Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievement of a talented individual from Bloomington, IL. Alex Van Hoof recently placed 2nd in the class 1A Illinois cross country state meet. She finished the 3 mile course in an astounding 17 minutes and 18 seconds. This time also breaks her old record, which was the school record, by 9 seconds. I would also like to congratulate her coach Tom Engelhorn for his hard work with his team and with Alex. This young lady has represented herself, her school and her community in an exemplary fashion and I want to join with all the members of this House in wishing her continued success in her athletic and academic endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong objection to the animosity and gridlock that's been the overarching theme of this first session of the 112th Congress.

I make dozens of calls and similar personal contacts directly with my constituents every day, probably more than any other Member of Congress. These people live in the real world beyond the beltway environment in which too many public officials live and work, sheltered from reality, by communication primarily with each other in a self- created climate that bears little similarity to the rest of America.

In my years in public office, I have never heard the level of anger I hear today. Our approval ratings are in the tank, and they should be. We are gripped in gridlock because people on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers and in the White House are more concerned with politics than progress.

As our economy continues to stagger, our attention should be focused on putting people to work and providing a stability in public policy. We can only do that through cooperation, compromise, and civility.

My message to leadership and membership, including myself, in both Chambers is this: We have to do the business the people expect us to do, efficiently and in an adult-like manner. Anything less is both irresponsible and unacceptable. We can and we should do vastly better than what we are.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was unable to attend the first vote of a Point of Order for Unfunded Mandate on H.R. 3630 raised by Representative Moore. The Chair then called a Question of Consideration to Rule for H.R. 3630.

As you know, the House was not scheduled to be in Session this week and Monday evening I held a listening event with concerned citizens in the town of Savoy. I could not, in good conscience, cancel on a group that had been on my schedule for several months. On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was traveling from my district to Washington, DC, when this unanticipated Point of Order was raised.

Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: for Question of Consideration of the Resolution, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 12, 2011, I was unable to attend votes due to a previously scheduled appointment. Monday evening I held a listening event with concerned citizens in the town of Savoy. I could not, in good conscience, cancel on a group that had been on my schedule for several months.

Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows:

For H.R. 3320 and H.R. 2158, I would have voted ``yea,'' Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder honorably served the United States and I am proud he can be remembered through the naming of this post office. Wayne Grisham was a steadfast public servant who shares my passion for civility in politics.

For Approval of the Journal, I would have voted ``yea.''

Democrat Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our guest chaplain, Pastor Marty Springer, who has served as both an example of his faith and civic duty.

Pastor Springer was raised in southern California, the youngest son of Marshall and Doris Springer. After graduating from high school, he worked in a bank while attending junior college and joined the United States Air Force in December of 1982. During his time serving on active duty, he was selected for the honor of serving in the Office of Presidential Protocol at Andrews Air Force Base during the Presidency of President Ronald Reagan.

He entered the Air Force Reserve in 1986 and also took a civil service position at Scott Air Force Base where he was the director of personnel for an Air Force telecommunications agency responsible for all aspects of manpower, personnel, and training. During Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield,

Pastor Springer was recalled to serve in active duty and received the Air Force Achievement Medal for his service.

After 15 years of service to his Nation, Pastor Springer was called to serve God and entered Concordia Seminary in St. Louis in 1977. After graduating, Pastor Springer was ordained as a pastor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 2000.

He received his first call to Saint John Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Chester, Illinois. His service to his church and his community, including his work as chairman of the Chester Veterans Memorial Committee, earned him the honor of Outstanding Citizen of Chester in 2001.

Today, Pastor Springer serves as senior pastor of Trinity Lutheran Ministries of Edwardsville, Illinois, where he oversees a church, Christian day school, and a day school center. He has completed three mission trips to Kazakhstan, Haiti, and Honduras and is working to complete his clinical pastoral education at Alexian Brothers Medical System in St. Louis.

Pastor Springer has been a model of service for his community, his church, and his Nation; and it's truly my honor, Pastor, to join my colleagues in welcoming you as our guest chaplain. It's a privilege to represent you, and it's a privilege that you're here today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill and the rule. This is a critical issue with respect to Americans' basic rights.

Courts have held over almost a century and a half that the right to bear arms is simply more than the Second and the 14th Amendment. It decided in the case of Beard v. U.S. in 1895 that citizens were entitled to repel force by force, and entitled to stand their ground and meet any attack made on them by a deadly weapon. They then ruled 3 years ago in the D.C. v. Heller case, where they essentially declared self-defense as an inherent right central to the Second Amendment. And then in the case emanating in my State of Illinois, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, further elaborated and extended that constitutional protection.

So the underlying bill and American citizens' right and the ability to carry firearms from State to State and to have that essential right built in, I think, is critical.

I rise in reluctant support, however, of the rule and the bill only from this standpoint, and that's the reason, in part, for my time here today, which I thank the gentleman for and I thank the Members of this Chamber for.

Illinois is unique in that we have no carry-conceal weapon law. We have no ability on the part of Illinois citizens to defend themselves. We have no right or ability on the part of Illinois citizens to exercise their Second and 14th Amendment rights. This bill, as it now reads, would extend the right only to other States--and I'm supportive of that because I think it's critical that we extend that right--but I am committed, as well as a number of my Illinois colleagues, and I think Second Amendment and fundamental rights Congressmen throughout the United States, to restore that right and to bring that right to Illinois citizens.

Time after time after time, as I visit the coffee houses, as I meet with individuals throughout the district, as I meet with people throughout the State, we are essentially denied in Illinois the rights and privileges of every other citizen of every other State in the Union except Illinois. That's a glaring deficiency, it's an omission, and I believe, frankly, that it strikes at the core of our constitutional guarantees.

I am going to continue to fight, not only on this bill, but on standalone legislation down the line and through the process to bring to Illinois the same rights, keep and bear arms, Second and 14th Amendment rights, that other citizens have throughout the country. It's extraordinarily important. It reaches at the essence of our Constitution, the essence of our guarantees as participants in a republic of civil liberties, and I believe that it is critical that we continue the fight now together with my colleagues, Congressman Hultgren and others from Illinois who have joined me in this process.

I appreciate the time.

I support the bill. I support the rule. But I also support--and I want to conclude by saying this--Illinois citizens' right to keep and bear arms that are being flagrantly denied by our Illinois legislature.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 674 is an extremely crucial piece of legislation that will permanently repeal the 3 percent withholding requirement on all government contracts. Once before, the tax's implementation date had been extended. H.R. 674 will remove any uncertainty from contractors that this tax would eventually be placed upon them.

During these difficult economic times, this extra tax would limit access to capital, increase operating expenses, and take money out of local economies fortunate enough to have contracts to build infrastructure. That means, not only would businesses be burdened, but whole communities as well, because these local contractors would not be able to hire more local workers. As a result, infrastructure projects would slow, further burdening businesses, communities, and citizens that rely on infrastructure for transportation to work, running water for their families, and interstates to move goods and services.

To further exemplify my support for H.R. 674, of which I am a cosponsor, prior to final passage, I will vote against the Motion to Recommit. This vote will drastically alter the bill and negate any positive affect this bill will have on the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday October 27, 2011 I inadvertently missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 674. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote.

Madam Chair, the amendment addressed issues of public health which are critical, but the amendment was too vague and likely redundant. Accordingly, and unusually, a ``present'' vote would be appropriate. At the time of the vote, I was dealing with two constituents, and their problems with Social Security and Post Office closure, and inadvertently missed the vote.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 794, had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2011, I was unable to attend votes due to conflicting appointments as a result of the change in the legislative calendar for this week. Monday evening I held a listening event with local farmers at the fairgrounds. Had there been advance notice of a schedule change, I would have moved my appointment with the farmers. However, I could not, in good conscience, cancel on a group that had been on my schedule for several months.

Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows:

For H.R. 33, I would have voted, ``yea''. I believe this suspension resolves financial uncertainty for churches, especially during this rough economic period.

For Approval of the Journal, I would have voted, ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday July 11, 2011, due to inclement weather in Chicago, Illinois, I was unable to cast my votes for Roll Nos. 534, 535, 536, 537, and 538. I was originally booked on United flight 5347 from Springfield at 1:15 (CST), connecting to United flight 704 leaving O'Hare at 3:00 p.m. and arriving in DCA at 5:49 (EST). I was also backed up on American Airlines flight 3879 departing Chicago O'Hare at 3:00 p.m. However, I could not make either of these flights due to my original flight from Springfield being delayed until 7:00 p.m.

Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows:

For Roll No. 534, to increase funding for the Corps of Engineers construction by $133.8 million and Operations and Maintenance by $51 million and reduce funding for Nuclear Energy by $133.8 million and Fossil Energy Research and Development by $92.8 million, I would have voted ``nay.''

For Roll No. 535, which reduces the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife project by $1.75 million and increases Operations and Maintenance by $1 million for levee repair, I would have voted ``yea.'' In light of the recent problems with flooding along the Mississippi, this transfer appears to be prudent.

For Roll No. 536, which transfer $6.3 million from supervision and general administrative expenses in the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers to Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance for dredging of waterways, I would have voted ``yea.'' As with Roll No. 535, recent flooding problems make this transfer prudent.

For Roll No. 537, which transfers $4.9 million from Operation and Maintenance for global warming to the Spending Reduction Account, I would have voted ``yea.'' I have voted to cut spending in a host of programs including those with which I am sympathetic.

For Roll No. 538, which transfers $3.25 billion from various research and development accounts and regional economic development commissions to the Spending Reduction Account, I would have voted ``yea.'' I have voted to cut spending in a host of programs including those with which I am sympathetic.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Sherman and would like to make a few points.

First, I would like to point out that I fully understand and support the goal of encouraging private sector involvement in offering flood insurance and exploring ways to diminish unnecessary reliance on government programs.

However, I am not convinced that this amendment gets us any closer to achieve this goal. In fact, this Amendment may actually put Congress in the position of picking winners and losers in the market place, interfering with private contracts, and creating millions of dollars in new federal spending.

I would like to make the following points:

Regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through NFIP Direct or through a WYO insurer, the federal government is responsible for all losses covered under the policy. Regardless of whether a policy is issued by NFIP Direct of a WYO insurer, a private company will handle all aspects of policy issuance and claims administration and these services will be paid for through the federal government.

FEMA has informed Congress that private contractors handling NFIP Direct policies can manage the recently transferred policies for $50 million less each year than WYO carriers. This is a savings of $250 million for the life of the bill.

Redistribution of these policies destroys consumer choice and dictates to consumers the company and agent they are required to use for flood insurance while taking property from the agents who produce the business. This redistribution affects flood insurance policy holders and insurance agents in every Congressional District across the country.

The only thing this amendment accomplishes is the forcible transfer of polices from one group to another, with absolutely no cost savings and no improvement in customer service.

There are many questions to answer, and I believe the Committee took the right step in requesting a study before acting on the issue. Unfortunately, we seem to be acting today before we have these answers.

I would like to submit the following statements: (1) A summary of the issue provided to the Senate Banking Committee in connection with their hearings on NFIP authorization; and (2) A letter from FEMA to House Financial Services and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Neugebauer answering questions about the redistribution amendment and highlighting the increased cost to taxpayers of this amendment.

State Farm Insurance--June 30, 2011

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) Views on Efforts to

Redistribute NFIP Direct Policies to Write Your Own Insurers

State Farm supports reauthorizing the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) and would like to take this

opportunity to clear up any confusion surrounding State

Farm's and its agents' participation in the NFIP and the

operational differences between flood insurance policies

distributed through the Write Your Own (WYO) program and NFIP

Direct.

I. The Proposed Redistribution of NFIP Policies Will Not

Decrease the Federal Government's Risk

Unfortunately, under the guise of NFIP ``reform,'' the

attributes of the WYO and NFIP Direct distribution channels

have been mischaracterized in order to pursue an ill-advised

scheme to enlist the federal government's powers to take

insurance business marketed, solicited, and sold by one group

of private insurance agents and redistribute those policies

to other agents and companies who had no role in generating

these policies in the first instance. There are proprietary

rights of insurance agents at stake in this matter.

Characterized as NFIP ``depopulation,'' this scheme hijacks

familiar terminology relating to programs used in several

states that transfer insurance policies out of state-run

insurance pools into the private sector. However, unlike

``depopulation'' at the state level, where the entire risk of

a policy is shifted to the private insurer, the scheme as

advocated for NFIP merely redistributes customers, policies,

and revenues associated with administering those policies

from private businesses connected with NFIP Direct to

selected WYO insurers. No changes are made in the risk

bearing of companies in the

WYO distribution channel. The federal government retains 100%

responsibility for paying all covered flood losses.

Far from being an effort towards privatization reform, the

true nature of WYO participation is captured best in the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission filing of a firm that is

the largest WYO insurer--Fidelity National Financial, Inc. As

described in the firm's most recent Form 10-K for calendar

year 2010:

``We earn fees under [the NFIP] program for settling flood

claims and administering the program. We serve as

administrator and processor in our flood insurance business,

and bear none of the underwriting or claims risk. The U.S.

federal government is guarantor of flood insurance coverage

written under the NFIP and bears the underwriting risk.

Revenues from our flood insurance business are impacted by

the volume and magnitude of claims processed as well as the

volume and rates for policies written. For example, when a

large number of claims are processed as a result of a natural

disaster, such as a hurricane, we experience an increase in

the fees that we receive for settling the claims.''

The suggestion that this confiscatory redistribution scheme

would shrink the public sector while growing the private

sector is wrong. It also completely ignores the fact that,

just like the WYO program, NFIP Direct fully utilizes the

private sector in handling flood insurance policies.

To be clear:

(1) Regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is

provided through NFIP Direct or through a WYO insurer, the

policy provides federal insurance coverage and the federal

government is responsible for all losses covered under the

policy;

(2) NFIP redistribution is a confiscatory scheme that does

not diminish federal obligations on a flood insurance policy

placed with a WYO insurer;

(3) Whether a policy is issued by NFIP Direct or a WYO

insurer, a private company will handle all aspects of policy

issuance and claims administration and these services will be

paid for through the federal government;

(4) Since NFIP costs are funded entirely with federal

monies and FEMA utilizes private parties for handling

policies under both the WYO program and NFIP Direct, there

are no demonstrated federal savings from redistributing

federal flood insurance policies from NFIP Direct to WYO

insurers;

(5) Redistribution of NFIP Direct policies to WYO insurers

does nothing to increase consumer participation rates which

are critical to program solvency; redistribution actually

creates disincentives for more than 17,000 agents to increase

such participation rates; and

(6) Redistribution destroys consumer choice and dictates to

consumers the company and/or agent they are required to use

for flood insurance while taking property from the agents who

produced the business.

Following is more detailed background information.

II. Background on NFIP

a. The WYO Program and State Farm's Participation

The NFIP program has been in place since 1968. The NFIP's

WYO program began in 1983 through statute and federal rule as

a financial arrangement between participating property and

casualty insurers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). The WYO program permits participating property and

casualty insurers to sell and service the NFIP's standard

flood insurance policies in their own names. Although

participating insurance companies receive an expense

allowance for policies written and claims processed, the

federal government retains full responsibility for

underwriting losses and all premiums paid by purchasers of

flood insurance go into the US. Treasury. Currently, about 88

insurance companies participate in the WYO arrangement with

FEMA; this is a decrease from previous years.

Insurers participate in the program through a WYO

Arrangement. FEMA publishes the WYO Arrangement, which is a

federal rule, in the Federal Register before the end

of August every year. Each WYO insurer considers annually

whether or not to sign the WYO arrangement.

State Farm began its WYO participation in 1985. Following

its entry in the program, each year State Farm carefully

evaluated its continuing participation in the WYO

Arrangement. In recent years, NFIP has presented a more

challenging landscape of changing requirements and directives

which requires the expenditure of resources with varying

degrees of notice and clarity of instruction. In addition,

the WYO program's continuing existence became more uncertain

with each gap in authorizations and there were numerous

occasions when the program was allowed to lapse. These

situations complicated our ability to serve our customers'

needs. Subsequently, State Farm made a very difficult

business decision to no longer participate in the WYO

Arrangement.

b. Transition to NFIP Direct and Meeting Customer Needs:

Based on existing regulations, State Farm's orderly

transfer plan was structured in a way that permitted State

Farm agents to continue servicing their customers' needs

through NFIP Direct, regardless of whether State Farm itself

participated as a WYO insurer. For example, under the

Arrangement, a WYO company has the option to sell its book of

business to another WYO insurer (subject to FEMA approval) or

to transfer policies to the NFIP Direct program. State Farm

exercised the option to transfer the policies to the NFIP

Direct Program, which avoided the potential for substantial

customer confusion and disrupting the relationship customers

have with their State Farm agent. More specifically, in

utilizing NFIP Direct, the State Farm agent remains the agent

of record on transferred policies. This means that State

Farm's decision to discontinue participation in the WYO

Arrangement did nothing to undermine our exclusive

independent contractor agents' ability to continue servicing

the needs of their flood insurance customers who maintained

or sought federal flood insurance protection in the future.

From a consumer perspective, this seamless transition of the

policies was effortless; renewal of flood insurance coverage

did not require any additional steps by policyholders. The

customer placed their coverage as they did previously--

through their State Farm agent, an individual who was a

familiar face to the customer and had an existing

understanding of the customer's property and needs.

State Farm did not receive any compensation for its orderly

transfer of policies to NFIP Direct. Of approximately 800,000

policies, State Farm has transferred to date over 550,000

policies. Each State Farm WYO policyholder has already

received a notice regarding the transfer plan. Each

policyholder has also received or will receive a second

notice prior to the policy transfer.

c. The Critical Role of State Farm Agents

Perhaps more important to the functioning of NFIP, active

agent participation in the marketing and selling flood

insurance is a significant issue of concern to FEMA. It is

widely recognized that one major shortcoming of the NFIP is

that the purchase of flood insurance is often limited to only

those who need coverage or are mandated to purchase coverage

in connection with the purchase of a home. This limited

demand impedes the ability of the NFIP to broaden its

insurance base to satisfy a fundamental tenet of insurance

underwriting--spreading the risk of loss among a larger and

more diverse pool of policyholders who are unlikely to

experience losses at the same time. Consequently, an agent

workforce actively engaged in marketing and soliciting NFIP

policies is a critical component of making the program more

actuarially sound.

Indeed, FEMA recognized that having State Farm agents

actively market and sell NFIP Direct policies is a major

benefit to the program. However, if the federal government

were to redistribute policies brought into NFIP by an agent

to another company or agent (which includes commissions), the

incentive for agents to originate policies in NFIP Direct

would be removed without any commensurate benefit, which

would undermine the entire program. Equally pernicious, it

would be tantamount to a government taking of business

property from individual businessmen and businesswomen solely

for the benefit of another private party.

III. Proposed Redistribution Scheme Offers No Cost Advantage:

Private Parties Handle the Servicing of all NFIP Policies

Regardless of Who Distributes Them

Contrary to the assertions made by supporters of NFIP

``depopulation,'' the confiscatory redistribution of NFIP

Direct policies to WYO insurers will not create smaller

government, increase the role of the private sector, or

diminish the government's risk of loss on flood insurance

policies. All NFIP policies have an agent of record that

handles the sales and some aspects of servicing. These agents

may or may not be associated with a WYO company, but they are

paid a commission through NFIP, regardless of whether they

are affiliated with a WYO company or not. A similar pattern

is followed for claims handling where private sector parties

service all NFIP claims regardless of how they are

distributed.

Claims handling for NFIP Direct policies is done by a

private contractor, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC),

through a competitively bid contract. Furthermore, as

described in its own marketing materials, CSC provides

identical services to several WYO carriers, including some of

the largest. As a result, there is a strong probability that

the so-called ``reforms'' achieved through confiscatory

redistribution would do nothing more than transfer the

handling of flood insurance policies from CSC under its NFIP

Direct hat to CSC wearing its WYO hat. Significantly, the

proponents of confiscatory redistribution have not produced

any evidence suggesting that their servicing will save the

NFIP money. Indeed, the only difference for policies so

redistributed would be that insurance agents--primarily small

businesspeople who sold the flood policy in the first

instance, would see their book of business confiscated by the

federal government and simply handed over to another company.

This is not reform and is not about ``making the government

smaller.''

IV. Proposed Redistribution Scheme Destroys Consumer Choice

Another insidious result of NFIP confiscatory

redistribution is the elimination of consumer choice and

engaging the federal government to forcibly require consumers

to accept companies and/or agents with whom they have no

prior relationship, or, even worse, whom they have

affirmatively rejected in the past. Far from creating a

seamless transition for consumers, redistribution

generates several problems. For example, if a consumer has

chosen to work with an agent and has been with an agent for

many years, should the federal government overrule the

consumer's choice through redistribution? What if a policy

has been redistributed to a company with whom the consumer

does not want to do business? Does the consumer have any

control? Does the federal government really want to be

involved in this type of decision?

V. Conclusion

``Depopulation'' of NFIP is a myth. Current efforts along

these lines are nothing more than a scheme to use the federal

government's authority to redistribute existing policies from

one group of private insurance agents and give that business

to other private entities. This confiscatory redistribution

scheme makes no changes in the federal government's risk

exposure under NFIP, fails to increase participation rates in

purchasing flood insurance, provides no demonstrated savings

to the federal government, and destroys consumer choice. Such

measures should be opposed.

I thank the distinguished sponsor and would preface my comments by saying I am strongly in support of Congresswoman Biggert's superb piece of legislation.

However, I rise today in opposition to this amendment offered by Representative Sherman. I would like to point out first that I fully understand and support the goal of encouraging private sector involvement and exploring ways to diminish unnecessary reliance on government programs. However, I am not convinced, in fact I am unconvinced, this amendment gets us any

closer to achieving that goal. In fact, this amendment may put Congress in the position of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace, interfering with private contracts, and creating millions of dollars in new Federal spending.

I would like to make the following points: regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through NFIP Direct or WIO, the Federal Government's responsible for all the losses incurred under the policy. FEMA has informed Congress that private contractors handling NFIP Direct policies can manage the recently transferred policies for $50 million less, which is a saving of $250 million over the life of the bill. I don't have to tell any individuals in today's world what that means.

Redistribution of these policies destroys, in my judgment, consumer choice, dictates to consumers the company and agent they are required to use for flood insurance, while taking property from the agents who produce the business. This redistribution affects flood insurance policyholders and insurance agents in every district in the country.

Really, the only thing this amendment does is the forcible transfer of policies from one group to the other with not only no cost savings, with significant costs to the Federal Government. A lot of questions to answer.

I believe the committee and Representative Biggert took the right approach in requesting a study before acting on the issue. Unfortunately, today, we seem to be acting contrary-wise before we have these answers. With all due respect again to the sponsor of the amendment, and certainly in concert with the sponsor of the bill, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 533, the rule on H. Res. 340 appears to contain amendments which could be adverse to economic interests in the State of Illinois, subject to further study. The rule is traditionally a procedural, partisan matter. Accordingly, despite my presence on the floor in the center aisle, I chose to abstain. Had I voted, I would have voted, ``present.''

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 444, I was taken from the floor by Agricultural staff to analyze certain issues, and inadvertently missed the first King amendment. I have been a strong supporter of ranch justice, including in the farm arena. However, the process of dealing with claims, and the fiscal impact, necessitate a ``present'' vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 445, I was taken off the floor by agricultural staff to analyze certain agricultural issues, and inadvertently missed the vote. I am a strong pro-life Member, but this amendment addresses an issue simply not a part of the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Garrett

Thank you, Mr. Kucinich, and thank you Members of the House.

This issue of war and peace and separation of powers transcends partisan politics. A few years ago, together with my good friend, Steve Israel, I began what's known as the Center Aisle Caucus, which has a large membership now. Our goal is bipartisan solutions to America's challenges, and this bill reflects that approach.

H. Con. Res. 51, on paper, addresses our illegal war in Libya; but, in spirit, it calls into question American presence in the Middle East, and it should command the attention of the national media, if you're listening, and every American citizen.

Today I issue a challenge to an often divided Congress. To my Democratic colleagues, I ask you to candidly acknowledge that war is war, even when a Democratic President initiates, or perpetuates, that war. To my Republican colleagues, I ask you to acknowledge that a sincere and effective attack on our crippling national debt, without defense spending squarely on the table, is indefensible and disingenuous.

To all of my colleagues, I ask you to acknowledge certain realities: one, our global warfare kills American men and women and innocent people all around the world every day.

Two, we cannot impose our standards of democracy, humanitarianism, and culture--as much as we want to--on nations that don't care and resent our self-proclaimed role as judge and jury.

Three, there is little, if any, connection between our actions in Libya and the safety of citizens in St. Louis, Missouri, or Mount Zion, Illinois. We spend almost $700 billion a year on defense, a significant portion of that for three wars.

Three days ago, we voted on the issue of whether to increase our national debt limit to nearly $17 trillion. From President Bush to President Obama, and well before, Presidents have flagrantly and arrogantly violated article I, section 8 of the Constitution, not to mention the War Powers Act.

The Speaker's resolution that we will vote on here in a few moments was strongly worded--and I believe sincerely offered--but it was just that: words. It is not and should not be a cover for any Member of this Chamber to fail to support the Kucinich bill, which puts teeth, real teeth, into congressional prerogatives.

Support the Constitution, support fiscal responsibility, and support peace. Support the Kucinich resolution.