Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this date, October 10, 2007, marks the fifth anniversary of one of the most tragic decisions ever made by this House of Representatives. It was a decision that was also followed in the same way the following day, October 11, 5 years ago, by the United States Senate. That decision was based upon a request by this Bush administration to authorize the military invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. And that request by this administration and the subsequent authorization by this Congress was done based upon false information which was presented by various members of that organization.

After the attack of September 11, 2001, which was carried out by the al Qaeda network, this administration began to press the idea that Iraq was involved in that invasion. They began to try to manipulate the intelligence that was presented by our legitimate intelligence agencies. They began to press various parts of those intelligence operations to try to get them to provide some information upon which they could somehow justify the idea that Iraq was involved in that attack of September 11, 2001. That never really happened. The legitimate aspects of our intelligence agencies never produced that information.

Nevertheless, this administration provided that form of intelligence in an internal way within their own operation, evidence that they used to suggest initially that there was a relationship between Iraq and the attack of September 11th. They then began to make allegations that Iraq was a very dangerous country and we needed to engage them in a military invasion, and that military invasion was necessary based upon their assertion that Iraq possessed substantial amounts of so-called ``weapons of mass destruction.'' They were alleging biological and chemical weapons. Those allegations, of course, were based upon the fact that the first Bush administration and the Reagan administration, back in the 1980s, had, in fact, provided biological and chemical weapons and other forms of weaponry to the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. They believed that perhaps some of those weapons were still in existence in Iraq in spite of the fact that they were told over and over again that that was no longer the case. So they continued to press the idea that we should justify the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, the majority of the Members of this House and the Senate apparently bought into that idea and voted to authorize that invasion.

Those of us who voted against it had access to information that everyone should have had access to, I believe that most people did, that there was no connection between Iraq and the attack of September 11; that whatever chemical and biological weapons had been sent into Iraq in the 1980s were no longer there; and that there was no justification for the assertion that was made by many members of this administration, including the President himself, that Iraq was engaged in the production of nuclear weapons.

On October 7, just several days prior to the vote here in the House of Representatives, the President made a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio. That speech, in part, was in response to growing evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. President Bush, like other members of his administration, Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, and others, used the phrase ``mushroom cloud.'' He said, ``You do not want the evidence of weapons of mass destruction to be in the form of a mushroom cloud.'' That, of course, was designed to create that image in the minds of the American people that we were confronting a nation that was likely to use nuclear weapons against our country and against others, all of which was completely false.

So we know now that all of the justification for that invasion was false, and this Congress now has the responsibility to engage in actions to correct it. We need to set a specific date for the withdrawal of our military forces from Iraq. We also need to take action for a specific provision which will deauthorize that invasion which was authorized on October 10, 2002. We need to do that as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have no more than 4 minutes to address the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think all of us know by now that the military occupation in Iraq, which is referred to as a war but is really a military occupation, is an increasing disaster. We all know that now more than 4,000 military personnel have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been injured. We ought to be taking decisive action to put an end to that illegal, disastrous military occupation.

This bill is presented as a means of attempting to do so. But it is a false presentation. It does nothing to that effect. This bill, if it is passed and signed into law, would simply require a plan to be developed within 60 days after that signing and then another 90 days an additional plan, another 90 days an additional plan. So what we are likely to see, unless this Congress is able to take more decisive, more progressive, more positive action, is four, five, maybe even six plans coming out of this administration and no responsible action taken with regard to the disastrous circumstances that occur on the basis of this illegal military occupation.

This legislation does nothing productive to deal with this very difficult, dangerous, and disastrous situation. The circumstances for the security of this country have worsened as a result of this illegal invasion and the subsequent military occupation, and that worsening continues.

One of the other things in this legislation is also, frankly, very interesting. Congress finds, it says, the following: that the President has the ability to use the Armed Forces as the President determined necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Government of Iraq at that time, at the time that that resolution was passed back in October of 2002, which a number of us voted against.

What this suggests is that that was the proper thing to do at that time. It was not the proper thing to do in October of 2002. It would have been much more proper if this Congress realized at that time what I believe most of us realize now: that the alleged justification for the illicit, illegal invasion of Iraq, the idea that there was a connection between Iraq and the attack of September 11, that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction, that there was an alleged nuclear weapons

development program in Iraq, and that there was some connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, all of which was false. Now, many did not realize that at that time and subsequently they voted for it. Many of us did realize it and voted against it.

We should not have anything asserting in any legislation that comes before this House anything that suggests that what was presented at that time to justify that resolution authorizing this administration to engage in this illegal invasion and the subsequent disastrous occupation of that sovereign country was true when it was all falsified, intentionally and purposefully falsified.

So I could appreciate what some people may think they are doing here, and I certainly have a great deal of respect and affection for the Members who are the sponsors of this legislation. But I tell you, you look at this and you will say to yourself if this legislation passes, what it will authorize is a continuing falsified plan, much of which can be classified, coming from this administration, plan after plan, and the remaining military forces will be in that country until sometime after January of 2009.

This doesn't do what we are supposed to do. We shouldn't be passing it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Orange County Chamber of Commerce in Montgomery, New York as it celebrates two significant events in the history of its organization. The Chamber is marking the 10th Anniversary of the merger of Orange County's two major chamber organizations, which united to form the current Chamber of Commerce on this day in 1997. Additionally, the Chamber is commemorating the 125th anniversary of the formation of one of the predecessor chambers in 1882.

In recent years, Orange County has consistently ranked as one of the fastest growing counties in New York State. As this growth has occurred, the Orange County Chamber of Commerce has provided critical leadership in creating and supporting an environment in which business will succeed while also working to enhance the quality of life throughout Orange County's communities. The Chamber continues to serve as a consistent and effective advocate for businesses throughout Orange County and the Hudson Valley region.

Through their committed efforts and diligence, the Board of Directors and staff at the Chamber have expanded its membership to nearly 2,400 businesses and individuals, making it one of the ten largest in the State of New York and the largest between Long Island and Albany. This strong network of community and business leaders coupled with the technical support, expertise and promotional services provided by the Chamber has contributed to the ongoing expansion of business opportunities in Orange County.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to salute the Orange County Chamber of Commerce on the anniversary of these important milestones. I'd like to congratulate Chamber President John A. D'Ambrosio, outgoing Board President Kunwar Nagpal, and incoming Board President Jim Smith for their leadership and hard work. I'd also like to recognize the Board of Directors, staff, and members of the Chamber for their dedicated efforts to make Orange County, New York a better place to live, work and visit.

I express my appreciation to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for putting this amendment out so that we can have an opportunity to discuss it.

As we have just heard, this amendment is supported strongly by the Governor of New York, and in fact, it is supported essentially by every Governor across the States. Why is that? Because this amendment makes it clear that the issue of eminent domain constitutionally belongs in the hands of the State, not the Federal Government, and it simply says that there is no impediment about these lines but decisions with regard to eminent domain should be placed in the hands of the State and the State government.

People should have a right to be able to protect their private personal property rights, and issues involving transmission lines and others that may require the use of private property are to be dealt with in a reasonable and lawful way, and this is what this amendment simply does.

It's very straightforward, very direct, and in no way impedes anything that is going to be injurious to any issue involving electricity or anything else. It simply asserts the rights of private property.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my dear friend and colleague for providing me with this time to say a couple of things in opposition to this amendment. I think the person who is proposing this amendment simply does not understand what is being done here.

The agricultural industry is a very important part of the economy of New York State, one of the most essential parts of the economy of New York State. The grape industry is an important part of the agricultural industry. This Grape Genetics Research Center, which has been established as a result of legislation which was put forward by Mr. Walsh and myself and others in 2005, is an important part of the way grape production is advancing in the United States and becoming a more important part of American agriculture. It is providing jobs for our citizens, and it is providing more and more economic growth in a number of parts of our country all across our country.

It enables grape growers to deal with the cold winters in the Northeast and enables grape growers to deal with the arid circumstances that they confront in certain parts of southern California and the other forms of diverse issues that need to be dealt with by grape growers in many places across the country.

This means of searching into this industry and providing better ways of doing it is an important part in the way in which we are protecting and growing our agricultural economy.

I would hope that the offeror of this amendment would spend a few moments to look more closely at these circumstances, because I think if he does, he might begin to understand the value of agriculture and the value of this kind of genetics research.

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

I yield my time to Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

amendment offered by mr. mc henry to the amendment offered by mr.

gingrey

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment that is designed to protect States' rights and to provide people across our country in these 12 States that have passed laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes to have access to that medical use.

It is a very simple, very serious proposal. The Constitution of the United States is very clear. It authorizes States' rights in every other area that is not specifically designated to the Federal Government. One of those main areas is health care. The States have the authority to take care of their own people and to make sure that they have access to the best possible health care.

The amendment is supported by a number of other important organizations across the country, in addition to organizations in those 12 States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington that have passed laws authorizing the medicinal use of this product. Two of those States have passed it through their legislatures. The other 10 have passed it by means of referendum. In other words, the people themselves have passed this in referendum.

This is an amendment that really should be adopted. It doesn't do anything to stimulate any violations of the law. It just says those States ought to be able to determine how to take care of their own people. There are a variety of ways in which that can be done to make sure that they get proper attention.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to make it clear that there are many dozens of organizations that are focused on health care and constitutional rights across the country; not just in those 12 States, but in a lot of other places, as well, who have endorsed this idea and support this amendment.

They include the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Medical societies all across this country have endorsed this amendment because they know it is in the best interests of people suffering from diseases such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and others that can be relieved of pain and suffering and be of assistance in recovering from the debilitating aspects of these diseases.

It simply makes good common sense for us to authorize this amendment. I hope that the majority of the Members in this House of Representatives will now take this opportunity to support good health care for Americans and also support this basic provision of the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the people who are opposed to this amendment, including the gentleman who just spoke, apparently do not understand what we are doing here.

This amendment does not affect States, other than those that have passed laws with respect to medical marijuana, only those 12 States. This amendment would not require or encourage other States to adopt medical marijuana laws. This amendment would not stop law enforcement officials from prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage drug use in children. Teen use of marijuana has declined in States that have passed medical marijuana laws, and in some of those States it has declined dramatically.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow these States to give relief to people suffering from horrific diseases without fearing Federal intervention or prosecution. At stake in this debate is who should be deciding what is best for patients: Should it be the patients themselves, the doctors, or should it be arbitrarily somebody in the Federal Government?

Support this amendment and support States' rights and compassion. Doctors in these 12 States know what is best for their patients. The Federal Government should not stand in their way.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate, and one of the aspects of it with which I find myself in agreement is the assertion by my friend on the other side of the aisle that there is a display of differences of opinion and attitudes with regard to the way in which we handle our fiscal responsibilities here, and there is no question about that.

If you look at the last 6 years, while the Republican Party has controlled every aspect of this government, they managed to succeed to almost double the national debt. They now have us in a situation where we owe almost $9 trillion, $8.9 trillion.

They continue to spend, as a result of their initiatives, now, about $11 billion a month on Iraq, the illegal invasion of Iraq which they perpetrated and are interested in carrying out.

What we're trying to do here in this particular bill, and in the context of our budget responsibilities, is to focus attention on the needs of the American people, what we as a Congress ought to be doing in the context of our responsibilities, serving the American people, doing what's right for them, improving the possibility, the prospects of education, making it easier for our children to get the best possible education that they can get, making it easier for people to get the health care that they need, making it easier for people to deal with housing situations and circumstances so that people have proper housing.

In other words, our objectives and our priorities are to improve the quality of life of the American people, while your obvious priorities and objectives are to decrease the quality of life of the American people, which is consistent with your objective in the context of this particular amendment.

You want to reduce the amount of money that is available for education, reduce the amount of money that's available for health care, reduce the amount of money that's available for housing and other things that are essential to the American public, while you keep wasting more and more money in Iraq.

announcement by the chairman

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the kindness of my friend and colleague from New Jersey for providing me with this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee which has oversight over the Food and Drug Administration, so over the course of a number of years now, I have been deeply engaged in this issue.

I am glad that the FDA Amendments Act that we are discussing here this evening addresses a number of the problems that we have confronted over the course of the last number of years. These problems include giving the agency enhanced authority on post-

market drug safety and developing a strengthened system for oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising. That is a very good move in the right direction.

However, I am deeply disappointed that this bill neglects to sufficiently address a number of other major issues that are jeopardizing the trustworthiness of the Food and Drug Administration, the agency that is supposed to represent the gold standard for consumer protection in America.

First, the FDA Amendments Act reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act through which drug companies provide funding to the FDA for its drug safety approval and oversight activities. So, in other words, what we have is the regulated industry paying money to the agency that judges the worthiness of the industry's products and how they put those products on the market. To make matters worse, before each reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA sits down with representatives from this industry to negotiate out performance standards that the agency will achieve in return for those funds.

In fact, representatives from the FDA met 112 times with representatives from the big pharmaceutical industry before the agency sent their recommendations with regard to this bill to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, the FDA only met five times with other groups, groups like consumers, medical professionals and advocates; only five times with groups like that to hear their perspective on reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

The FDA is in bed with the drug companies, and put simply, the FDA Amendments Act does not sufficiently sever this inappropriate relationship between the agency and the regulated industry.

Under this bill, the FDA will continue to collect funding from a regulated industry and will continue to meet industry standards and put those standards above everyone else's interest.

Second, the FDA Amendment Act does not sufficiently address financial conflict of interest among members of agency advisory committees.

These committees exist to provide the agency with unbiased scientific advice on controversial issues, and such advice can easily be tainted by these conflicts; and we have seen numerous examples of how it has been.

Many of my colleagues will remember voting to end such conflicts during our consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Agricultural appropriations bill. Since that time, the FDA has come forward with a new policy of its own that would stop those members with over $5,000 worth of inappropriate financial holdings from even participating on advisory committees and stop all conflicted members from voting on the committees regardless of the size of that conflict.

Unfortunately, the FDA Amendment Act does not continue the movement for change that has been espoused by both the House and now internally by the FDA. Instead, this legislation would enable the agency to continue to waive conflicted members on to advisory committees. There is simply no need for this policy to continue.

Finally, this legislation does nothing to keep the FDA from its current misinformed policy of preempting State law on drug policy.

The Bush FDA's relentless arguments in favor of preemption robs consumers of recourse from injury and issues drug companies a free pass from accountability.

As we have seen from recent flu vaccine crises, revelations of conflicts of interest, and failures of post-market drugs such as Vioxx, the FDA is clearly not a perfect agency.

At the same time, drug companies are not sufficiently forthcoming about side effects related to their products. It is illogical for the Federal Government to close the door on a method of recourse for Americans who have been affected by these imperfections. In a world in which drug companies are not fully clear about the safety of their drugs, and the FDA is not sufficiently on the side of consumers, the role of the State courts in protecting Americans is more important than ever.

I am very disappointed in these provisions, and I think that they all should be considered carefully in the examination of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of this very important subcommittee, for yielding.

I am very interested in the amendments that Mr. Flake is presenting and have been all of the time that he has presented them over the course of the last several years. Mr. Flake seems to be devoting his attention towards trying to make sure that as much of the spending in these bills as possible is not being done in a wasteful way, that it is being done appropriately. And if that is the motivation, then I think all of us would certainly appreciate that motivation. But the effects of the amendments, I think, are questionable.

First of all, basically, under our Constitution and the provision of law, it is quite clear that every Member of this House has a fundamental responsibility, first of all, to represent the people in their congressional district. And most of these earmarks, probably all of them now under the Democratic leadership, which is much more open, are designed to do precisely that, make sure that these budgets address at least to some small degree the needs in each of those congressional districts.

But if Mr. Flake and others on the other side of the aisle are truly interested in trying to regulate spending and make sure that it is done properly, I would ask them to focus their attention on other things that really need to be looked at.

For example, this administration is still spending something in the neighborhood of $8 billion a month in Iraq. We have spent now almost half a trillion dollars there on that illegal, elicit war and continuing disastrous occupation. None of these amendments are focused on that.

Let me just mention a new report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which concludes, among other things, that the Bush administration has put forth a shadow government of private companies working under Federal contracts that have exploded in size. Between the year 2000 and 2005, while the Republicans controlled both Houses of the Congress here, procurement spending increased by more than $175 billion, making Federal contracts the fastest-growing part of the Federal discretionary spending. These huge government contracts are done at the expense of the taxpayers. And in this report, it is made clear that Federal spending by one particular corporation, Halliburton, which, of course, we know is directly connected to Vice President Cheney, Federal spending to Halliburton increased more than 600 percent between 2000 and 2005.

Now, why aren't our friend on the other side of the aisle focusing their attention on this? We are. We are paying attention to it. We are trying to change the course of this government.

The Government Accountability Office recently found that the government has wasted at least $2.7 billion on Halliburton contracts which were overpriced contracts or had within them undocumented costs. $2.7 billion.

So while we are wasting all of this time on these little so-called earmarks where Members of the Congress are trying to do their job for the people they represent, people like Mr. Flake are ignoring things like $2.7 billion in overpayments and undocumented costs to companies like Halliburton. A record level of nearly 40 cents of every discretionary Federal dollar now goes to these private contractors.

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we need a new concentration of attention.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

First of all, before I begin, I want to express my deep admiration and appreciation to the chairman of this Environment and Interior Subcommittee, for the marvelous job he has done in putting this bill together. It is extraordinary in all that it does and improvements that it makes.

Also, I express my appreciation to the ranking minority member, Mr. Tiahrt, and all of the good work he has done and his responsibility on this committee, and particularly with regard to this bill.

Ironically, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas because he gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit about the Maverick Concert Hall.

This small amount of money in this bill would provide for the restoration work on this Maverick Concert Hall. The Maverick Concert Hall was handbuilt in 1916 in a very unique rustic style. It was done so by famed Maverick Art Colony founder and philosopher Hervey White. Local carpenters put the building together, along with a band of resident ``maverick'' artists and volunteers.

The Maverick Art Colony was a key element in the emergence of Woodstock, New York, as a nationally influential art colony.

Now on the National Register of Historic Places, the hall is the home of the oldest continuous summer chamber music series anywhere in the United States. For 91 years, America's leading professional artists have presented summer concerts at the hall. The acoustics in this rural building are nearly perfect. Maverick concerts became the prototype for other summer music festivals, taking music from the cities and bringing them into rural, bucolic settings.

True to the egalitarian spirit of the original colony, the concerts are offered to the public and free for children and at very affordable prices in a lovely wooded surrounding for adults.

It is a marvelous place, and I am very proud to be the sponsor of this piece of this bill which would provide this very modest amount of funding for this particular project in the town of Woodstock, New York.

With regard to some of the things that the author and the sponsor of this amendment have put forward, I think it is important for all of us to recognize that he is very grossly mistaken

in some of the things that he said. For example, there are no tax increases in this budget, and no tax increases in any of the things that we are dealing with here today.

In fact, what we are trying to do, this new Democratic majority in this House of Representatives and in the Senate as well, what we are trying to do is to rebalance the budget because in the several terms that my good friend from Texas, the sponsor of this amendment has been part of, we have increased the national debt by a huge amount of money. We have almost doubled the national debt while he was in the majority party and voting for all of those things that brought about that increase in the national debt, almost doubling it.

He has been responsible, along with some others, really placing future generations deeply, deeply in debt.

He talks about the need to be responsible in the way we provide Federal financing for issues across the country. I would simply remind the sponsor of this amendment that on a per capita basis, far more Federal money goes into the State of Texas than goes into the State of New York, for example.

So with that fact in mind, if he was really sincere and serious about what he is saying, then he would be recommending that the people in his district reject the Federal funding that they are receiving. I don't advise him to do that, but I do advise him to be more serious, be more sincere, be more knowledgeable and understanding about your responsibilities here, the kinds of things that we are obliged to do, particularly in the context of the way we are authorized under the Constitution to provide for the people of this country. To spend the money appropriately, intelligently, doing good things for all of the people.

Mr. Tiahrt understands that. It is quite clear in the way that he has helped put this bill together. And, of course, Mr. Dicks understands it very well. And we understand it, too. That is why we are going to be supporting this bill very enthusiastically and why I ask everyone here to reject this amendment from our friend from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for putting together a very fine bill.

However, what we want to do is oppose a certain part of this, denying funding for monopolistic corporations to impede upon States rights and people's private personal proper rights. It's an important amendment and I ask everyone to consider it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Visclosky, not just for his excellent work in putting this appropriations bill together, but also for yielding me this time.

It's important for every Member of this House to focus their attention on what is happening here and what we are trying to do.

What we are dealing with here in the context of this appropriations bill, which, if this amendment is successful, will function out there for only 1 year, what we are attempting to deal with is an obscure provision in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which hardly any Member of this House, I bet, understood when that bill was passed because of the obscurity of this provision.

What does this provision do? This provision tramples on States rights. It says if any State, any State in the Nation is unable to agree to a location for a high-tension transmission line, or if they stipulate that certain corrections have to be made, if that takes more than 1 year, which it would in almost every case, then the Federal Energy Agency steps in and they designate where the corridor will go, overriding States rights. I believe that this provision is contrary to a very significant provision in the United States Constitution, and this provision overrides States rights. That alone is good reason to vote for this amendment.

But beyond that, that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which this amendment would stop in its tracks for just 1 year so that we could give it further consideration, that provision stipulates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can exercise eminent domain on people's private personal property. That means that FERC can condemn anyone's private personal property in order to establish one of these high-tension transmission corridors. That in itself is bad enough.

But that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 goes even further. It says that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, can grant that power of condemnation of individual citizens' private personal property rights to a private corporation so that the private corporation can now go in and declare eminent domain and condemn people's private personal property.

This provision in this Energy Policy Act overrides States rights and the individual rights of private American citizens. It was put in there inappropriately. Hardly anybody was aware of it when that bill passed. Many of us voted against it nevertheless. Still, it is part of the law.

What we are saying here in this amendment to this appropriations bill is give us another year to look at this issue. Let this issue be considered more carefully. We should not have this kind of impediment against States rights and people's private personal property rights.

I ask you, on behalf of all of your constituents, please join us in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, we all realize that it is the responsibility of every Congress to ensure that the current administration adheres to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Most of us understand how this administration used the policy office within the Pentagon to falsify intelligence and to provide the Congress with false information in an attempt to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous military occupation which has been going on there now for more than 4 years.

This amendment makes perfect sense. It simply ensures that kind of behavior by this administration is not extended now into another country in the Middle East, Iran, based upon the same falsification of information and failure to adhere to its obligations under the Constitution.

This amendment must be passed. It makes perfect sense, and it ensures the security of our country and makes sure that our military personnel are not exposed to the kinds of danger that they have been exposed to as a result of the falsification of intelligence by this administration. Let's pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from California for raising this issue, which I think is very important.

We are now confronting a situation in Iraq where the number of our military personnel who have been killed is approaching 3,400. Tens of thousands of others have been physically wounded, many of them very seriously. A good number of those deaths and wounds may be attributed to the lack of proper equipment.

We went into that situation, this administration sent our military forces into that circumstance there, without properly preparing for what they had to confront. In fact, they didn't have any idea what they were likely to confront. Many of the issues are that we have not developed the kinds of protection, the kinds of equipment, including transportation equipment and personal protection equipment, a whole host of things that are relevant to this situation, while we spend billions of dollars on materials that may have been necessary during the Cold War but which are no longer necessary now.

We need what this amendment calls for, a re-evaluation of those military activities and equipment, and this is a very simple thing, and it should be done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Kenneth Lindsay, a most remarkable and distinguished constituent of mine. Mr. Lindsay is one of about a dozen living members of the Monument Men, who worked to save tens of thousands of works of art during World War II. Mr. Lindsay is also a Binghamton University Professor Emeritus of Art History where he chaired the Art History Department for 17 years.

Mr. Lindsay's love of art and art history first developed while he was a student at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He signed up with the Army's Signal Corps and was preparing to go overseas in 1942. Catching scarlet fever delayed his deployment, but it resulted in his eventual assignment to the Monument Men after Victory in Europe Day in 1945. Mr. Lindsay first served as a technical corporal in London and was later sent to Omaha Beach.

Following V-E Day, the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Section of the U.S. Army, whose members were nicknamed the Monument Men, worked to save and preserve works of art that had been seized during the Nazi rule of Germany. Mr. Lindsay was assigned to the Monument Men in Wiesbaden, Germany in 1945. He personally handled some of Europe's most valuable works of art. A noted piece that passed through Mr. Lindsay's hands is the Holy Crown of Hungary, one of the most famous crowns of the Middle Ages. One of the most memorable pieces that he processed was a statue of the Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, which was stolen by the Germans in 1912.

Wars present perilous challenges for art, and the art world is indeed fortunate that Mr. Lindsay was available to help put the pieces back together in post-war Germany. Without the dedicated work from men such as Mr. Lindsay, a large amount of the world's culture would have been lost. Mr. Lindsay's work in World War II and as a teacher of art history has given future generations the opportunity to enjoy history and the rich cultures across the world.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to salute Professor Emeritus Kenneth Lindsay for his dedication in the Army and as a teacher. He has left his unique mark on his students, peers, and the art community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce of Broome County, New York, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. This Chamber is a truly dynamic organization that has shown a remarkable ability to grow, adapt, and succeed over the course of its one-hundred year history and it remains a driving force for economic growth. It gives me great pleasure to recognize the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce at its centennial anniversary.

The Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce serves a region with a rich history in industrial innovation and commerce, a history that stretches back to its founding father and namesake, the Englishman William Bingham, an eminent merchant and banker based in Philadelphia. By the time of the Chamber's establishment, Binghamton and Broome County had risen to become a national manufacturing and commercial force, producing everything from wagons and furniture to cigars and ``medicine.'' In the twentieth century, the region became known as the Valley of Innovation and produced industrial giants such as IBM, Link Aviation, and the Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company. While these large employers contributed greatly to the growth and prosperity of the region, they were mostly memories by the dawn of the twenty-first century. The loss of certain large employers meant new challenges for Broome County and new opportunities for the local chamber of commerce.

The Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce has played an essential role in helping local businesses adapt to an ever-changing business climate. With nearly 1,000 members representing 50,000 employees, the Chamber boasts a broad and diverse membership that spans the entire county. The Chamber uses its influence wisely, successfully partnering with community leaders, playing a key role in developing and implementing strategies to grow the local economy, and always working to make Broome County a destination for people to live, work and raise families.

The work of the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce is an integral part of the region's history and an essential part of its future. I look forward to many more opportunities for partnering with this dynamic organization and celebrating the continuing success story that is the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce.