Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor and pay tribute to Gregory C. Brady, a fellow Nebraskan and the Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Office of Justice Programs, in the U.S. Department of Justice, who is retiring after forty-six years of remarkable public service in the interests of justice. His tireless dedication to the multi-faceted work of the Department, reflected in his many career accomplishments, have earned him great respect and recognition in the Office of Justice Programs and its component agencies, and throughout the Department and among his fellow attorneys at bar. I want to take a moment to memorialize his extraordinary and inspiring accomplishments. Greg Brady was born and reared in Nebraska, graduating from the University of Nebraska in 1962, with a Bachelor of Arts degree, and in 1965, with a Juris Doctorate. Thereafter, Mr. Brady served a three-year tour of duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps of the U.S. Navy (from which, after prosecuting and defending scores of cases, he was honorably discharged with the rank of Lieutenant). Mr. Brady began his service with the Department of Justice in December 1968, as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, and has been continuously serving the Department of Justice, and the public, faithfully and in an exemplary manner ever since. In the United States Attorney's Office, he demonstrated his flexibility of mind and zealous devotion to duty in countless criminal (misdemeanors, felonies, grand juries, etc.) and civil cases that he litigated, at the trial and appellate levels, many of which cases involved groundbreaking questions of law. Mitchell v. Laird, for example, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1973), was brought unsuccessfully by thirteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives to enjoin the involvement of U.S. military personnel in the Vietnam conflict, and involved complex Constitutional questions of standing, executive prerogative, and justiciability. United States v. Crowder, 543 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1976)--which Mr. Brady's arguments (opposed by those of Mr. Robert Bennett) initially won at the District Court, then lost before a Circuit Court panel, and then won in an en banc proceeding of the Circuit Court--was the first case in the country to approve use of a search warrant to require a suspect to submit to surgery so the police could obtain a bullet as evidence of his criminal activity. (The case against Crowder (a two-time murderer) for the murder of a prominent Washington dentist was considered weak, because the only evidence known to the police that could link him firmly to the earlier crime were the bullets lodged in his arm and leg, from his murder-victim's gun. It was Mr. Brady's idea to try to obtain a search warrant for the bullets; he also thought of the stratagem of deputizing the (anxious) physicians from Georgetown University Hospital as U.S. Marshals for purposes of the surgery. Judge McGowan's concurrence (as does Judge Leventhal's dissent) goes out of its way to praise Mr. Brady's prosecution for the procedural orderliness and fair play it consistently demonstrated in the case. The case was featured in a Time magazine article.) This kind of legal creativity and strict adherence to the rule of law remains typical of Mr. Brady, nearly thirty of whose cases are officially reported in the published court records. Having attained the rank of Deputy Chief of the Appellate Division at the United States Attorney's Office here in the City, Mr. Brady began his career with the Justice Department's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (the predecessor agency to the Office of Justice Programs) in February 1974, formally in the Office of the General Counsel, but actually detailed to assist in the creation and development of grant and support programs to assist States in improving the management of prosecution offices, combating career criminals, and reducing white-collar crime. His prosecutorial experience in the Navy and the United States Attorney's Office made him invaluable to the program, which, itself, is at the heart of the core mission of the Office of Justice Programs. In 1980 (at his request), Mr. Brady returned to the direct practice of law, in the agency's Office of the General Counsel, dispensing advice and rendering opinions on countless matters relating to every conceivable area of administrative law. In 1984, on account of his vast practical and administrative experience, he was asked to found, and become the first Director of, a new Office of Justice Programs component, which eventually was to become the Office for Victims of Crime--a signal initiative of President Reagan's administration. And he did found that office, on firm and sound lines, co-authoring what eventually was enacted as the Victim Compensation and Assistance Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-473), which clearly sets forth the purposes and organic principles of the office-- purposes and principles that remain in place today. His mission at that office accomplished, some three years later, the leadership of the Office of Justice Programs acquiesced in Mr. Brady's request to return to its Office of the General Counsel, where he has served ever since. He has been the principal ethics officer at the Office of Justice Programs since 1988 (in which capacity he has provided excellent guidance, training, and advice to the General Counsel, Presidential appointees, and career employees, alike), and in 1996 became the Deputy General Counsel, after having served for years as Associate General Counsel; he became Principal Deputy General Counsel in 2001. For the last twenty-four years, Mr. Brady has applied a firm sense of purpose and integrity to instructing numberless Department employees in how to negotiate the minefields of ethical situations associated with administration of a multi-billion-dollar-a-year grant-making operation. At a time when the corporate world has endured significant ethical and moral lapses, Mr. Brady's personal efforts consistently have guided officials of the Department with a minimum of public conflict or scandal, and with the result that there is a clear public perception-- necessary to the success of any government program--of even-handedness in the administration of the Office of Justice Programs' criminal- justice grant programs. Mr. Brady's love of the law and its practitioners in the legal profession manifested itself in his generous devotion of time and attention to mentoring law students and newly-minted attorneys during the critical development stages of their careers. As Deputy General Counsel over the past twenty years, he has guided (even shepherded) them, with his approachable, kindly, and affable manner. His deep understanding and wide experience in the law made him an inspiring and effective teacher. Mr. Brady genuinely delighted in seeing the progress and development of attorneys, and their embrace of the highest standards of the legal profession; and the number and variety of law firms and government agencies that have been affected by individuals originally trained by him is impressive. (These include an Assistant Attorney General, as well as the Executive Director of a Government Corporation and a past Presidential appointee responsible for juvenile- justice issues.) In the Office of the General Counsel, he has demonstrated outstanding legal research, presentation, and advocacy skills, and has been a true role model for all of the attorneys, greatly assisting in their professional development. And ``role model'' is, in fact, the apt term: for Mr. Brady is no one-dimensional work-is-my-life attorney. Despite his aggressive work schedule, he has lived his vocation as a family man (he is the father of three adored daughters and grandfather to two no-less-adored granddaughters) to the full, and his community has known that he can be depended upon to volunteer his time for others. To give but one example: For over twenty years, he has been a night-time volunteer (i.e., after putting in a full-day's work) at a crisis/suicide hotline in Prince William County, Virginia. In 2001, he was named their ``Exceptional Volunteer of the Year.'' His tireless volunteer work in his community and parish have earned him numerous Attorney-General commendations over the years. It is no small thing to stress that Mr. Brady has performed all of these tasks with unfailing courtesy, professionalism, and kindness (to say nothing of his ever-present humor and sharp wit). The long and short of it is that Mr. Brady simply is someone who, quietly and unassumingly, has kept the Department of Justice (and especially the Office of Justice Programs) running. Although his career in the Department hardly has been typical (at least in that it does not mostly involve litigation), Mr. Brady epitomizes the ideal of a Department of Justice attorney. For this reason, he has received both the Attorney General's Mary C. Lawton Lifetime Service Award (one of the Department's very highest awards), as well as the Office of Justice Programs' Assistant Attorney General's Lifetime Achievement Award. And for his years of dedicated public service, he received a personal commendation from President George W. Bush. Gregory C. Brady has dedicated his professional life to public service, and his many accomplishments during the forty-six years of that professional life are a credit to him, to his family, to his home State of Nebraska, to the Department of Justice, and to his local community of which he is such an active, generous, and vibrant member.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I don't take the issue lightly of amending our Constitution, which has endured through strife and dramatic historical shifts with very few amendments. Constitutional amendments should be exceedingly rare, as they have the power to spur sweeping change. But I do believe it is necessary that the same process that guaranteed our hallmark freedoms of speech and religion and freedom from slavery be used to protect our children and future generations from economic collapse. Most States, including Nebraska, have already enacted balanced budget requirements. My State has to live within its means. The Federal Government needs to do the same. Mr. Speaker, we are standing at history's door. We can either lead and be bold, making the hard decisions necessary to correct this fiscal trajectory, or stay in our timeworn political lanes, continuing with the status quo that has given our Nation this unsustainable debt burden. We can do something big for this country and our future and make deficit spending a thing of the past. This is a significant moment. I urge my colleagues that we pass this bill.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, the Department of Health and Human Services recently proposed a rule that would require all health plans to cover in full and, consequently, every American to subsidize procedures and drugs that are unrelated to medical necessity, traditionally considered electives, and can be very ethically divisive for many Americans. Why when 75 cents on every public health care dollar is spent on the management of chronic conditions, such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke, is the Health and Human Services Department prioritizing free sterilization, for instance? This is distinctly unrelated to our Nation's health care priority challenges. I can only conclude that this is ideologically driven and most perniciously affects faith-based institutions who are the backstop of compassionate care for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Many Republicans and Democrats have expressed very serious concerns about this. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, health care is a necessary element to a good and orderly and compassionate society. We all support health, but abortion is not health care. The vast majority of Americans do not support using their dollars in support of the abortion industry, and Americans should not be forced by the strong arm of the government to subsidize the abortion industry. Here's the problem. The health care law passed in 2010 contains some serious flaws in this regard. Namely, now the Federal Government will subsidize insurance policies that cover abortion on demand. The health care law also forces enrollees in health care plans that cover abortion to pay for abortions obtained by others. The health care law also gives license to Federal agencies to mandate abortion coverage. We have just seen that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, under the guise of preventative care, has now promulgated rules that will force everyone to pay for abortifacient drugs and not to mention sterilization. And this also tramples on the conscience rights of health care entities that do not perform or promote abortion. Madam Speaker, I believe this: The Protect Life Act is in the interest of the right type of health care for America.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I missed rollcall No. 599. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 600. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Department of Energy administration account by $35 million and increase the Global Threat Reduction Initiative by a $35 million amount as well. As cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, together with my colleague Mr. Schiff, I am deeply concerned about the potential nuclear security threats and vulnerabilities, and I am committed to strengthening momentum on efforts to secure fissile materials and prevent the proliferation and misuse of sensitive nuclear materials and technologies here and around the world. I also want to thank Representative Sanchez for her longstanding commitment to this important issue as well. Mr. Chairman, nuclear terrorism is a threat so serious in its consequences that we often shrink from even contemplating it. But ignoring the problem is not an option. There are some relatively straightforward steps that we can take to reduce our vulnerabilities, and one of these is to strengthen the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. To date, this important program has converted or verified the shutdown of 76 out of 200 highly enriched uranium research reactors to be converted or verified as shut down by the year 2022. The program has removed 3,085 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from 42 countries. The program has eliminated all highly enriched uranium from 19 countries and plans to eliminate all of it from an additional nine countries by December of 2013. These countries--the 19 it was removed from--include Brazil, Colombia, Latvia, Portugal, South Korea, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, Thailand, Greece, the Philippines, Slovenia, Sweden, Romania, Libya, Turkey, Taiwan, Chile, and Serbia. In addition, the program has also overseen the removal of 960 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Mr. Chairman, that's enough for 38 nuclear weapons, and this is since 2009. It is vital that we work together to transcend any differences in this body to prevent our world from sleepwalking to utter disaster. We are at a crossroads. The technical advances that have enabled transnational communication and cooperation for progress have also enabled and benefited individuals and groups bound by ideologies that threaten the very foundations of civil society and government. I consider it our collective mission to ensure that we succeed in controlling nuclear technology and materials to leave a stable global environment for generations. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative Sanchez in supporting this important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues to ensure that our defense community has the resources necessary to carry out an important security mandate that this body passed this year. Mr. Chairman, the Lord's Resistance Army has terrorized central Africa for 25 years. But last year, Congress and the administration took unprecedented steps to end the group's campaign of violence. This body passed broadly supported bipartisan legislation called the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act requiring the administration to prepare and present to Congress a comprehensive strategy to bring LRA commanders to justice. Mr. Chairman, with the administration's strategy released in November, we should move to implement an international strategy to help end the atrocities committed by the LRA, protect innocent civilians, and stabilize a region of Africa that is critical to the United States' national security interests. Through over 20 years of civil war, this brutal insurgency has created a humanitarian crisis that has displaced over 1\1/2\ million people and resulted in the abduction of over 20,000 children in one of the world's most difficult ungoverned spaces. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is continuing to take a lead role in this international effort, which I appreciate.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership again. My colleagues and I believe that resources invested in ending this conflict now will not only save innocent lives but will also help reduce the need for very expensive humanitarian aid and promote stability in one of Africa's most volatile regions. With that said, I would like to yield to our chairman, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2008, this body declared that the United States would not provide military assistance to countries found guilty of using child soldiers. With broad bipartisan support, we declared that this is an affront to human dignity and an affront to civilization itself, and we reaffirmed this policy earlier this year in the continuing resolution. It is the policy of our Nation that children--all children, no matter where they are--belong on playgrounds and not battlegrounds, Mr. Chairman. But that policy is at risk, and this body has an important decision to make. Six governments were found guilty of using child soldiers in 2010--Burma, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. As the law we passed provided, four were granted national security interest waivers last year in the hopes, Mr. Chairman, that they would take serious and aggressive strides toward ending this serious human rights violation. Somalia was also permitted to continue receiving peacekeeping assistance, effectively sanctioning only Burma, a country to which we provided no military assistance anyway. Mr. Chairman, this administration has been heavily criticized for this decision. And it is no surprise that in the newly released 2011 child soldiers report, the same six countries were listed as violators once again. Mr. Chairman, we must ask, where is the progress? The 2011 report needs to stand as a challenge to President Obama, the administration, and this Congress as well. We are operating inconsistently, obligated by law and civilized order itself to combat this most serious human rights violation--especially prevalent in the world's ungoverned spaces--but we continue with military assistance, with inattentiveness to stopping the pernicious use of child soldiers. Mr. Chairman, my amendment reaffirms current U.S. policy, lest we forget it. In the 2011 continuing resolution, we extended the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to cover peacekeeping operations, and my amendment is consistent with this. It also clarifies a point of law not mentioned in the Child Soldiers Prevention Act. Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 provides the Department of Defense the authority to train and equip foreign military forces. But according to its own terms and the State Department, section 1206 authorities may not be used to provide any type of equipment, supplies, or training that is otherwise prohibited by any other provision of law. Mr. Chairman, children in these countries are being preyed upon, innocent lives are being lost, children are being thrown into psychological hell. Girl soldiers and some boys are being subjected to grotesque sexual slavery and violence. They are property. Their lives are not their own. They are battered, beaten, victimized, stripped of dignity, hope, and a future, made to do unfathomable things by the world's worst criminals. Mr. Chairman, these criminals just aren't faceless rebels in the bush either. While there are plenty of those, we are talking now about governments that are guilty of this pernicious practice. And we need to make it clear: Are we going to tolerate this or not? William Wilberforce, the British statesman and unyielding abolitionist for whom our anti-human trafficking law is named, once said this: ``You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know.'' We must make it clear to these governments that we do now know and that we cannot look the other way, Mr. Chairman. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me add as well it's a little difficult for me to sit here quietly and listen to the pontificating about Wall Street bailouts. I didn't support the Wall Street bailout either. There are now five banks who control over 50 percent of the assets, deposited assets, in the country. Those banks that were deemed ``too big to fail'' in reality are too big to succeed. It's the Main Street bank that's under constant competitive pressure from these large institutions that have been empowered by further consolidations by the actions of this very body. So it's very difficult to sit here and take that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time. Madam Chair, farmers are good Americans. They understand our tight budgetary times and the need to tighten the belt, and they are willing to do their part. But before we vote on this bill, which does some very heavy lifting in this regard, let's consider the profound benefits American agriculture brings to people across the country. It's about food security. Today Americans pay only 10 to 12 percent of their income on food, compared to those in other nations who pay up to 50 percent or more. Ag policy now is also about economic security, energy security, and even national security and global stability. Agriculture, Madam Chair, is one of the few bright spots in the American economy. Agriculture is consistently one of the few trade areas where the U.S. still holds a positive trade balance. And exports are growing as the world demands more and more American-grown food. Last year, ag exports neared $108 billion, and projections indicate an even stronger total this year. Agriculture is also helping strengthen our energy independence. From rural wind and solar farms to biofuels and biogas production from livestock waste, we are beginning to see the vast potential of renewable sources found on America's farms and ranches. Not only does food security bolster our own national security, but it also aids in global stability. Our farmers help feed the world and keep the peace in understated but very important ways. In my home State of Nebraska, for instance, our farmers are rebuilding war-torn fields in Afghanistan, countering the illicit poppy trade and helping to create a new sustainable and lawful agricultural production. I just came from a ceremony where we sent off 57 members of the agricultural unit of the Nebraska Air and Army National Guard, who will be using their farming skills to help the Afghan people with new irrigation techniques and new models for wheat and grassland production. Our farmers participating in global agricultural training projects achieve key humanitarian goals as well. We have made significant gains in empowering women producers, which gives rise to greater equality and social mobilization and engagement in their local communities. For instance, they are helping to rebuild Haiti's decimated agricultural sector in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake. And through various U.S. agricultural food aid programs, they are combating global hunger. Again, Madam Chairman, American farmers are ready to do their part and help fix our Nation's fiscal mess. But in cleaning up this mess, it's very important not to forget about the hard work our farm families put in day in and day out to help feed and fuel and protect all of America.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. The gentleman has accused our side of the aisle of lying. Is that a cause for having his words taken down?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to address this issue of who's on the side of the American people. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. Over 40 cents on every dollar that the government is spending is borrowed. We have $14 trillion of debt. This is a very tough Agricultural appropriations budget. I don't like it. The CFTC is a very important organization; it does very important work. I think as well there are structural flaws in the commodities markets. Futures markets that are designed to decrease volatility and mitigate risk are actually increasing volatility and causing risk. There's a structural problem there. But the issue comes down to what are we going to prioritize and where. The CFTC has received--since the recklessness of Wall Street in 2008 and those bailouts that were voted on by a majority of this body--has received a 53 percent increase in its funding. I wish it didn't have to be reduced, but it's being asked to share in this overall budget of reducing the entire cost of the Agricultural appropriations bill by a margin that is actually less than other parts of the bill. It's a tough budget. I don't like it either. But we've got to try to tighten our belt in a responsible manner. And given the increases that have occurred, I think it's important to have some historical perspective here. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, before I begin the discussion on the amendment, I'd like to correct the Record in regard to something I said earlier. The CFTC budget is actually decreased by a slightly higher amount than the overall Ag budget, rather than a slightly lower amount. In addition to that, I do wish to address a number of charges laid before the chairman of the Ag Appropriation Committee. We've heard for hours that this bill is about supporting Wall Street, Big Oil and tax breaks at the expense of food security. I think it's very important to note that food security is an important American value. It's important to me. It's important to many of us. So much so that in a time of very tight budgets, this bill actually raises food and nutrition spending by nearly $7 billion, approximately 7 percent more than current levels, because there are many vulnerable Americans out there who now qualify during these very tight economic times. Secondly, I also wish to reiterate, I did not support the Wall Street bailouts. Many of us didn't, both Democrat and Republicans. Five banks now control more than 50 percent of the deposited assets in this country. Main Street banks, many of whom had no role in the reckless behavior on Wall Street, are now under the constant competitive pressure from those banks that were deemed too big to fail, but in actuality are too big to succeed. Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to point out that I did not vote for the tax deal passed at the end of last year, an 11th-hour deal that was cobbled together because of the mismanagement of this institutional process. We could have done much better for the American people, both Democrats and Republicans. So the reality is this is a very difficult process we're in now to right-size our budget and make government more efficient and effective. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer an amendment that invests in renewable energy in rural America. Clearly, America needs a bold new energy vision, and this amendment, I believe, can help. A sustainable energy future must include the integration of conservation and new technologies, powered by clean renewable sources such as wind and solar, geothermal, biofuels, and biomass. Increasing our energy portfolio and the diverse range of opportunities available to produce energy domestically is all the more important in light of skyrocketing fuel prices. Rural America should continue to play an important role in this regard. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $1 million from the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Information Officer to the Rural Energy For America Program, also known as REAP. While I recognize the importance of funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and its role in providing enhanced technology for the USDA, I believe it is appropriate to transfer a small amount by Federal standards, $1 million, to our Nation's renewable energy efforts. The REAP program funds a wide range of renewable energy projects that stimulate rural economies, help create jobs, and address environmental concerns. This funding promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy production, and is directed to farming communities and rural small businesses. Mr. Chairman, renewable energy is changing today's agriculture and rural communities. It is clearly in our national interest to help rural communities integrate a wide variety of renewable energy sources and technology as we move toward energy independence and environmental security. New development and signs of interest in renewable energy production are booming, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strengthens Congress' resolve to creatively develop new energy options throughout America, and I urge its adoption. I want to also thank my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) for his support of this amendment, a native son of Nebraska. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California, our ranking member on Foreign Affairs, for the time. Madam Speaker, this is a very tough call, a tough set of circumstances. There is much complexity here with the convergence of war and diplomacy and geopolitics and allied relations. What is clear, however, is that the President has not communicated effectively with the United States Congress, nor has he sought this body's authorization for the undertaking in Libya. Let's have a brief history lesson here, though: Some in this body called for unilateral action against Libya just 3 months ago. That was appropriately resisted by this administration until other nations, particularly the British and the French, were willing to put up their own assets and give structure to a NATO coalition. However, now U.S. actions, in an important allied effort to save Libyan civilians from imminent slaughter, have clearly moved beyond the scope of humanitarian relief and stabilization efforts. With that said, an abrupt and imminent cut-off of U.S. participation in Libya causes numerous complications and would be highly disruptive. Yet we should not creep, we must not creep toward opening up a third front in Libya, which is the root cause of this debate. The general framework for intervention without express congressional authorization has precedent and some parallels within the last 30 years. Let's look at Lebanon in 1982, Panama in 1989, Bosnia in 1995, and Kosova in 1999. All of these interventions had various levels of controversy, particularly the one in Lebanon; but they were undertaken by Presidents of the United States. The Boehner resolution, considered before this one, gives the President a small window of time to better make his case. If the President cannot, Congress can assert its authority and disapprove. Raising principled questions about war powers is a laudable goal, and I do want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his leadership in this important debate. It would not have happened without him. However, I think we should move forward very carefully. Speaker Boehner's resolution pushes the President for answers but stops short of requesting congressional authorization or abrupt withdrawal of U.S. participation in the Libya mission. If this approach is unfruitful, we can then exercise further options.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ensure that appropriate funds are provided for the 287(g) program in this bill. The Federal Government must have well-equipped partners to address interior enforcement concerns. However, the bill does not state specifically all funds for the 287(g) program, which would allow for robust law enforcement capacity. I want to ensure the record reflects that the administration's request is $68,321,000 and that this bill supports the President's request. Citizens nationwide are rightfully demanding secure U.S. borders and enforcement of our immigration laws. The desire, Mr. Chairman, in many places across the country to strengthen interior enforcement points to an overwhelming perception throughout the Nation that the Federal Government is not as effectively as possible addressing serious security concerns such as the pernicious criminal activity related to illegal immigration in the border region. We need to better empower States and local law enforcement, and the 287(g) is a very important program. In 1996, Congress enacted section 287(g) as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide necessary immigration enforcement assistance to State and local law enforcement entities. It authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with State and local law enforcement, equipping them through thorough training to perform important immigration enforcement functions. Local law enforcement agencies are often closest to the problem. To date, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained more than 1,240 State and local officers nationwide pursuant to section 287(g) programs. Since 2006, the 287(g) program, according to ICE, has resulted in the identification of more than 200,300 ``potentially removable aliens--mostly at local jails.'' Sixty-nine separate local law enforcement agencies participate in the program in 24 States, including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia; and ICE, it appears, has worked very diligently since 2009 to fix concerns with the program by strengthening public safety and improving consistency. In my home State of Nebraska, there is interest at the local level. The City of Fremont, in particular, has voiced enthusiasm for this program and could directly be impacted by an increase of funds available to help secure their community. Ensuring full funding for the 287(g) programs preserves a high spirit of federalism in empowering States to work together with the Federal Government on a critical homeland security matter. Mr. Chairman, America has been, for a long, long time, a just and generous Nation in regards to immigration policy, opening her arms to persons, particularly those facing social, economic or even political persecution, who wish to come here and make a new contribution in a new community to the well-being of their own lives. This should remain the hallmark and spirit of sound immigration policy, but uncontrolled borders are a serious threat to the United States' national security; and with lax interior enforcement authority, we risk our ability to remain a just and generous Nation in regards to immigration policy. So section 287(g) plays a critical role in this process and should be funded at the administration's request.