Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I call up the bill (H.R. 2278) to limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on March 19 of this year, the President sent us into military activity, or war, in Libya. Within 48 hours, the President notified the Congress in accordance with the War Powers Act of his decision to do so. For 60 days, the President under the War Powers Act had the opportunity, and chose not to, to come to this body and make the case as to why being in Libya was important. On the 60th day, he wrote a letter to this body saying that he would welcome authorization but he's not asking for it.

Time and time again on the Armed Services Committee, we were presented

with speakers from the administration who would give certain updates on various matters to which I would ask: Are you here to ask authorization for ongoing activity in Libya? And the speakers, the witnesses, would say, ``No.''

After 90 days and the President has not ceased activity or hostilities in Libya, the time has come and gone and we've sent our indication over to the administration time and time again that we disapprove. But because the War Powers resolution, by some either Republican or Democrat or in the House or the Senate, is questionable whether or not they consider it constitutional or not, the President has operated in what we now know is called the zone of twilight as to whether or not he even needs our approval.

So what are we left with? Mr. Speaker, we're left with, today, our ability under the power of the purse to restrict funds from ongoing operations in Libya. Without it and without the Supreme Court weighing in on whether or not the War Powers is unconstitutional, in my opinion, the President is breaking the law, but he is being restricted by nobody and being able to continue unfettered.

Some have said that the War Powers resolution isn't worth the paper that it is written on. To that I say: Based on what Supreme Court decision? Based on what precedent? There is none, because the courts haven't weighed in on it. I know some of our colleagues here have a pending case before the Court, and I wish them well, but what if they don't accept the case? What if they say these Members, as they have said before, don't have standing? Then we're right back to square one.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to send a message to the executive branch, and this transcends party but it exerts our power under the separation of powers, to say we, the House of Representatives, are relevant; we, the House of Representatives, are exercising our ability that the Founding Fathers gave us in the ability to declare war because they wanted us to have this deliberation, this debate that we're having here today, arguments that have been made on both sides that have been very good, because the last thing that we want as Americans is for some President, whether it's this President or some future President, to be able to pick fights around the world without any debate from another branch of government.

It's the most difficult thing we have to do as government officials, and that's send our kids into harm's way. So it has to be a sober, deliberative, long debate, and the President has 60 days and chose not to engage in that debate. So here we are today saying, if you choose not to come here and get authorization, we are going to stop it until you do. The President always has the ability in the future to come and try to get authorization for what he's doing in Libya or anywhere else.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill to withdraw funding from future engagement in Libya.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, Colonel Gibson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas, Judge Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to the time remaining on our side.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments today, and we've had a great debate--a debate we really should have been having over the last hundred days or so, one that could have been spurred on by the administration for coming here and making the arguments as to why we should authorize or should not authorize money for hostilities in Libya. The President had the opportunity to come and make the case to this body, and he chose not to.

The War Powers Act is clear. He has violated that law. Some have said it's unconstitutional, but the courts have never weighed in on it, so it is the law of the land, and it's one we have to abide by. But we can send resolution after resolution to the Senate and say that we don't agree, that we don't authorize. In the end, the power that we have is the power of the purse, as Mr.

Terry just said, and we have to exercise that power in this House and say that we aren't going to spend money for hostilities in Libya.

We heard the mission ``if you want to take out Qadhafi'' or ``if you want to free the Libyan people and give them the liberty they deserve.'' Number one, it was never the mission to begin with to take out Qadhafi. That has somehow morphed over time. We don't even know who the people are we're supposedly setting free.

Without that debate and without that argument--and I appreciate the debate we've had today because I think it has been very helpful, quite frankly--all we can do is say, until the President comes and makes that case and gets authorization, he won't get funds; and at the same time responsibly say to our NATO allies that we'll support you in the rear, but we are not engaging in hostile acts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Sackett, who this week announced he is retiring after 33 years in remarkable service as the anchor of WPTV News Channel 5 in West Palm Beach.

I have enjoyed Jim's newscasts since my family moved to Palm Beach Gardens in 1984. In high school, I wanted to go into the news business and actually interned under Jim at Channel 5. I learned a lot that semester watching Jim, whose commitment to balanced news reporting set a high standard for other newscasters. His dedication to quality news coverage has earned him both a Telly and an Emmy.

Before he began his career in journalism, Jim served his country honorably for 5 years in the United States Army. He continues to serve our community, where he is active in several organizations, including Big Brothers and Big Sisters. Jim is widely recognized for his ``Thursday's Child'' feature, which for 30 years profiled children to help them find forever adoptive parents.

Jim, thank you for your service and your contributions to our community. You are truly a pillar of the Treasure Coast and Palm Beach County.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 323, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership.

I rise today, Mr. Chairman, in support of the fiscal year 2011 Intelligence authorization legislation. On September 11, 2001, our Nation faced the deadliest act of terror in U.S. history. On the evening of May 1, 2011, the mastermind of those attacks, Osama bin Laden, was brought to justice and killed while hiding in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Along with the sacrifices our Nation's troops have made over the past 10 years, our intelligence community has played an integral role in fighting the war on terror and keeping America safe. The behind-the- scenes work of the intelligence community leading up to the attack and the raid in Abbottabad was critical to the success of the mission and will continue to be a crucial asset to winning the war on terror.

Completing the Intelligence authorization bill is critical to ensuring that our Nation's intelligence agencies have the tools they need to remain at the forefront of global and national security. This bill provides vital congressional oversight and policy guidance to the intelligence community on behalf of the American people. Congress must ensure these agencies are acting in our best interest and spending taxpayer dollars wisely.

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's been 25 days since the President began kinetic military action in Libya without congressional authorization. He made this decision despite the fact that the conflict in Libya did not represent an imminent threat to the United States. Instead, the President sought the approval of the United Nations and the Arab League before taking military action, and not Congress. This sets a terrible precedent.

By seeking only U.N. approval, the President is transferring authority that should rest with the American people through their Congress, not with an international community. The U.N. resolution is nice, but it is not a substitute for congressional authorization.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President needs to seek congressional approval within 60 days. I have introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that President Obama must adhere to the War Powers Resolution. Whether you call it a kinetic military action or war, this Congress must authorize it. If we don't, we will be setting the precedent that we are irrelevant, and the President need only seek approval from international bodies outside of the jurisdiction of the American people.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Secret Service began providing protective services following the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. The Service's protection responsibilities have since expanded to include the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, heads of state, and others. The Service also provides protection at special events of national significance. To address this vital responsibility, the Secret Service must anticipate, recognize, and assess threat situations and initiate strategies to eliminate and reduce threats or security vulnerabilities.

A key component of the Service's protection mission is securing the buildings and grounds where those protected work or visit. From the White House to a hotel ballroom, the Secret Service must provide a secure environment for the President and other protectees.

H.R. 347 ensures that the Secret Service has the ability to secure all necessary areas surrounding restricted buildings and grounds that house our leaders, their families, and foreign heads of state. This bill clarifies section 1752 of title 18, which sets penalties for knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without the lawful authority to do so.

Currently written, the code does not distinguish between those who are there lawfully, such as Secret Service agents and other authorized staff, and those who are there without permission. This bill does not create any new authorities for the Secret Service and does not restrict the liberties of American citizens. H.R. 347 simply clarifies and improves existing criminal statutes that are necessary for the Secret Service to resolve security issues and implement prevention strategies before tragedy strikes.

This bill will enable the United States Secret Service to continue to deliver the highest level of protective services consistent with their proud tradition. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits any funding in this bill to be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule entitled Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water, but this debate is not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what cost.

This EPA mandate, which singles out Florida, will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Floridian families, and destroy jobs. By some estimates, this will cost our States an estimated approximately $2 billion. At a time when we should be attracting new companies in Florida, we cannot afford new regulations which will drive businesses out of our State and destroy jobs.

Our unemployment rate is over 12 percent and at 15 percent in some parts of my district. New, costly regulations are not going to improve those numbers. The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review of the science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed to complete an economic analysis. This regulation is not grounded in science, and all Florida should not have to serve as the guinea pig in this radical experiment.

That's right, Mr. Chairman, Florida is the first State being required to comply with this Washington, D.C., mandate, and according to a recent New York Times article, an EPA official said they have no plans to implement the regulation in any other State. So I ask you, how is that fair?

But during the upcoming months I will be working with our agriculture commissioner, a former colleague here, Adam Putnam, who says that this will impact 14,000 jobs in Florida.

I'd also be willing to work with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other concerned State and Federal agencies to develop a plan that can be agreed upon by all parties. We cannot allow an unaccountable EPA to act dictatorial in this issue that affects every Floridian.

Until the EPA is willing to consider Florida's unique needs and economy, this regulation must not go into effect. A recent poll shows that 68 percent of Floridians do not want this Washington, D.C., mandate. Dozens of Florida job creators and associations, as well as 60 national companies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau, have sent letters to Congress to oppose this mandate.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services,

Tallahassee, FL, February 17, 2011.

Hon. Thomas J. Rooney,

House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Rooney: I am writing in strong support

of your amendment to H.R. 1, the 2011 Full-Year Continuing

Appropriations Act that will prevent the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing, administering, or

enforcing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida.

For several years now, Florida has been working to improve

its water quality and, in many respects, our efforts have

been a model for other states. Until 2009, Florida was

working cooperatively with EPA to improve our water quality

standards. In 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought

by environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that

cooperative approach, federally pre-empt our state water

quality standards, and impose new criteria on the state. Many

are concerned that these new criteria are not based on sound

science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, which

has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA

to support the regulation.

This issue is particularly important given the economic

impacts of the proposed regulation. The Florida Department of

Environmental Protection estimates that this federal mandate

may force municipal wastewater and stormwater utilities to

spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to

upgrade their facilities. The Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services has estimated that the regulation will

impact over 14,000 jobs. Given the reality of Florida's

economic situation, these estimates are of great concern.

Given all of this, I was proud to join Florida's Attorney

General Pam Bondi in filing a lawsuit against EPA over these

rules. EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that we

can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality

that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on

sound science. I am deeply grateful for your leadership in

offering this amendment and strongly encourage your

colleagues to support it.

Sincerely,

Adam H. Putnam,

Commissioner of Agriculture.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment striking funding for an extra engine for the F-35 fighter jet to immediately save the American taxpayers $450 million. It is dubious why Congress continues to fund a program that the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Department of Defense adamantly state they do not want. Just today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the program ``an unnecessary and extravagant expense'' and stated that this money is needed for higher priority defense efforts.

As we decide which cuts to make in our defense, ones that won't hurt our troops today, this should be at the top of the list. Mr. Chairman, the American people sent us here to change the way that Washington works. This amendment is a perfect opportunity to show your constituents that business as usual in Washington is over. I urge my colleagues to follow through with their promises, to listen to the voters as to why they sent us here, and to vote to strike the funding for this expensive and unnecessary program.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Rooney

Amendment No. 2: Page 33, line 16, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $225,000,000)''.

Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $225,000,000)''.

Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Rooney

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution on regulations and jobs.

In particular, I would like to discuss the USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's, or GIPSA's, proposed rule governing livestock and poultry marketing practices. This proposed rule should be carefully considered for its unintended consequences, particularly for those it is supposed to protect--livestock producers.

In the proposed rule, GIPSA is attempting to overturn numerous judicial decisions by stating, Finding that the challenge, act or practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition is not necessary in all cases. In other words, a plaintiff would no longer have to show actual harm when challenging a packer's activity. The rule would also ban packer-to-packer livestock sales and restrict dealers to representing a single packer.

While intending to strengthen the cash market, these changes are likely to actually disrupt orderly market transactions. It will have far-reaching implications for livestock procurement, impacting producers, packers, processors, retailers, and consumers. It far exceeds congressional intent in the 2008 farm bill. It lacks a credible economic analysis and is the result of a flawed regulatory process.

A subcommittee hearing last year demonstrated that concerns are widespread in the livestock community, and concerns are bipartisan here in Congress. We must continue to examine this proposal and act accordingly.

The 2008 farm bill process considered numerous proposals to address livestock marketing and procurement issues.

Most of these ideas were rejected by Congress, and the USDA was directed to conduct rulemaking on a narrow range of technical issues. The proposed rule that emerged went far beyond the intent of Congress and was seen by many as an agency trying to win by rulemaking what it had failed to win in courts.

The USDA determined that this was not a significant rule, even though observers assert that it will incur costs beyond the $100 million threshold for a significant rule. Therefore, no comprehensive economic analysis accompanied the proposed rule.

At least 10 times in the proposed rule GIPSA states some version of the phrase ``GIPSA believes that potential benefits are expected to exceed costs'' without offering any supporting evidence. The Secretary has since indicated that he will conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The taxpayers appropriated $13 million this year for USDA's Office of Chief Economist. That office should have performed an analysis before the rule was proposed so it could have been available during the comment period.

Madam Speaker, concerns about this bill are broad and bipartisan. Members of both parties have raised questions about the scope, process and intent of this rulemaking. The American people spoke in November to avoid these kinds of Washington insider bureaucratic nightmares. Our work on this rule is far from complete. We must continue our efforts. Therefore, I rise in support of the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, this Congress has spent the American people's taxpayer dollars at a record pace. My friends on the other side of the aisle have dug our country into a $13 trillion hole. As the old saying goes, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It is time to cut out-of-control spending and get our fiscal house in order, even if that means saying ``no'' time and time again. This is going to require real leadership, and we are going to have to make some tough decisions.

All of these decisions won't be tough, though, and today we face a no-brainer. Should we require the IRS to collect unpaid taxes from Federal employees? Absolutely. Should they lose their jobs if they don't? Of course.

This cut will reduce the deficit by $1 billion. And while all Americans should of course pay their taxes, Federal employees who receive their paychecks directly from the American people have a special obligation to pay what they owe. It is time to listen to the American people. Through the YouCut program, our constituents have cast 1.7 million votes urging us to cut wasteful spending. Republicans have brought forward proposals to cut more than $120 billion in waste from the budget. Unfortunately, the majority party has blocked all, all, of these efforts. I hope that changes today.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, crimes against the elderly are a serious growing problem in America. Senior citizens are often the victims of abuse and neglect. Experts estimate that as many as 2 million older Americans are the victims of physical and psychological abuse every year. They are also the victims of financial crimes, including telemarketing fraud and identity theft.

The FBI reports that older Americans are prime targets for financial fraud because they are more likely to have nest eggs, own their homes, and have excellent credit. Seniors are more vulnerable to fraud schemes because they are less likely to report fraud or are ashamed of having been scammed or do not realize that they have been scammed.

These types of fraud are both creative and difficult to detect. Criminals will offer just about anything in an effort to defraud elderly victims--from counterfeit drugs, to health insurance, to anti- aging products, and even funeral services. Additionally, email scams have become more and more common.

In my home State of Florida, Attorney General Bill McCollum's office reports that, in 2009, it received over 13,000 consumer fraud complaints from residents over the age of 60. The number of complaints has doubled since the previous year and has increased six-fold since 2006.

Congress must address the rising incidence of fraud and scams that endanger our Nation's seniors. I am pleased to support H.R. 3040, the Senior Financial Empowerment Act, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Congresswoman Baldwin, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Gohmert.

This legislation aims to do just what the title promises--to empower older Americans to protect themselves from seemingly harmless but devastating financial fraud schemes. The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to provide tips to seniors on how best to safeguard themselves against fraud, and the bill directs the FTC to educate victims on how to report fraud to law enforcement authorities. Just learning simple steps, like shredding our billing statements, can help anyone prevent identity theft.

Today's seniors need to be empowered to protect themselves from the Internet, email, and telephone schemes. H.R. 3040 will help them achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson observed that ``the only security of all is in a free press. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure.''

It's safe to say that Jefferson would not take kindly to libel tourists, the subject of H.R. 2765.

In the wake of 9/11, the American media has become increasingly alarmed over a phenomenon called libel tourism. Libel tourism is the practice of suing for libel in a country with weaker free speech protections than the United States. Surprisingly, most of these suits are filed in Great Britain as its libel and slander laws provide great writers and journalists less protection than those here in the United States system.

So how do courts handle foreign judgments that clash with the American legal values?

A foreign ruling will not be enforced in a U.S. course if the ruling offends State public policy or the Constitution.

The House version of H.R. 2765, which we passed unanimously in June 2009, contains three major provisions. First, it states that a U.S. court, either State or Federal, shall not enforce a foreign judgment for defamation if the judgment is inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Second, it clarifies that a foreign ruling denying an American citizen due process guarantees will also not be enforced.

And, third, H.R. 2765 prevents enforcement of foreign rulings that conflict with the U.S. telecommunications law that protects consumers' rights to criticize corporate misconduct on Internet bulletin boards.

This version, as amended by the Senate, includes essential provisions to help deter libel tourists from bringing these suits in the first place. Among these is a feature that allows a U.S. citizen who loses a foreign suit to bring a declaratory action in Federal court to determine whether the foreign verdict is ``repugnant to the Constitution or the laws of the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation provides appropriate and necessary protection for U.S. journalists and authors and represents the strongest policy response to libel tourism. The issue has been thoroughly considered by the House Judiciary Committee. I urge the Members to support H.R. 2765 as amended by the other body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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