Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair clarify for me and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I have but 30 seconds, and I would first compliment the majority. I think that the exchange during the Committee on Rules debate on these two rules was a spirited one; and it signifies, among other things, part of the division in the House. On the floor, there were spirited exchanges between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and me; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I think it points out the significance of these two agreements. They are really important for all of us; and as I said, this was demonstrated in the Committee on Rules and here on the floor.

There are other trade agreements that are coming down the pike, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules and I have had discussions regarding the fact that I am hopeful that in the future we will have even more time for even more spirited debate. These are important measures, and I would urge Members to pay strict attention to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue, but I may not need to continue my discussion if I could get the attention of the chairman. I might place my remarks in the Record if the Chair would speak with reference to the matter.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue--the failure of North Korea to comply with a number of non-proliferation treaties and agreements, and the failure of the President to effectively resolve the escalating tension between the United States and North Korea. So far, little has been achieved and Pyongyang continues its race to manufacture nuclear weapons.

The existence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program poses a real and imminent threat to the populations of South Korea, Japan, and North Korea, and to the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in that region. But most importantly, it poses a threat to global security interests.

Given the escalating tensions with North Korea, I have introduced an amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill that urges the President to work towards a peaceful resolution to this impasse before the situation escalates any further.

My amendment simply says, ``It is the sense of Congress that the President of the United States is called upon to utilize all diplomatic options to redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons proliferation.''

I know that most Members of Congress deeply believe that engagement, be it bilateral or multilateral, with North Korea is needed to defuse the tension between the two countries, and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It will take a concerted effort to transform the conflict, engaging many different parts of the system simultaneously, over a period of time.

A diplomatic track could pave the way to North Korea ending its nuclear program. Engaging rhetoric, alliance building, diplomatic efforts aimed at halting North Korea's nuclear program are all options to successfully redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons proliferation.

My amendment calls on the President to use coalitions, arms-control accords, and weapons inspections because these are methods of conflict resolution he has often ignored. If we don't incorporate all available nonproliferation tools to redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons, then military intervention will again be the only national security policy at our disposal.

Unless we do develop a plan, this standoff will continue until tensions soar even further. Now is the time for resolute diplomacy that sends a clear message against nuclear proliferation; now is the time for the President to actively engage in renewed dialogue.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a dear friend, the late Honorable Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr., who passed away on Monday, June 9, 2003. The passing of Wilkie Ferguson is a great loss to our country's pursuit of justice and the rights of the oppressed. As a state and then federal judge, he applied the law justly and ensured that the less powerful members of society received fair treatment under the law.

Wilkie Ferguson pursued social justice in the U.S. legal system from the outset of his legal career, back in 1968. He was appointed to his first judgeship, on the Florida Court of Industrial Claims, in 1973. Four years later he was named to the circuit bench. One of his most important rulings came in the 1980 Circuit Court decision in which he threw out a verdict because African Americans were excluded from the jury. He was the first judge to find such systematic exclusion unacceptable and the Florida Supreme Court later supported his decision. It is appalling that such racial inequity exists in our judicial system and in our country, and Wilkie Ferguson was the first judge to recognize and correct this particular injustice in our legal system.

In 1980, Wilkie was appointed by then Governor Bob Graham to Florida's Third District Court of Appeal, where he served until 1993. He was the first African American appointed to the Miami-Dade Circuit Court and to the Third District Court of Appeal. This enormous achievement shows how, in addition to paving the way for others through his work from the bench, he was also a living example of the pioneering path of equality and progress that he laid for all Americans.

In 1993, Wilkie Ferguson was nominated by President Clinton to be a U.S. District Judge, becoming the third African American appointed to the federal bench in Southern Florida. He is credited with helping thousands of disabled Floridians; in 1996 he prevented the state from cutting funding for the disabled, and in another 1996 ruling he influenced the state to eventually increase funding for the disabled by nearly $300 million.

Judge Ferguson was also active in community service. In addition to chairing the board of trustees of Florida Memorial College, he participated in the Judicial Council of the National Bar and the ``Just The Beginning Foundation''. He and his wife, County Commissioner Betty Tucker Ferguson, were also leaders in their local community.

Wilkie Ferguson's successes are numerous and vital, but he will be remembered for how he reached these goals as much as for the accomplishments themselves. The values of the supreme dignity and worth of every human being were not just abstract ends that he pursued through judicial decisions; they were also manifest in the respect and sensitivity with which he treated others. When a plaintiff needed to care for his disabled son, Judge Ferguson offered the use of his judicial chambers. In an article last week in the South Florida Sun Sentinel, attorney Joel Hirschhorn noted, ``Even in the worst criminal defendant, I think he saw the human side.''

Daniel Pearson, a former appeals judge, expressed that Ferguson ``added a dimension of fairness and humanity to the court.'' Judge Ferguson, who is survived by his wife, two children and three siblings, was also an extremely hard and dedicated worker, an exceedingly modest man and a good friend. His compassion and great judicial accomplishments will be missed by all.

Madam Chairman, I am very disappointed in the Committee on Rules' refusal to allow the House of Representatives to take up the Crowley/Hastings amendment in conjunction with the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The amendment would have called on Poland to develop a final and complete, non-discriminatory settlement for those people and groups who had their private property confiscated by the Nazis during World War II and by the Communist Polish government after the war.

In 1989, Poland sought to establish an independent political life free from the grip of communism. The principles of democracy and civil society were quickly recognized as the goal of this transformation.

The respect for private property is at the core of Poland's ongoing transformation. But, by not recognizing the injustice of forced expropriations without due compensation, they have, de facto, made a sham of private property--any discussion of human rights becomes purely scholarly if the most elemental notion of private property is ignored. For these reasons, Poland must give the highest priority to the issue of property restitution.

Therefore, I applaud the efforts of my good friend Mr. Crowley, and ask my colleagues to urge the Polish government to develop a final and complete settlement for those Jews, homosexuals, European Roma, and other individuals and groups who had their private property seized and confiscated by the Nazis during World War II or by the Communist Polish government after the war.

Property restitution in Poland is an important matter for thousands of people who fled to the United States because of religious, ethnic or political persecution in Poland during or after the Second World War. At issue are an estimated 180,000 properties confiscated from private owners by the Nazis in occupied Poland or by the Communist Polish government after World War II. Approximately 20,000-25,000 surviving property owners and descendants live in the United States, with a large concentration residing in Florida.

For individuals with ties to Central and Eastern Europe, the restitution of property is not ultimately about land or money, but fundamentally is about justice. On behalf of these individuals, I call on the Polish Government to enact a just, non-discriminatory property restitution law.

Fair and full restitution is a precondition to the establishment of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the 9th anniversary of the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In this effort, I have signed a letter directed to Argentine President Nestor Kirchner from Members of Congress supporting efforts to continue to monitor the AMIA trial and to reveal Hizballah activities in Argentina. To complement this letter, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this resolution commemorating the 9th anniversary of the attack on the AMIA, and highlighting the attack as characteristic of the threat to the United States from international terrorist organizations operating from Latin America.

In 1994, a terrorist bomb destroyed the AMIA building, killing 85 people and wounding 200. This was the second terrorist attack against the Argentine Jewish community in two years. While the two cases have been officially under investigation for over nine years, the responsible parties have not yet been apprehended.

Substantial evidence attributes the attack on July 18, 1994 to the terrorist group Hizballah, based in Lebanon and sponsored by Iran. Evidence indicates that the tri-border region where Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil meet was used to channel resources for the purpose of carrying out the AMIA attack by terrorists linked with Iran.

Regrettably, the scheming of international terrorist organizations such as Hizballah, and al-Qaeda are not confined to the tri-border region. Much of the Western Hemisphere is ideal for international terrorist groups to establish bases due to the ill equipped and poorly trained security agencies across the region.

For example, Cuba maintains close relations with countries that sponsor terrorism and has provided a safe haven to members of European terrorist organizations. Also, the demilitarized zone in Colombia provides international terrorists a safe refuge for training. Furthermore, the Caribbean is a strategic paradise for terrorist organizations given its established web for drugs, arms contraband, and money laundering. Terrorist organizations may be involved in money laundering as a means of hiding their financial assets.

In remembering the anniversary of this heinous attack, we should also focus on the threat to the United States from radical Islamic organizations operating from the Western Hemisphere.

The fight against terrorism must remain a top priority. Nowhere is this more true than in America's back yard. The AMIA attack, which showed the same cowardice as the September 11, 2001 attack, tragically illustrates the capability of Islamic terrorists to bring their jihad against Western civilization from our own hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Earned Income Tax Credit Public Awareness Campaign Act.

The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, provides Federal tax deductions for the working poor. In 2001, the Earned Income Tax Credit provided over $30 billion in tax relief to 18.5 million low-income taxpayers. In fact, the EITC is the second largest program after Medicaid that provides assistance to low-income individuals combating poverty. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey indicates that in 1999 the EITC assisted 4.7 million people, including 2.6 million children of low-income workers, rise above the poverty line.

However, each year, between 15 and 25 percent of those who are eligible to receive the EITC fail to claim their credit, either because they are unaware of it or cannot obtain the assistance they may need to properly complete the appropriate tax return. Lack of education, language barriers, fear or intimidation, limited financial resources, and unawareness of the credit all contribute to low-income families and individuals not taking advantage of this tax relief. This is a disgrace and a clear disservice to America's working poor.

In south Florida, the number of individuals and families not claiming the EITC is staggering. In Miami-Dade County, FL, alone, it is estimated that more than $200 million worth of the EITC goes unclaimed annually by about 120,000 low-income families living in the County. At the same time, approximately 85,000 eligible families living in Broward County annually do not claim more than 99 million dollars worth of the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a young woman from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Courtney Santiago. Ms. Santiago is 23 years old and is Ms. Wheelchair Florida 2003.

Courtney suffers with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome, which rendered her a semi-quadriplegic at the age of 15. Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome is a chronic condition characterized by severe burning pain and pathological changes in bone and skin. It is unique, in that it simultaneously affects the nerves, skin, muscles, blood vessels and bones. Its cause is unknown and affects nearly 1.5 million persons in the U.S.

Despite what would be viewed by most as a limitation, she is a stellar student with a 4.0 grade point average and enjoys swimming, racing and flying. Courtney endeavors to become a doctor and later this month Ms. Wheelchair America.

Courtney has transcended the definition of disabled and speaks on behalf of the ``able--disabled'' everywhere.

I urge the Members of this great body to join by saluting this truly spirited young woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Resolution that is similar to an amendment that passed unanimously in the Senate last week. My Resolution encourages the President to reach out to our allies in NATO, the United Nations, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for help in post-war Iraq. I believe that we can achieve our goals in Iraq, but not without the full cooperation of the international community.

My Resolution urges the President to do two things.

First, consider requesting assistance from NATO to raise a force for post-war Iraq similar to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Even though some NATO members, Great Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland, are already contributing troops to our effort in Iraq, American troops make up 90 percent of coalition forces.

And second, consider calling on the United Nations member states to provide both military forces and civilian police to aid in promoting stability and security in post-war Iraq. Conditions in Iraq continue to pose a serious threat to U.S. and coalition forces, who are being attacked between 10 and 25 times a day. Increasing the number of troops and police from other countries will reduce the risks to U.S. and coalition forces currently in Iraq. International armed forces and police must assume some of the responsibilities for maintaining law and order in Iraq while a domestic police force and reformed military is trained and established. Pentagon officials estimate that it will take a year to train one division of 12,000 Iraqi troops.

My Resolution also calls on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, along with other international and nongovernmental organizations to provide assistance to the coalition partnership in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to move past any negative feelings concerning countries that opposed our attempts to secure a U.N. endorsement for the war. We must repair our strained relations with our allies. We will only be successful in post-war Iraq, and in the global war on terrorism, if we restore our relationships with these nations.

Our ultimate goal for the Iraqi people is a multi-ethnic, multi- religious Arab state that is capable of self-rule. This goal can only be achieved with the help and support of the vast global community.

Mr. Speaker, United States and coalition forces managed to liberate Iraq in a mere 3 weeks, and I would certainly be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to commend those brave men and women for their efforts to date. However, the goals we have set, from restoring critical infrastructure, to establishing an interim government, to maintaining law and order in Iraq, simply cannot be achieved alone. We've won the war, now we have to win the peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2474. Mickey Leland, our former colleague once said ``I cannot get used to hunger and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no reason for it, there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a nation put an end to it.'' But, according to USDA statistics, there are 33 million children suffering from pangs of hunger and poverty and nearly 300 million in the world. Hunger is still rampant.

The Congressional Hunger Center founded in 1993, successfully educates leaders to fight hunger globally. It is through this entity that the Emerson-Leland Fellowships are administered, and I stand strongly in support of this legislation.

H.R. 2474 authorizes the use of funds already appropriated for the Emerson-Leland Hunger fellowships for fiscal year 2003 and 2004. However, these funds were appropriated in The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which created an independent agency in the legislative branch. The act established an endowment in the Department of Treasury and a board of trustees to supervise and direct the program that is not yet operational. This presents a barrier to the foot soldiers of compassion, who are primed and ready to fight hunger both here and abroad while fulfilling the vision of Mickey Leland and Bill Emerson.

Substantial progress has been made to feed the hungry in the United States and abroad, yet much is still needed, and I am in full support of equipping the willing in this fight with whatever means are necessary to do so. This bill allows those funds to be used by the Congressional Hunger Center for hunger fellowships.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H. Res. 277: Expressing Support for Freedom in Hong Kong. This former British colony has been known to many in recent years as one of the world's freest economies due to its low taxes, free trade, and strong rule of law. Mr. Speaker, Hong Kong has recently undergone a number of political changes, which are in opposition to long-held agreements and understandings, which it maintained with its western trading partners.

The government in Beijing is promoting changes in the internal security laws of Hong Kong that will change the basic freedoms in that territory. These laws will restrict distribution of publications and an appointee of the Chinese government, not an elected official, could waive basic fundamental rights of the people.

The Chinese agreed in 1984 through the Sino-British Joint Declaration to explicitly guarantee that all of Hong Kong's freedom, including press freedom, religious freedom and freedom of association will continue for at least 50 years. The Chinese government also has pledged to respect Hong Kong Basic Law of 1990, which explicitly protects freedom of speech, press, publication, association, assembly, procession, demonstration, conscience and religion.

Since July of 1977, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese authorities have gradually chipped away at the freedoms it promised to keep for 50 years. For example, the system of electing representatives to the Legislative Council is less democratic. Appointed members have been added to district councils, and the central government has reversed Hong Kong courts, and declined to admit entry of numerous American visitors and other foreign nationals.

The proposed Article 23 laws that deal with sedition, treason, and subversion against the Chinese Communist Party threaten the rights of the people of Hong Kong. We know China's record in the application of the law to its citizens. This record is one that brings grave concern that China will not administer the laws in Hong Kong in a fair, equitable, and honorable manner.

Mr. Speaker, for all the above reasons, among others, I condemn any restrictions of freedom of thought, freedom of expression, or association in Hong Kong. Furthermore, I strongly urge the People's Republic of China to withdraw the proposed implementation of Article 23 as it affects negatively the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. I call on President Bush and his Administration, to express to the People's Republic of China the concerns as outlined in H. Res. 277.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This is the first appropriations bill for the new Department and there are few legislative issues that will have as great an impact on our nation.

As many of my colleagues are aware, I have continually expressed concern over inadequate funding available for first responders. I introduced legislation in both this, and the 107th Congress to remedy this funding shortfall. So, when I first reviewed this legislation, I was pleased to note that it provides $888 million more to first responders than the President requested. However, the CBO estimates that with price increases in the current fiscal year, this legislation, in real dollar terms, is about $150 million below current levels. The proposed legislation is clearly inadequate to provide the homeland security we need.

This is especially alarming given the fact that the states are suffering their worst fiscal crisis since World War II. The National Governors' Association reports that 46 states have significant revenue shortfalls, and that several have shortfalls in excess of $1 billion. Homeland Security is one of our most critical national priorities, and yet this Administration is determined to offer $350 billion in new tax breaks.

A number of critical security shortfalls are not addressed in this legislation. For instance, the U.S. Coast Guard estimates that to adequately secure our ports with cameras and other security measures will cost approximately $4.4 billion, yet this bill provides only $100 million for this initiative. In addition, there are no funds in this bill to improve methods of inspecting people and cargo entering this country through our ports. Nor are their any funds to increase the number of containers inspected. According to nearly every expert in the field of security, these areas have been severely neglected since 9/11.

With the budget deficit projected at more than $400 billion this year, a few billion more for homeland security won't matter very much. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider what a ``yes'' vote will mean for a number of Amendments that will be introduced later

today. True, they will increase the cost of this legislation, but more importantly, they will increase our national security, which is what this bill is fundamentally supposed to accomplish.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member who is a most distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, is very generous to my colleagues on other side when he says they will bring up nonsubstantive matters on the suspension calendar under the rule that is proposed now, to add a day where suspension matters of the rules can be brought to our attention.

I am not that generous because among the things that I believe that are likely to happen is that we are going to see substantive legislation here on the floor of the House under the suspension calendar. And when that happens that means it did not come to the Committee on Rules. Members did not have an opportunity to amend it. When it is here on the House floor they each have 20 minutes per side and one can bring the most major matter; for example, we were up last night, as has been pointed out, from 12:50 until 5:15 this morning in the Committee on Rules. That is all right, but would the Members believe that under this particular rule that is coming in the middle of a session that what we could also do is bring this same Medicare measure up if we wanted to under the majority provision?

I cannot say it too well, but I said to the chairman of the committee, why are we doing this in the middle of the night? It would seem to me that what we can do is work 9 to 5 Monday through Friday rather than having to have this lack of time. The American people send us up here to work. They do not send us up here to avoid time.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will speak to that a little later and tell us how tricky that is when they put matters on and Members cannot, for example, make a distinction between whether they want to vote yes or no and when many times they will want to vote no and find themselves in a box. I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be able to explain it better than I.

The gentleman's chairman and mine, the gentleman's good friend and mine, Gerald Solomon, said the following: Every time we deny an open amendment process on an important piece of legislation, we are disenfranchising the people and their representatives from the legislative process. The people and their representatives are not being even treated as second class citizens. And what I said to the chairman is that roughly 48.9 percent of the people in this country are represented by Democrats.

Let me end by saying what Gerald Solomon said: The people are sick and tired of this political gamesmanship. They want back into their House, and they do want it open and democratic, not closed and dictatorial.

Anybody that believes that this measure is going to help this House of Representatives is participating in what Gerald Solomon described as a closed and dictatorial body, and time will tell.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time, and before I go forward, I would be terribly remiss if I did not point out that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has spent his lifetime in the struggle that some of us come to with equal passion, but not the clarity that he brings to the issue.

I also am happy to support the resolution offered by the chairman of the Helsinki Commission and to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his continuing work in the area of human rights and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as being a stalwart champion for human rights.

As Chairman Smith has already mentioned, last week he and I had the privilege to represent the United States at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's conference on anti-Semitism. A footnote right there. That conference came about because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), myself and others on the Helsinki Commission along with colleagues in Europe brought it to the attention of the parliamentary assembly by way of resolution which we will introduce yet another resolution for follow-up purposes when we are in Rotterdam 1 week from now. But it was in this body that that conference's seed was planted. The conference, which was the first of its kind,

provided the OSCE's 55 member states and NGOs with an opportunity to discuss ways in which governments can work to combat anti-Semitism within their borders and abroad.

Today's resolution is an important symbolic statement of the House that the United States will not stand idly by while many European governments neglect a rise in anti-Semitism. We must work with our allies and not hesitate to apply pressure when needed to ensure that governments properly address increases in anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination.

A few years ago, there were hopes that anti-Semitism was gradually declining and restricted to fringe elements such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and certain conspiracy theorists. However, recent developments throughout much of Europe and the Middle East suggest that there is a resurgent anti-Semitism with a much broader base and message that resonates at an alarming level. Many European leaders have formally recognized the resurgence of anti-Semitism in their countries and have begun to take the necessary steps to stop this spreading virus. But still, more must be done to ensure that what occurred to the Jewish and minority communities in Europe during World War II will never happen again.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the fight against bigotry and xenophobia is an ongoing struggle as many of us know from our own personal experience. Last week when the gentleman from New Jersey and I were in Vienna, we heard from a woman whose name is Rosalia Abella of the Ontario Court of Appeals. As she noted in one of the more poignant statements made at that conference, ``Indifference is injustice's incubator.'' Indeed it is.

Now is the time for the United States to be vocal and now is the time for the House to be active as it is today under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California. Today is not a day for complacency. If we remain silent, then there will be no tomorrow. We cannot legislate morality, we cannot legislate love, but we can teach tolerance and we can lead by example.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first point to the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the bipartisan spirit of the unanimous consent of the entire Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in support of H.R. 2417. I rise in support of the rule providing for the consideration of that measure. It is the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. This is a modified open rule, and I believe that it is adequate for a bill that is relatively noncontroversial and was reported from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by unanimous vote, as I just said.

I would like to reiterate a part of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has said and state to Members who wish to do so that they can go to the committee's office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the National Intelligence Program. This schedule includes the CIA, as well as the Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence programs within the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Departments of State, Treasury, and Imaging.

Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for the Tactical Intelligence and related activities and the Joint Military Intelligence program of the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act we consider today will provide authorizations for some of the most important national security programs in this country. This bill is the result of the committee's ongoing oversight of the intelligence community and oversight responsibilities, which include hundreds of hearings, briefings, and site visits annually.

We are well aware that the global war on terrorism has focused even greater attention on the intelligence community and its mission. The men and women who serve in this community have faced many challenges in the past 21 months and, in my judgment, have responded admirably. This bill assists them in these many challenges. It fully supports the intelligence community's efforts in the war on terrorism by providing funds for analysis, analytic tools, and a unified overhead imagery architecture.

Overall, the committee found the intelligence community is making progress in many areas, but noted that there is currently no one office in the executive branch that is charged with coordinating all elements of the intelligence and law enforcement communities to ensure they cooperate and coordinate their efforts.

The committee also called on the Director of Central Intelligence to improve diversity in the workplace and special attention on recruitment initiatives for women and minorities. I would be terribly remiss right here if I did not mention two former members, one still alive and one who is deceased: former member Louis Stokes from Ohio, and our dear departed friend Julian Dixon, from California, both of whom spearheaded efforts to ensure greater diversity in the intelligence community.

I hasten to urge that the chairman of this committee, and the now leader of the Democratic Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and certainly the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who served on the committee previously, have all been vigorous in their assertions that the intelligence community must do more in the area of diversity. So I will be introducing an amendment that I believe will assist the director in attaining the goals in this critical area.

I do urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill; and before reserving the balance of my time, I take a point of personal privilege to thank the fine staff of the majority and the minority for the rather extraordinary work that it takes in putting this measure together, and the many measures that come across their desks on a given day, including putting up with some of us as Members and our requests. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to respond to my colleague by inviting the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to come upstairs, as all Members are permitted, and see the material being worked on by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and to read the mission of the committee in that regard. I think all Members would find that substantial work is being done, and I believe all Members of this body would be very proud of the efforts put forward by Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in investigating the continuing concern that all of us in this body have, and I dare say the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are probably more directly concerned in light of the fact that we are there on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.