Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Montrose Search and Rescue team.

For over 65 years, Montrose Search and Rescue has been conducting lifesaving operations throughout the Angeles National Forest and the neighboring areas. These brave men and women have risked their own lives to rescue stranded hikers, victims of natural disasters, and anyone in need of assistance.

Two weeks ago, their heroism was on full display. The team spotted a little girl who was face down, drowning in a pool of running water in the forest. The 18-month-old girl was unconscious and had stopped breathing when they pulled her out of the water. Thanks to them, this little girl was brought back to life to the unimaginable relief and gratitude of her family.

That young girl, along with so many others, is alive today because of the heroic actions of the Montrose Search and Rescue team. They do all this for their community without asking anything in return, and their humbling dedication to service and their selfless desire to help those in need deserve our respect and gratitude.

So, today, I rise to say thank you, Montrose Search and Rescue, for the great work that you do and for the lives that you save through your efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 125th Anniversary of United Way.

Founded in 1887, United Way has become a celebrated organization committed to improving communities throughout the United States and around the world. Through locally targeted initiatives, United Way strives to advance the common good, helping communities reach their full potential in the spirit of volunteerism and service. United Way mobilizes thousands of individuals and organizations worldwide to improve education, help people achieve financial stability and promote healthy lifestyles in their communities, building the foundation for a stronger, healthier society.

Today, United Way includes almost 1,800 community-based organizations in 41 countries and territories. In Southern California, United Way of Greater Los Angeles is dedicated to providing long term solutions for the root causes of poverty. Increasing the high school graduation rate, decreasing homelessness and implementing job training and asset development programs are part of a tireless effort to better our community and help people in need.

To all of the passionate volunteers, employees and partners of United Way, I join my colleagues in recognizing and honoring your legacy of inspirational service.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. What began as a legitimate investigation into an operation called

Fast and Furious has, unfortunately, degenerated into yet another partisan political attack in an election year. And it's a shame this is taking place for many reasons. First and foremost, because the American people have a legitimate interest in getting to the bottom of the gun violence that spills across our border, with the tens of thousands of weapons made in America that end up in the hands of the cartels. But instead of looking into that investigation, instead of finding out what we can do about this gun violence, this has now become a fight over documents, a fight that is completely unnecessary and unjustified.

The very documents that are at issue in this resolution were created after this operation had long since been shut down. They will shed no light on the operation. They will shed no light on what we can do to stop this gun trafficking. But then that's not the goal. The goal here is simply the fight.

The Justice Department has bent over backwards, produced thousands of documents. The Attorney General has testified eight or nine times before the House, has made every effort to cooperate in this investigation, but the committee will not take ``yes'' for an answer because that's not the goal. The fight is the goal.

And so we are here when we should be doing the Nation's business, when we should be working on legislation to create jobs. Instead, we are here in what is nothing less than a partisan brawl over nothing. And you know how this will end? It will end months or years from now with a settlement in Federal District Court in which the Justice Department will provide the very same documents they have already offered to provide. But we will have wasted our time; we will have wasted our money; and we will have wasted the precious opportunity to get the people's business done here in the House.

In case the majority hasn't noticed, we are in the midst of a very difficult economy, where people are struggling to find work. They are not struggling to find another partisan fight on the House floor. This is something that cried out for resolution, but those cries were ignored. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to these contempt resolutions.

I spent 6 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, and I have great admiration and respect for the hardworking men and women of the Department. I have great respect for our Attorney General, who I think has been a superb Attorney General and is a man of great integrity. I, like most Americans, would like to know about the facts of Fast and Furious, about the problem of guns crossing our border, about the horrendous violence to the south of our border. But what we do today will shed no light on that.

What we do today will not improve the situation in terms of gun violence that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Mexican citizens and that has claimed the lives of an increasing number of Americans. What we are doing today is simply a partisan abuse of the contempt power. Thirteen percent of the American people think highly of Congress, and today those 13 percent are wondering why. What we do will cause no injury to the Department, but it will cause great injury to this House.

The Justice Department, after providing 8,000 documents and extensive testimony, is now being required to turn over privileged materials; and like all administrations before it, it has reluctantly used executive privilege to respectfully refuse to provide materials it cannot provide. So now we are here, bringing a contempt motion against the Attorney General, who our committee chairman acknowledges was not aware of Fast and Furious. They don't expect any documents to show he was aware of Fast and Furious. Yet we are going to hold this Cabinet official in contempt?

That is an outrageous abuse of the contempt power. What will happen when this Congress actually needs to use the contempt power for a legitimate purpose? Will anyone still recognize it?

I urge the Speaker to withdraw this motion as, indeed, Speaker Gingrich withdrew the motion in his day and let the parties work it out. We both know, Democrats and Republicans, how this will end. It will end with a settlement in court months or years from now and with the Department's providing the same documents it's offering to provide today. Let's end this partisan exercise now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center in Pasadena, California, upon its 90th anniversary.

Incorporated in 1921, Jewish members of Pasadena built their first synagogue, Temple B'nai Israel, on Hudson Avenue in Pasadena. In 1929 the congregation moved to a larger meeting room due to a rapid growth in membership. By 1932 membership had grown to 207 family members. In the 1940's, the congregation purchased land and built a new temple on Altadena Drive in Pasadena, its current location.

David Cohen became Rabbi in 1942, followed by Rabbi Max Vorspan, who served from 1947 until 1952. During this time, the Pasadena Jewish Community was re-named as the Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center (PJTC). In 1952, Maurice T. Galpert became Rabbi, serving until his death in 1988. Rabbi Galpert led the PJTC through growth and modernization, which included building a new sanctuary and school and the ratification of a new constitution. In 1989, Rabbi Gilbert Kollin, long established as a rabbinic leader in the greater Los Angeles Jewish community, led PJTC until his retirement in 2003. Joshua Levine Grater became Rabbi in 2003 and under his leadership, the PJTC has become not only a place to worship but also a positive role model with many service and outreach programs.

Since its inception, the PJTC has provided spiritual guidance to its members and support for the community. In addition to hosting affiliated Jewish organizations such as the Weizmann Day School and B'nai B'rith, there are many service committees including the Sisterhood, United Synagogue Youth, Men's Club, and Israel Committees. The Tikkun Olam & Social Justice Committee coordinates ongoing humanitarian and social action work within PJTC and the greater community, and its efforts include coordinating charitable responses to occurrences such as Hurricane Katrina and ending the genocide in Darfur. Members also volunteer with Union Station Homeless Services and Project Isaiah, a food and clothing distribution program, and provide tutoring to Longfellow Elementary School students in Pasadena.

I consider it a great privilege to represent the Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the congregation upon their 90th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the John Burroughs High School Junior State of America Chapter (JBHS JSA), from Burbank, California, upon being announced as the winner of the fifth annual National Civic Impact Award.

The concept for the Junior State was envisioned in the 1930s by Professor E.A. Rogers, who strongly believed that teaching youth the fundamentals of good government is one of the central needs of a democracy. When he introduced this idea to his students, a recommendation for a junior government was proposed by a student, where students would not only learn about democracy, but practice it as well. Formerly known as the Junior Statesmen of America, this project has spread to many high schools in California and across the nation. Since its inception, over 500,000 students have gained the skills and knowledge essential to be informed and active citizens and leaders.

Today, the Junior State of America (JSA) and the Junior Statesmen Foundation, strive to prepare and educate high school students for continuing involvement and participation in a democratic society. It encourages students to advocate their personal opinions, develop respect for opinions that oppose their own, think critically, and exchange ideas through problem solving, talks and debates. This experience also allows students to understand the responsibilities and challenges of leadership.

Every year, the top JSA chapters from across the U.S. compete for the National Civic Impact Award. This award is presented to the JSA chapter that makes the most prevalent impact at their school, by raising the degree of civic engagement and awareness. Ten finalists, who had all been announced winners of the ``Chapter of the Year'' award in their respective regions, advanced to be considered for the National Civic Impact Award. A panel of judges reviewed the materials the finalists had submitted, and announced John Burroughs High School as this year's winner. In addition to this prestigious title, the JBHS JSA will receive a grant towards maintaining the school's civic engagement programs, a stipend reward for the Teacher/Advisor as well as a plaque highlighting their achievement. The JBHS JSA is also incredibly active in their school and community. They have raised money for the Ronald McDonald House Charity, attended City Council and School Board meetings and hosted guest speakers.

I applaud the student participants and all the supporters of JSA for your unwavering commitment to civic engagement, and I ask all

Members to join me in congratulating the JBHS JSA Chapter for their noteworthy achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize and record a courageous story of survival of the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide, perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulted in the death of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children. As the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau documented at the time, it was a campaign of ``race extermination.''

The campaign to annihilate the Armenian people failed, as illustrated by the proud Armenian nation and prosperous diaspora. It is difficult if not impossible to find an Armenian family not touched by the genocide, and while there are some survivors still with us, it is imperative that we record their stories. Through the Armenian Genocide Congressional Record Project, I hope to document the harrowing stories of the survivors in an effort to preserve their accounts and to help educate the Members of Congress now and in the future of the necessity of recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

This is one of those stories:

My Grandmother Araxi

This story is dedicated to my children so they may always

remember their family heritage. It is in memory of my

grandfather and grandmother, Garabed and Araxi Kechbouladian.

This is my way to honor them and to immortalize my

grandmother's legacy.

My ``Nana,'' Araxi, was born in Zeitoun, in 1914, around

the time of the Armenian Genocide. My ``Dede,'' Garabed, was

born there as well. He died in the 1960's and my Nana lived

with us in Germany until the day she died. One of my most

vivid memories of her is her singing a particular song. She

used to sing this song often. It is called ``Yeraz'' which

means dream. I remember the first verse word for word. It

goes like this, ``Yes lehsezy me anoush zain, eem zerahzadz

mor mod ehr. Paylez neshouil ouraghoutyan. Payz absos vor

yeraz ehr.'' It means, ``I heard a sweet voice. It was my

mother's. It was a gleam of joy. But, unfortunately, it was

just a dream.'' My grandmother would sing it when she was

cooking or doing chores. She would cry every time she sang

this song. She had never known her mother and her father.

Their names were Neshan and Vartouhy Shanlian.

Nobody knows what really happened to my great grandparents.

All my grandmother would tell is that she was about a year

old, perhaps a little older, when she was taken to a German

orphanage in Lebanon, located somewhere between the cities of

Sour and Saida. She thought that it was called Ghazir. She

had heard many stories growing up and she believed that her

parents were either killed during the massacre, in 1915, or

died during the deportation. If the Armenians were not

massacred, they were ordered by the Turks to leave their

lands and march through the deserts towards Syria. Those

marches were called death marches because many perished of

dehydration, starvation, and exhaustion. If the march did not

kill them, they were going to be killed eventually. This must

have been my great grandparents' fate. As for my grandmother,

she must have been kept by other Armenians. Eventually, she

was given to the Germans who were gathering up orphans at

that time.

My great grandparents had seven children. Only four of them

survived, my grandmother being the youngest one. Their names

were Flora, Maritza, Bedros, Stepan, Hagop, Avedis, and my

grandmother Araxi. The siblings surviving the Genocide were

Maritza, Avedis, and Hagop. However, my grandmother grew up

separated from them in the German-run orphanage. She was

found by Badvely Aharonian, a pastor and family friend of the

Shanlians. Badvely Aharonian's mission was to seek out and

reunite children and family members who were displaced during

the deportation. My grandmother was about 11-years-old when

the Badvely found her. The only way he recognized my ``Nana''

was by the name plate that was hung on my then infant

grandmother's neck displaying her full name. This was

recorded in the orphanage and was the only proof of her

family lineage. She was taken to Cypress where she was

reunited with her sister Maritza and her brother Avedis. Her

brother Hagop had immigrated to France by then and she never

got to meet him. It is not known how her brothers, Bedros and

Stepan, died. However, the story of her sister, Flora, and

the way she died, was well-known and talked about many

decades later in the Zeitounzy community.

When my grandmother had her first child, a daughter, her

mother-in-law requested that

she be named Flora, after my grandmother's courageous sister.

Flora was very beautiful people told my grandmother. She must

have been the oldest, or one of the older ones, as she was

married to a doctor and had a child by the time of the

massacre. Her husband was arrested and most probably killed

soon after. The Turks asked her to convert so that she could

become a wife to one of them. They would have spared her and

her child if she agreed. My great aunt Flora knew that she

would be raped, tortured, and killed if she did not accept

their offer. However, she chose not to give in. They must

have been marching through a mountainous area. She somehow

got away and jumped off a cliff into her death. Some said

that she jumped with her child. When I was born, my

grandmother requested that my parents name me Flora to

continue her sister's legacy.

My grandmother was a strong woman. She continued to live in

Cypress with her sister, Maritza, up to the age of 19. Then

she moved to Syria where she got married and bore eight

children, two of whom died in their childhood. She was

widowed too soon and worked hard for her family. Eventually,

most of her children immigrated to France and Germany. She

moved to Germany with my father and mother. She lived with us

for many years and died in our house at the age of 81. Now

she rests in peace in the land of the people who took her in

as an infant.

It was a privilege to grow up with my grandmother. She was

amazing. She was able to sing the German Anthem word for word

up to the day she died. She had learned it at the orphanage

from her ``Mutter.'' She started her day with prayer and

ended her day in prayer. She instilled in me great values

such as faith and courage. I learned many things from my

grandmother, Araxi.

I am grateful to my Nana for naming me after her courageous

sister, Flora. I am grateful that she told me all these

stories so that I would know about my heritage and never

forget. I am grateful for her many prayers and blessings.

Here I am grandma, telling your story to the whole world! I

love you, your granddaughter, Flora

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to rise to congratulate our chairman, Mr. Rogers, and our ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger, for their extraordinary work in putting this bill together, and the incredible and bipartisan operation of the committee. This work product and the committee operations I think were a model that many of the rest of the committees on the Hill would do well to follow.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 5743, an authorization bill that gives our intelligence community the tools they need to keep America safe.

I'd like to focus on the technical aspects of the bill, specifically the intelligence community's future investments in key overhead technologies. This is a good bill, as it makes necessary budget cuts without affecting the mission of the intelligence community. And there is one issue in particular I would like to highlight.

Since 9/11, we have been investigating the potential advantages of persistent video. Current systems that simply snap pictures miss critical dynamics of the adversary. Standard pictures limited to capturing isolated points in time can't tell where a bad actor came from or where they went after they committed an act of terror.

Hypothetically consider: What if we could use a video and video a hostile area 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and during this period a roadside bomb occurred? With a variety of capabilities, we could simply rewind and watch the perpetrators as they planted the device and trace their locations both before and after the device exploded. Independent of the source--whether space, ground, or air--we simply can't do that with still photography. Similarly, such a capacity might help us identify proliferators of nuclear and missile technology.

I favor an approach that invests in new technologies that go beyond our past and present capabilities. In my role as ranking member for the Technical and Tactical Subcommittee, I work to ensure that cost, schedule, and performance are met as we strive to explore this potential advantage for national security.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express my views on this bill. I support it wholeheartedly and recommend its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Harvey Milk in recognition of the third annual Harvey Milk Day which will be celebrated on May 22nd. As we come together, let us remember that this day is not only a celebration of this incredible leader, it is also a day to recognize every American who believes in Harvey's visionary fight for equality in this great nation.

Harvey entered politics late in life, after becoming frustrated with San Francisco politics and widespread discrimination against gay individuals. In 1977, Harvey won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, marking the first time an openly gay man had been elected to public office in California. He quickly became one of the world's most high profile openly gay elected officials, and used his influence to encourage and support the LGBT and minority communities around him. Harvey was dedicated to building support for real change, and to ensuring that no group was unrepresented or unheard. Although Harvey was only in office for less than a year, his tenure had a massive and lasting influence on thousands of lives both inside and outside of San Francisco. His life became an example of the difference one committed individual can make in their community, and Harvey's was a welcome turning point for LGBT individuals in San Francisco and beyond.

Today, we have many more opportunities to follow Harvey's example. But first, we must reaffirm our commitment to LGBT rights, and the right of every American citizen to be a free and equal member of our society.

Recently, we have taken great strides towards this goal. We have increased protection against hate crimes motivated by a person's sexual orientation, fought against employment discrimination against LGBT individuals, increased funding for HIV/AIDS research and prevention, and repealed the discriminatory ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. With President Obama's courageous endorsement last week, we are beginning to take small yet certain steps towards the legalization of same-sex marriage. Despite these small victories, there are still many more battles to fight, individuals to inspire and groups to educate.

Anna Kronenberg, Harvey's final campaign manager, wrote ``What set Harvey apart from you or me was that he was a visionary. He imagined a righteous world inside his head and then he set about it to create it for real, for all of us.'' Each one of us has an obligation to finish the work which Harvey started. This struggle for equality is too important to avoid, and too desperately needed to put off any longer. I urge my colleagues and every American to join me in my fight for equality as we honor and remember Harvey Milk.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and urge my colleague to withdraw the amendment and work with us on this issue.

As a former U.S. attorney, I have the greatest respect and support for loan-forgiveness programs of this nature. It is absolutely a worthwhile cause. But the Mars program was devastated by the administration's budget.

This is one of the crown jewels of planetary science. In fact, the whole planetary science budget was decimated by the administration in its proposal. Thankfully, through the work of the chairman and the ranking member, the planetary science budget has been restored, and part of what has been taken out of the Mars program has been restored. Nevertheless, the Mars program was cut by hundreds of millions, and we have a long way to go to have a healthy Mars program.

As we speak, one of the most difficult missions ever undertaken, the Mars Science Laboratory, is on its way to the Martian surface. This will be path-breaking in terms of its scientific return. This is an area where we are second to none in the world. No one else has the skills to enter the Martian atmosphere, descend, and land on Mars. That is an incredible talent pool that can make that possible. At a time when we have to go hat in hand to the Russians to get a ride to the space station, but we are still the unquestioned leader in planetary science, with the Mars program leading the way, we do not need to decimate the Mars program further.

Thanks to the work of Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah, we are on the path to restoring this great program so that we can continue on the road that we're on where we are tantalizingly close now to finding the building blocks of life on another planet, and this is what is at stake.

So while I sympathize with the desire of the gentleman from Massachusetts to plus-up the program that he supports--and I support it, too--the offset would be devastating, devastating to the brilliant people that work in this area, devastating to all those around the country that love planetary science and that are going to be watching breathlessly on August 5 as Curiosity lands on the Martian surface and sends back new information about one of our neighbors in the solar system.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I urge us to continue to push the envelope of our understanding of the universe. And we just simply cannot choose this as an offset, such a valuable national treasure as the Mars program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I'm not sure that I understand the basis of the amendment that we should defund the Justice Department from any effort to defend a law if the polling indicates

that it is unpopular at the moment. The polling on the health care reform law has varied since its enactment. At times it has enjoyed majority support; at times it has enjoyed minority support. Almost entirely throughout the period since its passage, if you ask people whether they support the components of the health care reform law, Americans overwhelmingly say that they do.

But, nonetheless, is this really the basis that we want to make whether we can defend the constitutionality of a law, and that is: What do the polls say? If so, then perhaps we ought to broaden the gentlewoman's amendment to say that, whenever a law is unpopular in the country, we should refuse to allow the Justice Department to support its constitutionality. In fact, many of the laws that we pass here are not always popular. Sometimes they're the right thing to do, and sometimes they're the hard thing to do. I would imagine that some of the decisions that we make on the debt ceiling and other things, if we put them to a poll, would be very unpopular but, nonetheless, necessary. Are we going to say that because they're unpopular at the moment that they're, therefore, for no other reason, unconstitutional? I don't think so.

We have a Justice Department that studies the constitutionality of laws to determine, in their best judgment, whether something is consistent with the Constitution, and I don't think we want to be in the business of telling the Justice Department not to defend a law because of what a particular poll might say.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'll be very brief.

I just want to say that I concur with my colleague's points, to a point. As my colleague acknowledges, we take an oath to defend the Constitution. The administration, the executive branch, also takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

Effectively, what this amendment would do is say we are going to defund the Justice Department's ability to undertake and fulfill its oath to defend the Constitution. If the Justice Department disagrees with some Members of Congress about what their oath to the Constitution requires, we are going to defund their ability to follow through.

I don't think that's really where we want to be because, plainly, the Justice Department feels the law is constitutional. They believe it's their obligation to uphold the Constitution. And to say that we're going to defund their ability to follow through on that, I don't think that is good policy.

On that basis as well, I would urge a ``no'' vote

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that.

And that's absolutely correct. If the Justice Department determines in its view, just as you and I must, that something is constitutional and must be defended or something is unconstitutional and cannot be defended, then we have to follow through with those obligations. But I don't think it's our position to defund the Justice Department when, in the good faith execution of its oath to uphold the Constitution, it is defending a law that this Congress has passed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Turtle-excluder devices are already required in other shrimp trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic to reduce sea turtle bycatch.

In many cases, fishermen have reported actually preferring the use of TEDs in their trawl nets because when they are used properly, TEDs allow up to 98 percent of turtles to escape from trawl nets while retaining up to 97 percent of target shrimp catch. TEDs also provide other economic benefits to fishermen. Again, when installed properly, they can prevent other species bycatch and unwanted marine debris from entering the trawl nets, thereby increasing shrimp catch efficiency and the quality of their shrimp catch.

TEDs can also cut down on unwanted debris which can damage and increase the drag in fishing nets, causing fishermen to incur other costs. At this stage, NMFS is merely proposing this rule and will provide ample opportunity for public comment, including public meetings before any final regulation is in place; and, therefore, I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, which provides that none of the funds in the SCAAP program can be used in contravention of existing law.

This amendment is like several others we've considered today that simply say either the obvious, which is, Federal funds can't be used in violation of Federal law, in which case the amendment is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing; or, the amendment seeks to go beyond existing law and set new policy, in which case the policy that it would set is one that is disadvantageous to States and local law enforcement.

State and local community safety policies prioritize budgetary and law enforcement resources according to community needs while still permitting Federal immigration enforcement to take place. In many cases, such local laws support community safety by encouraging citizens who are crime victims or witnesses to come forward and work with police regardless of their immigration status.

These local policies don't interfere with Federal enforcement. In fact, a 2007 Justice Department audit of such laws found that in each instance where cities were so-called ``sanctuary cities,'' the local policy either didn't preclude cooperation with ICE, or else included a policy to the effect that those agencies and officers must assist ICE or share information with ICE as required by Federal law. That year, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before Congress:

I'm not aware of any city, although I may be wrong, that actually interferes with our ability to enforce the law.

The amendment, if it went beyond the mere statement that you can't spend Federal funds in contravention of Federal law, might deny funding to already cash-strapped police departments.

For these reasons, we urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I want to share a slightly different perspective on it.

I served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles for 6 years. In 1987, when I started in the office, the office had a guideline where we wouldn't take a case for prosecution involving less than a kilo of cocaine. Now, that didn't mean that it didn't get prosecuted. It did mean that it was referred to the district attorney's office, but we just didn't have the resources to go after every cocaine case involving less than a kilogram. A couple of years later into my tenure in that office, we had to raise the guideline to 5 kilograms because we had so many 1 kilogram cases, and we couldn't even handle those prosecutions.

I don't know what the policy is now, whether it's 10 kilograms or 20 kilograms, but the reality is we have very finite resources within the Justice Department to prosecute drug cases. Then, of course, the funds for drug prosecutions have to compete with the funds for terrorism cases and carjacking cases and bank robberies and T-Chek thefts or whatnot. We are in a limited resource world, and I don't think it's a good use of our Federal law enforcement resources to be prosecuting medical marijuana cases in States that have legalized medical marijuana. On the priority list of Federal law enforcement priorities, that ought to be near the very bottom.

At a time when we can't even keep up with the more serious narcotics cases and when we have so many other unmet needs in the Justice Department, this is not where we should be putting our resources, and I urge support for the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill in its current form. I greatly appreciate the nonpartisan work on the issue by Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger. They've worked in a refreshingly collaborative fashion on this bill and on the work of the Intelligence Committee, generally.

Yet, I find I cannot support the bill in its current form due to my concerns about its impact on civil liberties and the privacy of Americans. While amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee that would address these issues, including an amendment I jointly submitted with Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Hastings, none of these amendments were made in order in this rule.

I share the view of the sponsors of the legislation that cybersecurity is a serious issue that requires congressional action. I also believe that information-sharing is an important piece of responding to the cybersecurity threats, though it is, by no means, sufficient alone without other elements such as hardening critical infrastructure against cyberattacks.

I'm disappointed in the rule because the problems with the bill are eminently fixable and, in fact, multiple amendments, including my own, were submitted that would improve the bill.

Yesterday afternoon, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying the President's senior advisers would advise him to veto the bill if it came to him in the current form because of the lack of protection for civil liberties. As the administration's statement said: ``Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive.''

I believe we can and must protect ourselves from cyberattack and that we can and must preserve our privacy. This is eminently doable, but we are not there yet.

My amendment, which was not made in order, would have accomplished four tasks. First, it would have made DHS, a civilian agency, the primary coordinating agency for information-sharing.

Second, it would require rules to minimize the sharing of personally identifiable information. The amount of personally identifiable information shared would be the least amount needed to combat the cybersecurity threat, and no more.

Third, it would narrow the uses of cybersecurity information to cybersecurity purposes, specific national security threats, and certain other serious crimes.

And, finally, it would more specifically define cyberthreat information to make sure that we don't sweep up information we don't intend to and don't need.

In conclusion, amendments like this one would have improved the bill and better balanced the need to protect ourselves against cyberthreats with the equal imperative of preserving the privacy of the American people.

I am disappointed that the House won't have the opportunity to vote on those amendments; and, as a result, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to the bill. But at the outset, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by our chairman, Mike Rogers, and our ranking member, Dutch Ruppersberger. These two gentlemen have changed the nature and culture of our committee, made it far more productive, and they've done great work getting us to this point. And I want to acknowledge that at the outset.

There's still work to be done in two areas principally, and I want to talk briefly about that. Even before I do that, I want to acknowledge why we're here.

We do ourselves, I think, a disservice when we talk about a cyberthreat. That sounds like something that may come in the future, something to be concerned about that might take place down the line. We're under cyberattack right now. This is not speculative. This is not intangible. This is happening right now. This needs to be dealt with, and we do need a sense of urgency. But there is a distance yet to go, and in two areas in particular.

One is, when we gather cyberinformation and we share it between companies or between the government and companies, as we must do, we want to make sure that we minimize any unnecessary invasion of privacy of the American people. We can

do both, and we have to do both. We need to protect ourselves from cyberattack, and we need to protect and preserve the privacy rights of the American people.

I think the bill needs a requirement that personally identifiable information be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. All we're asking for is what can reasonably be done. We're not asking for the private sector or the government to do the impossible, but we should require of our government that they minimize personal information that is shared to protect us from cybercrime. That's the first thing.

The second item that really needs to be incorporated in this bill that my colleague, Mr. Thompson, will talk about as well is the need to protect critical infrastructure. That is a big missing piece in the bill, and I understand from my colleagues that it's not within the Intelligence Committee jurisdiction. That's correct. But as we saw from the Rules Committee, they're more than capable of incorporating things from more than one committee's jurisdiction in the rule, as we see in a rule that incorporates student loan interest and a bill on that subject with a bill on cybersecurity. There is nothing preventing the Rules Committee from bringing into the discussion today and allowing amendments on critical infrastructure.

The absence of those two big pieces makes it impossible for me to support the bill today.

I thank the gentleman.

I just want to conclude by saying I look forward to our continued work on this bill, and I appreciate the great cooperation between the chair and ranking member, and I have respect for all the members of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House on April 24, 2012 due to important commitments in my district.

On rollcall 178, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2157, to facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National Forest.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House on April 16, 2012 due to important commitments in my district.

On rollcall 152, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3001, the Raoul Wallenberg Centennial Celebration Act.

On rollcall 153, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 4040, providing for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus in recognition of his service to the Nation.