Allen West

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, we must empower small business owners and reduce regulatory burdens. Job creators are being bogged down by burdensome regulation from Washington that prevents job creation and hinders economic growth. These regulations are particularly damaging for the real job creators in the country, our small business owners. We must remove onerous Federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private-sector investment in job creation. The Small Business Administration has reported that government regulations are estimated to cost our economy over $1.75 trillion a year. To make matters worse, in 2009, the administration considered adding another 184 regulations that are estimated to cost the economy in excess of $100 million each and are likely to cause more Americans to lose jobs. At this time, I yield to my friend and colleague from Colorado.

Mr. WEST. I thank my colleague from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we know that not all regulations are bad, but so many of them are obstacles to job creation. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at least 1981. The cost of regulations is a big obstacle for American job creators. But when you think about regulations, here are examples of some of the ones that can make you laugh. The Department of Energy requires microwave makers to measure the amount of energy their products use in the ``off'' position. The Environmental Protection Agency wants stricter regulations on the amount of dust on American farms. The Department of the Interior wants to impose a fee on Christmas tree sales to promote Christmas tree sales. When you think about how government regulations destroy American jobs, these are the statistics that will make you cry. According to a Louisiana State University professor, the Department of the Interior's de facto moratorium of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico could cost 36,137 jobs. In addition, more than 80,000 jobs could be lost due to the EPA regulations targeting the cement industry; and, finally, EPA greenhouse gas regulations could cost $1.4 million jobs. The American people placed an upper limit on the damage that Washington Democrats could inflict on the economy by firing House Democrats in the last election. In January, we began to implement the Pledge to America, which is focused on providing an environment for economic growth and job creation. We voted to repeal the government takeover of health care, roll back costly Obama administration regulations, cut job-destroying spending and change the culture of Washington, D.C., from one which talks about how much more they can spend, to one which now talks about how much we can cut in spending. The United States Congress in 2009 passed the President's almost $800 billion stimulus package, which we now have convincing proof it did nothing to reduce unemployment. Today the House of Representatives has sent nine real-life job creating bills to the U.S. Senate, yet those bills continue to sit, waiting to be voted on, similar to the Cut, Cap, and Balance that we sent over that the Senate majority leader tabled. I have introduced my own piece of legislation to do my part to try to reduce unemployment, The Small Business Encouragement Act, H.R. 1663. The President continues with an economic policy based on job-killing overregulation, the specter of increased taxes and the implementation of ObamaCare. How many more months are we going to see this stagnant job growth? We are now at 29 months of unemployment in the United States of America being at or above 9 percent. The President has to realize his policies have failed. They have failed the American people, and it is time to go in a different direction. The solution lies in economic taxation and regulatory policies which incentivize long-term private sector growth. We must restore confidence, provide access to capital which will create economic certainty. Now is not the time for more rhetoric on spending, borrowing, and raising taxes. Our country is in a crisis, and time is running out. We must remember that it is those same mom and pop stores on Main Street back in our respective districts that create the jobs for our teenagers during these summer months. It is the local hair salon back home that my wife and my two daughters visit often that would be affected by the uncertainty that persists throughout this Nation. Economic uncertainty created by our massive Federal debt, burdensome regulatory environment on small businesses, and uncertain tax policy for 2012 is slowing commerce; and we must turn the corner. Today's somber GDP announcement in the last quarter of 1.3 percent growth and the previous quarter, 0.5 percent growth, is further proof that President Obama's administration's economic strategy is not working. Unemployment still remains above 9 percent, at 9.2 percent nationally; in the inner city and our black communities is at 16.2 percent; and, unfortunately, for our veterans, of which I am one, that unemployment rate is 13 percent. We just talked about our quarterly GDP growth. That is unacceptable for the most powerful economy in the world. Providing certainty for America's small businesses should be the number one priority for Washington, considering they are the backbone of our Nation's workforce and the engine of our economy. In May, House Republicans put forth a plan for America's job creators. That includes commonsense policies to remove uncertainty by reducing regulatory burdens, lowering business tax rates to 25 percent, spurring exports by quickly passing the pending free trade agreements, and introducing a budget that gets our Nation's fiscal house in order. The sooner we enact policies like these into law, the sooner our small businesses will be able to lead us out of this economic downturn. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Sunday, July 31, 2011.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I do need to correct my colleague from Vermont: I'm not from South Carolina; I'm from Florida, but that's okay. I'm the guy with hair. I would like to start off by saying this very simply, I rise in support of H.R. 2560 because when I look back a few years, 2007 to 2011, $8.67 trillion, $10.4 trillion, and now we're at about $14.5 trillion in debt. From 2009 to 2011, $1.42 trillion, $1.29 trillion, and an estimated $1.65 trillion in deficits. The President's budget for fiscal year 2012, 0-97; 800-plus days the Senate Democrats have not passed a budget; $1 trillion of wasteful spending of the stimulus. We still have unemployment at 9.2 percent nationally, 16.2 percent in the black community; and 13 percent of my brothers and sisters who are coming back from combat zones are unemployed. Our debt to GDP ratio is about 70 percent. Our government spending to GDP ratio is 24.4 percent; 47 percent of our debt is owned by foreign nations, 27 percent with China. We are going in the wrong direction. I stand in support of H.R. 2560 because this is insanity, and we cannot continue to do the same thing expecting different results.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chair, I rise to commend my colleague from Florida on his decision to withdraw his amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act. Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. However, the EPA's new Numeric Nutrient Criteria regulations are not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what cost. For several years now, Florida has been working to improve its water quality. Until 2009, Florida was working cooperatively with EPA to improve our water quality standards. However in 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that cooperative approach, federally preempt our state water quality standards, and impose new criteria on the state. Many are concerned that these new Numeric Nutrient Criteria are not based on sound science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, which has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA to support the regulation. The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review of the science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed to complete an economic analysis. This EPA mandate will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Floridian families, and destroy jobs. By some estimates, this will cost Florida taxpayers an estimated $21 billion and impact over 14,000 jobs in the state. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that this federal mandate may force municipal wastewater and storm water utilities--many in my Congressional District--to spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. These costs will be passed down to the citizens of South Florida. Given the reality of Florida's economic situation, this is completely unacceptable. This morning I placed a call to Ron Bergeron, the Commissioner for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and renowned expert on the Everglades, to discuss this amendment and the underlying EPA Numeric Nutrient Regulations. Commissioner Bergeron told me in no uncertain terms, I quote, ``The EPA is setting standards that can hardly be achieved. Water standards of 10 parts/billion required by the Numeric Nutrient Criteria is more stringent than rainwater, which is 15 parts/billion, and is a quality of water that is humanly impossible to achieve. EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.'' Let me repeat what Commissioner Bergeron stated--``EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.'' Like all Floridians, I cherish the Everglades--a unique wetland ecosystem--and want to protect and preserve it for future generations of Floridians. I applaud my colleague from Florida for recognizing that his amendment would have been an attempt to use the Everglades as a political pawn to give the EPA the authority to have carte blanche on setting state-wide water regulations--regulations that Commissioner Bergeron said are humanly impossible to achieve, and thus withdrawing his amendment. EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that the state government can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on sound science.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, today we close another chapter in the history book of manned space flight. Today Americans around the Nation watched the final launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, a journey that began 30 years ago with the first flight of Space Shuttle Columbia. For 135 times the Nation has turned their eyes to the State of Florida to watch the solid rocket boosters ignite and lift the Space Shuttle through the bounds of our Earth's atmosphere. Each mission of the Space Shuttles' primary goal was to continue to push the bounds of space exploration. With each mission the United States achieved another milestone of expanding man's frontier in space earning the respect and admiration of the world. The State of Florida has been the epicenter for manned exploration of space. Over the last 50 years from Gemini, to Apollo, to the Space Shuttles, hundreds of thousands of Floridians have contributed their talents, energy and knowledge to explore space. Some have dedicated their lives to the exploration of space. Today I would like to recognize the men and women over the last 30 years who worked on the Space Shuttle program. While the names of the astronauts will be recorded in the history books, we must also note the thousands of individuals who worked behind the scenes to make history by challenging the final frontier. I am concerned about losing the workforce that has dedicated their knowledge to the exploration of our universe. I believe that we could lose a competitive and innovative edge that we maintain at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Soon the Space Shuttle Fleet will be shipped off to museums around the country and will become items that school children will visit to see America's past glories in space. These children will see these space exploration vehicles, then look towards the stars sparking their imagination to ask the question ``what lies beyond?'' However, when the Space Shuttle Atlantis lands in the next several days for the first time in my entire 50 years on Earth we will not have a vehicle or a plan to send humans from our planet into space. The space program is essential to the State of Florida. Thousands of the brightest scientific minds reside in the area surrounding the Kennedy Space Center and billions of dollars of economic activity are generated in the States of Texas, California and my home State of Florida. In addition, since the Mercury Program, the Space Program has placed our Nation on the cutting edge of innovation. President John F. Kennedy challenged our Nation to land a man of the Moon. In the space race with the Soviet Union, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin placed an American flag on the lunar surface in 1969. Now the former Soviet Union is our taxi cab ride to the International Space Station at a cost of approximately $63 million a seat. Further, China is now building their ability to be the leaders in space exploration. This is unacceptable and the antithesis of American exceptionalism. While we have had failures in the space program along the way, such as Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia, when some individuals felt we should stop manned space flight after the Challenger accident, President Ronald Reagan stated: ``We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.'' I am concerned that the United States has no plans for human exploration capability to go beyond Earth's orbit for an indeterminate time into the future. Space will always be challenging and dangerous, but we are Americans and we have always met our challenges and faced danger. And with regard to space we must continue the journey, focus on the stars, reach for the heavens, and be a leader in space exploration in the 21st century. Americans, by our nature, do not accept being in second place. I am committed to ensuring that one day we again will be the leaders in manned space exploration.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of House Resolution 268, which does reaffirm the strong support of this body politic to a negotiated solution for Israel and Palestine. The important thing that we have to see happen, though, is to urge the Palestinian leaders to first and foremost ensure that any Palestinian government will seek peace with Israel, as we sat here and listened to Prime Minister Netanyahu say, ``There will not be peace until we have a dedicated peace partner.'' The second thing, we must make sure that the leaders of the Palestinian people cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the United Nations. But third, and probably most important, that the Palestinian leaders must take appropriate measures to counter the incitement to violence and fulfill all prior Palestinian commitments, including dismantling the terrorist infrastructure that is embodied with Hamas. Israel is a bright and shining beacon which is in a sea of despots, dictators, theocrats, and autocrats. The Palestinian leaders can choose to be a part of this light.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Very simply, the War Powers Act of 1973 states: ``The President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress, or in case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.'' So as we look at the mission--or the perceived mission that we have in Libya--it does not even meet this criteria. I stand here today as someone who has been sent forth from these shores in the 22 years that I've served in the United States Army. I stand here as the son of a man who left these shores to go defend this great country in World War II. I stand here as the younger brother of a man who left these shores to go defend this country and fight in Vietnam. And I stand here today as the uncle of a young man, a captain, who has already done two tours of duty in Afghanistan. Many of my friends have called me--some call me colonel, some call me Allen--and they say, we need you to do one simple thing: understand that the oath that you take is to support and defend the Constitution, to support and defend the laws of this country. They need us to stand up and be the guardians of the laws of this country. Just before I came here today, I promoted Jerry Lee Stern to be a major, and I read him that oath of office, that he would greatly take what we must do now as this body, as legislators of this great Nation, uphold the laws and not send our men and women into an undefined and unspecified mission. They want the fight; they want to stand up for us. Let's do the right thing by them.

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 493 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Madam Chair, the most sweeping patent reform legislation that has come before the House of Representatives in over half a century, the America Invents Act, H.R. 1249, makes significant substantive, procedural, and technical changes to current United States patent law. Article I, Section 8 gives the United States Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Congress passed the first patent law just one year after ratifying the Constitution when it enacted the Patent Act of 1790. The law granted patent applicants the ``sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used'' of his or her invention, clearly maintaining the intentions of patent protections the Framers had when they drafted Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Intellectual Property Clause. Before discussing the ramifications of the America Invents Act, it is important for the American people to understand the reasoning behind the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution. The Framers recognized that a crucial component for success of the newly formed United States was economic strength and security, and they knew that American ingenuity and innovation was key to economic success. Thus, for more than 200 years, American patent law has used a first to invent system that addresses the circumstances when two or more persons independently develop identical or similar inventions at approximately the same time. When more than one patent application is filed at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) claiming the same invention, the patent is awarded to the applicant who was the first inventor, even if the inventor was not the first person to file a patent application at the PTO. Section 3 of H.R. 1249 would change this established system for determining which inventor obtains patent protection to a ``first inventor to file'' system. Under this new ``first inventor to file'' system, the law would not recognize the patent of an individual who did not file an invention first even if he or she was the first to complete an invention. Proponents of Section 3 will argue that the United States is the only patent-issuing nation that does not employ a ``first inventor to file'' system, and that making this change will simplify the process for acquiring patent rights. However, I believe that Section 3 on its face is unconstitutional. Over 200 years of evidenced-based, legal determination as to who is the true inventor of an invention should not be overturned because the rest of the world does it, or to make it easier for government bureaucrats to resolve patent disputes. The United States is the greatest Nation on the face of the earth not because we conform our ways to the rest of the world, but instead because we operate in a way that makes the rest of the world want to follow our example. Finally, and most importantly, I believe that awarding a patent to an individual who simply files before the inventor, violates the Framers' intent laid out in the Intellectual Property Clause. There can be no such thing as a ``first inventor to file'' since there can only be one inventor. Small inventors--the backbone of the American spirit of innovation--who do not have the funding or the legal staff to race to the PTO to file a patent will without question lose inventions to well- funded and well-staffed corporations. I also have constitutional concerns with Section 18 of H.R. 1249. Section 18 of the America Invents Act would create a new Transitional Review proceeding at the Patent and Trademark Office that would only apply to ``business method patents'' dealing with data processing in the financial services industry. The Transitional Review would be available only to banks sued for patent infringement--even if the patent has already been upheld as valid by the PTO in a reexamination, or upheld by a federal court jury and/or judge in a trial. This new review process would ultimately lead to a delay, via a stay, of court proceedings that would interrupt inventors from capitalizing on their patents. Constitutional scholars Richard Epstein and Jonathan Massey have concluded that Section 18 language constitutes a government taking by allowing banks to challenge all business method patents--even those that have been reexamined and affirmed by the PTO and upheld by a jury in federal court. The House Judiciary Committee's consideration of H.R. 1249 proceeded rapidly. The committee held a hearing focused primarily on the broader patent provisions of the bill, and only the banking industry was invited to testify with regard to Section 18. Furthermore, there have been no hearings specifically relating to the implications of Section 18. I have met with and spoken to a number of individuals representing both sides of this issue in order to fully understand the intent of H.R. 1249, as well as both its intended and unintended consequences. I have spoken to Director Kappos of the Patent and Trademark Office, and more importantly I have spoken with constituents in the 22nd Congressional District of Florida who are inventors that have received patents who would be adversely affected by certain provisions of this bill. Madam Chair, I voted against H.R. 1249 because I believe that the major sections I have outlined raise serious Constitutional questions. Section 3 clearly violates the intent of our Framers when they drafted the Intellectual Property Clause. Section 18 opens the door for the Executive Branch to overturn the Judicial Branch, a clear violation of the separation of powers laid out by the United States Constitution. As a 22-year Army combat veteran, and now as a Member of the House of Representatives, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Voting in favor of passage of H.R. 1249 I believe goes against this very sacred oath I took, both as a young Second Lieutenant over 25 years ago, and as a Congressman in this body earlier this year.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 451, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 44th Anniversary of the Six Day War, in which Israel--our greatest ally in the Middle East--turned a massive buildup and aggression by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan into a tremendous victory in just six days. After months of continued aggression against it, Israel launched a preemptive attack against the massive Egyptian buildup in the Sinai, destroying most of the Egyptian Air Force and Army in a number of hours. After repeated air and artillery attacks by Jordan and Syria, Israel liberated all of Jerusalem two days later on June 7, 1967, including the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter in the Old City. For the first time in decades, Jerusalem was unified and the Jewish people could visit their holiest site, the Western Wall. By June 10, just six days after it began, war was over. Israel's superior fighting force had destroyed the armies and air forces of their Arab aggressors, and had captured the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Mas'ada, and the Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal. However, this victory came at a great cost to the Israeli people. Nearly 1,000 Israelis were killed, and over 4,500 were wounded. Last weekend Americans celebrated Memorial Day with cookouts and a day off of work. However, when Israel commemorated their Memorial Day--Yom Hazikaron--a few weeks ago, they honored the memory of the tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers who gave their life in defense of their country by sounding a siren that can be heard all over the country. During this one minute sounding of the siren, Israelis stop whatever they are doing and stand in silence to commemorate those who were lost--traffic stops in its tracks, throughout the country, people pray. The names of those who gave what President Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion for their homeland are displayed on television screens throughout the day. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital. As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I believe the United States Congress has a solemn duty to ensure that the homeland of the Jewish people remains as such. The State of Israel is the one bright light shining in a dark ocean of tyranny and oppression. Israel must be allowed to defend itself from external and internal aggression; the Israeli people must be allowed to continue to build within their borders, and Jerusalem must be recognized as the nation's only capital. Furthermore, the United States must stand by Israel's side in the face of a United Nations who clearly views the State of Israel through the lens of anti-Semitism and hatred. Anything less than full support for Israel and its citizens at the United Nations by the United States government is simply unacceptable. The United States and Israel share the common bonds of freedom, liberty, democracy, and the right to worship in the name of any religion you see fit. We share a common enemy in radical Islam, and have both seen our citizens murdered and maimed by terrorist thugs who kill women and children in the name of religion. We are indeed each other's greatest ally--without the United States, Israel would not exist; without Israel, the United States would soon fall. Next week, Israel will mark the 44th anniversary of the Six Day War. It will be a time of reflection and remembrance, and will undoubtedly render memories of when Jews--from Israel, the United States, or anywhere around the world--were not allowed to pray at their holiest of sites. At this time of great challenge for our strong and loyal ally, America must take a stand and show not only Israel, but the rest of the world, that Jerusalem--an undivided Jerusalem--is the capital of the Jewish State, and that security will always come before a two state solution.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I realize education is essential for every child in our nation. Education is the great equalizer and with a sound education any child can live the American Dream. As a former teacher in Broward County, Florida, I am proud to congratulate Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) for the 11 high schools in their county receiving top national ranking in the Washington Post. The Washington Post named 11 Broward County high schools in its High School Challenge list of top 1,900 public high schools in the nation. The schools were Fort Lauderdale (109), Marjory Stoneman Douglas (238), Nova (285), Miramar (355), Cooper City (376), Stranahan (431), J.P. Taravella (507), Flanagan (554), Plantation (739), Coral Springs Charter (983) and Pembroke Pines Charter (1,108) high schools join an elite group of public high schools nationwide. The Washington Post list represents only seven percent of schools across the United States. Fort Lauderdale High School placed top among Broward high schools, with a national ranking of 109 and a state ranking of 24. According to the Washington Post, the Challenge Index's formula is to divide the number of Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB) or other college-level tests a school gave in 2010 by the number of graduating seniors. The Washington Post advises that while the index is not a measure of the overall quality of the school, the rating can reveal the level of a high school's commitment to preparing average students for college. With a few exceptions, public schools that achieved a ratio of at least 1.000, meaning they had as many Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests in 2010 as they had graduates, are noted on the national list. The Broward County Public School System is the nation's sixth largest public school system and the largest fully accredited district with over 234,600 students in more than 230 schools and education centers. The Broward County Public School System is committed to giving all students access to a college-ready, job-ready curriculum that meets rigorous expectations which prepares students for post-secondary options and also ensures that students are able to be successful and complete post-secondary schooling once they begin. To ensure student's can succeed in the 21st century, I will always focus in Congress on what's best for students, parents, teachers, and communities. This means helping children achieve their full and unique potential by equipping them with the tools and knowledge to succeed in the 21st century workforce. I believe the Federal Government must restore local control, empower parents, let teachers teach, and protect taxpayers. These principles should guide our efforts to reform federal education policy and protect the rights and responsibilities of states and local communities when it comes to educating the next generation.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res 51 by my colleague Congressman Dennis Kucinich, which directs President Barack Obama to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than 15 days after the adoption of this concurrent resolution. Let me be perfectly blunt--the reason we are here today voting on two resolutions that deal with the President's role and responsibility under the War Powers Resolution is because of President Obama's failure to abide by the law, and our failure to address this issue before day 74. The War Powers Resolution was enacted into law on November 7, 1973, overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. The law states that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to introduce United States forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to either (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories and possessions, or its forces. The War Powers Resolution requires the President--in every possible instance--to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization, such as the Congressional Resolution that provided President George W. Bush authority to engage in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. The War Powers Resolution also requires the President to report to the United States Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, into foreign territory while equipped for combat, or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation. Such a report is required within 48 hours. Once this report is submitted--or required to be submitted--the United States Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 days, or the forces must be withdrawn within 30 days from the 60 day mark. Before discussing the current situation the United States finds itself in, it is important for the American people to understand the reasoning behind the passage of the War Powers Resolution in the 1970s. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the power to declare War, not the President. However, Article II, Section 2 declares that ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' Many Presidents have cited their authority under Article II, Section 2 to defend the United States against attacks, or to take actions in our nation's national security interest, through military action without a formal declaration of war. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon used their authority as Commanders in Chief in order to send American combat ``advisors'' forces into Vietnam beginning in the late 1950s. By the 1968 Tet Offensive, the United States had over half a million troops on the ground in Vietnam engaged in intense military conflict. Unclear about the American strategy in Vietnam, many Members of Congress became concerned about their eroding authority granted by the Constitution to debate, decide and declare when to involve the United States in a war. As such, the War Powers Resolution enacted in order to ensure the checks and balances mandated by the United States Constitution would remain intact during times of armed conflict. On March 19, 2011, U.S. military forces began operations in Libya. Two days later, on March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed the United States Congress that Operation Odyssey Dawn was aimed at ``assisting an international effort authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security.'' To date, President Obama has not provided a clear and defined mission for the United States involvement in Libya. Since the opening hours of military action on March 19, the President has had no clear direction in Libya. President Obama has not defined the mission, defined success, nor defined the end state. Further, the President has still not identified who the so-called rebels are that are receiving millions of dollars of American support in terms of weapons, ammunition, and resources, as well as attacks against Moammar Qadaffi's forces. As a 22-year Army combat veteran, I can tell you from experience that successful mission completion is obtained by properly defining the very things I have mentioned, which President Obama has failed to do. As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I swore an oath to protect and defend American citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Is Moammar Qadaffi an enemy of the United States--absolutely. But because President Obama has not informed us of whom the rebel forces we are supporting are, how can we be absolutely certain that they will not be an enemy of this country? Quite simply, we cannot because the President has failed to define our strategy. It has now been 74 days since President Obama informed the United States Congress on the introduction of American forces into Libya as required by the War Powers Resolution. Since March 21, 2011, the United States Congress has not declared war or enacted a specific authorization for the use of force, has not extended the 60-day period required by the War Powers Resolutions, nor is United States Congress physically unable to meet as a result of an attack upon the United States. In fact, United States Congress has met nearly 30 times since March 21, 2011. Therefore, President Obama is in violation of Title 50, Chapter 33 of United States Code--the War Powers Resolution. Section 5, Paragraph C of the War Powers Resolution states that ``at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by Concurrent Resolution.'' The Concurrent Resolution offered by Congressman Kucinich falls right in line with Section 1544 of the War Powers Resolution, and simply states that pursuant to Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution, the United States Congress directs the President to remove armed forces from Libya within 15 days of enactment. President Barack Obama is in violation of the law--plain and simple-- and he must comply with the law. The very foundation of our Republic lies on the rule of law, and is guarded by a system of checks and balances, and as a Member of the United States Congress, I have a Constitutional obligation to ensure this system is upheld. I support the Concurrent Resolution offered by Representative Kucinich.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 395, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated for:

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, when the United States Congress was faced with raising the debt ceiling in 2006 Senator Barack Obama stated ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.'' I will not be party to a failure of leadership when it comes to the debt ceiling. Today, I will do what I stated when I ran for the House of Representatives, I will vote against increasing a debt ceiling absent of spending control measures to right our fiscal ship of state. This resolution would increase the current statutory debt limit by $2.406 trillion, from $14.294 trillion $16.7 trillion. The 16.8 percent increase would be the fourth time the debt ceiling has been increased since February 2009. Over the past two years, President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chastised the Republicans and President George W. Bush in 2006 when he stated ``Why is it right to increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.'' The American people have sent a Republican majority to the House of Representatives to reduce spending and put our country on a sustainable financial footing. If I were to close my eyes and abandon my principles, and vote yes to raising the debt limit I would allow Congress to continue to spend the taxpayers' money with no clear plan to reduce our long term debt. The problem in Washington is we do not have a revenue problem--the facts are clear we have a spending problem in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this debt increase and I will not vote for a debt limit increase unless all of the following criteria are met, or included in the final bill that would aim to raise the debt limit: The United States Congress must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A failsafe trigger mechanism must be put in place that would automatically cut spending if we reached a set percentage limit towards hitting the debt ceiling. In other words, as Federal spending approached the debt ceiling, once a certain level was reached, automatic cuts in spending to Federal programs would be triggered, ensuring that future Congresses and Administrations would not have to consider raising the debt ceiling in the future. Capping federal spending as part of the GDP at 18-20%. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35% at the federal level and 39% when the average state corporate tax is included. The average rate in the other industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is just 25%. Only Japan has as high a rate. Businesses and corporations in the United States cannot succeed in an environment where they are among the highest taxed in the entire world. It is paramount that Congress lowers the corporate tax rate for American businesses by at least 10% before any vote on raising the debt limit is considered. On May 14, 2011, the Wall Street Journal in article entitled ``What if the U.S. Treasury Defaults?'' interviewed Mr. Stanley Druckenmiller, the onetime fund manager for George Soros, regarding whether Congress should immediately raise the federal debt. Mr. Druckenmiller pointed out the grave danger if politicians give the government authority to borrow beyond the current $14.3 trillion without any conditions to control spending. He further went on to state that he was willing to accept a temporary delay in the interest payments he is owed on his United States Treasury Bonds ``if the results in a Washington deal to restrain runaway entitlement costs.'' I cannot, and will not, be part of President Obama's, and more than 100 of my Democrat colleagues in the House of Representatives, mantra that we need to raise the debt ceiling as a ``clean'' bill without any fiscal reform. For without making meaningful attempts to reduce on every increasing national debt, this would be a vote not on a debt ceiling but more a debt recommendation. The Congress would find themselves voting to increase the debt ceiling again, and again, and again. Enough is enough! Washington needs to stop spending money we do not have and not make our children and grandchildren pick up the tab for our reckless financial behavior. I am even pleased that then Senator Joe Biden agrees with my thoughts, for in 2006, he stated: ``This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation's financial future. It is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.'' Vice President Biden, I stand with you and refuse to be associated with the policies your Administration help precipitate, by spending beyond our means, and will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, deep within my heart I have a mistrust of the Obama Administration when it comes to the PATRIOT Act. However, I do have a greater trust in the law enforcement and judges on the FISA court to keep Americans safe. I support the work that law enforcement does around the nation each and every day in order to protect our citizens and apprehend individuals who want to kill innocent people and try to destroy our way of life. The PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after September 11 to deal with the threat of international terrorism. Indeed, we are engaged in a global conflict against radical Islam. Those who are captured on this truly global battlefield should be treated as non-state, non-uniform belligerents, not as common criminals. As you are well aware, I spent 22 years in the United States Army-- the tip of the spear tasked with protecting the citizens of this great nation. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I have taken an oath to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida and all Americans. Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of our nation wrote ``They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' For many weeks I have reflected on this quote as I have studied this issue to make a decision on how I should cast my vote on the reauthorization of provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I have spoken with numerous individuals, including my fellow colleagues in the House of Representatives, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers in order to try to understand the facts. I have spoken to numerous constituents who are both experts on this issue and constituents who, while not experts, have a concern about these provisions. I reviewed testimony to Congressional Committees and have studied many documents in order to determine the proper balance between individual's rights and the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect Americans. I have done what I was sent to Capitol Hill to do, to make an informed decision based on the facts and represent the people of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida. I have determined that the most important constitutional right, one which I have taken an oath to protect, is the right to life for all Americans. We must do whatever is necessary to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil and how to do this must be fully and openly debated. When we killed Osama bin Laden, we may have killed the face of evil and the mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks, however, we face an emboldened enemy who now operates on a 21st century battlefield. The perpetrators of September 11th lived in South Florida and planned their attacks upon our nation there. And just this month, individuals were arrested in South Florida sending funds to terrorists in Pakistan. The complexities of the 21st Century Battlefield require us to reassess and redefine how we confront our enemy. The men and women who serve in law enforcement throughout our country today face this non- state, non-uniform belligerent who has no regard for international borders or boundaries, to include our homeland. As we have seen by the terrorist attacks in Little Rock and Fort Hood, our fight against radical Islam is not just against the Taliban in Afghanistan or al Qaida in Iraq, but against a global movement who has infiltrated our borders. We are at war with a radical ideology that has brought the fight to us time and time again. From Fort Hood, Texas, to Little Rock, Arkansas, Islamists have targeted American citizens. After each of these brutal attacks, I, like many Americans, was shocked at how this could happen on American soil. Political Correctness allowed Major Nidal Hassan to have so-called ``spiritual conversations'' with a radical element who preached and advocated violence against American citizens. Under the protection of the First Amendment, Carlos Bledsoe was able to travel overseas, become radicalized, return home to purchase weapons, plan and execute an attack against a Little Rock Army Recruiting Depot. As I outlined to a letter I sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller earlier this month, I believe the execution of these provisions should be moved to the Counter Terrorism Division instead of the Criminal Division. Further, I do not support the extension of these provisions for four years and I am gravely disturbed that we did not allow an open process to review the extension of these provisions. We must clearly focus on the enemy, not permit political correctness to drive our domestic security policy. No one recognizes the security situation better than I. However, I have not been fully persuaded that these provisions make us safe . . . as opposed to the illusion of feeling safe. Based upon my research, I shall not vote for extending these provisions for four years. The most integral part of our focus on security against radical Islamic terrorism is to recognize and confront this enemy. And to do this we must openly debate the best way for this to be accomplished.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think as we look across this Chamber, there are very few Members that have ever served on a 21st century battlefield, a 21st century battlefield that is comprised of nonstate, nonuniform belligerents who have no respect for borders or boundaries. All this amendment in section 1034 says is that we affirm that we are engaged in an armed conflict. It has a very narrow definition. And it also looks at the global conflagration in which we are in. And it also addresses that we should be seeking to remove these belligerents off of the battlefield. I have had the experience in 2003 in Iraq. I have had the experience for 2\1/2\ years in Afghanistan. And if we allow an amendment such as this to go forth, it would have precluded us from going in and killing the world's number one terrorist, Osama bin Laden. And if this amendment is allowed to pass, then we will not be able to go after al- Awlaki and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We will not be able to go after Mullah Omar, who is the head of the Taliban. We will not be able to go after Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is in charge of the Haqqani Islamic terrorist network. It would not allow us to go and deny this enemy sanctuary. I want to say this one last thing. There are two West Point cadets that are interns that are serving with me. If we do not have the courage to affirm and declare there is an enemy, how can we send them onto the battlefield?

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had an important milestone occur in my life. My oldest daughter, Aubrey, turned 18 years old. It seems like it was only yesterday that I held this small baby in the palm of my hand and now she is a grown mature woman about to start college and begin the next phase of her life. I flew back to Florida last Saturday so that I could be with her on this very special day in her life. Turning 18 is important for every American. Because at 18 years old, under the law, you are now considered an adult and she was proud to register for the most important right--the right to vote for our elected leaders. When my daughter was born in 1993 the Federal Government debt was $4.3 trillion. Just 18 years later, I will shortly be faced with a vote on whether to raise the debt limit to over $15 trillion. When I held my daughter as a baby, I never thought that our Nation would be in such financial distress and on its way to a major economic catastrophe. Over the weekend, as I celebrated with my daughter, I thought even harder about what the United States will be like when she will be my age and what would her son or daughter, my grandchildren, think when they look back in the history books at this critical time in our Republic's history. Last November, the citizens of the 22nd congressional district, and millions of Americans, voted for a new direction for our country. They sent a message to our elected representatives that we needed to end out-of-control government spending, reduce our national debt, and get our fiscal house in order. The Democrat majority and President Obama over the last two years have produced deficits of $1.4 and $1.25 trillion, and the President has produced a budget for fiscal year 2012 which would add another $1.6 trillion. The American people know that the Federal Government is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people know that forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our Nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day. The Era of Big Government Spending is Over! In 100 days the debate in Washington has gone from a freeze in government spending to addressing cuts in spending. As we are all aware, the 111th Congress was controlled by overwhelming Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Yet even with these enormous majorities, Congress failed to pass a budget or any of the appropriations bills. Members of the former majority party in the House of Representatives have now resorted to the political rhetoric that the Republican Party is trying to kill women, starve seniors, and the budget deal is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians. They make these statements even after Majority Leader Reid and President Obama recognize that we need to cut Federal spending. This type of political rhetoric is beneath us. We can disagree on the direction we are taking our nation, but let us have a debate on the facts and policies. The American people demand an adult conversation instead of childish name calling. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to briefly summarize my thoughts and votes during the negotiations for the budget for fiscal year 2011. I voted for the first short term Continuing Resolution in the 112th Congress in order to provide Speaker Boehner the necessary time to negotiate with an intransigent U.S. Senate and White House. I voted against the second Continuing Resolution because I believed that we were continuing to kick a can down the road, and that the Obama administration and Members of the Democrat Party wanted to force the Federal Government into a shutdown in order to win political points. It seems their goal is the hope that by shutting down the Federal Government, the American people will perceive an inflexible Republican Party and return the Democrats to power in the next election. I voted for the Department of Defense Appropriations bill, which contained another short term Continuing Resolution, in order to support my brothers and sisters in uniform. However, I made the leadership of the Republican Party aware that I believed using the military as a bargaining chip in the negotiations as a way to pass yet another continuing resolution was indefensible. As the clock approached the time to shut down the Federal Government, an agreement was finally reached. In order to draft the bill and provide time for the American people to review the bill, the House considered, and I voted in favor of another Short Term Continuing Resolution. I always stated it was never my intention to shut down the Federal Government. At the Army Airborne school in 1984 I had a black hat instructor say, ``If you set the bar low, you will jump low!'' Today, I will be voting against the negotiated agreement because I believe that we set the bar too low and it does not fulfill the promise I made to the constituents of the 22nd congressional district of Florida. While this bill is a step in the right direction, I am voting against the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1473 because it is important for elected leaders to stand by the pledges we make to the American people. It takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier. I am pleased, that finally, the Republican leadership has finally taken control of the helm and begun to turn the wheel. However, I believe we need to turn the wheel a little harder. At this moment in our Nation's history, when the facts are so clear and the political hyperbole is so hollow, my vote reflects that we need more to get our ship of state on the right course. That is what my adult daughter Aubrey expects, that is what my teenage daughter, Austen expects, that is what my wife Angela expects and that is what every American expects.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Madam Speaker, will we be Chamberlain or will we be Churchill? Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1937 and 1940, will forever be known for his foreign policy approach of appeasement. Prime Minster Chamberlain, even with Germany's increasing aggression in Europe, turned a blind eye to the impending danger and did not prepare his nation for war. Winston Churchill, who saw the dark clouds approaching, was looked upon as an alarmist at the time, even though he saw the true danger. Churchill stated: ``An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'' Madam Speaker: I once again will not be feeding the crocodile. I once again will not be voting for yet another Continuing Resolution. However, having spent 22 years in uniform, having served on the battlefield in defense of this nation, I will be voting for the Department of Defense Appropriations bill in order to support our men and women in uniform. Our nation is involved in two conflicts and our President has now involved us in a third. It is my constitutional responsibilities to provide funding for the service members in uniform who are defending our nation both at home and abroad. Some would argue that comparing World War II to the debate on the budget for Fiscal Year 2011 is not an appropriate comparison. However, I would argue that Winston Churchill was prepared to lead his country courageously, in the way that would ensure England's future. Today we are also faced with the question of protecting America's future. Since we are discussing history it is important to be clear on the facts that have led us to this point. The Democrat Majority and President Obama over the last two years have produced deficits of $1.4 and $1.25 trillion and the President has produced a Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 which would add another $1.6 trillion. Our nation is faced with raising a debt limit of $15 trillion. Three years of trillion dollar deficits America is moving onto the same path that Spain, Ireland and now Portugal are on. The American people know that the federal government is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people know forty cents of every dollar the federal government spends is borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day. The 111th Congress was controlled by overwhelming Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Yet even with these enormous majorities, Congress failed to pass a budget or any of the Appropriations bills. In November of 2010, the people of this country voted for a change. They voted for a new direction for our nation. They voted because they saw, as did Winston Churchill, the dark clouds on the horizon. The Republican Majority passed H.R. 1 and fulfilled a promise to the American people and sent the legislation to the U.S. Senate. However, the Democrat Majority in the Senate dismissed H.R. 1 as too extreme. Since the Senate rejected the legislation the chamber has not produced any bill to bring to conference committee or even to use to negotiate. Forty-seven days and we are still waiting. President Obama appointed Vice President Biden as the Administration point person on the negotiations with the Congress and instead of getting down to a serious discussion he flew off to Europe. Clearly the economy of Finland was more important than the failing economy that the President's policies have produced for the United States. All indications are that my Democrat colleagues want to get to the point of a government shutdown in order to win political points. It seems that their goal is the hope that by shutting the federal government that the American people will see an intransigent Republican Party and return the Democrats to power in the next election. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi waits in the wings to take the Speaker's gavel back. Should that happen we will go back to the days of spending, taxing and regulating and embrace the policies that will put our economic and national security again at risk. However, the Republican Party must now share in the blame of how we have arrived at this point. The Republican Leadership is approaching 100 days since taking the Majority and is now playing a game of high stakes poker with the funding for the Federal Government. The House Majority has now placed the funding for the Department of Defense and the funding for the troops down as a bargaining chip. In the last 100 days, the House Majority could have passed at any point in time a separate stand alone Appropriations for the Department of Defense and the funding for our men and women in uniform. However, I am disgusted at the perception that Leaders in my own Party who did not move a Defense Bill earlier and are now using the men and women in uniform, the individuals who are defending our freedom, as a way to pass yet another continuing resolution. Madam Speaker, what will another week provide with regard to these negotiations? Will it provide an opportunity for the Democrat Party and Senator Schumer to create more exotic synonyms for the word ``extreme'' or will it allow the Leadership of the Republican Party to find other essential government program to be used as vehicles to pass another Continuing Resolutions. Once again, it is time to conclude this debate on federal spending and get our nation back on track by cutting spending for the long term economic restoration of our Republic. I voted for the Department of Defense Appropriation bill because, at this moment in time, due to the complete failure by the Democrat Majority in the Senate this is currently the only vehicle on the table. But more importantly, my ``yes'' vote today was for my Brothers and Sisters in uniform. My ``no'' sentiment reflects a disappointment in my own leadership. I believe today, more than ever, in the words of Winston Churchill who said ``I was only the servant of my country and had I, at any moment, failed to express her unflinching resolve to fight and conquer, I should at once have been rightly cast aside.''

Mr. WEST

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

Mr. WEST. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1246. It is a simple, commonsense bill that calls for an overall 10 percent reduction in the printing and reproduction costs of the Department of Defense. More importantly, the American people support H.R. 1246, as more than 150,000 people voted online via the YouCut program on passing this bill. The American people are behind this, and we need to be behind the American people. H.R. 1246 will help us keep our promise to the American people that we will cut waste, fraud and abuse in government spending and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently, and that includes every department or agency. In fiscal year 2012, the Department of Defense proposes to spend $357 million for printing and reproduction services. Now, I am not arguing that paper copies are no longer needed. We all still rely on paper. But I do not understand why we need examples of these expensive, high-gloss color briefing slides and slick books that the DOD sends over here for everything from briefing slides to budget rollouts and miscellaneous reports. If anyone is interested, the House Armed Services Committee has a boatload of these fancy printed reports. I think the information that DOD needs to get to us, as well as share internally amongst themselves or with the public, can just as easily be conveyed using plain black-and-white copies that are printed on both sides. Nowadays, a lot can be transmitted electronically. During my 22 years of active duty service in the United States Army, I witnessed the growth of the excessive PowerPoint briefs and reproduction. I am well aware of areas where saving money is very possible, and this is one of those areas. These cuts are aimed at wasteful Defense Department spending and will not affect the overall mission of our men and women in uniform in protecting our national security. Mr. Speaker, a mere 10 percent reduction to this one account would save taxpayers $35.7 million in fiscal year 2012 and nearly $180 million over the next 5 years. We owe it to the taxpayers to take this step. Now, this may seem like a small amount to some, but imagine if every Member of Congress, all 435 of us, took it upon ourselves to do the exact same and find where we could cut some wasteful spending. We would regain the trust and confidence of the American people as good stewards of their resources. Let's pass H.R. 1246. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1246) to reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.