Justin Amash

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his tremendous leadership on this issue. There is a growing bipartisan support for this amendment. It's an amendment that gives us the opportunity to stop this unconstitutional war in Libya. The United States has been at war against Libya for nearly 4 months. We have dropped bombs on Libyan buildings. We have flown sorties over Libyan airspace. It has been reported that we have even targeted Qadhafi himself. We are at war. The Constitution vests Congress with the exclusive power to declare war, the President has not attempted to obtain Congress's authorization for the war, and yet at this moment, as we debate on the House floor, the war continues. Instead of following the Constitution and seeking authorization, the President made strained arguments to justify the continued operation. At first, the operation was supposed to be ``limited,'' as though that undefined term serves as a constitutional escape clause. My constituents certainly would be surprised if Congress established a limited religion, or subjected them to limited cruel and unusual punishment, or quartered soldiers in their houses, but only for a limited time. After that ``limited'' argument ran its course, the President turned to a U.N. Security Council resolution and an invitation from an organization of Arab states to justify our involvement. Those organizations were not around at the time the Constitution was written, much less are they listed in its text. The administration now has retreated from its constitutional arguments in public and claims that at least the War Powers Resolution does not forbid the strikes because we're not involved in, quote, hostilities against Libya. Imagine that the shoe were on the other foot, that Libya was bombing us. Would we view the Libyan air force's bombing of our infrastructure as a hostile act? Of course we would. Last week, a member of the other Chamber called the President's arguments, quote, cute. I would use a different term: embarrassing. It's embarrassing that the administration attempts to hide behind these transparently strained and flimsy arguments, especially when we're dealing with such a grave issue. But do you know what would be more embarrassing? If this Congress did nothing. More embarrassing than the President's contortions of the law and disregard for the Constitution would be if Congress, with full knowledge that it was occurring, gave him a pass. In the face of an attack on the Constitution, in the face of an attack on this institution and our powers as a coequal branch, we must stand up and say stop. If we don't, we should be the ones who are embarrassed. The Amash-Kucinich amendment prohibits funds from being used for military force against Libya. To be clear, I believe that Congress doesn't need to do anything to stop the President from ordering force against Libya; because the President has not received authorization, the use of force is already illegal. However, to reinforce our constitutional position, our amendment says that beginning at the start of the fiscal year, on October 1, the Armed Forces may not drop bombs on Libya or otherwise use military force. Unlike the bill we considered the week before last, our amendment does not implicitly authorize any actions against Libya. It simply says force may not be used because the President has not sought nor has he received authorization for force. Please vote ``yes'' on the Amash-Kucinich amendment and defend our constitutional role in war powers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, within the last month, the House has voted to strike problematic and anticompetitive A-76 language from H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, and from H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill. The same change and reversal of bad policy should be adopted in this legislation by striking section 8015. My amendment does just that. As drafted, section 8015 prohibits the Department of Defense from contracting out any function unless it will save a minimum of $10 million or 10 percent of the department's performance costs even if the contractor is less costly overall and can perform the work more efficiently. Independent studies have found that public-private competitions lower costs by between 10 and 40 percent regardless of whether the competition is won by a private contractor or the government. Rather than stand in the way of public-private competitions, Congress should cut the redtape and make the use of this cost-saving process easier, not harder. The requirements in section 8015 are largely codified in existing statute. Retaining section 8015 will obstruct and potentially nullify any current efforts to reform the system in ways that improve public- private competitions and bring much needed consistency and reliability to the process. Instead of complicating the use of competitions that improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the most efficient way to deliver services. This amendment will send that message by reducing restrictions on the Department of Defense and by making it easier to achieve reforms that will increase the availability of cost-saving competitions throughout the department. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first amendment to H.R. 2219. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act requires nearly all Federal construction contracts to pay a prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor. Under the law, construction contractors and subcontractors may not pay their own workers wages lower than the department's pay rate, even if the workers bargain for a wage below the government-set rate. My amendment blocks application of Davis-Bacon to the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill. There are two main reasons why the House should block Davis-Bacon. First, Davis-Bacon wastes taxpayer dollars on overpriced contracts. A recent study showed that, on average, nationwide, the government-set rate is 22 percent higher than the true market rate. For example, if sheet metal workers in Long Island, New York, are paid $28.79 per hour, while the government-set rate for that area is $45.40, factoring in the cost of materials and other supplies, studies suggest that the Federal Government overpays for construction contracts by between 10 percent and 15 percent. Second, Davis-Bacon gives an unfair advantage to union employees. Small businesses, many of which are nonunion, lower their prices to compete against larger union firms. The trade-off for nonunion employees is a lower-wage rate but more work. We should not disadvantage nonunion employees who are willing to perform more construction for less money. By eliminating government-mandated wages, we can better allocate resources, increase efficiency, and put hardworking Americans back on the job. Providing for our national defense and the care of our veterans are critical priorities. Construction projects in the appropriations bill include VA facilities, family housing, schools and infrastructure for our National Guard troops stationed on the border. We owe it to our constituents to stretch every taxpayer dollar and spend wisely. Blocking Davis-Bacon's application to military construction and VA projects will honor our commitment to fiscal responsibility and to our veterans. Let's let competition determine wages, not the Federal Government. Please support my amendment to block Davis-Bacon. I now yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, at the start of this Congress, the House made important changes to the way the institution operates. We began by ending earmarks. Americans understood that the practice favored Representatives' pet projects while the taxpayer was left to foot the bill. Earmarks diverted our constituents' hard-earned money to low- priority projects and, even worse, appeared corrupt. Americans started to lose confidence in their government when they saw their Representatives using public funds for personal gain. In a similar vein, this Congress continued last Congress' prohibition on ``monuments to me.'' Like earmarks, when House Members name Federal programs and buildings after themselves, Americans can't be sure whether the programs are funded because they are worthwhile or because they benefit a House Member personally. The appropriations bill we are considering today has a prohibition on ``monuments to me'' that mirrors the House rules and bans naming programs and buildings after current House Members. My amendment extends that same prohibition to current Senators and the President. Ending ``monuments to me'' is an important step to preventing the waste of taxpayer dollars and to ensuring that our appropriations are in the best interests of the public, not the personal interests of elected representatives. I ask you to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I again offer this amendment on behalf of the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz). As I mentioned previously, millions of Americans have serious concerns regarding the use of advanced imaging technology machines, also known as full body scanners, at airports. In light of our serious concerns about efficacy, safety, and privacy, and the violation to our liberty, we ask that these machines not be funded for use as mandatory or primary screening devices. I ask my colleagues for your support. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz). My constituents and I share the concerns of the distinguished gentleman from Utah and his constituents and millions of Americans regarding the use of advanced imaging technology machines, also known as full body scanners, at airports. We are concerned not only about the efficacy and safety of such machines, but also about the serious violations of privacy and our rights as protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution resulting from the government's use of such machines. It is in that spirit that I offer this amendment. I ask my colleagues for your support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMASH. I have one final amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMASH. My amendment prohibits political meddling in the Department's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, commonly known as FOIA. FOIA gives citizens the right to know what their government is doing. As President Obama stated shortly after taking office, ``In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act, which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.'' Countless instances of waste, fraud, and abuse have been exposed by using FOIA. In September 2009, political appointees in DHS implemented an unprecedented policy to review FOIA requests and documents proposed to be released. The current DHS political review process of FOIA is extraordinary. Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley wrote to 29 offices of inspectors general to request that they determine whether and to what extent political appointees have a role in responding to FOIA requests. According to the IGs surveyed, the level of involvement of DHS's political staff in the FOIA response process is uniquely high. While it is the case that political staff at a very small number of agencies have prior notice of newsworthy releases, at no other agency do front office staff have the opportunity to withhold or otherwise delay such releases to avoid embarrassment or for political reasons. FOIA is vital to our democracy. It is the most powerful single tool citizens and the press have to discover what our government is doing. And the law has a long track record of exposing corruption and inefficiency to improve government for all Americans. My amendment protects FOIA from politicization at DHS. It prohibits DHS political appointees from improperly blocking the release of FOIA documents. My amendment allows DHS political appointees to continually be aware of FOIA requests in documents proposed to be released, but it prevents the political appointees from interfering with the public's right to know. I ask for your support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It deletes section 1034, the new Authorization for Use of Military Force. Section 1034 contains, perhaps, the broadest authorization for use of military force Congress has ever considered. In doing so, it essentially delegates nearly all of Congress' constitutional war powers to the President. It expands Congress' use of force to include ``associated forces,'' a group the bill does not define. Under section 1034, associated forces don't need to be connected to 9/11. Associated forces don't need to have fought against the United States, and associated forces may even include American citizens. There is no geographical limit to the authorization. Force may be used worldwide at the President's discretion. Please join me in opposing this broad, new AUMF. Please support amendment No. 50. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. AMASH. Recognizing that this new AUMF goes beyond the original AUMF, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). (Mr. JONES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. AMASH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. AMASH. Recognizing that Osama bin Laden was killed under the old AUMF, not the new broader language, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. AMASH. In closing, Mr. Chair, make no mistake: the power we were asked to give the President is beyond the power Congress gave the President in the wake of the largest terrorist attack in our history. Support amendment No. 50 and turn back this broad delegation of Congress' constitutional authority. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Free societies are founded on a core set of rights--rights that are beyond the reach of government and that no other person or group can take away. The Founders created our government to secure these unalienable rights, and chief among them is the right to life. President's recognize this right when they weigh carefully whether to put our soldiers in harm's way. Our judiciary respects this right when it spends years reviewing each and every capital punishment case. Yet this same government authorizes, and in some cases pays for, the routine taking of the most innocent of lives--the lives of the unborn. It is unconscionable that in a country founded explicitly to protect individuals' fundamental rights we allow the regular violation of the right to life. Worse yet, the government forces each of us to pay for the killing of innocent life. I urge you to vote for H.R. 3, to strengthen our protection of the right to life.