Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am excited at my colleague's renewed interest in the Constitution. This is a good day for this House and this country, but I can't think of a bill and provisions that have been more misrepresented than what happens in this Patriot Act extension. And, A, I think they make all the arguments in the world why we don't make this permanent: Let's give this an extension so you have time to talk about it. But there is an inescapable fact at hand: By the end of this month, these provisions will expire.

There are agents in law enforcement and our intelligence community who are preparing briefs to go to the court, the FISA court, to use these provisions. They will not be able to do it on March 1. Why would we let that happen? Let me give you a great example.

I used to be an FBI agent. I worked organized crime. When they were involved in drugs, we went out. We built a case. We did a brief. We took it to the judge and we got a court order to do whatever, roving wiretaps. Yes, before this bill, roving wiretaps. Why? Because they would use different phones to conceal the criminality of their efforts.

Well, guess what? We have that happening now with terrorists. They go and buy a thousand--a thousand phones that you buy that are already preprogrammed. They will use it for one call and throw it away.

What you are saying is we don't care that somehow it's okay for you to go after a drug dealer, a Mafia don who uses his brother-in-law's phone, but you don't want to use this provision to go after a terrorist who is trying to hide their identity and their conversations and their contents to build a radiological bomb. It's ludicrous. Why would we do that to ourselves? And make no mistake; you are putting Americans in danger when you let this expire.

On the roving wiretap, the FBI Director today said, in an open hearing, less than 500 times it has even been used. It is hard to get a wiretap. But what you are saying is, after March 1, well, we can continue to do it for a drug dealer, but you can't go to the FISA court and get a wiretap on a terrorist who is using these phones for God knows what. Why would we do that to ourselves? Why would we jeopardize American safety?

When it comes to business records, at the New York Times, if you got him before he wanted to do his event, you could actually go to the hardware store and get those business records where he was buying materials to assemble a bomb, under the FISA court and Patriot Act. But what you are saying is we would rather wait until it explodes and kills thousands and thousands of people, and the FBI can go to the same hardware store and use a criminal subpoena to get the same records.

It makes no sense whatsoever that we would let this bill expire at the end of the month and jeopardize the safety and security of the United States.

When you look at the lone wolf provision, if you heard what the Director of the NCTC today and yesterday was talking about, that the most dangerous threat that we have is somebody like Awlaki from Yemen trying to radicalize an individual and get them to do something God awful, like The New York Times Square bomber, like the Christmas Day bomber, like the Hasan shooting at Fort Hood. That's their interest. If you take away the lone wolf provision and the government can't quite prove that they are a part of al Qaeda but we know they are doing something, you have handcuffed them to stop it before it happens.

One of the reasons that we don't have an attack here is because this act has been in place and they have used it judiciously. There have been no civil liberties violations, Mr. Speaker.

I urge this body's appreciation to pass this rule.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Jose F. Aliaga for his outstanding work as a civil servant in his home country of Peru and the United States of America.

Jose Aliaga first arrived in the United States to pursue a college education at the University of Michigan, where he recently earned his diploma this past December. As a political science major, Mr. Aliaga learned about the democratic process in America and looked for ways to use this knowledge to strengthen the diplomatic and economic relationship between Peru and the United States. He worked to promote trade between America and Peru and led one of the first trade missions from the United States prior to the Free Trade Agreement.

In addition to his diplomatic work, Jose Aliaga has continued to further his role as a leader to children in Latin America. He founded the Aliaga Foundation to provide impoverished children in the jungle of Peru with books, pencils, food and medicine and continues to foster positive relations between the United States and Peru by promoting student exchanges between universities.

Today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jose F. Aliaga. I commend Mr. Aliaga on his dedication to strengthening ties between America and Peru. He is to be applauded for his continuous contribution to the lives of children in Latin America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sylvia L. Warner for her outstanding service to the people of Michigan's Eighth Congressional District.

Ms. Warner was born and raised in Roanoke, Virginia. After graduating from Jefferson Senior High School, she began her career in journalism at the Belding Banner where she worked from 1969 through 1973. In her dual role as photographer and reporter, she covered local news in Michigan's Ionia County. It was during this time that she developed her passion for journalism and honed many of her reporting talents.

After leaving the Belding Banner in 1973, she joined The Daily News in Greenville, Michigan. Ms. Warner was promoted through the ranks at the paper where she held several positions. She began as the local reporter for the Family Living Section, then the Managing Editor ending her career with the paper as the Editor. Ms. Warner was instrumental in managing a 10 member staff of reporters and photographers. After 20 years of editorial work focusing on local news and events, Ms. Warner left the publication to pursue other interests.

In 1993, Ms. Warner moved to Lansing, Michigan, and combined her editorial expertise with her passion for politics. She joined the Michigan House Majority Communications Office as a Communications Specialist. Her experience with local and community communications proved to be invaluable to the freshmen House members she was assigned to assist. In 1997, Ms. Warner joined the Michigan Senate Majority Communications Office as Senior Writer and Media Specialist. She was tasked with coordinating special media events and supervising junior writers.

In 1999, I was honored to have Ms. Warner join my Senate Majority Floor Leadership office. She quickly became an invaluable member of my staff. With Ms. Warner's experience and guidance, my ability to communicate and work with media was dramatically improved.

In 2000, when I decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, I enlisted Ms. Warner's expertise to serve as my press secretary. With the guidance of a talented team I became the U.S. Representative to Michigan's Eighth Congressional District. This would not have been possible without the years of experience, guidance and faith of such talented people like Ms. Warner.

Since my first congressional race, Ms. Warner has served as an exceptional Press Secretary and has been a cornerstone of my team. After many years of dedicated service, she has decided to move to Michigan to be closer to her children, grandchildren and great grandchild.

I, along with the constituents of Michigan's Eighth District, owe Sylvia Warner a debt of gratitude for her unwavering commitment to public and civic service throughout the years. She will be greatly missed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sylvia L. Warner for her service and wish her the best in her retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Marine, Master Gunnery Sergeant Scot T. Morefield.

Master Gunnery Sergeant Morefield enlisted in the Marine Corps on November 9, 1978 at age 17. On June 30, 2010, he retired after 30 years of honorable service to the Marine Corps, and to our country.

His military career began after graduating from recruit training and infantry training school he attended aviation structures school, finishing as the academic honor graduate. MGySgt. Morefield was then assigned to an A-4 Skyhawk squadron where he served from 1980 to 1983. During that time he made numerous deployments to Asia. In 1983 he received an honorable discharge.

After briefly working for Lentini Aviation in Troy, Michigan, and Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA, he started his own construction company.

In 1987, while still running his construction business, MGySgt. Morefield re-enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves as a Combat Engineer. He graduated the Combat Engineer School at Camp Lejeune in 1990 as the academic honor graduate.

In 1991, he received orders to return to Michigan where he continued his service assignment as a Marine Corps recruiter and a Staff Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of two Lansing, Michigan substations. Notably, he served at various times as both the Recruiter Instructor and the Operations Chief for the Lansing station before his retirement this June.

Master Gunnery Sergeant Scot Morefield's personal awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Gold Star.

I am proud to rise today to celebrate this Marine's service and commitment to our country. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking MGySgt. Morefield for his devotion to our mutual cause of national defense and wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a little bit of hope that we may have a great awakening in this body of what has been an assault on the manufacturing community of this great country.

We have lost over 2 million manufacturing jobs in the last 2 years. Chinese currency manipulation is directly responsible for a quarter of those job losses. According to the Economic Policy Institute, China's currency policy has destroyed almost 5,000 jobs just in my district alone. Part of the 68,000 jobs, China has destroyed in Michigan.

It is part of a larger pattern.

There are 25,000 auto manufacturing jobs which have been lost in Detroit because of Chinese theft of intellectual property. The currency manipulation bill before you has been a long effort, an effort to understand that, when they cheat in the market, they steal American jobs. We welcome their rise in the economy. We hope that we can sell them cars and goods, but we can no longer stand by and let the Chinese Government and other governments manipulate their currencies and do other things that give them unfair competitive advantages against American workers. Given the chance to compete, we will absolutely win that fight. They know it. That's why they cheat to steal our jobs.

You know, around this body, unfortunately, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to hate success--with taxation to our companies and heavy regulation, which will add huge, unknown quantities into this economy, and with a health care bill that absolutely destroys innovation and that absolutely raises the costs of a small business owner in this country.

The cap-and-trade bill that will add so much uncertainty, one of the highest energy tax increases in the history of this country, looms over the business community--with tax increases set to take effect December 31 of this year. If you hire somebody in December of this year at about $40,000, the employer has to generate about $55,000 of income just to pay for that one employee. You know what? In January of next year, we have no idea what those costs are going to be. That's why businesses aren't hiring.

So this step, this recognition, is to say that we have got to stop borrowing money from the Chinese so that we can impact our ability to help stop this currency manipulation that we know creates an unfair competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers.

I hope, again, that this is this first small step in the recognition that it is not about big programs here and about lots more spending and lots more borrowing and lots more regulation that is going to make America prosperous. It is about getting the playing field equal, and it is about getting out of the way of our businesses and manufacturers around this great country, and it is about letting them do what they do best--innovate, hire people, create wealth, create prosperity. We have to stop hating success in this country because, if we continue it, you will start to hate America.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate has been a decade in the making. While this Congress and administrations of both parties fiddled, American manufacturing burned.

Michigan workers make an average of $12,000 a year less than they did just a decade ago. Our trade deficit has skyrocketed, with manufacturing goods deficit up 3,000 percent. It is no accident and it is no coincidence. Chinese currency manipulation is the driving force behind this destruction.

Chinese currency is at least 25 percent below where it should be, making their goods cheap and destroying our manufacturing base.

In Michigan alone, Chinese currency manipulation has destroyed some 68,000 jobs in Michigan. In my district, some 4,500 jobs are gone because this Congress and both the Bush and the Obama administrations have refused to do anything but talk on Chinese currency manipulation.

Today's vote is a tough, first step toward fair trade with China. Fair trade and the livelihood of Michigan workers finally lets them compete on a level playing field with the start and the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I too want to extend my thanks and gratitude on behalf of a grateful Nation for the work and service behind closed doors, with the microphones and the cameras gone, that the gentleman from Michigan has given to the Intelligence Committee and the intelligence community, and his efforts to continue to fight for policy that keeps Americans safe.

Sir, I know America won't know of most of it, but please know that those of us that do have your back for the work that you've done. Thank you very, very much.

The face of terrorism is changing, and it's changing in a very rapid way. Years ago we sat down and we asked our intelligence officials to do very hard things. We said to go to dangerous places and talk to dangerous people, find out the information that we need, identify those who have done horrible things to this country, and help us bring them to justice.

It was the President of the United States at the time, George Bush. It was Nancy Pelosi who was sitting in the meetings, the intelligence meetings who said, Yes, that's the right policy. That's the right thing to do. And the battlefield has changed. It isn't just overseas anymore, where we write songs about our soldiers leaving the shores of the United States. The battlefield has come to us. It has killed U.S. citizens, and they attempt again and again to do that.

This bill is a disappointment. This bill is really offensive. This is a 2010 bill that will be practically irrelevant tomorrow. We are passing a bill that will be almost irrelevant tomorrow. There is no classified annex. You can't call this an intelligence bill that sets us on the right path with no classified annex. How can we congratulate ourselves for this?

There is more political cover in this bill than there is cover for the United States to go aggressively and pursue terrorism around the world. This bill protects the Speaker of the House, but it doesn't protect the CIA officers that all of us ask to do dangerous work around the world. Instead, they have to get lawyers and answer questions, the Department of Justice, after the President and this Congress said, Go do this for your country, for our safety, for our future. That's a slap in the face for the very people we have asked to risk their lives. They're not supposed to be facing a subpoena. They should be facing a crowd of cheering Americans saying, Thank you for your service in the difficult times this country faces in the war on terror. That is abandoned in this bill.

Tomorrow we are going to allow Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the U.S. That provision is not in the bill. We all unified, said, This is a bad idea. Don't bring the best trained terrorists to the United States. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, That's an awful idea. And Americans say, Don't do it. There's a better way. This bill rejects that notion and goes to the very heart of why Americans are concerned about the direction of how we pursue terrorism in these days and in the days ahead.

It now treats foreign terrorists committing acts of terrorism against the United States with the same benefits as a United States citizen. What? Most Americans, the average Americans know you don't do that. They are enemy combatants. The battlefield might not be in Afghanistan. It might be on the seat of an airplane coming to the United States of America. The battlefield is no different because the results of death and terrorism and mayhem are the same.

We reject that in this bill and say, You know what, we are turning the page. We are going to treat those enemy combatants, those foreign terrorists, with all the benefits of a citizen of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I hope that we can shake ourselves out of this notion that we are going to take the war on terror and treat it like a law enforcement event. It slows things down. We had that fight, but this bill goes even further. It says that we don't care what Americans believe will keep us safe, and we care more about the politics of what's going on today than we do the policies of terrorists who seek to do us harm. This is not the direction that we need. I would strongly urge this body's rejection and let's get about the work of a 2011 budget that can serve to protect the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Mrs. Joyce Rogers.

A long-time Brighton, Michigan, resident until her passing late last year, Joyce Rogers was a tireless public servant, devoting much of her time to the betterment and economic development of the Brighton community. As executive director of the Greater Brighton Area Chamber of Commerce, Joyce Rogers played an integral role in rebuilding the business organization into the area's most important political and business networking organization. Through her efforts, Brighton was able to transform into a thriving business community, attracting new residents and customers to the area. Joyce Rogers was a pioneer in Michigan, forging the way for what we know today as economic development.

In addition to her work as a small business advocate, Joyce Rogers always remembered her role as a woman leader, taking time to serve her community by acting as a mentor to Brighton business women. Joyce Rogers not only supported women in small business, but also encouraged them to become involved in public service and politics in the Brighton community.

Joyce raised 5 successful sons, was an active participant in area charities, touched countless lives and helped change our community for the better. She lived every day believing that you could make a difference through hard work, respecting others and believing if you set your mind to it you could accomplish it. She was a leader in every aspect of her life and leaves a strong legacy of accomplishment and kindness to others. She is to be commended for her contribution to her family, her community and to the State of Michigan.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her help and support, and I also want to thank Mr. Dingell from Michigan. It's great to know that leadership and statesmanship is still alive in the people's House here in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, we have been lucky, lucky over the skies of Detroit, lucky in Times Square, but we will not be lucky forever. We need to be proactive in our ability to gather intelligence and prevent terrorist attacks before they even get started. Catching somebody on the plane going back to Pakistan after they have delivered an explosive device is not success; it's failure. Catching them when they are on the plane in Pakistan coming to the United States would be an intelligence success.

Prevention means speed and agility. Prosecution means slow and methodical. Both have their place. But when we are trying to protect the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, we need to be quick and agile and move quickly and use every bit of intelligence we can get from a detainee before we move into the prosecution phase.

Unfortunately, the majority did not allow that to happen. We said, Listen, when somebody comes into detention, every bit of actionable intelligence should be exhausted before they are turned over to the Department of Justice to have their Miranda rights read. It's a simple amendment. It's an honest amendment. It's an amendment that will keep us safe. They tell you, Well, we already have that prohibition against soldiers reading Miranda rights on the battlefield. So what? They don't read Miranda rights on the battlefield, but Federal law enforcement agents do. And that's what's happening.

We are losing valuable information. And, predictably, these detainees are starting to say, Well, listen, if you are saying I don't have to talk until you provide me a lawyer, guess what, I won't. And equally predictably, guess what, we have had more almost successful attacks. And if we are counting on a t-shirt guy in Times Square to solve our terrorist problem, or the guy that's checking your luggage at the airport to catch that terrorist before they get on the plane, or the gate guard at a military base, we are going to lose.

This is about common sense. We should reject this rule. It has denied our ability for our intelligence agencies to get the information from detainees that will save lives. Again, I urge the rejection of this rule.

Thank you, Mr. Lynch, for your help and cooperation--it goes to show you what good things we can do when we work together in this Chamber--to really stand up for the families of the fallen.

You know, the folks who are killed in the line of duty come from all walks of life and from every corner of our country, and they sign up for law enforcement, Federal law enforcement because they believe in a purpose higher than themselves. And they consistently, day in and day out, Mr. Speaker, put their lives on the line for the same rule of law that we enjoy in every ounce of every community.

And these are the rare and sad cases where these agents or patrol officers with the CBP have given their lives in defense of that law and liberty in communities across the United States.

But there's also another set of victims there, and it is the family members who have sacrificed with them and packed up their families and come a long way away from where they grew up and where their family is to help build a support network for those agents and officers who are serving so proudly the United States of America. And due to a glitch-- and it was just that, a simple glitch--that if an FBI agent was killed in the line of duty overseas, their family could be relocated back. But if they moved from Maine to California, the family was stuck with the expense and the hazard and the hardship of getting home.

This is really a small step to say ``thank you'' for the service and sacrifice for the men and women who wear the badge of the people of the United States of America, and a small statement to them that we care, we have not forgotten, and we thank you every day for your service and sacrifice to this great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding educator, Mrs. Nancy Egbert.

Since the very beginning of her teaching career, Nancy Egbert demonstrated skill, leadership, and a unique ability to positively impact the children fortunate enough to be in her classroom. After graduating from Northern Michigan University in 1967 with a B.S. in education, she established herself as a versatile educator, teaching subjects ranging from journalism and business education at the high school level to reading, math and social studies to elementary school students. In 1984, Nancy Egbert tallied another achievement to her resume when she obtained a certification in elementary education from Michigan State University.

In 1986 she was hired at St. Gerard's, a Catholic school in Lansing, as a second grade teacher, where she has served since. Her subsequent twenty-five year commitment to molding young minds during their most formative stage is in itself a testimony to her passion and commitment to high-quality religious education. It is in no small part thanks to her hard work that St. Gerard's has won the prestigious Michigan non- public school accrediting association (MNSAA) award for excellence for 2009-2010.

Throughout her time as an educator in Michigan, she has helped shape countless young lives, serving as a role model and leader in religious education. I commend Nancy Egbert on her dedication to education and her students. She is to be applauded for her continuous contribution to the state of Michigan and the lives of our children.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to East Lansing High School and in particular the East Lansing High School girl's basketball team. On March 20, 2010 the Trojans won the Michigan Class A state championship. This victory capped an outstanding season as the Trojans completed a 27-1 season.

Madam Speaker, these extraordinary young women deserve special recognition not only for their success on the basketball court, but also for their excellent work in the classroom. Congratulations to Head Coach Robert Smith and players Natalie Rose Brogan, Hannah Fitzpatrick, Malika Glover, Zakiya Minifee, Kelsey Deshambo, Kaitlin Lapka, Klarissa Bell, Shayna Allen, Alex Trecha, Alex Green, Libby Meyer, and Gracie Whelan.

I ask that the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the East Lansing Trojan's on their state championship and I wish all of these young ladies luck in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, if this bill is so great, why the deception? The lying, the stealing, the cheating? I have never seen such behavior in my entire time in politics. ``If you like your health care, you can keep it.'' Not true, if you read the bill. Ten years of taxes, 6 years of services, if you read the bill. They steal money from the Social Security trust fund and cut $500 billion from Medicare.

And not only that, Madam Speaker, but this pits one American against another in the cost of health care for the first time in our history. If you're a Florida senior citizen, you get to keep your Medicare Advantage. If you're from the other 49 States, you do not. And there is dirty deal after dirty deal after dirty deal in the bill that this House will vote on. It is a disgrace. It's wrong. America deserves better.

I commend Madeleine Bordallo on the work on this bill, and it does sadden many of us that we have to come here today and talk about an issue that is so pressing, an issue that affects 310 million Americans. And it's hard to find that time to get out and talk about that issue that will take away health care from millions, that will tax health care for millions, that will raid the Social Security trust fund, that will actually cut a half a trillion dollars out of the Medicare budget. But there are things in this bill that I think the other side does not want to talk about that is in here, and that is exactly why we feel compelled to come here to offer amendments at the Rules Committee to get this thing at least where the American people can have some faith that you're going to have an honest debate.

The number of sweetheart and sleazy deals in this bill, the bill that this Chamber will vote on tomorrow, is sickening. It pits one American against another American. It pits one neighbor against another neighbor, and it happens time and time and time again in your legislation.

If you're a retired UAW worker living next door to a retired tool and die machinist, guess what? There is a special provision where you get offsets for the increase in your premiums for a UAW worker but the tool and die machinists get nothing except a higher tax bill. It's wrong. It was a special provision tucked in this bill.

If you're a senior citizen in Florida, there is a special provision that says your Medicare Advantage stays intact, but if you're a senior citizen living in Ohio or New York or Michigan, guess what? Not for you. You get treated differently. You lose your Medicare Advantage. It's wrong. It's sleazy. It's un-American.

If you're a UAW worker in Michigan, you're going to get a higher tax on your insurance plan. If you're a longshoreman in New York City, you don't pay the higher tax on your insurance plan. It's unseemly, sleazy, and it's wrong.

These are provisions tucked into this bill we can only assume to get to the magic number to pass on this floor.

You know, if you're a banker in Michigan, you no longer, after this bill is passed, will be able to make a private student loan. That is right. But if you're a banker from North Dakota, guess what? You will get to make a private student loan. It's un-American. And each and every one of these sleazy deals ought to be brought to this floor and eliminated from this bill.

We will have that opportunity in Rules Committee. We will see the commitment of this Chamber to be honest and transparent, not to mention the fact that we will stop the Social Security raid to pay for a bill that adds a trillion dollars to the deficit.

And do you realize, Madam Speaker, why the impact of this is so important? Because this administration has had more deficit spending than every other President of the United States combined. It is shocking and it's breathtaking, and the arrogance of this Chamber to bring such an un-American bill with special sweetheart, sleazy deals tucked in and arm-twisting to make it happen is wrong.

I know that the soldiers I served with fought for a unified country, a country that believed in liberty and personal responsibility and limited government. I know that today we ought to stand for that, too, and we ought to ask all of this to come to light and put those amendments as a part of the bill and clean up our act in Congress.

Finally, some spirited debate on an issue that will impact 310 million Americans. The problem with your anecdotal stories is, you are going to say that 85 percent of the system that is working right and having insurance are going to be punished and rationed in health care to fix the 15 percent. That's the travesty. You won't have one tough guy crying; you will have millions and millions of Americans crying for losing their health care.

And on the deficit, to set it straight, the year prior to the Democrats taking over control of this Congress it was a $270 billion deficit. The year leading up to their takeover of this Chamber, $160 billion. And guess what? The very next year, $1.4 trillion. That's your problem. That's your plan. You need to deal with the facts.