Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of this body to the passing of Nicholas Katzenbach in the past month and to recognize the life and career of one of the most noteworthy public servants of our time. Anyone who lived through the 1960's, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam era in American politics will remember the name of Nicholas Katzenbach. However, because Nick was more interested in promoting liberty and justice than promoting himself and because he worked to help more famous people succeed--John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, among others--many people may not know as much as they should about this great American.

U.S. Attorney General, Under Secretary of State, author of and political strategist for the principal legislation on civil rights, international envoy, decorated war hero and prisoner of war, he was directly involved in many of the major developments and events of our government during the Kennedy and Johnson years. Coming out of a distinguished lineage and an upbringing of privilege and accomplishment--Phillips Exeter, Princeton University, Balliol College on a Rhodes Scholarship, Yale Law School and editor of the Yale Law Journal--he became a forceful activist for civil rights and equality of opportunity for all Americans and a determined advocate for an anti- imperialist posture with respect to other countries. Anyone who observed Nick's confrontation with Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett in 1962 to force the enrollment of the first African American James Meredith at Ole Miss or his confrontation with Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1963 to force the enrollment of Vivian Malone and James Hood at the University of Alabama will not forget his commanding stature, his coolness and courage, and above all his obvious commitment to equal justice under law. In those situations Nick Katzenbach embodied by himself our national dignity and the authority of our government even more than the Federal Marshalls or the National Guard flanking him.

Nick Katzenbach moved in the circles of the most powerful, where he became a master of our governmental mechanisms, yet he never forgot the purpose of power--to realize the hopes and aspirations of the people. He applied his impressive intellect to argue the law at the loftiest levels, yet never lowered his respect for the powerless whom the law is to protect. He recognized that the sharecropper or the Vietnamese rice farmer was as entitled to full respect as the banker or magnate. For years with unfailing determination he worked to extricate the United States from the Vietnam War, although unappreciated by the anti-war activists. He gave up his own vacations and holidays to work to defuse one after another domestic or international crisis or to bring prisoners home from foreign counties to the United States in time for Christmas.

Despite his many accomplishments, and despite the real progress he brought to many areas of our society, his sense of duty and devotion to our country's founding democratic ideals were so great that he carried a lifelong disappointment that he and all the powerful, talented people with whom he worked still fell short of providing liberty and justice for all. The lingering harmful effect of race in our system of justice, our schools, and our economy weighed on him to the end. He lamented the crass and inglorious behavior that we see in so many public officials. I am sure Nicholas Katzenbach believed that all public officials, of course, should be as dignified, capable, and dedicated as he. Mr. Speaker, we should wish it were so.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I thank him for laying out so clearly all the shortcomings of this legislation, this oil-above-all legislation. It really is nothing but a big giveaway to Big Oil.

The only jobs it will create will be in the boardrooms and the executive offices of the Big Oil companies because, since 2005, even as ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell have made more than $650 billion in profits--need I repeat that? $650 billion in profits--they eliminated more than 11,000 jobs, U.S. jobs, American jobs. And this is even while wind and solar were creating 50,000 jobs.

Yes, there's a mismatch here. The bill before us presented by the Republicans says we'll study to see how much solar and wind energy might come from these lands in the future instead of saying let's get these energy sources of the 21st century rolling in these lands. It's not a plan of what we might get. The Markey amendment would have set standards for what we would get.

Now, the Republicans have a long record of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil while cutting clean energy initiatives. That's what we see here.

But what I wanted to talk about is the damage that would be done under this legislation. Health officials today here in Washington are warning people to avoid the heat and stay indoors. I don't think they had in mind that we stay indoors to pass legislation that chokes off public health protections, that modifies the Clean Air Act to make it ineffective, and yet that's what this bill does.

By rejecting clean energy and pushing only for more fossil fuels to blanket the world with heat-trapping pollution, the Republican majority is essentially turning off the world's air conditioner and turning on the heater.

There is a reason that the term ``fossil fuels'' applies--actually, two reasons. One is that these are derived from ancient plants that have decayed deep in the Earth and have produced petroleum. But there is another reason. ``Fossil'' means ``archaic.'' ``Fossil'' means ``out of date.'' ``Fossil'' does not mean ``21st century.''

Yet that's where this legislation is taking us--in the wrong direction and in the wrong direction with regard to environmental protection.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, we shouldn't be playing games with safety and the environment. The spill exposed a woefully inadequate environmental review process that was done prior to the oil and gas leasing. The environmental review done prior to the BP spill was so sloppy that response plans talked about protecting walruses. Obviously, they were

just, in an unthinking way, using old Alaska pages.

Tourism is the lifeblood of so many of our coastal communities. As the economy is struggling to recover, we can't risk the kind of environmental damage that derails economic progress in these areas. We should understand the risks of drilling, and we should strengthen the protections, not weaken them. Furthermore, there will be damage done to the whole leasing process.

For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are so worried that putting some real standards--some expecting of good performance from oil companies--would somehow interfere with their production, let me point out some good news. Today, the Interior Department announced the results of an oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico.

I thank my friend.

According to the Interior Department, today's leases that were bid on today, which have some lease standards apply that require increasing rental rates and shorter lease terms--the very things that the folks on the other side of the aisle here say would be killers, would stop the drilling--were record-setting lease sales, bringing in $11.7 billion even with these new conditions for offshore drilling; and they're saying what works here offshore won't work on the lands that we are talking about in this legislation.

Now, I'll tell you what's a killer in this. A killer is the relaxing of the public health and environmental standards in the legislation. That's literally a killer.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us tonight would elevate energy production above all other uses of public lands in, really, contradiction of the principles of multiple use under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act. This would be to the detriment of grazing, hunting, fishing, and other recreation activities. Yet the plan envisioned by the majority's bill does not even require that the Interior Department consider the tens of millions of acres of public lands that oil companies are just sitting on and not using.

Right now, oil companies have roughly 25 million acres of public land onshore on which they are not producing oil. Even worse, oil companies are not even beginning drilling activities on the vast majority of these nonproducing areas. In fact, last month the Interior Department released a new report which found that oil companies have nearly 21 million acres onshore under lease on which they have not even begun conducting exploration activities.

Well over half of the public lands that oil companies have under lease onshore are idle. They are warehousing these leases. They are sitting on these leases. My amendment would require that the Secretary reduce the number of nonproducing leases as part of the plan for energy development on public lands that would be established under the underlying bill.

Before we risk disrupting additional public lands, let's begin by getting the oil and gas industry to use the leases they have. It's simple: No seconds while your plate is still full. It's the height of cynicism that the industry would be squatting on these leases at the same time it is asking us to give them more land that belongs to the Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining on this amendment?

I would be pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of this amendment, the ranking member, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Chairman, let me just repeat. Right now, the oil companies have 25 million acres of public land onshore on which they are not producing. They have 21 million acres of public land onshore under lease on which they are not even conducting exploration activities.

I rest my case.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman very much.

This, as we have heard, is a package of bills dealing with lands, and it is as partisan as can be. I wish that we were working in a bipartisan way. We could have a real lands package that would go somewhere. We could have addressed preservation of open space. This is important all across the country.

I often hear from my colleague from Utah and others that, well, people in New Jersey don't have a lot of Federal lands. Let me tell you, this is important for people in New Jersey and every one of the other 49 States and in the territories of the United States. My constituents, who live in the most densely populated State in the Union, have demonstrated again and again their support for open space preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing for their kids and their kids' kids with safe places to experience the outdoors.

This legislation does so many bad things I hardly know where to begin. It's another attempt to remove most of the protections of environmental laws. And as you've heard from the ranking member, Mr. Markey, it establishes an intrusive domestic security enforcement zone, a drone zone.

Call it cute if you want, but as the ranking member said, if you're going to go to Big Bend or Acadia or any of the other national parks that fall in this, you'd better pay attention. It will do nothing to make us more secure.

I could talk all day about the problems in this bill, but let me just focus on one. One reason that this bill is not going anywhere legislatively, because it is so extreme, is the controversial provision it contains on the brazen effort to give away part of the Tongass National Forest.

The Tongass National Forest is known as a crown jewel of the National Forest System. Encompassing 17 million acres in southeast Alaska's panhandle, it's the last remaining intact temperate rainforest. It's the only remnant of the temperate rainforests that used to stretch from Northern California to Prince William Sound. Only half of the very large old-growth tree stands that used to cover the Tongass remain, and even the second growth land is spectacular. The other side was talking about how, well, some of this is not first-growth forest and, therefore, it's okay to give away to spoil. Now over a million people throughout the country--really, throughout the world--visit the Tongass National Forest annually to view the forest virtually unspoiled.

The bill before us today transfers 100,000 acres of the best of the best lands in southeast Alaska to the Sealaska Corporation, including the fine salmon streams, the areas most visited, recreational sites and tourist sites, as well as subsistence sites. This bill gives public lands to a private company, which some might call an earmark. Well, whatever you call it, it's an unjustified giveaway.

And since we're speaking of lands, I'd like to point out that I have introduced legislation to help preserve battlefields from the American Revolution and the War of 1812, legislation based on and including a very successful program to preserve civil war battlefields. This legislation, my bill, passed out of committee unanimously. Why was this not included in this bill? We could have been more bipartisan.

My colleague, Mr. Markey, has gone through a long list and others have gone through a long list of the problems with this legislation. Suffice it to say, this is not about preserving lands for the long-term enjoyment and benefit of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 3 at the desk.

My amendment seeks to address a problem we face here in the legislative branch: the congressional supply of pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence is exhausted.

My amendment reduces and then reinserts $218,379 from the budget for the Government Printing Office to address this shortage so that they can provide these pocket Constitutions and Declarations. It is the exact cost of the last printing of the pocket version of the Constitution.

But the money is not the root of the problem. The funding exists to print more pocket Constitutions today or tomorrow. What is lacking is the authority for the Government Printing Office to do so. The approval of this amendment appears to be the best parliamentary approach that we have right now to solve this immediate problem.

Last week, as I prepared to visit a school in New Jersey where we would hold a ceremony of oath of citizenship for new citizens, I asked my staff to make sure we had pocket Constitutions to distribute to them. I always carry one. I find many of my constituents want to as well. When I discovered that the supply was exhausted and none have been printed for this Congress, I thought we should address that problem now. Except for the dozens of copies that might be on a shelf in Members' offices or the few that are in a bag in the back of my station wagon, Members find that they cannot get these pocket Constitutions for love nor money.

Everyday, like so many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, I point to this Constitution. When I meet with students, I ask them, What is the greatest invention of humans? And they, knowing I'm a scientist, will sometimes come up with some technological answer. I would argue our greatest invention is our constitutional system of government. Our brilliant, resilient, self-correcting system of government, dreamed up in Philadelphia so many years ago, functions remarkably well over the centuries. And this simple, 45-page pocket Constitution that Members have been able to share with their constituents for generations allows everyone to understand better that brilliant system of government.

Over my time here in the House, I have eagerly distributed these pocket Constitutions to students, new citizens, and many constituents who ask for them so that they can have their own. And who better to distribute these copies than a Representative working under the authority of article I of this ingenious document.

A self-governing country works only if we citizens believe that it does. A self-governing country works only if the citizens provide the motive force for it to work. And familiarity with the copies of this ingenious, powerful, essential document provide the motivation and the mechanism for our government to work.

Since 2009, when Members of the 111th Congress each received a thousand copies of this pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution, Members of the House have not received any new pocket Constitutions. That means despite the fact that we began this Congress, the 112th, by reading the Constitution in this House Chamber, which I was pleased to participate in, no Member of the 112th Congress has been provided with any additional constitutions. So with no new copies of the pocket Constitution since 2009, except these few that I have here, it is long past time to fix this simple problem with this simple amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

As I said in my remarks, the problem is not money; the problem is authorization. That can be accomplished by this joint resolution from the Joint Committee on Printing to the Government Printing Office, or it could be resolved through the appropriations, as I'm attempting to do now.

And I should point out, as the gentleman refers to the other body, it is out of pride of this body that we say we will do what we should do and the Senate will do what they will do and we will try to get together to move legislation forward. It is our job here today to do what we can do and to educate the public about this ingenious system of government that has been so successful for 2 centuries. We should do this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of this subcommittee and the ranking member for the work they've put into this.

I rise with an amendment that is designed to ensure that our rail and transit systems have the additional resources, or at least some of the additional resources, that they need to help thwart any potential terrorist attacks on buses and trains.

Now, just over a year ago, when our forces raided Osama bin Laden's compound, they discovered materials in his hideout indicating that he was planning attacks on rail and transit systems, and we have no reason to believe that al Qaeda's remnants have abandoned any such plans. As we've seen repeatedly, the threat is very real.

Since 2004, terrorist cells have conducted successful and deadly bombings on major passenger rail systems in Spain, the United Kingdom, India, Belarus, with over 600 people killed, thousands wounded. And despite this threat, over the last few years, our country has been backsliding in providing our rail and transit systems the resources they need.

In years past, rail and transit security funding had its own line item in the budget. But a couple of years ago, it was rolled into the overall State and local grant programs, and it's funding has been slashed, and slashed is not an overstatement, from a previous high of $300 million, down to only about $88 million this past year.

The large reduction was made in the face of an existing $6 billion in rail and transit security funding needs identified by rail and transit operators around the Nation, as reported by the American Public Transportation Association.

My amendment addresses part of this shortfall by moving a total of $50 million from three accounts--Overall Management and Administration, Intelligence and Analysis, and the Transportation Security Administration--to the State and Local Programs Grant Account for the express purpose of increasing funding available for rail and transit security grants. I propose these moves reluctantly, but we need the funding in the transit security. This would bring to $138 million the account for rail security, well above the $88 million currently there, but well below the $300 million that only a few years ago was the funding level.

This amendment actually saves the taxpayer $36 million because of the difference in the account spend-down rates. It's a responsible amendment, I believe, that addresses a crucial vulnerability in our rail and transit security posture, and I ask support for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

American Public Transportation

Association,

June 6, 2012.

Hon. Rush Holt,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Holt: On behalf of the 1,500 members of

the American Public Transportation Association, I am writing

to express our support for your amendment to H.R. 5855, the

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal

Year 2013. The amendment aims to restore critical funding for

the public transportation security grant program.

Sharp decreases in public transportation security grant

funding over the past several federal budget cycles have

hampered the ability of transit agencies to make needed

capital security improvements throughout their systems.

Decreases in transit security funding could not be more ill

timed as transit ridership continues to soar. In 2011, more

than 10.4 billion trips were taken on public transportation

as Americans commuted to work, school, medical appointments

and their houses of worship. This trend has continued as

dozens of transit agencies across the country have set

ridership records over the first quarter of 2012. We must do

all we can to ensure the safety and security of our riders

and transit workers. We urge Congress to support your

amendment and increase vital funding for the public

transportation security grant program.

Thank you for your continued support of public

transportation, and we look forward to working with you on

this and future legislation. If you have any questions,

please have your staff contact Brian Tynan of APTA's

Government Affairs Department at (202) 496 4897 or email

[email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Michael P. Melaniphy,

President & CEO.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, today the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins, and so I come to the floor to speak for increased resources to prevent flood damage, as they have devastated our communities in New Jersey and around the eastern United States.

In H.R. 5325, Chairman Frelinghuysen and the committee have provided for the U.S. Corps of Engineers $1.5 billion for planning, training, and other measures to ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. I thank the chairman and the committee for that work.

This amount is $216.7 million below the amount that the Corps received for flood preparation in 2012. My amendment would provide an additional $2 million so the Corps can continue critical lifesaving flood preparation work. Although this won't close the funding gap, my amendment would demonstrate the commitment of Congress to addressing proactively the variety of problems that can result from severe weather events and flooding.

Last August and September, many central New Jersey residents experienced flood damage due to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. Evacuations and property damage can be a heavy burden to bear for many of our constituents. In recent years, there have been deaths in New Jersey from such flooding.

I was traveling through my district during and after last year's hurricane and saw firsthand the flooding damage in the Delaware and Raritan River Basins and elsewhere. When Hurricane Irene hit New Jersey last year, it cast more than 10,000 people from their homes and left more than 190,000 utility customers without power; 11 inland rivers and their tributaries crested, with some at record levels.

The best time to address flooding is before the severe weather occurs. Unfortunately, it seems that severe weather events like floods and droughts will become only more common as the Earth's temperature continues to rise. There are a number of critical infrastructure and public works projects throughout central New Jersey that the Corps is at work on, that the Corps is aware of, that the Corps is planning to deal with, and they must continue in order to prepare for these severe weather events.

Again, I appreciate the foresight and the wisdom of Chairman Frelinghuysen. This amendment would provide additional funds and incentives to the Corps to continue with these important projects.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3541, which should be called the Straw Man Act of 2012.

Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping to foster job creation and supporting middle class families.

Instead, the Republicans once again have chosen to continue their radical assault on women's health care in the guise of preventing gender discrimination in abortion.

I am concerned about gender discrimination. That is why I support legislation that will address gender bias like the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the health reform law that will give women access to preventive health care.

Unlike those bills, H.R. 3541 does nothing to address sex discrimination or gender bias in society, but instead would punish health care providers for performing a legal medical procedure.

Offensively, this bill would create a right for a woman's husband or family member to sue to stop her from obtaining abortion care, which is a constitutionally protected right.

Besides being misguided and offensive, H.R. 3541 is dangerous. This bill would give the federal government the right to inspect people's medical records and interfere with a private doctor-patient relationship.

I oppose this anti-choice and anti-woman bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this offensive, misguided and dangerous piece of legislation and would encourage them to support authentic pieces of legislation that address gender discrimination.

I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which covers, in part, the Intelligence authorization debate.

I want to address not what the bill contains, but what it does not. It does not contain any prohibition on the executive branch using drones to target American citizens for death. I offered a commonsense proposal to address this matter, but the Rules Committee declined to allow it to come to the floor for a vote.

Also missing from this bill is any kind of protection for national security whistleblowers who seek to report waste, fraud, abuse, or criminal conduct to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I offered a proposal to address that problem, expanding on language from a whistleblower provision that passed this House in 2002 as part of the bill creating the Homeland Security Department--a proposal that likewise was blocked from being considered on the floor.

Finally, among other things, this bill contains no provision to tell Americans in simple raw numbers how many Americans have had our private communications intercepted by the government over the past several years. Just the number is all we were asking for. That proposal as well was blocked from floor consideration.

The Intelligence authorization bill should never serve simply as a rubber stamp for funding and programs that the intelligence community wishes. This committee, the Intelligence Committee, was created to provide oversight of that community, particularly for the most controversial programs and practices. The bill before us today fails on those counts, which is why the rule and the bill should be opposed.

I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, our Nation just marked another Memorial Day at war and another year in which the epidemic of suicides of our country's servicemembers and veterans continues. In April of this year, The New York Times' columnist Nick Kristof noted that for every American lost on the battlefield, about 25 servicemembers and veterans are dying by their own hands. These are silent casualties of war. And if we're to stop the epidemic, we must recognize it.

I want to thank the ranking member, Representative Bishop of Georgia, and the subcommittee chair, Representative Culberson, for their recognition that continued funding for suicide prevention and outreach programs for our veterans must be a national priority. I'm pleased that the committee looked favorably on my request and included an additional $20 million for suicide prevention outreach programs, including social media in this bill. This is the second year in a row that the House has taken this step because the administration and the VA have yet to create a dedicated programmatic funding stream for suicide prevention and outreach.

Let me take this opportunity to urge the administration and our President to direct the Office of Management and Budget to create such a dedicated funding stream for such programs. Our suicide prevention response must be coordinated and must be funded properly over the lifetime of our veterans, because this is not a problem that will go away once the guns fall silent.

I thank my colleagues on the committee for all they have done to craft a bill that will help provide the services that our veterans need and deserve.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support for Project Labor Agreements (PLAs).

Today the Republican majority is again playing politics. They have brought to the House floor a bill to support our Nation's veterans and provide them with the care they earned. This bill should be approved by a unanimous vote; we all support our veterans and want to fully fund the various programs that care for them after they cared for us.

But in a cynical and politically motivated attack on working women and men across the country the Majority has tucked into this bill a ban on the use of PLAs. They are attempting to ban PLAs based on their ideology not based on any evidence. This is one more part of their anti-worker agenda.

I have always supported PLAs. PLAs are important, they have been used for many years and they work. PLAs ensure high skilled workers complete high quality work and provides fair local wages and benefits for all workers. I will be voting to support working women and men by repealing this anti-PLA provision.

On February 6, 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13502 encouraging federal agencies to consider requiring the use of PLAs for large-scale construction projects. In the Executive Order, President Obama noted correctly that by setting the terms and conditions of employment and coordinating the various employers, PLAs provide stability and help contribute to the efficient completion of Federal construction projects.

Last year, I joined a majority of my colleagues in the House to beat back this same anti-worker attack on PLAs and I am hopeful that we will be successful again today. President Obama has already indicated that he will veto this bill if the attack on PLAs reaches his desk.

While Republicans play politics today, I will be standing up for and voting for working women and men across the country and opposing this continued attack on them.

Mr. Chair, I am in opposition to this bill.

Let me begin by praising our ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, Representative Adam Smith. Ranking Member Smith brought forward a number of excellent proposals that would have significantly improved this bill, especially his effort to eliminate the indefinite detention provisions that were included in last year's bill. He also supported efforts to rein in excess Pentagon spending by supporting Representative Barbara Lee's amendment to trim $8 billion from the bill. Had the amendment passed, it would have restored the funding level in the bill to what Democrats and Republicans had agreed to in this year's Federal budget bill.

Unfortunately, the majority chose to vote down both of those amendments and thus continue a misguided, counterproductive detainee policy and still more reckless spending. Moreover, the majority is attempting to interfere with the President's ability to negotiate arms control agreements with Russia, a potentially unconstitutional action. Additionally, this bill continues to fund Cold War legacy weapon systems like the F 35 and V 22 which we neither need nor can afford. Indeed, it's worth remembering that if we proceed with the procurement of the F 35, that program will cost taxpayers in excess of $400 billion--$50 billion more than the entire defense budget was a decade ago. We need to think anew about how best to defend our country, not continue to buy weapons to deter a Soviet Union that ceased to exist over 20 years ago.

Finally, this bill continues the deadly folly that is the war in Afghanistan, now the longest war in our country's history. There is no good reason for us still to be involved in combat operations in Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants--the men who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. Last year, President Obama authorized the operation that eliminated bin Laden. The chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been in our custody for years. The Al Qaeda we went to war with in 2001 effectively no longer exists, and thus the reason we sent our troops to Afghanistan no longer exists, which is why they should come home now but won't, thanks to this misguided bill. It is for all these reasons that I will vote against this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Just this month, we learned from a leaked Air Force Instruction on intelligence activities that their drones ``incidentally'' collect imagery of ``US persons or private property without consent'' during the course of normal training operations. Neither I nor Mr. Landry intend to prevent Department elements charged with training UAV operators from being able to do their jobs. At the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure that data that is collected is not misused. That is precisely what Mr. Landry is trying to do today, and I am pleased to join him this effort.

This amendment will have no impact on the training activities of our unmanned aerial vehicle operators. What it will do is ensure that any imagery of American citizens, their homes, business, etc. that is collected cannot be used in any court proceeding in the absence of a judicial warrant issued on the basis of probable cause. I commend my colleague from Louisiana from offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting this amendment. When the long-running problems at the Dover Port Mortuary were revealed to the public last year, all of us were appalled and ashamed at how the remains of fallen warriors had been mishandled. It took a number of people, including a constituent of mine who is the widow of a deceased Iraq veteran, as well as several brave whistleblowers--public servants in the truest sense--to bring these problems to light. What we now know is that multiple Air Force IG inspections missed the mishandling of bodies, improper cremations and other serious problems that plagued the Dover Port Mortuary for years. Clearly, a higher, more sustained level of oversight of Dover and of our overall process for military mortuary affairs is called for.

My amendment would provide that higher level of oversight by creating a Federal Mortuary Affairs Advisory Commission. The amendment requires the appointment of family members with direct experience in dealing with Dover, as well as the appointment of outside specialists in mortuary affairs. We owe it to our fallen warriors and their families to make this painful process as dignified and respectful as possible. Creating this Commission will help us do that, which is why I ask for my colleagues to support it.

Without world class linguists we would not have found Bin Laden. It was an important reminder about the need to improve foreign language education and ensure our national security and defense officials have the skilled linguists they need to get the job done.

Since it was created as a pilot program in 2005, The National Language Service Corps (NLSC) has help meet the growing need for linguists and my amendment will ensure that this program becomes permanent.

The NLSC is a corps of on-call language-certified experts who are available to supplement Federal agencies' language capacity. It is designed to provide a surge capability for meeting short-, mid-, and long-term requirements through the identification of a reserve workforce with expertise and skills in over 120 languages that are either currently or potentially critical to the Federal government. The NLSC currently has over 1800 members who are proficient in a critical foreign language. My amendment will help our government have the linguists needed at a moment's notice. I appreciate the committees understanding of the importance of American having a strong foreign language capacity for our defense and non-defense needs.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Let me give one example of how important this legislation is and how this bill before us would eliminate important provisions to protect women from abuse.

Several years ago, a teenage girl from Trenton came to my office for help. She'd been abused by her parents and abandoned by them. When she came to my office, she was living in a shelter participating in a transitional living program that required part-time employment. She had come to the United States legally, but she needed help. Because of VAWA, I was able to show her how she could secure her permanent resident status and work authorization. After I helped her get work authorization and permanent resident status, she got her life back on track. VAWA made that possible.

This bill would remove essential provisions of VAWA that allow victims of abuse to petition for permanent residency by themselves; and by removing those provisions, this bill would leave this girl and countless other victims of domestic abuse with no help, no support, and potentially at the mercy of their abusers.

Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.

The threat of nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our allies.

This resolution is not an authorization for military force. It is not a call for war. I would not support this resolution if it were.

Our shared goal must be to persuade Iran to end its nuclear weapons program. That's President Obama's purpose in agreeing to negotiations. That's our purpose here. The world does not have many tools available, but we should use, and the world is united in using, economic and diplomatic pressure. This does not preclude diplomatic resolution. In fact, it makes diplomatic resolution more possible.

Of course, ultimately, Iran should decide that it's not in her people's interest for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. And we and all nuclear powers should stop behaving as if we think nuclear weapons are beneficial for a country. This resolution will help move us in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

As a life-long supporter of our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel, I am pleased that the United States and Israel have built a strong, unique and special relationship. I have had the pleasure of traveling to Israel on many occasions, and I clearly understand Israeli concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions. These visits have only reinforced my strong conviction that the world needs Israel to survive and thrive for all that Israel represents and that Israel has the right to defend her citizens. The bill before us will do that by strengthening existing channels of security cooperation between America and Israel, as well as creating some new ones.

The political changes that are sweeping through North Africa and the Middle East are creating new uncertainties for the United States and Israel. The revolutions that are underway may not produce the much- hoped for democratic ``Arab Spring''. Even now in Egypt, extremists are fomenting inter-religious and ethnic hatreds that have sparked fresh violence. And we know that conventional weapons formerly in the late Colonel Qaddafi's arsenal have made their way into the hands of extremists in the region. H.R. 4133 is another reminder to the region and the world that America will stand by Israel during these increasingly chaotic and uncertain times.