Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, because the Constitution vests the authority to declare war in the Congress, I oppose the administration's decision to dispatch American troops into hostilities in Libya without coming here first. I think that was an error. But because I take those constitutional obligations very seriously and because each of us should take them very seriously, I oppose this rule and the underlying resolution from Speaker Boehner.

I find it ironic that, at a time when the institution is trying to assert its rightful constitutional place, the Speaker has proposed a resolution which is wholly ineffective and purely symbolic. This resolution pursues a gravely important objective in a rather frivolous and ineffective way.

If we believe that the conduct of a military operation is inappropriate for the country, there are tools available to us under the Constitution. Each one of those tools, whether it involves ceasing appropriations or involves other types of remedies, requires the consent of both the House and the Senate. To be effective, we must be bicameral. And to be bicameral, we have to put a resolution on the floor, the passage of which would lead to consideration by the Senate. The Boehner resolution, by its own terms, does not do that.

So the question the Members ought to be asking themselves here, whether they are for or against the incursion in Libya, whether they think it should cease or continue, is: What is the effect of passing the Boehner resolution?

As a practical and legal matter, the effect is nothing--nothing. All of the items the President would be directed to do, any of the steps the President would be prohibited from taking are meaningless if the Boehner resolution passes because the Boehner resolution does not contemplate being considered by the Senate.

So I would offer this to Members, that if they are looking for a resolution that, in fact, has effect and meaning, Mr. Kucinich's resolution has real effect and meaning because it is a due exercise of the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The Speaker's resolution, which I take certainly in good faith, has none of that effectiveness and none of that practical consequence. So I would urge

a ``no'' vote on the rule precisely because of the principle of congressional authority.

If you believe that we should exercise our constitutional authority, then let's really exercise it. Let's put something before the body that has real and practical meaning.

I would urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill would be improved by an amendment similar to that which Ms. Eshoo just offered, and here's why. Justice Brandeis said sunlight is the great antiseptic of democracy, and we have followed his teaching to a great extent in conducting our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, you and I and every other Member on this floor must disclose every dollar we raise and every dollar we spend in the pursuit of our politics, so must the National Republican Campaign Committee, so must the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, so must people running for the United States Senate and for the Office of Presidency. And I think our democracy is strengthened by this.

Now, we have a disagreement over whether there should be limitations on what people may spend. I, frankly, believe that limitations are appropriate, but I know that some of our colleagues who follow the libertarian principle believe that limitations on what someone may spend is a violation of someone's right of free speech. I respectfully disagree, but I understand it. There should be no disagreement, though, over a universal requirement to disclose who has spent what.

If you're proud of what you say, then you ought to let people know who it was that said it. But instead we have, as my friend from California said, a dark corner of American politics where people who wish to manipulate the outcome of elections and influence legislation have a special privilege that Republicans and Democrats in this House do not have, that Members of the Senate do not have, that the Presidential candidates do not have. They can say what they want to say but not say who they are. They can hide behind corporate veils and within corporate shadows to fail to disclose who they are. Now, I find this to be puzzling.

I think the Members of this House are proud of what we say. I think the Members of this House want the public to know whom we support and whom we oppose because we believe in what we say. Who are these people who want to spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars to influence elections but are afraid the public will find out who they are? And why should they enjoy this special privilege?

So I think we do need an amendment like that that Ms. Eshoo put forward that says that if you want the privilege of doing business with the United States Government, then one of the conditions is to participate in a healthy democracy that runs that United States Government. And that healthy democracy would include a requirement that people winning business with our government meet the same level of disclosure that every single one of us does.

I'm proud of the things that my party and my friends say on the floor; and I'm, frankly, proud of what our adversaries say on the floor because they believe in good faith that what they say is right for the country. And they

don't hide a thing--maybe the public thinks we should hide sometimes when we say the things we do, but we don't hide a thing. Why should there be a special class of Americans who have the prerogative of free speech, but not the obligation to identify themselves when they speak?

This is an insipid, insidious threat to the free exchange of ideas. We should use every tool within our constitutional purview to stop this threat. I think Ms. Eshoo has a great idea, and I hope that under a truly open rule the day will come when we can consider her idea.

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

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Speaker, for years, working Americans, paycheck after paycheck, week after week, have paid taxes into the Medicare trust fund. And after they paid those taxes, this country made a promise to them that Medicare's guaranteed benefits would be there for them for the rest of their life. The issue before the House today is whether we honor or dishonor that promise.

The Republican plan to abandon Medicare abandons those guaranteed benefits. The Republican plan to abandon Medicare says that rather than seniors and their doctors deciding what care the seniors should get, private health insurance companies make that decision.

Part of the promise of Medicare was that health care would be reasonably affordable to our seniors and retirees. The Republican plan to abandon Medicare violates that promise. It raises the out-of-pocket cost of health care for our seniors by $6,000 a year.

We agree that Medicare needs improvement and that Medicare outlays need to be restrained. That's why we support giving the Medicare administration the same authority to negotiate prescription drug prices that the VA has, instead of just paying whatever the drug companies demand.

The issue in this vote is not simply the value of Medicare; the issue in this vote is whether Americans can value the promise that we made to them in the future. Vote against this rule; vote to honor the promise of Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, if the Treasury had a dollar for every time someone says they want to cut the deficit, we wouldn't have one. So let's stop talking about cutting the deficit and talk about how we can cut the deficit.

Let's let Medicare negotiate the price of prescription drugs, rather than pay whatever the drug companies demand, and save $300 billion over 10 years.

Let's stop occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and paying their bills, to the tune of $110 billion a year, and bring the troops home.

Let's stop giving $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that made record profits last year.

Let's require people who make more than $1 million a year to pay just a little bit more to help reduce this problem.

And let's have sensible reductions in other departments of government.

This is not a time for us to be providing cover to a political party. It is a time for us to cover the obligations to our seniors, not by abolishing Medicare but by improving it, to cover obligations to our veterans, and cover obligations to the country. We will come back in a couple of weeks and do what we should be doing tonight, which is to raise this debt ceiling and protect this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donald G. Ley Sr. for his five decades of service with the Woodbury Heights Fire Department. Currently serving as Fire Marshal and Safety Officer for the borough of Woodbury Heights, Mr. Ley is an inspirational example of American courage and heroism.

Some aspire to retire young from their profession, but not Mr. Ley. At seventy-nine, Mr. Ley is still a firefighter. You will find him at the Woodbury firehouse any time throughout the day. A graduate of Drexel University, Mr. Ley found his calling in serving his community and country. As an Army veteran of the Korean War, Mr. Ley returned to the United States a decorated veteran and continued his tireless public service.

In the Woodbury Heights Fire Department, Mr. Ley fought for the donation of an ambulance to begin emergency life support service in the 1960s. He has held several positions within the company, including assistant chief, deputy chief, safety officer, fire marshal and secretary for relief associations. His public service record includes time as a disaster volunteer with the Red Cross and Mayor of Woodbury Heights.

Over the years, Mr. Ley has been given several awards to recognize his consistent contributions to our community. The awards include the Jaycees Distinguished Service Award, the Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition and Distinguished Citizen Award, the Exceptional Duty Award in Gloucester County Fire Chiefs Association, the Unsung Hero Award--Russell Berrie Foundation and the Lifetime of Service Presidential Award.

It takes tremendous valor to run into a burning building while everyone else is running out. As he begins his fifty-second year at Woodbury Heights Fire Department, let us take a moment to honor the dedication, professionalism and bravery Don demonstrates every day. The core values we aspire to teach our children are all exemplified by his courage and selflessness.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the majority and the minority for working together for a robust process that we had, but I am concerned about two deficiencies in the process, one the gentlelady from Guam will speak to momentarily. I think it's really a travesty that she is not able to present an idea this House has considered many times as part of this bill. And I hope that would be reconsidered.

Secondly, we have all said forever that we agree that there is a problem that has to be fixed for people who served our country in uniform. And here is what happens. You have a person who is very seriously injured in the line of duty in the military, and they retire and they would get disability pay for their injury. Let's say they have been deafened by a bomb going off near them, and they are very, very ill or disabled, and they qualify for disability pay. They also qualify for a regular military pension.

I think most of us on this floor would say, most people in the country would say they should get both. If you are injured in the line of duty and you are severely disabled as a result, you should get both your disability pay and your regular pension. And for years people on both sides have said they want to do this. The problem has been it does in fact cost money. And there are a couple of other variations here. The widows and widowers of these servicemembers have the same problem with respect to their benefits. And then there is another problem where people who serve in the Reserve get credit toward earlier retirement, but they have to make it fit around the Federal fiscal year or they don't get it.

So we have people over in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been deprived of earlier retirement. They have been shot at the same as everybody else, but because they got shot at after October 1, it doesn't count. It's just a bizarre rule that ought to be fixed.

Now, we had an amendment in the Rules Committee that fixed, to a great extent, these three problems. And it had a way to pay for it which is controversial. It would take some of the Internet gaming that's going on and say, A, it's legal, and B, that the money from it should go to help these service personnel who were injured in the line of duty. Some people like this idea, some people don't. But I think it should have been brought to this floor so we could have a debate about it.

If you talk to any one of our Members, Mr. Speaker, I think he or she would tell you they are all for fixing this problem, but it has to be paid for. So we had a solution that fixed a large part of the problem and was paid for, would not result in an increase in the deficit, but it didn't find its way to the floor. I know the technicalities of it. But I really think the House should be given a chance to work its will on this question.

It's as simple as this: The guy who lost his hearing because a mortar shell went off next to him, should he have to choose between his disability pay and his regular retirement instead of getting both? I think he should get both. And I think the House should be able to work its will on that question. I would urge us to consider during this debate process making that possible.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I share my friend from Texas' goal, but I don't share his way of meeting that goal.

I certainly think that any uniformed person who reports something that they are reasonably suspicious of should be protected by the Whistleblower Act and should not have to worry about political correctness or any other standard, but I think that's already the law.

The whistleblower law that already exists frankly says if you blow the whistle on someone for doing something wrong, you are protected.

It is wrong to plan to shoot people on a military base or commit treason against the country, but it is not wrong to look a certain way or be a certain way or think a certain way. So I think that the whistleblower protection, as it exists, protects the situation that my friend from Texas wants to protect, and I believe we all want to protect.

So while I would share his objective in this matter, I think that this amendment is not necessary because present law solves that problem and protects that whistleblower.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I think there's universal agreement that we all want the finest quality education for all children and in this case for special needs children. I actually think that the effect of this amendment is to narrow educational opportunities for special needs children in the following way.

The provision sets up a $7,500 subsidy each year that the parents can choose to use as they see fit. That, I think, narrows the choices already available under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Presently, what happens if a servicemember family is located in a certain community and they have a special needs child, the school district in which that child resides is under a Federal legal obligation to provide the highest quality education, the least restrictive educational environment for that child. And if the parents disagree with the choice that is made by the school system, by the Child Study Team, they frankly have the right through Federal law to appeal it and change it.

So I think what actually happens here is that by limiting the level of financial support for these families, we are limiting the educational opportunities for the child; whereas the IDEA puts the force of Federal law behind the best outcome for that child. So I think we all want to accomplish the same thing. I respectfully believe the present law accomplishes that better than the amendment would, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

One of the questions, Mr. Chairman, that this body and the administration often face is whether a certain task is best performed by employees of the Department of Defense or whether that task is best performed by those working for contractors competing for the right to do that business.

There are two things I know about this issue. The first is that it is one we always debate because it's a very difficult one to resolve. And the second is that I don't think either answer is always the right one. I think any strategy that presupposes that having employees do a job isn't right and a strategy that presupposes having contractors do a job isn't right.

I think we've built a bipartisan consensus around the proposition that, on a case-by-case basis over time, we should collect evidence and decide whether or not a certain function is best performed by employees of the Department of Defense or whether it is best performed on a competitive contracted-out basis.

The purpose of my amendment is to address what I believe is an imbalance in this evidence-gathering process that goes under the name of an efficiency initiative.

I don't think there's a Member on this floor who would oppose an efficiency initiative. But efficiency is not something that presupposes that one answer is always better than the others. And I think the record shows that we're presently living under an initiative that presupposes that contracting out is better than having Federal employees perform that function.

Here's the evidence:

Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2010, Department of Defense services performed by contracting agencies--that is to say companies-- increased from $73 billion in fiscal 2001 to $181 billion in fiscal 2010. This is an increase of 147 percent, or about 15 percent per year. During the same period of time, the cost of compensating Department of Defense civilian employees

grew from $41 billion in fiscal 2001 to $69 billion in fiscal 2010, a 68 percent increase, or just under 7 percent per year.

Now, I am not prejudging as to whether the decisions that make up those aggregate numbers were all right or all wrong. That would be certainly beyond anyone's capability to do. But I think that kind of imbalance shows that we're not conducting the kind of careful, fact- driven, merit-driven evidentiary process that we ought to be following.

So here's what my amendment does. It says that when our bill is signed by the President, that there will be a 60-day period where there will just be a timeout, where we will stop the contracting-out process. We'll ask the Department of Defense, we'll direct the Department of Defense to do two things: to answer the question of whether the decisions it has been taking are truly based on the merits and cost benefit or whether there are other factors involved. It will then ask the Department of Defense to certify that the laws and procedures that we set up in the past to make such decisions have, in fact, been followed. At the conclusion of that 60-day period, reports will be given to the Armed Services Committee and the other defense committees of the Congress, and we will collectively review those reports and make a decision, in time for next year's bill, what to do.

So this is an amendment that does not favor contracting out or keeping work in the hands of Federal employees. This is an amendment that says that we should reflect on the fact that we've had a 147 percent increase in contracted-out services at the time we've had a 68 percent increase in the compensation of civilian employees. We should pause for 60 days after the bill is enacted, reflect the accuracy of that record, and then collectively make a decision for the future as to what's best for the country.

I think this is a reasonable approach to this issue. I would urge a ``yes'' vote from both Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend for yielding.

My objection, respectfully, to this amendment is it supplants the decision of the commander in the field with the judgment of the Congress. I frankly agree that there are very, very few circumstances I could imagine where we would not want our troops in the field to be fully armed to their complete comfort and satisfaction level. And so it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where that's not the case.

But it's easy for me to understand a circumstance where the person in the field who is charged with the responsibility of achieving the mission and achieving maximum protection of his or her troops should have the authority to make that decision.

So my objection to this is not the intent. I think we share it. My objection is the fact that the amendment supplants the judgment of that commander in the field and replaces it with the judgment we are making here thousands of miles away based on facts that we could not possibly foresee.

So although I share the gentleman's intent, for that reason I would respectfully encourage the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I assume we universally share the view that we want those who have committed acts of terrorism against innocent people be brought to justice. And we have entrusted that responsibility to prosecutors in the military, the Justice Department, and to our intelligence community. This amendment lets those prosecutors do their job unimpeded by judgments that we are making without all the facts.

If this amendment doesn't pass, the underlying bill says to those prosecutors, even if you think, as has been the case with over 400 other suspects convicted in Article 3 courts, that an Article 3 trial is the right thing to do, you may not do it. It says to those prosecutors, even if you think live testimony from a Guantanamo detainee in a criminal court in this country in someone else's trial will help you win a conviction, you may not do it. Even if you think that we could gain standing with allies by having such a person tried in another jurisdiction, it would achieve a better result for our country and for an alliance against terrorism, you may not make that choice.

Congress should set broad policy for our country. We should not Monday morning quarterback or backseat drive. By limiting the options of our prosecutors, I believe that's what we're doing, and we are risking the undesired and ironic result that will make it more difficult for those with whom we've entrusted this task to achieve the goal of bringing these people to justice.

Mr. Smith's amendment is well considered. It broadens the options of those prosecutors and, I think, hastens the day when those who deserve to be brought to justice will, in fact, be brought to justice.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on Mr. Smith's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I thank my friend for offering the amendment.

We are inclined to oppose the amendment on the following grounds: in 2005, Congress enacted the Sunken Military Craft Act and the principal purpose of that law was to preserve U.S. sovereignty and Department of Defense sovereignty over sunken vessels and abandoned aircraft and the like for strategic and economic purposes, and also to protect the remains and property of those who may have perished on those sunken vessels.

It's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial service. And although I think I understand the justification for that distinction, here is our concern with the consequence of that.

It is our understanding there is pending litigation between the nation of Spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to a sunken vessel that at least at one time--I suppose the time it was sunk--may have had some claim in the United States. I don't know if that is the case. Our concern is that by taking statutory action here, we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation or the process of that litigation.

I would yield to my friend, the author of the amendment, to ask if that is his intention.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's distinction makes sense. We have spoken to the Navy about this, and the Navy's objection is predicated upon its concern that there could be an impact on the litigation that is pending that I made reference to and possibly claims of other sovereign nations in similar situations.

So, reluctantly, we would be inclined to oppose the amendment, but obviously be willing to discuss with the gentleman as time goes forward ways that perhaps our concerns could be addressed. So for present purposes, we would be in opposition to the amendment for the reasons that I stated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, we support the authority of our President to relentlessly hunt down those who attacked us on 9/11 anywhere, at any time. But we do not support the right of this or any future President to wage war anywhere, at any time, and I believe that's what the underlying bill does.

The underlying bill says that you can engage in the current armed conflict against a nation that has substantially supported al Qaeda. There is a record that suggests that Iran has substantially supported al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't think the Members of this body think that we have the power to attack Iran without further congressional action.

There is evidence that Hezbollah has supported al Qaeda and similar organizations. I don't think the Members of this body think that we have the right to attack Lebanon and Hezbollah without further action of this Congress.

We should never relent in going after those who attacked us on 9/11, but we should never ignore the constitutional prerogative of this House and the Senate to engage in the declaration of war.

I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding.

I am entirely sympathetic to my friend from California's view that it is probable, maybe even certain, the Defense Department could function with fewer civilian employees than it does right now. And I think the Secretary of Defense shares our conviction because he has frozen the number of civilian employees at FY 2010 levels.

Now, here is my concern with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment makes it the law of the land that the correct number of civilian employees in the Department of Defense 5 years from now should be 40,000 persons, more or less, fewer than we have right now. I don't know if that is the right or the wrong number. And I would suggest, frankly, that none of us here know if that is the right or the wrong number.

The proper way to go about this, which the Secretary has in fact done, is to make an assessment of the needs of the Department and the functions that it serves and then to balance those needs against the three ways you can serve those needs. You can either have civilian employees perform the task, you can hire outside contractors to perform the task, or you can delegate the task to uniformed employees. By choosing an arbitrary number of 40,000 civilian employees fewer than what we

have right now, it seems to me that we don't know if that fits the size of the job we have; and if it doesn't fit the size of the job that we have, it necessitates an increase of contracts or an increase of duties for uniformed personnel, the consequences of which none of us, frankly, have the ability to know.

So I share the desire to properly fit the size of the civilian workforce to the job that has to be done. I just can't concluded with any degree of confidence that a workforce that is 40,000 persons fewer is the right fit. My concern is this would have the effect of shifting responsibilities to uniformed personnel when they have more urgent priorities to achieve.

I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, my friend, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Madam Chairwoman, as we meet tonight in support of the Sanchez amendment, we have 30 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely and at Vandenberg. We have an Aegis Array at sea. We have other radar protections for this country. And we have an effort to give $100 million to a military leader who said the following

in April when he was talking about what he needed, referring to Senator Levin in the Senate, ``Right now, sir, I've got the funding I need to address the problem of the FTG-06 failure because I've stopped my production line. That was not to save any money. It was solely driven by the need to confirm the design works before we go back into production.''

Let's not give a military leader $100 million he didn't ask for, for something that doesn't work yet, that isn't needed to defend the country.

Vote for the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 330 for H.R. 1627, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Does the gentleman favor permitting Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, the way the VA does, and save $25 billion a year?

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

My friend who just spoke asked us where the plan is to reduce the debt and deficit. If he is here, I would be happy to yield to him, but I would ask him to consider these ideas.

One, Medicare pays more than twice as much for a Coumadin pill than the Veterans Administration does because we have a law that the majority supported that says that Medicare can't negotiate prescription drug prices. I favor repealing that law and saving at least $25 billion a year. I would ask my friend if he supports that, and I would yield if he would like to answer.

Does the gentleman support that idea?

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, we did not do so because we couldn't get two Republican Senators to support it on the other side. We would have done it over here.

Second thing; does the gentleman support stopping the spending of $110 billion a year to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and instead spend that money here in the United States? Does the gentleman support that? I would ask him if he would like to answer that question.

I'll repeat it. We are spending about $110 billion a year to help finance the Government of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would rather see that $110 billion a year reduce our deficit. Would the gentleman support that?

I, frankly, do not. But reclaiming my time, I especially don't support paying the bills for Baghdad and Kabul that we could be using to reduce our deficit here at home.

Third, we're going to spend at least $60 billion over the next 10 years to give tax breaks to oil companies that made record profits--$44 billion last year alone--as our constituents are paying over $4 a gallon at the pump. I support repealing those giveaways to the oil industry and putting that money toward the deficit. I don't see the gentleman anymore, I'm not sure how he stands on it, but we support that.

Four, I support the idea that people who make more than $1 million a year might be asked to contribute just a little more in taxes to help reduce this deficit. Now I know the other side is going to say, well, this will hurt the job creators in America. There is an echo in this Chamber. In 1993, President Clinton proposed a modest increase on the highest earning Americans to help reduce the deficit. The former Speaker at the time, or Mr. Gingrich--he wasn't the Speaker at the time, he became the Speaker--said this would cause the worst recession in American history. He was wrong. The gentleman who became the majority leader, Mr. Armey, said that this was a recipe for economic collapse. He was wrong.

When we followed the supply-side trickle down the last 8 years under George W. Bush, the economy created 1 million net new jobs. But when we asked the wealthiest Americans to pay just a little more to reduce the deficit in the 1990s, the economy created 23 million new jobs.

So when they ask, where is the plan, here is the plan: Don't abolish Medicare the way they plan to; negotiate prescription drug prices; stop paying the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan; stop the giveaways to oil companies that make record profits; and ask the wealthiest in this country to pay just a bit more to reduce our deficit. Let's put that plan on the floor and reduce the deficit that way.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Twenty-three nights ago, a focused and brave group of young Americans climbed into helicopters and focused on their mission. Over 3 weeks ago, a group of American leaders met in the Situation Room of the White House focused on their mission. And over a 10-year period, a group of intelligence analysts and signal intelligence specialists and brave Americans all over the world focused on their mission to eliminate the menace of Osama bin Laden from this Earth. They succeeded in eliminating that menace, they succeeded in capturing valuable intelligence that will help us track down his coconspirators and stop them, and they sent a powerful message to any other evil rich person that wants to target the United States of America that such targeting is an act of suicide.

We should salute those with that focus here tonight and reflect on the fact that our focus as Republicans and Democrats in passing this bill is to give other focused Americans in the military, our intelligence community, and those who support them the tools they need to do their job.

I'm proud of the work that Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members did on this bill. There are controversial aspects of this bill, but this is a work that is focused on the defense of our country in the same tradition of those who so nobly served us 23 days ago.

We should all join in a ``yes'' vote for this bill because it continues that tradition of our national security in a bipartisan sense. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.

If the gentleman will further yield, it is my understanding and intent that there be no FY12 government funding for the F136 contractor.

Madam Speaker, if a proposal were brought to the House floor that said the following, ``If an American makes a charitable contribution and takes a deduction on his income tax return, that we're going to disallow the charitable deduction if the group that's receiving the money promotes gun ownership, gun rights or gun education,'' I suspect it would not get one vote on the Republican side of the aisle, and it shouldn't get any votes on the Democratic side of the aisle because it's wrong and it's probably unconstitutional.

That is exactly what the underlying bill does here. It says that an American exercising his or her constitutional right, in this case her constitutional right, with their own money, will suffer a negative tax consequence because the majority wants them to.

Understand this. If an American woman, with her own money, chooses to exercise her constitutional right, she will be suffering an increase in taxes as a result of making this decision. I scarcely say that anyone on the majority side would agree that if we picked one of their favorite social issues and said we're going to raise taxes on people who engage in that social issue, much less than a constitutional right, that they would agree with this.

This is not a debate about abortion. This is a debate about privacy. It's a debate about individual liberty and the right of people to do what they choose with their own money, particularly when they're enforcing one of their own constitutional rights.

I would also say for the record, it's my understanding that if this bill is carried out, a person who is a minor who is a victim of statutory rape may not be able to avail herself of her constitutional rights with her family's own money.

I know very well, Madam Speaker, that people feel passionately about the right to life and the right to choose, and this is the forum in which that debate ought to take place. But using the Internal Revenue Code to either punish or reward certain social conduct, particularly conduct that is in the exercise of a constitutional right, is wrong, and if anyone on the majority side would like to tell me that they would vote for that NRA provision, I welcome that. I wouldn't, because it's an impermissible, unconstitutional burden on the constitutional rights of Americans. So is this.

Members who are pro-life or pro-choice should oppose this bill because it does violence to the Constitution. This bill purports to say that through the Tax Code, we can favor or disfavor the exercise of constitutional rights.

That's not right, and that's not constitutional. The Members on the majority side would certainly not support, nor would I, a provision that says you can't take a charitable contribution to support a group that lobbies in favor of pro-life causes. But if we wanted to disfavor that point of view in the Tax Code, this is the way we would do it. There is no difference between what the majority's doing here and that odious provision that I just described.

It is wrong to raise taxes on people who exercise their constitutional rights because they've chosen to exercise their constitutional rights. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, if you are pro-Constitution, you should vote ``no.''

I thank my friend for yielding.

There are nearly 15 million unemployed people in America, and I think most of them and those who are employed would tell us that what they want the Congress to be doing is finding ways to work together so that businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for the American people.

Here we are again arguing about the health care bill or another piece of it. And this legislation has behind it the novel idea that if children get immunizations and well visits and get to see a nurse or a doctor when they are not feeling well, that somehow is not a wise use of the public's money.

Now, let's put aside for the moment the idea of whether it is right or wrong to deny health care coverage for children in school--I think it is very wrong--and let's look at the balance sheet. Which is more expensive: a child who is hospitalized with pneumonia or 25 or 30 children who get a checkup? Which is more expensive: the outbreak of a flu that affects the entire school or the entire town or the early diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics of a kid with the flu?

Common sense says that primary care for children saves money for everyone. Common sense says that children without insurance can most easily be reached in the school where, hopefully, they already are. Voluntary participation by children in a school with their parents' consent makes perfect sense.

This legislation makes no sense to consider it now; it makes even less sense to pass it. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation and urge the House to get back to the business of working together to help entrepreneurs create jobs for the American people.