Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just build on the remarks of the ranking member, which the chairman chose to associate himself with, and say if those are speeches against my amendment, I welcome them. I hope those that are listening will not just note on which side the gentleman rose, but what they actually said. The content of what they said, I think, supports my amendment far more eloquently than I can. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I move the adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I rise to offer an amendment that is coauthored by Chairman Bachus and by my friend Gregory Meeks from New York. It is a bipartisan and, I hope, noncontroversial amendment. This flood insurance program is usually a partnership between private companies and the Federal Government. The Write Your Own Program involves the companies servicing the policies. And one major company that used to write policies in this area decided to pull out of the program and turned over 800,000 policies to the Federal Government. The whole idea behind the program is that the Federal Government will administer as few of these insurance policies as possible. The purpose of this amendment is to require that the vast majority of these policies be made available to be handled by private insurance companies. It is simply a privatization amendment. This includes language in the amendment designed to protect the agents of State Farm, which is the company that is no longer in this business, ensuring that they will be able to continue servicing the policies that shift from the Federal Government to private insurance companies. This is an effort to ensure that these policies are taken off the taxpayers' books without interfering in the relationship between consumers and their insurance agents. I would hope that this would be a noncontroversial amendment. As I said, it is supported by the chairman of the committee and is offered on his behalf as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks). With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that the Clerk read the amendment.

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

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

Mr. SHERMAN. I had the Clerk read the amendment to show how short and how simple it is. It simply says that none of the money appropriated in this bill can be used to violate the War Powers Resolution, which is the law of the land found in title 50. The War Powers Resolution simply states that a President may not deploy our troops into hostilities or our military forces into hostilities for more than 60 days if the President does not have congressional authorization. In the absence of such authorization, the President has 30 days to withdraw. This is the exact same amendment that we considered 3 weeks ago on the MilCon appropriations bill. At that time it got the support of 60 percent of the Republicans and 61 percent of the Democrats, and I hope that those who voted for the bill or the amendment 3 weeks ago would vote the same way today. I hope to be able to persuade a few who voted the other way last time. This amendment is important, even if we weren't engaged in Libya at all, because for the last several administrations, Presidents have been captured by the siren song of extremist lawyers who are part of the permanent executive branch. They tell the President that the President of the United States, acting alone, can deploy our troops into hostilities for unlimited duration, for any purpose, and, in any quantity, any assets can be deployed. We are told that there are no limits on the President's power as Commander in Chief. Well, the War Powers Act says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Now these extremist attorneys in the executive branch have gone a little further. They have added insult to injury by floating the idea that a resolution by NATO, the Arab League, or the United Nations can substitute for an authorization from both Houses of Congress, or they have said that briefing the leadership of Congress is a substitute for enacting an authorization. But even the most extremist attorneys in the executive branch admit we have the power of the purse, and we can prevent the funds provided by this appropriations bill from being used to violate the War Powers Act. If we were to do otherwise, we would be abdicating our own responsibility, for if Congress habitually appropriates funds knowing that they will be used to violate the law of the land, then we would be complicit in undermining democracy and the rule of law here in the United States. Now we on this side admire the President of the United States. But even if you would grant this President unlimited power to deploy unlimited forces for unlimited duration, if you ignore the War Powers Act today, you are granting that power to the next President. And those of us who are in good health will all live to see a President that we disagree with. And even if you agree with exactly what's happening in Libya, it is important that we draw a line and say that the conduct of our foreign policy must be consistent with U.S. law. Now as a practical matter, this President has taken the extreme position that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya. So what will be the practical effect of this amendment? First, I think he will reconsider that decision, because I think the lawyers behind it took refuge in the belief that the War Powers Act was somehow not binding on the administration. With this amendment, the War Powers Act is binding because we do have the constitutional right to limit the use of funds. Furthermore, at a minimum, this amendment would prevent the President from deploying regular ground forces to Libya. Now I realize he doesn't intend to do that at this time. But, clearly, this President could not claim that armored divisions deployed in a war zone were not engaged in hostilities. So the minimum practical effect of this amendment is to limit Presidential power to what is going on now and not to introducing major combat operations. Now, I support a limited effort to bring democracy and the rule of law to the people of Libya. That's not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about democracy and the rule of law here in the United States. I think that if we pass this amendment, and if we can get the Senate to do likewise, that the President will come to Congress and seek an authorization for what is going on in Libya. And at that time, Congress will be able to influence our policy. I think we would insist on a legal limitation to limit our efforts to just air forces and perhaps ground rescue operations. I believe that we would insist that we have the right to review that policy every 3 or 6 months. I believe that we would insist that the $33 billion of Qadhafi assets which have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury be used to finance this operation, instead of American taxpayer dollars. And I believe that we would insist that the rebels in Benghazi disassociate themselves from the al Qaeda operatives in their midst and from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. But we can't insist on anything if we accept the view of extremist attorneys in the executive branch who view Congress as merely an advisory body. A review of the law and a review of the Constitution indicates that Congress has and should not be derelict in exercising a role in forming American foreign policy.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill defunds Libya unless authorized specifically by law. If it passes, long before it's passed by the Senate, the President will come to us and ask for authorization, and I, for one, would want to grant limited, conditional authorization. Now we just rejected an authorization provision that was, in effect, all authority and no limitation--at least that's certainly how it would be interpreted by the White House legal counsel given how it was drafted. The House should consider real binding limits and conditions because democracy and rule of law for the people of Libya is important, but democracy and rule of law for the people of the United States is more important. There are those who regret that they cannot offer an amendment to this bill--yes, they can. The motion to recommit will be in order just as soon as we end debate. I know that we've had important resolutions from the Arab League, the U.N., and NATO. Those are not substitutes for Congress. The War Powers Act is the law of the land, and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? And if this President won't obey it, what President will?

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I have said that I would vote for a resolution granting authority to the President if it was appropriately limited and conditioned. I would like to see conditions that require the Benghazi Transitional Government to remove from their midst the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. I would like to see the condition that we use the Qadhafi money that we seized, some $33 billion, rather than taxpayer money. But putting those conditions aside, the one thing we almost all agree on is that we would want to limit this to air forces and perhaps a ground rescue mission if necessary. That's not what this resolution does. Section one grants authority to the President to do whatever he decides to do, including armor divisions on the ground, in support of the NATO mission. Don't be fooled by section 2, which provides the President with non-binding, unsolicited advice that we think that he should limit our ground operations to rescue missions and diplomatic security. This is a grant of authority to the President to put armor divisions on the ground, if that's what he chooses to do.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Colorado, but I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would cover not only those patent applications that were on file yesterday but, as I understand it, also those that are filed tomorrow. Tax strategy patents are a bad idea, as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants states. ``It's bad public policy. No one should be granted a monopoly over a form of compliance with the Federal Tax Code.'' This amendment is opposed not only by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants but also my colleague, co-chair of the CPA Caucus, Mike Conaway, and a majority of the CPA and accountants caucus, together with the American College of Trusts and Estate Counsel and the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards. Keep in mind, the purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation. What interest does the Federal Government have in encouraging innovative ways to avoid paying taxes to the Federal Government? It is now time to draw a line against patents on tax compliance.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN. I join the gentleman from Georgia in opposing this amendment and associate myself with his remarks. The Federal Government is in a different position from a private company having construction done, for two reasons: First, one of the greatest social problems we face in this country is the eroding wages of middle class families. We see that even in times when there are sufficient jobs, the average American doesn't make any more on an inflation-adjusted basis than a decade or two decades ago. The Federal Government should not play a role in pushing down people out of the middle class. We have a social responsibility to work to a return to what used to be the American norm, and that is that each generation does better than the last. But the second, even from a crudely proprietary position, the Federal Government is in a very different position than a private homeowner, private property owner. I know I was tempted the last time we fixed our home, maybe I should go with the slipshod, cheapskate company. After all, I'm only going to live there a few more years. Even many private owners, they're only going to own the building for a few years. So many of us in our daily lives use government-constructed projects from the 1930s. When the government builds something, it is normally going to be owned and operated by the government and used by our citizens for many, many decades. Why do we want slipshod construction? Why do we want those who are not looking to have skilled craftsmen and craftswomen but, rather, are looking to slap it up there in the cheapest possible way? Our public works need to be built by those with the proper construction skills; it's not a matter of just hiring as many hands as you can as cheaply as possible. And so I support the gentleman from Georgia and his comments, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk read the amendment because it's a simple one-sentence amendment. It says that none of the money in this act can be used deliberately by the President to violate the law, in particular, the War Powers resolution, often referred to as the War Powers Act, which is found in title 50 of the United States Code. This is the same amendment I offered to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Some 208 Members of Congress voted for that amendment. The only argument against the amendment at that time was that it wasn't exactly appropriate or relevant to the Homeland Security bill. After all, I was preventing the funding of violation of the War Powers Act with the funds provided to the Department of Homeland Security. Now that I offer this amendment to the MilCon bill, it is relevant. This is a bill that provides tens of billions of dollars for the Defense Department. And it is necessary and appropriate, if we are going to adopt a policy that says that money is not going to be appropriated for deliberate violation of our law, that we apply this amendment not only to the Defense Appropriations bill, but to this second bill that funds the Pentagon. Why is this amendment necessary? Because so many administrations have embraced the idea of an imperial Presidency, the idea that a President can send our forces into battle for unlimited duration, for any purpose, unlimited in scope. This is not what the Constitution and the law provides. The War Powers Act is the law of the land, and it says the President may indeed commit our forces, but the President must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw within 60 days if that authorization is not provided by the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress. In Libya, we face not an attack on the United States, not an attack on our allies. But even in this circumstance, this President, like others, claims that he does not have to follow the law. The administration has implied that there are substitutes for congressional authorization; they have implied that resolutions by the United Nations, the Arab League or NATO can be a substitute for congressional authorization; and they implied that consulting congressional leaders, a lunch with leadership, is a substitute for the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress. It is time for us to stand up and say, No, Mr. President, you actually have to follow the law. Obviously, this amendment is even more apropos to the Defense appropriations bill, but we will be dealing with that weeks from now. The President has been violating the War Powers Act for many weeks. It is time to act today. Moreover, if we put this amendment only on the Defense appropriations bill and don't put it on this bill, then we invite the administration to try to figure out clever accounting ways to use the billions of dollars provided to the Defense Department in this bill to carry out operations in Libya. We should not invite a loophole hunt. We should put the same restriction on both of the bills that fund the Defense Department. Now, if we can pass the amendment, the President will, I hope, request an authorization from Congress to take action in Libya, and he will have to accept an authorization that will, I expect, be limited in time and scope. Perhaps it will say that only air forces and not ground forces can be committed. Perhaps it will require renewal every 3 or 6 months. There may be conditions on funding sources. For example, perhaps we use some of the $33 billion that Qadhafi was stupid enough to leave invested in the United States in ways that we could find and that we have frozen rather than use taxpayer dollars. Congress will ask some tough questions. And we may put some conditions requiring certain action also by the Benghazi transitional government. We would ask why the Benghazi government has refused to disassociate itself from the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group men who are in their midst and why they will not remove from that transitional government those that have American blood on their hands from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not just the issue of an aggrandizing President. It is also the issue of a derelict Congress. Continuing military action in Libya should be conducted only consistent with American law. If Congress habitually appropriates funds knowing that those funds will be used to violate the law of the land, then we are complicit in undermining democracy and the rule of law in the United States. The question is not democracy and the rule of law in Libya; the question is democracy and the rule of law in the United States.

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

Mr. SHERMAN. May the Clerk read the amendment?

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Now is the time for us to play the role that the War Powers Act provides, because this is not an immediate short-term emergency situation. It has gone on for much longer than 60 days. It should not go further. Now, 208 Members of this Congress voted for my amendment yesterday to say that we should not expend funds in violation of the War Powers Act, and you were willing to vote for it even though I put it on a bill as to which it really didn't pertain. Thank you for those votes, but now please come back here and say, It's time to enforce the War Powers Act. It's time not to dodge the War Powers Act. It's time for our policy over the skies in Libya to be determined by the President and Congress, not the President advised by Congress. Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Don't use it as a sidestep. Instead, go back to your constituents and say, You are for voting either for a withdrawal from Libya or for a full authorization or for a limited authorization.

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been here a long time, and I have never come to this floor for the purpose of opposing innocuous resolutions. In fact, I've voted for every piece of innocuous legislation and post office renaming in the last 15 years, as far as I can remember. And this is innocuous legislation. First, it starts with a sense of Congress about our opinion as to what should or shouldn't be done. It has a sentence that purports to prevent the President from putting ground forces in Libya, but in fact just states that's our policy. It is certainly not designed to prohibit the President from doing so; it just says that it's our opinion that he shouldn't. And, by the way, in the Defense authorization bill, we have real legislation that already prohibits putting ground forces in Libya. It then goes on to ask that a number of questions be answered. There are some who think, that's important. Those who think that the questions propounded in this resolution are actually going to get us useful information are insulting the faculty of the law schools of America, because both the Pentagon and the State Department have lawyers capable of writing long and meaningless answers to every question we propound. And as for getting documents, some of the documents demanded we already have, and as for the rest, those same lawyers will be writing long documents about executive privilege. So we have here a document that at most is just questions for the Record that the chairwoman of our committee allows me to add at the end of so many hearings; hardly earthshaking, certainly innocuous. But, okay, so it's innocuous. Or is it? This is innocuous legislation that plays a particular role in avoiding the constitutional role of this Congress. It allows us to sidestep the War Powers Act. It gives cover to those who don't want to authorize, or refuse to authorize. It says we're an advisory body. We ask some questions so we can give good advice. We will give the President some advice. It is part of the trend of an aggrandizing executive and a derelict Congress, a Congress that almost is complicit in this slow process by which we are not legislators, we are not deciders; we inquire and we advise. The Constitution is clear, but the War Powers Act is more clear: the President must ask for congressional authorization. Then we actually have to act, and that is tough. We have to review the proposals, and I believe our ranking member (Mr. Berman) would have one that would say, What are we going to authorize? Under what conditions? What demands will we make of our allies in Libya to perhaps turn over to us, or at least disassociate themselves from, the al Qaeda operatives in their midst? Are we going to limit the duration? Are we going to limit the scope? Are we going to impose limits on the total cost? With this resolution, we can avoid all of those questions. We can avoid demanding a withdrawal. We can avoid limiting the authorization, and we can allow the President to continue to write the blank check that apparently he believes he has, and we can do it all while disassociating ourselves with anything unpopular that ever happens over the skies of Libya. Now is not the time for us to shirk our responsibilities. Our responsibility is to act as a policy-making body.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask the gentleman for 1 more minute.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, the author of this resolution is known for his opposition to the use of American military force, and those who agree with him on foreign policy may well vote for this resolution. In contrast, I have voted for every authorization to use military force that has come before this Congress in the last 15 years, and I would support the authorization to use force in Libya if it had the proper conditions and limits. This resolution would not actually result in the immediate withdrawal; instead, it would force the President to come to this Congress and seek authorization pursuant to law--and would get that authorization, I believe, with the appropriate limits and conditions. That would be an improvement to our foreign policy. More importantly, it would mean we're following the Constitution. The War Powers Act is the law of the land and it requires congressional authorization for military actions that take more than 60 days. We long for democracy and the rule of law in Libya, but not at the expense of democracy and the rule of law in the United States. If we don't require compliance with the War Powers Act, who will? And if the War Powers Act becomes a dead letter, who will constrain some future President with imperial ambitions? If your constituents insist that you stand up for the rule of law, don't go back to them next week saying you voted for the Boehner resolution. That Boehner resolution does not mention--let alone enforce--the War Powers Act.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Boehner resolution just grudgingly acquiesces to an imperial vision of the Presidency. The Kucinich resolution enforces the War Powers Act and starts us on the War Powers Act process. We owe it to our fighting men and women that when they risk their lives, they do so pursuant to our laws and our Constitution. And when they risk their lives for an extended period of time, they do so not because of the decision of one individual but, rather, because of the decision of the representatives of all of the American people.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. We will soon vote on an amendment which I offered last night. It simply says that none of the funds in this appropriations bill can be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution, which is the law of the land, Public Law 93-148. The law of the land states that the President can deploy troops but then must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw within 60 days if he doesn't get it. Why do we need to add to this bill a provision that says the President can't spend money in violation of existing law? Because the President has asserted that resolutions of the United Nations or discussions with Members of Congress substitute for congressional authorization. Why are we voting on this now? It has been ruled by the parliamentarian to be germane. We are voting now because Congress should take a stand before we take our 1-week break. Even if you agree with everything that is happening in Libya, and we all long for democracy and the rule of law in Libya, this is a vote about democracy and the rule of law in the United States. This is our chance to simply say the President, even the President, must follow law. Please join with me, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. McGovern in supporting the Sherman amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I had the Clerk read the whole amendment because it's just one sentence, and it's very simple. It says none of the money in this act can be used deliberately by the President to violate the law-- in particular, the war powers resolution often referred to as the War Powers Act, which is found in title 50 of the United States Code. Why is this amendment necessary? Because so many administrations have embraced the idea of an imperial Presidency, have embraced the idea that a United States President can send our forces into battle for an unlimited duration, unlimited in scope, and for whatever purposes the executive branch finds worthy. The War Powers Act is the law of this land, and it says that a President may indeed commit our forces but must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw in 60 days if that authorization is not provided by the vote of both Houses of Congress. But this President, like some others, believes that he doesn't have to follow the law. And in fact in this case in Libya, we and our allies were not attacked but rather a very important purpose--or thought to be important by the President--presented itself and so he committed our forces. Now, the respect that the executive branch has for Congress has called upon them to hide their contempt for the law. And so they've implied without really stating it that there are substitutes for a congressional authorization. They've implied that resolutions by the United Nations, the Arab League, or NATO is a substitute for congressional action. And they've implied that consulting with congressional leaders, a lunch with leadership, is a substitute for an affirmative vote on the floors of both Houses. It is time for us to stand up and say, No, Mr. President, you actually have to follow the law. Now, why am I amending this bill? Obviously, this amendment is even more apropos to the Defense appropriations bill, but we'll be dealing with that many weeks from now. And the President has been in violation of the War Powers Act for several weeks now. And so we should try to act now. But in addition, this amendment ought to be put on every appropriations bill that we pass this year. Otherwise, we invite a President who sees this amendment only on the Defense appropriations bill to try to find creative ways to transfer money from the Coast Guard account to the Navy or transfer a ship from the Navy to the Coast Guard to the Navy, one way or the other. We should not invite an unproductive loophole hunt. We should have the same restriction on every appropriations bill. Now, if we can pass this amendment by a significant vote, the President will, I hope, request an authorization for the action he wants to take in Libya. And he will have to accept an authorization that I hope will be limited in time and scope. Perhaps it will be limited to air forces and not ground forces. Perhaps it will require renewal every 6 months rather than being permanent. There may be conditions such as why are we funding this out of taxpayer money and not the $33 billion of Qadhafi money that he was stupid enough to invest in the United States in ways that we could find out about and freeze. And why has the transitional government in Benghazi refused to disassociate itself from the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic fighting group fighters in their midst? Why will they not remove from their government those who support those who have American blood on their hands from Iraq and Afghanistan? This is not just an issue of an aggrandizing President. It is also an issue of dereliction in Congress because, yes, we would like to avoid tough votes, particularly those that divide our constituents and even the constituents that we have from within our own party. But this is our constitutional duty. The War Powers Resolution is the law of the land. Whatever your views are on our activities in Libya, you ought to support this resolution. I for one could support an authorization to use force that was carefully tailored and severely limited. This amendment vote is not about democracy and the rule of law in Libya. We all long to see democracy and the rule of law in Libya. This vote is about democracy and the rule of law in the United States.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.