerce, it would have been news to the Founders.

Finally, grasping at clauses, they claim Congress can do anything that is in the general welfare of the country. If this law is constitutional, if Congress has such broad power, our limited Federal Government will become limitless, and all without changing our Constitution or the approval of the Americans whom it protects. It is not just for the courts; it is our duty as a Congress to pay attention to the Constitution and its limits on our power.

I urge we repeal this unconstitutional law.