[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12599-12607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL NOMINEE DAWN JOHNSEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate being 
recognized and having the privilege to address you here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  One of the things that I am able to receive as I come down here and 
prepare for my hour here is an opportunity to listen to my colleagues 
and sometimes an opportunity to get an education. And if one listens 
carefully, Madam Speaker, there is a lot to be learned in this 
Congress. In fact, I believe that this is the most amazing educational 
experience that one could ask for.
  We are the center of information here in many ways. Washington, DC, 
is a magnet for information. And as Members, we have staff and 
committee people that gather that information at our request and give 
it to us in a means by which we can understand it, process it, and 
utilize it.
  In this information age that we have, this electronic era that we 
have, the Internet is full of information. The Library of Congress is 
full of information. There are all kinds of links out there; many of 
them are very credible,

[[Page 12600]]

some of them are not very credible. So we sort through, and we are 
always looking at what is the original source. How do you document the 
credibility? Well, you figure out who the person was that wrote it and 
their measure of credibility.
  So as I come to the floor and listen tonight, I am rather amazed at 
what I've learned. I saw this long list of successes of the 
Progressives. And I've lived through a fair amount of history by now, 
Madam Speaker, and I've studied a lot of history by now, and I had 
never equated the Revolutionary War to Progressives. That's a new thing 
to me. That's a revolution to me. It's a revelation to me that it was 
the Progressive group that decided that we should throw off the yolk of 
King George and grasp our freedom.
  It seems to me that it was the Founding Fathers and those who shaped 
this Nation who put down in the document of the Declaration of 
Independence--that inspirational document--that our rights come from 
God and that those rights that flow from God into man are granted 
willingly to the people. That's a structure that--I guess you could 
call it progressive, but I haven't heard anybody on this side of the 
aisle that calls themselves Progressive stand up and say that their 
rights come from God or that there are natural rights and there is a 
natural order of things and it's ordered by the Master of the universe. 
That's what our Founding Fathers believed. That was the inspiration 
that shaped America. It was the inspiration that brought about the 
Declaration, and it was the inspiration that caused the perseverance 
that allowed the United States to prevail over the British in the 
Revolutionary War.
  The Nation was forged on those fundamental values that haven't been 
openly rejected by the Progressives, but neither have they been 
embraced by the Progressive Caucus. But almost night after night I hear 
these things. The American Revolution, a success of the Progressives. 
That's a new one. I had not heard that one before.
  The emancipation of the slaves. Well, that's an idea that is related 
to change. The institution of slavery had existed for thousands of 
years. But I didn't know that Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists 
were considered to be Progressives. I thought they were, Madam Speaker, 
Republicans. In fact, I'm sure they were Republicans. I have no doubt 
about it.
  The history of my family and the history of my understanding of the 
Republican Party is it was forged in order to abolish slavery. That's 
why they came about. That's why they formed together and nominated 
Abraham Lincoln because he was the abolitionist candidate, the first 
Republican candidate, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, 
emancipated the slaves.
  What would Abe Lincoln think if he were able to listen tonight and 
answer to the rhetoric that is here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives that claims that emancipation, the end of slavery at 
the loss of 600,000 free people who gave their lives in the clash to 
put an end to slavery and to establish the States' rights issue and to 
tie the Union back together, all those things tied together. All of 
that blood that was spilled by the sword that paid for the blood that 
was drawn by the lash was spilled because Republican abolitionists 
stepped forward and said we're going to put an end to the atrocity 
called slavery. They didn't think of themselves as Progressives. I 
don't think the word existed in politics in the fashion that we hear it 
today.
  There are a group of Progressives in this Congress today. I don't 
know how they associate themselves with the success of the American 
Revolution, inspired by the rights that come from God, or the end of 
slavery that was paid for in blood and inspired and led by people who 
formed the Republican Party for, at least in part, the specific purpose 
to abolish slavery.
  And then I go on and I see the National Park System, Teddy Roosevelt. 
I would call Teddy Roosevelt--not a Progressive. I would call him a 
populist, but not a Progressive. So he was responsible for establishing 
the National Park System. When I first looked at it, I thought, well, 
the Progressives are the ``national pork system.'' I would agree with 
that, Madam Speaker. But, no, the typo didn't exist. The chart said, 
``National Park System.'' So let's give that to the prairie populous, 
or the populous, not the Progressives.
  Civil rights for minorities and women was another piece on this 
poster board; civil rights for minorities and women, passed by 
Republicans, majority of Republicans--more Republicans voted for the 
Civil Rights Act in 1964 than did Democrats. It gets distorted if you 
read the history off the poster. If you go back and look at the reality 
and the facts of it all, it's entirely different.
  When I see rural electrification, it gets my attention. There have 
been a couple years of my life that I didn't use electricity that came 
from a rural electric cooperative. But almost every other year--most of 
the years of my life that has been our primary source of power. And I 
know where rural electrification came from. My families grew up on 
farms that didn't have electricity. They remember when the first wire 
got out there to the end of the line and they hung a light bulb in the 
barn so they could go out there and milk the cows in the dark; not by 
the lantern any longer, but by a 40-watt bulb that hung on a wire out 
of the ceiling of the barn. You pulled a little chain, turned the light 
on, then you could milk in the shadows of the light bulb instead of the 
shadows of the flickering lantern. That got there because of 
cooperatives.
  And cooperatives, I believe at the very closest you could bring them 
towards progressivism would be taking them towards populism. It was the 
people out on the prairie and in the open range, the La Grange in the 
West, the populism that exists today within the politics of the people 
from where I live and points on west, that politics that decided we're 
going to settle this countryside and we're not going to live out here 
and live in darkness without water, sewer, water, lights or roads. 
We're not going to try to farm this countryside and take it back from 
the wilderness and turn it into a productive region unless--we can do 
it if we can bring electricity out, if we can bring services out, if we 
can bring telephone out.
  And so they went to work and they set up cooperatives. They didn't 
view themselves as Progressives. They didn't even view themselves as 
populists. The people that established the RECs years ago, the rural 
electric cooperatives--and I have known many of them face to face, 
personally, as neighbors, most of them passed away by now. They shaped 
their cooperatives because it was the only way they could get 
electrical power out to the farms.
  I happened to have followed that history from the time it was shaped 
together when they decided to build their first power plant. The 
network that comes to my part of the country that flows all the way up 
from what was South Crawford REC, now it's Western Area Power--or 
connected to Western Area Power, then on up through Basin Electric all 
the way up into the coal mines in Wyoming--which, by the way, Wyoming 
is one of the most punished States under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax 
piece of legislation. But they shaped this so that they could have 
electricity go to the farms.
  And they had to join together to do it. They had to have a little 
help because it cost a lot more money to string a wire from farm to 
farm a half a mile to a half a mile than it does to string it from 
house to house in the city or into an apartment complex or into an 
office complex within a city. So they shaped the cooperatives to do 
that.
  I noticed on that board that took all this credit for Progressives--
the accomplishments of creative individuals that wanted to simply 
operate in a free enterprise economy--that it didn't have our grain 
cooperatives there, but we established those, too; the grain 
cooperatives so that the farmer-owned cooperatives could set up a grain 
elevator to store and dry their grain and ship it and market it, and 
also mix and grind feed and sell fertilizers and chemicals and make 
this all work.
  It's the same kind of a function in the grain cooperatives as we had 
in our

[[Page 12601]]

electric cooperatives. But in neither case was it Progressives that put 
this together, just like it wasn't the Progressives that fought and won 
the American Revolution or emancipated the slaves. In fact, of all 
these things that I've listed, it was a majority of Republicans--if you 
would identify their politics--that brought about these changes, most 
of which are good changes or they wouldn't have been listed on that 
poster board. But I think it's revisionist history, Madam Speaker, and 
I could not let that moment pass without raising that issue.
  I will just stick with this subject for a moment, Madam Speaker, 
because I know what a Progressive is and I think America needs to know 
what a Progressive is. Now, it is not someone who has emancipated the 
slaves or fought and won the American Revolution or established a rural 
electric cooperative, not somebody that did those things.
  It wasn't really somebody that--they may have played a part in, but 
they weren't a central part--that established the civil rights. It's 
people that believed in the intrinsic value of the individual, the 
rights that come from God regardless of what your race or ethnicity 
might be. That's not a Progressive thought. That's a thought of rights 
that come from God.
  So here's what a Progressive is. And, Madam Speaker, anybody that's 
curious about this can just simply go to their Google page--that's the 
one thing that hasn't been nationalized at this point--and they can 
just Google in there dsausa.org--that's the Democratic Socialists of 
America, dsausa.org--and the screen will come up, and on it will say, 
``What is Democratic Socialism?'' And when you read through this Web 
site--which I happen to have right here, Madam Speaker, and I will 
enter this into the Record--and this document that is the socialist Web 
site, peruse through it a little bit, dsausa.org.

                     What is Democratic Socialism?

    Questions and Answers From the Democratic Socialists of America

       Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and 
     society should be run democratically--to meet public needs, 
     not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just 
     society, many structures of our government and economy must 
     be radically transformed through greater economic and social 
     democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the 
     many decisions that affect our lives.
       Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the 
     world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the 
     vision of socialism has taken root as well--everywhere but in 
     the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about 
     socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we 
     hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.
       Q: Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and 
     run everything?
       Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful 
     government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate 
     bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we 
     believe that social and economic decisions should be made by 
     those whom they most affect.
       Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves 
     and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions 
     affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make 
     money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We 
     believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by 
     economic institutions should own and control them.
       Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-
     owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by 
     workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists 
     favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large 
     concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and 
     steel pay necessitate some form of state ownership, many 
     consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
       Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that 
     the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we 
     believe that democratic planning can shape major social 
     investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market 
     mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many 
     consumer goods.
       Q: Hasn't socialism been discredited by the collapse of 
     Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?
       Socialists have been among the harshest critics of 
     authoritarian Communist states. Just because their 
     bureaucratic elites called them ``socialist'' did not make it 
     so; they also called their regimes ``democratic.'' Democratic 
     socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those 
     societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist 
     societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have 
     transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the 
     improvement of people's lives requires real democracy without 
     ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. 
     Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in 
     that struggle throughout the world.
       Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to 
     injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be 
     dismissed as ``Communist.'' That suppression of dissent and 
     diversity undermines America's ability to live up to its 
     promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the 
     freedoms of speech and assembly.
       Q: Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in 
     the US, so why work towards socialism?
       In the short term we can't eliminate private corporations, 
     but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The 
     government could use regulations and tax incentives to 
     encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw 
     destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage 
     countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can 
     also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold 
     corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to 
     unions make private business more accountable.
       Q: Won't socialism be impractical because people will lose 
     their incentive to work?
       We don't agree with the capitalist assumption that 
     starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People 
     enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their 
     lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their 
     community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism 
     is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we 
     recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks 
     would be spread among as many people as possible rather than 
     distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or 
     gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable 
     work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work 
     within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on 
     the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, 
     offering benefits and improving the work environment. In 
     short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and 
     moral incentives will motivate people to work.
       Q: Why are there no models of democratic socialism?
       Although no country has fully instituted democratic 
     socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other 
     countries have won many victories for their people. We can 
     learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the 
     Swedes, from Canada's national health care system, France's 
     nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua's literacy 
     programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right 
     here in the US, such as the community health centers created 
     by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality 
     family care, with community involvement in decision-making.
       Q: But hasn't the European Social Democratic experiment 
     failed?
       For over half a century, a number of nations in Western 
     Europe and Scandinavia have enjoyed both tremendous 
     prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the 
     policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations 
     used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of 
     living for their citizens--high wages, health care and 
     subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic 
     parties supported strong labor movements that became central 
     players in economic decision-making. But with the 
     globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model 
     becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-
     wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant 
     fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor 
     regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability 
     of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. 
     Social democratic reform must now happen at the international 
     level. Multinational corporations must be brought under 
     democratic controls, and workers' organizing efforts must 
     reach across borders.
       Now, more than ever, socialism is an international 
     movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of 
     working people in Finland or California depends largely on 
     standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work 
     towards reforms that can withstand the power of 
     multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a 
     world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.
       Q: Aren't you a party that's in competition with the 
     Democratic Party for votes and support?
       No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and 
     allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and 
     community organizing movements, many of us have been active 
     in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to 
     strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the 
     Congressional Progressive Caucus.
       The process and structure of American elections seriously 
     hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead 
     of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification 
     requirements that vary from state

[[Page 12602]]

     to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, 
     and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed 
     third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the 
     future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national 
     party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support 
     progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, 
     which usually means left-wing Democrats.
       Q: If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn't 
     I focus on something more immediate?
       Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, 
     reforms we win now--raising the minimum wage, securing a 
     national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-
     strike legislation--can bring us closer to socialism. Many 
     democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue 
     organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible 
     in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student 
     aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered organizations, 
     anti-racist groups, and the labor movement.
       It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and 
     inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As 
     socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all 
     struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly 
     challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its 
     particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively 
     working to win a world without oppression, each fight for 
     reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.
       Q: What can young people do to move the US towards 
     socialism?
       Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people 
     have played a critical role in American politics. They have 
     been a tremendous force for both political and cultural 
     change in this country: in limiting the US's options in the 
     war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the 
     racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and 
     in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender 
     discrimination to public attention. Though none of these 
     struggles were fought by young people alone, they all 
     featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive 
     coalitions. Young people are needed in today's struggles as 
     well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against 
     welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.
       Schools, colleges and universities are important to 
     American political culture. They are the places where ideas 
     are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an 
     active part of that discussion is a critical job for young 
     socialists. We have to work hard to change people's 
     misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, 
     and to overcome many students' lack of interest in engaging 
     in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural 
     lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, 
     sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of 
     the virtue of ``free'' markets.
       Q: If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue 
     to use the word?
       First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of 
     what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, 
     conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been 
     repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working 
     class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, 
     national health insurance was attacked as ``socialized 
     medicine'' and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as 
     socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and 
     beat, the stigma attached to the ``S word,'' politics in 
     America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. 
     We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the 
     traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the 
     Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of 
     other struggles for change that have made America more 
     democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to 
     remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

  It really doesn't take a very heavy read to figure out what's going 
on. These are the Socialists. They say, ``We believe that social and 
economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.'' 
Huh. Sounds like a little bit of what's been going on with the major 
corporations in America. Sounds a little like what's happened to the 
auto industry. It looks like they've been taken over and nationalized 
by the White House and handed over to the unions for control. That 
would fit. ``We believe that social and economic decisions should be 
made by those whom they most affect.''
  Here's another one: ``We believe that the workers and consumers who 
are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.'' 
Exactly what's happening to the automakers today, as they pulled the 
plug on a good number of Chrysler auto dealers, as they threatened to 
pull the plug on an even greater number of General Motors auto dealers, 
and as the stock shares get handed over to the unions at the expense of 
the investors who were owners of the hard collateral of the business of 
Chrysler Motors, and now it looks like General Motors as well, all 
right off the Web page of the socialists. ``We believe that the workers 
and consumers that are affected by economic institutions should own and 
control them.
  ``Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned 
cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and 
consumer representatives''; not managed for profit, not managed for 
efficiency, but nationalized businesses run and managed by workers and 
consumer representatives.
  I started a construction company in 1975. I borrowed money, invested 
a lot of capital, and the business is going on. It's a second-
generation construction company. My older son owns it today. There were 
a good number of places along the way that it would have been easy to 
give up and just drop out of business, but I had to make it work. I was 
determined to make it work. And if I had handed over the management of 
the company to the employees at any one of those critical points, 
there's no way that King Construction would have survived.
  This is quoting from the sheet again. ``While the large 
concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may 
necessitate some form of state ownership''--they're talking again about 
nationalizing--``many consumer-goods industries might be best run as 
cooperatives.''
  So they want to nationalize large businesses where there's 
concentrations of capital--energy, steel, a couple of examples. 
Automakers fall right in that. And on here it says, Well, we're not 
Communists. Here's the difference. Communists are harder lined than we 
are, and there's a few other distinctions. I'll ask you to read that, 
Madam Speaker, thoroughly. I think everybody in this Congress should 
know what the difference is between a Communist and a Socialist. I 
don't like either one.

                              {time}  1815

  I don't like either one. I like free markets. I like freedom. I like 
free enterprise. I like capitalism, and I like individual rights that 
come from God. Those are the pillars of American exceptionalism, not 
socialism, not Marxism, not communism.
  Here is another pretty frequently asked question. Private 
corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the U.S., so why work 
towards socialism? Here is the socialist answer: In the short term, we 
can't eliminate private corporations.
  Now I think, Madam Speaker, that you've been convinced that the 
Democratic socialists of America want to nationalize the major 
corporations, and they want to run this free enterprise economy not as 
a free enterprise economy but as a collectivist state, operating 
businesses for the benefit of the workers and the customers without 
regard to profit or the investors. That is clear here.
  Also what's clear in this document, which I will submit for the 
Record, is that the socialists are no longer hosting the Web site of 
the Progressive Caucus. Because in 1999 the issue was raised and the 
heat got a little too high so the socialists that were managing the Web 
site of the Progressive Caucus, they decided, and the progressives 
decided they'd run their own Web site.
  So when you see Progressive Caucus come up on a blue board here on 
the floor, they're saying, go to our Web site, see what all we've got. 
Look at all the credit we're taking for the things we didn't do. And, 
by the way, they don't actually announce that they are the legislative 
arm of the socialists, which you will find in this document that I will 
introduce into the Record this evening, Madam Speaker.
  They say here in this document off the Web site, the socialist Web 
site, that they are not a political party that nominates candidates 
under their banner. But their legislative arm is the Progressive 
Caucus, an absolute undeniable link right here on the Web site, 
socialists tied to progressives. That's what they are, Madam Speaker.
  So I get a little disturbed when this Congress and the rest of the 
Nation tries to mess with the definitions that Noah Webster wrote into 
our dictionary and our understanding of the English language.

[[Page 12603]]

  We know what socialism is. If you want to find out what communism is, 
the socialists define it. If you want find out what a progressive is, 
the socialists say progressives are them, their arm. And there is a 
list when you go on the Web site of 72 registered progressives in this 
Congress that are linked to the socialists directly as their 
legislative arm. They are the ones advocating for the nationalization 
of our energy industry, for the oil refinery industry, for the 
nationalization of our automakers, for example, and all the way up the 
line. Our financial institutions, large insurance companies, the 
nationalization that has taken place from President Obama with the full 
support of the Progressive Caucus and most of the Democrats in this 
Congress and in the House and in the Senate, Madam Speaker.
  I don't think that we can hold the rose-colored glasses along any 
longer. We have got to understand that our freedoms are being taken 
from us, and it's happening right in front of our very eyes, under our 
very nose. And the American people don't understand it yet.
  When they go to the Web site and they read through this document, 
What is Democratic Socialism? on the Web site of dsausa.org, and look 
to the connection of Progressive Caucus.
  And then, by the way, go to the Progressive Caucus Web site. They put 
it up here. Just Google Progressive Caucus and up will come the Web 
site that takes the credit for a lot of these things that they didn't 
have anything to do with, they didn't have any existence then during 
that period of time. But also they won't take credit for the things 
that they advocate for that are the mirror image of what comes off the 
socialist Web site here. One and the same, Madam Speaker. And the 
American people need to know it, and they know it now.
  So that's a little bit of what I didn't come here to talk about, 
Madam Speaker. But what I did come here to talk about is the nomination 
of one Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal Counsel. Dawn Johnsen is the 
President's nominee. And the Office of Legal Counsel, for the sake of 
those who are not all wrapped up in government, is the most important 
nomination that you've never heard of.
  The Office of Legal Counsel is kind of a mini Supreme Court. They 
issue carefully worded opinions, and they're regarded as binding 
precedent, and they have the final say on what the President and all 
his agencies can and cannot legally do, Madam Speaker.
  So this is the person that has the opportunity to whisper into the 
ear of the President on a daily basis, on a regular basis and make 
recommendations such as, Mr. President, you do or you don't have the 
authority to issue an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. That 
would be one of those whispers into the ear of the President. It might 
well be a written document that would be formally handed to him as 
well. I use that as, I'll say, an image, not so much a technicality.
  Dawn Johnsen is the person who has offended, I think, a greater 
number of Americans than any other nominee, even those that didn't pay 
their taxes. There is a long list of things that Dawn Johnsen has said 
and done. But I believe at this time it would be useful if I could have 
the opportunity to yield to the very vigorous and energetic gentlelady 
from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for however much time as she may consume.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much, Congressman King.
  You are so right about this very contentious nomination. This 
position has been called the Attorney General's lawyer. The Justice 
Department's Web site explains, ``The Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal 
advice to the President and to all executive branch agencies. The 
Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides 
its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from 
the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the executive 
branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal 
with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about 
which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is 
responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all 
constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for 
constitutionality.
  All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the 
President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and 
legality, as are various other matters that require the President's 
formal approval.
  In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other 
agencies of the Executive Branch, the Office of Legal Counsel also 
functions as general counsel for the Department itself.''
  Congressman King, you are absolutely right that this individual will 
have the ear of the President because this position provides 
authoritative legal advice to the President and all executive branch 
agencies.
  The AAG for the OLC is quite influential when evaluating existing 
laws and determining legal implications of legislative and 
administrative proposals. It is not a position for which an ideologue 
would be well suited.
  I really want to go to that end because this, of all the nominations 
that have come to our attention so far, has really disturbed me the 
most. And it's disturbed me because, as most people know, one of the 
things and the heartstrings that I have is my position on life.
  I believe that we cannot question when life begins or when it should 
end. We have to understand that life has value from conception to 
natural death. Only if we want to wage war against poverty, only when 
we want to make sure that each and every person in the world has the 
opportunity to be the best person that they can be, only when we give 
people the freedom to be what they want to be can this happen if we 
understand that that freedom begins at conception and that freedom must 
continue through its natural conclusion.
  But this individual holds a much different view on those positions. 
So I really want to talk for just a few moments about what I call, Life 
According to Dawn Johnsen. I want to talk about some things that have 
been said by this individual.
  ``Pregnancy is equivalent to slavery.'' ``Statutes that curtail her 
abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, 
prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a 
woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to 
further the state's asserted interest,'' Dawn Johnsen, Supreme Court 
amicus brief that she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health 
Services. I have to be silent for a minute so you can digest the 
coldness of that statement.
  ``Protecting life makes women into no more than fetal containers,'' 
is another one of her beliefs. ``The woman is constantly aware for 9 
months that her body is not wholly her own. The state has conscripted 
her body for its own ends, thus abortion restrictions reduce pregnant 
women to no more than fetal containers,'' Dawn Johnsen, Supreme Court 
amicus brief that she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health 
Services.
  I don't even know how to respond to that. As a mother, yeah, as soon 
as I felt life, I understood that I had a partner I was going to carry 
for the next 9 months. That experience only enabled me to begin the 
love that I have for my daughter and now that I see for her wonderful 
son. Yeah, pregnancy changes us because it gives us life.
  ``Abortion brings relief,'' is another one of her statements. ``The 
experience is no longer traumatic; the response of most women to the 
experience is relief,'' Dawn Johnsen, Supreme Court amicus brief that 
she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. I've talked to 
women who have had abortions, and they have a much different view.
  ``Those that become pregnant are losers.'' This one really stings me. 
She says, ``The argument that women who become pregnant have in some 
sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality.'' `` . . . and others 
who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more 
`consent' to pregnancy

[[Page 12604]]

than pedestrians `consent' to being struck by drunk drivers,'' Dawn 
Johnsen, Supreme Court amicus brief that she authored in Webster v. 
Reproductive Health Services.
  I don't see women who are pregnant as losers. I see their winning 
capabilities of having that life inside of them, being a life that will 
carry on and continue for generations to come.
  Another one: ``There is no need to reduce the number of abortions.'' 
``Progressives must not portray all abortions as tragedies,''
  ``Senator Hillary Clinton in a 2005 speech commendable for setting 
forth a pro-choice, pro-prevention, pro-family agenda, took the 
aspiration a step in the wrong direction when she called for policy 
changes so that abortion does not have to ever be exercised or only in 
very rare circumstances,'' Dawn Johnsen in the Constitution in 2020.
  These are her statements. I'm not making these up, Congressman. These 
are her statements, Madam Speaker.
  ``Pro-life supporters are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan,'' that's 
another one of her statements. And she says, ``The terrorist behavior 
of petitioners is remarkably similar to the conspiracy of violence and 
intimidation carried out by the Ku Klux Klan,'' Dawn Johnsen, Supreme 
Court amicus brief that she authored in Bray v. Alexandria Women's 
Health Clinic.
  I can't believe that she would say these things. But again, these are 
her words, not mine.
  Some of her positions and comments, questionable legal arguments, 
including the assertion that abortion bans might have undermine the 
13th Amendment, which banned slavery.
  This is a woman who was so entrenched with NARAL and the ACLU's 
Reproductive Freedom Project, she's compared pregnancy to involuntary 
servitude, described pregnant women as losers in the contraceptive 
lottery, and criticized Senator Clinton for then claiming to keep 
abortions, traumatic experiences, rare.

                              {time}  1830

  This is a woman who doesn't have the same view of life that most 
Americans have. Yes, this is a sensitive issue. But most Americans 
understand that life is sacred and must be protected. And I believe 
that most Americans want someone who is the legal counsel of the 
President to not have such polarizing views. I believe that they want 
someone that will step back and evaluate decisions based on their 
constitutionality and their legality and not put forth their own 
agenda.
  This is a person who at every step along her way has put forth her 
own very proabortion agenda in each and everything that she has done. 
This is not the right person for this job. And I would only hope that 
this administration changes its position.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentlelady for 
coming to the floor and standing up for life and making this 
announcement on statement after statement, quote after quote, that has 
come from Dawn Johnsen, the former legal counsel for NARAL, the 
National Abortion Rights Action League, the one who has inflamed the 
profamily, prolife, pro-Constitution pro-individual rights of people in 
this country by making a whole series of outrageous statements. And 
many of them were mentioned by the gentlelady from Ohio.
  I put this one up on abortion protesters, this is the KKK piece, that 
``the `terrorist' behavior of petitioners is remarkably similar to the 
conspiracy of violence and intimidation carried out by the Ku Klux Klan 
against which Congress intended this statute to protect.''
  People that are outside of the abortion clinics praying for the 
innocent human life that is being exterminated inside are being 
described as KKK-type of intimidators. This is the person that we would 
have whispering into the ear of the President, the Office of Legal 
Counsel, issuing opinions and decisions that are de facto judgments on 
our Constitution and the legality. And that is one example. The 
gentlelady gave a number of other examples. And I would yield to the 
gentlelady from Ohio.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I just want to say, sir, that I am someone who has, 
throughout my adult life, stood in front of an abortion clinic in the 
city of Cincinnati. We stand in silence. We stand in prayer. We do not 
say anything to people as they walk by. We just pray that they have a 
change of heart and that they understand that all life is precious, 
including the one they may be carrying inside of their body. I have 
been doing this since I was in college. And I have yet to see any 
behavior that would even look like a terrorist's behavior. So for her 
to say that, I think, is totally out of character.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady who has been 
a champion for life for a long time, here is another piece that we have 
heard about, Dawn Johnsen on abortion, legal but not rare. This is 
where she even goes in conflict with such known liberals as Hillary 
Clinton, for example, where Dawn Johnsen said, ``The notion of legal 
restrictions as some kind of reasonable `compromise,' perhaps to help 
make abortion `safe, legal and rare,' thus proves nonsensical.'' That 
is her statement of January 25, 2006, not that long ago.
  And here our Progressives show up again, as I spoke about earlier, 
Madam Speaker, ``Progressives must not portray all abortions tragedies. 
Absent unforeseen technological and medical changes, abortion is 
unlikely to become truly rare and certainly not nonexistent.''
  This lady isn't happy about abortion becoming rare. She has chastised 
even Hillary Clinton about asking for abortion to be safe, legal and 
rare. This gives you an example of what Progressives are, also, Madam 
Speaker. Progressives fit this bill. Can you imagine a Progressive who 
was antislavery who believed in the value, the intrinsic value of human 
life, to the extent of laying down their life for their brethren who 
have lived in bondage, would people like that be advocating for more 
abortions and calling those who pray outside of abortion clinics 
equivalent to the KKK? I think we know what a Progressive is today. I 
don't think there were any Progressives that existed by any defined 
label that took place around the Revolutionary War time, Madam Speaker.
  But Dawn Johnsen does fit. She is a Progressive. I will give her 
that. And her name should be withdrawn by the President of the United 
States.
  In fact, the gentlelady from Ohio and I are on a letter together. We 
and 60 other Members of Congress issued a letter to President Obama 
dated March 24, 2009. It calls upon President Obama to withdraw the 
nomination of Dawn Johnsen as Office of Legal Counsel. And part of the 
language here in the second page of the letter to the President signed 
by 62 of us from the House says: ``Senator Hillary Clinton, in a 2005 
speech commendable for setting forth a pro-choice, pro-prevention, pro-
family agenda, took the aspiration a step in the wrong direction.'' 
This is Dawn Johnsen talking about Hillary Clinton. She said Hillary 
Clinton ``took the aspiration to rare abortions a step in the wrong 
direction when she called for policy changes so that abortion 'does not 
ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.' '' That 
is a quote of Hillary Clinton.
  Dawn Johnsen even calls Hillary Clinton out as not progressive 
enough, not being enough pro-abortion that she would think that 
abortions should be rare. That is an affront to Dawn Johnsen's values. 
And Dawn Johnsen would be in a position to whisper into the ear of the 
President on what is legal and what isn't, what is constitutional and 
what isn't. But not only that, she is not just flipping a toggle switch 
that is a legal opinion, Madam Speaker. She is shaping legal policy and 
making recommendations to the President that are policy changes.
  Now imagine if she wasn't there. And she is formally not there 
because her nomination is held up by the Senate. It is held up by the 
Senate because they know many of the things that Mrs. Schmidt and I 
have talked about here tonight and we have talked about for some months 
now since her nomination emerged. But the Guantanamo Bay issue fits 
perfectly with the type of thing that I would bring to bear where an 
Office of Legal Counsel would be

[[Page 12605]]

there with access to the President continually, generating an activist 
left-wing, yes, call it a Progressive agenda, because that is not going 
to be a very good word when we finish describing what it is, coming up 
with ideas like, Mr. President, you need to issue an executive order to 
close Guantanamo Bay and turn these prisoners loose.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I didn't make that up. I'm not being flippant. 
I'm simply quoting Dawn Johnsen. It says here on a list of quotes from 
Dawn Johnsen with regard to Guantanamo Bay under Gitmo that Dawn 
Johnsen posits two alternatives to deal with the Gitmo detainees, the 
enemy combatants, the terrorists, the vile al Qaeda terrorists, the 
worst of the worst that are down there, 241 of them, according to the 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee today by Attorney General 
Holder.
  She says we only have two choices with the Gitmo detainees: either 
release them or transfer them to facilities in the United States and 
consideration of civilian criminal prosecution in the Federal courts. 
An outrageous idea that seems to be under consideration by this White 
House at this time.
  And I have been down to Gitmo maybe a little over a month ago. They 
are living pretty good down there, Madam Speaker. No nation has ever 
treated prisoners of a conflict as well. I didn't say any better. I 
said no nation has treated them as well as we have treated these 
enemies at Guantanamo Bay who have a vile oath to kill Americans. And 
they believe it is their path to salvation. They are attacking American 
guards an average of 20 times a day. Half the time they are throwing 
feces and trying to rub it into the face of our guards. That is their 
own feces. The other half of the time they are physically assaulting 
them and trying to hurt them with whatever they might have for cuffs 
and shackles. They are living in climate control. They set the 
thermostat in the air conditioned Caribbean island vacation resort. 
Their limitations are they have to live within the fences that keep 
them from getting away. But even when they are in there, they get a 
little soccer field. They can go out and play soccer. They have got 
foosball tables. They get to choose from nine items on the menu every 
day and they set the thermostat between 75 and 80 degrees because they 
say that is their cultural temperature. So we would give them air 
conditioning and give them their cultural temperature while our troops 
are sometimes out in the sun. They stop for prayer five times a day, 
100 minutes a day. Our troops stop and respectfully wait. That is all 
right with me. Everybody gets a Koran. No one can have a Bible. Of the 
800-and-some who were there altogether, there was one who requested a 
Bible. And it created such belligerence and violence among other 
detainees that they said, no, you can't have a Bible. They have since 
released the individual that wanted a Bible. Everybody else gets a 
Koran, one that is untouched by one of these infidel guards that are 
getting feces thrown in their face on a regular basis, Madam Speaker.
  This is the kind of idea that comes from Dawn Johnsen. Let's turn 
these people loose or bring them to the United States. She argues that 
she should have habeas corpus rights. That is a radical Federal Court 
decision by the way. And it is radical. The Founding Fathers would have 
never approved such a thing. That is why they wrote the provisions in 
the Constitution of habeas corpus. She writes that it was there so that 
when we fight people around the world we can round them up and bring 
them back on a slow ship with a sail. They didn't have motors on their 
boats back then, let alone airplanes. Bring before an American court. 
Give them rights of habeas corpus. If they get turned loose on a 
technicality, turn them loose into the streets of America. I asked the 
Attorney General today, Can you assure us that you will not turn these 
Gitmo detainees loose into the United States? He could not assure of us 
of that.
  Now, I can tell you if I were the Attorney General, I would be able 
to find out a way. I could tell you under these conditions this is what 
we are trying to do. I will assure you I would do everything I can. I 
would at least like not to have these detainees board domestic American 
airliners and fly with my children or grandchildren. I would think that 
maybe we could put them on the no-fly list like Teddy Kennedy was. For 
some reason, we can't even do that.
  And as a temporary diversion to this diatribe, I would be happy to 
yield to the gentleman from Indiana, who might be able to flesh that 
story out just a little bit, such time as he may consume.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my colleague from Iowa for taking the lead 
tonight and my colleague and friend from Ohio as well. Both have been 
long-time pro-life leaders. And my colleague from Iowa and I have 
fought on numerous fronts in the various battles here.
  Today before I speak on the abortion question which is one thing I 
want to raise here, of course, but today in the homeland security 
markup on Transportation Security Administration, I offered an 
amendment that anybody released in the United States from Gitmo would 
go on the no-fly list. We thought that the debate was going to be, 
should this be a recorded vote and the Democrats would propose not 
having a recorded vote. But it caused such panic that they had long 
meetings and basically came up with a gutting amendment and knocked the 
amendment out by stating that only after all the processes with the 
President were completed, but that didn't even put them on a no-fly 
list. Now here is the fundamental question that this isn't putting 
people in prison and detaining them. This is a question of should they 
be on the no-fly list.
  If you were in Gitmo--and understand that I don't favor closing 
Gitmo. I imagine neither of my colleagues here favored closing Gitmo. 
Just because you made a stupid campaign statement doesn't mean you have 
to have a stupid policy once you get in and see the truth. And there 
has been a number of people who have changed their opinion about that. 
But we have already released a number of these people. At best, the 
results have been mixed. Some have gotten already back involved in al 
Qaeda. And just because it has been hard to come up with the evidence, 
say, because people get beheaded, because of the type of retribution 
that occurs, the fearfulness of stating upfront and going through even 
a military court where it is private, worried that it is going to get 
out, it was difficult to make some of the cases. It has been very 
mixed, the ones they did release. So the ones that are there have at 
least some doubt because they are already not released. Now we transfer 
them to the United States. The question is what is going to happen? Are 
they going to await trial? Are they going to be detained? How are they 
going to sort this through? We don't have a plan. Secretary Napolitano 
said at our hearing the day before, looking at our budget, clearly 
homeland security was going to have to keep track of them. If they are 
going to keep track of them, why in the world wouldn't they be on a no-
fly list? If they are too dangerous to be released in the country 
without homeland security tracking them, why do we want them on an 
airplane next to us? I just see no logic to this, that we put American 
citizens on the no-fly list because maybe they have a cousin, they have 
done some phone calls, we have questions and we are concerned about it.
  These people are the people they have held in Gitmo, not the ones 
they have released, a couple hundred already down there. These are the 
people who are higher risk at the very least.
  Now, the Chinese Uyghurs who were part of al Qaeda-affiliated groups, 
China won't take them back. They already announced they will release 
them in Northern Virginia. They can get on airplanes at Reagan Airport.
  What kind of a philosophy is this that, oh, we are going to see final 
resolution of this, we are going to work this through? This is absurd. 
The last thing we need is a legal counsel over there telling him, oh, 
wow, these people should have public trials. We have been through this 
in the Department of Homeland Security. When the New

[[Page 12606]]

York Times released the classified report, none of us actually know 
precisely what was in it that caused this reaction. But what we know is 
terrorists were taking down around the world, networks were broken up 
in process before they could do that because we heard them get up on 
their phones because was it a bank account that they didn't know that 
we knew they were doing it? Was it a phone line they didn't know that 
was tapped? When you get things in public, you expose your ability to 
track. And they go other routes. The idea of public trials would be 
catastrophic to the safety of this country.
  Now, the idea that they aren't even going to be on a no-fly list is 
just incredible. And anybody, in my opinion, who blocks that, and if it 
isn't in the bill next week, the people who kept it out of the bill 
should be held responsible if something happens. It isn't like you 
can't figure out who to blame here. We had an amendment that would have 
said they are automatically on the no-fly list, if they get on the 
plane now, without even being more than routinely checked, it would be 
incredible.

                              {time}  1845

  Now I would like to talk briefly about Dawn Johnsen. She's a fellow 
Hoosier. I do not know her, but she and her husband are well known in 
Indianapolis. She teaches at the Indiana Law School. There is 
incredible pressure on our two United States Senators on the vote, and 
we need their votes against her.
  It isn't whether or not she's smart. It's not whether or not they're 
good people, good neighbors, good people to go to church with. This is 
about policy and critical policy. This is about basically a person with 
radical views on abortion being put in a position to give that advice. 
And we need our two Senators to understand that. We need the American 
people to understand that. And really we need this President to 
understand this.
  Another thing happened just a few miles outside my district. I 
represent most of Elkhart County. Carson and Donnelly represent about a 
third; I have two-thirds. And I come up around within about 5 or 7 
miles of the University of Notre Dame, and about a third of my district 
is in South Bend. So there's been a little bit of ruckus about the 
President's speaking at Notre Dame. He's the eighth President in a row 
to speak at Notre Dame. It's not so much the controversy of speaking 
but whether he should get an honorary doctorate since his positions 
seem to be at odds with the fundamental teachings of the Catholic 
Church and the Pope.
  Now, the administration claims that they aren't as hostile to the 
pro-life cause as we say. He said at the press conference in an 
astounding statement that, Oh, I wouldn't be for embryonic stem cell 
research if there was another alternative. And you wonder is this a 
kind of cuteness or does he really not know that there are other 
alternatives that work and embryonic stem cell doesn't work, that 
embryonic stem cell has been going on for 10 years without even a pig 
being able to live let alone a human, whereas other forms of stem 
cells, in fact, have cured people of diseases.
  Maybe, however, when you think about it, President Obama was raised 
in Hawaii and Indonesia and elsewhere. Then he went to Harvard. He 
worked as a community organizer, lived in an upscale neighborhood of 
Illinois in Chicago. I'm not sure whether he's really heard a lot of 
the debate. And to be fair, maybe we need to educate him in a non-
yelling way. Some of the problems we are having in South Bend right 
now, some of the controversy there, we need to win the middle. We lost 
the last election. If we're going to win the pro-life debate and save 
children in America, we need to make sure we can try to persuade the 
middle. And in this, President Obama, if he wants to claim that he 
really wants to reduce abortion, he needs to show that with his 
actions, not just say that I favor that. He needs to support methods on 
adoption. He needs to encourage the Women's Care Centers and Hope 
Centers. My wife, Diane, volunteers at a Hope Center.
  You've been reading some of these statements, but to appoint somebody 
as Deputy Legal Counsel who says that pregnancy is like slavery, that 
protecting life makes women no more than fetal containers, that 
abortion brings relief, that those who become pregnant are losers, that 
there's no need to reduce the number of abortions, and comparing pro-
life supporters to the Ku Klux Klan, among other things that you've 
been highlighting in these quotes, you're not neutral trying to reduce 
abortion. If you appoint a person in a key legal position that 
interprets policy, you do not have credibility then to go to the 
University of Notre Dame next Sunday, to go around at a press 
conference to tell us we're working for a middle ground. There's no 
middle ground there. That is the radical position of NARAL being put in 
a position to make legal policy for the United States of America. You 
have to not talk out of one side of your mouth and do the other.
  What we need the President to do is withdraw this nomination.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 
coming to the floor and laying out this picture in this fashion, as 
much as I do the gentlewoman from Ohio doing the same.
  As I listened to this, Dawn Johnsen's confirmation of her nomination 
is in trouble. Harry Reid announced that Tuesday of this week, that he 
had planned to bring it up for a vote. He was short a couple Democrat 
votes, and I think more than that.
  So we need to ask, I think, Madam Speaker, that everybody weigh in on 
this from a conscience standpoint and understand that these statements 
made by Dawn Johnsen are just that, an advocacy for the National 
Abortion Rights Action League, which she was the chief legal counsel 
for them. She argued a number of cases before the court. The record is 
replete. It does not vary. It's consistent. It's liberal. It's 
activist. It is a danger to life. It's a danger to every unborn child. 
And she is a danger to fathers.
  This is a quote from Dawn Johnsen: ``Our position is that there is no 
father and no child, just a fetus, and any move by the courts to force 
a woman to have a child amounts to involuntary servitude.''
  But put into that context. Dangerous for babies, unborn babies, 
dangerous for mothers, who are disrespected. My mother a fetal 
container? That offends me. It should offend America. We're all 
children of mothers. They're not fetal containers; they're our mothers. 
They brought us into this world. They loved us. They nurtured us. 
There's no substitute for a mother, and I will never get to be one, and 
I'm a little jealous.
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, I'm not a fetal container; I'm a mother. And I 
was very glad to have my wonderful daughter. Just 7 months ago, she had 
a beautiful little boy, and I think she would be appalled at being 
called a ``fetal container.'' She was thrilled on Sunday to be called a 
mother, just as I was thrilled to be called a mother and a grandmother.
  But more importantly, when we put people into positions of authority, 
while we respect that they may have a divergence of views than we might 
have, we certainly want people in authority that are willing to listen 
to all viewpoints before rendering a decision. But when you time and 
again, like Dawn Johnsen, have made statement after statement after 
statement with inflammatory rhetoric surrounding those statements, as 
she appears to have done for a better part of her adult life, 
especially on abortion but on other issues as well, I don't think the 
American public is going to be comfortable with a person of her 
position of authority whispering in the President's ear or in 
bureaucrats' ears her opinion on matters not just on abortion, not just 
on Guantanamo, but on other issues as well.
  I think we want someone that's even-tempered, someone that's willing 
to look at all viewpoints, someone that's willing to see all sides and 
render the decision that they believe is the most appropriate for 
America. I don't think she has the capability of doing that

[[Page 12607]]

when I read the kinds of statements that she has made.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman.
  I'd add a piece that I want to reiterate here. Madam Speaker, if 
America is not moved enough at this pro-abortion activism and this 
legal distortion that has taken place as a matter of the professional 
actions and the public record of Dawn Johnsen, the President's nominee 
to head up the Office of Legal Counsel, they should be concerned about 
our national security. A national security that would say turn the 
Gitmo detainees loose or bring them here to the United States, put them 
under U.S. courts, and then, by the way, turn them loose and nurture 
them with our tax dollars so they can get on their feet again. All of 
that being part of this concept. But also Dawn Johnsen's objecting to 
surveillance of al Qaeda communications when it was a phone call that 
took place from a foreign country like, let's say, Afghanistan and 
ended up in Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden was calling Khalid Sheik 
Mohammed and if that nexus came back to the United States for the link 
but no one set foot in the United States, she would object to their not 
getting a warrant to listen in on that traffic on a telephone signal 
that would originate in Afghanistan and terminate in Pakistan.
  Here is what she said. She attributed that type of surveillance to 
``an extreme and implausible Commander in Chief theory.''
  Now, this is an implausible and extreme theory, Madam Speaker, but 
the Commander in Chief is not a theory. It's constitutional. It's 
strictly defined in the Constitution. The Commander in Chief of our 
Armed Forces is the President of the United States. And the President 
of the United States has nominated Dawn Johnsen, who is a radical 
extremist. And her nomination is in trouble, and 62 of us wrote a 
letter and said please pull the nomination.
  The President, if I were standing before him, I would make such a 
plea, and I would entreat the President of the United States that the 
juice is not worth the squeeze. There are plenty of activists that are 
traipsing through the White House these days. This is a lightning rod 
activist. Why don't you give us somebody that's not such a lightning 
rod, maybe somebody that's not going to be quite so radical. You're 
going to have to appoint somebody there to make these legal opinions, 
and I would like to have somebody that understands what's 
constitutional, at least recognize that the President of the United 
States is Commander in Chief, that constitutional position.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. The naivete is incredible here in the intelligence area. 
I've worked in the narcotics area on the Intel Committee of Homeland 
Security. In case people haven't heard, the border is not completely 
sealed. Clearly we don't even want to put the Gitmo detainees on a no-
fly list. If you don't have intelligence, I don't know how we stay 
safe.
  I wanted to add another thing on the abortion issue. About 2 months 
ago, apparently we had Fetal Container Day. My daughter was going 
through Fetal Container Day as a mom, and 2 months ago our 
granddaughter, Reagan Rebekah, was born. My daughter, Brooke, and her 
husband, Jeff, who apparently, in Dawn Johnsen's mind, wasn't relevant, 
and I don't know when he became a father if he wasn't a father at the 
beginning. I don't know when Reagan Rebekah became a human being, 
because my daughter was having problems and they decided they had to 
bring Reagan out early, and it wouldn't have been that many years ago 
that she wouldn't have survived. She came out somewhat over 4 pounds, 
just under 5 pounds. She yelled just as loud as if she were heavier, 
but she came out very small. But she survived. She was able to go home. 
She had a high enough Apgar score. But at one point, and true of my 
wife too, but at one point my daughter was a fetal container, and 
Reagan Rebekah was a fetus. And then she came out a month early, where 
before she wouldn't even have been able to survive, and now she's a 
human being suddenly, and my daughter is a mom? It doesn't make any 
sense here.
  We cannot have somebody with these radical views in this position of 
power. If she wants to continue at IU Law School, if she wants to 
continue with NARAL, fine. But we do not need her.
  And, Mr. President, she needs to be withdrawn. We need to have a 
reasonable alternative that we can try to work with. We know we lost an 
election. But we do not need radicals in this position that would 
destroy human life, whether it be because of lack of intelligence in 
terrorism or in abortion.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and the 
gentlewoman.
  It sparks my memory, as I listened to the gentleman from Indiana 
speak. A mother is not transformed from a fetal container into a mother 
by the birth. A mother is a mother at conception and from that point 
on. And we use that language consistently.
  But another piece comes to mind when I think about the President of 
the United States and this subject matter, and that is that I look back 
on the Saddleback Church debate that took place there, very well 
handled by Reverend Rick Warren, who offered the prayer just a few feet 
behind me here on the west portico of the Capitol Building at the 
inauguration of the President of the United States. But there they sat 
with John McCain and President Obama, and he asked the question of 
then-Senator Obama, When does life begin?
  Senator Obama's answer was, ``That's above my pay scale.'' When life 
begins--when his life began--is above his own pay scale.
  Now, there is significant evidence that President Obama got a raise 
put in since August of last year because he decided right away in 
January that it was in his pay scale. He decided that he would rescind 
the Mexico City policy which prohibited our taxpayer dollars from 
funding abortions in foreign lands. By executive order, he wiped that 
out, that very conscience decision that was debated on the floor of 
this House over and over and over again and defended by the pro-life 
effort in this Congress and across the United States. And he also by 
executive order decided that he wants to fund with Federal tax dollars 
the ending of human life in the form of experimenting on embryos, 
little frozen embryos, little snowflake babies, some of whom I've held 
in my arms that were frozen for 9 years. Loving, giggling, laughing 
little children wiped out by executive order that now seems to have 
found its legs and decided life must not begin or it must not be sacred 
yet if it's in the early stages, when it can't scream for its own 
mercy. So the Mexico City policy wiped out, the embryonic stem cell 
prohibition of using Federal dollars to experiment on them has already 
been moved. And now we see the appointment of Dawn Johnsen. And we have 
a President that's going to be soon speaking in South Bend, Indiana, at 
Notre Dame University, directly in conflict with the teachings of the 
church. It is a hard thing for us Catholics to watch. It's a hard thing 
for the pro-life people in this country to watch.

                              {time}  1900

  But I have seen hundreds of thousands of Americans come to this city 
to stand up for innocent unborn human life. They will come to this city 
in greater numbers if Dawn Johnsen is confirmed, and I think the 
President will keep that in mind, and I pray that he will pull her 
nomination.

                          ____________________