Floor Statements

Thank you very much, my hero. You have done a magnificent job getting us to this point. I thank you for the time.

I also thank all the wonderful staffers on both sides that have done incredible work for us, the police officers that protect us here, the clerks, the reporters, and our pages, who are here to see the enormous history that we are going to make today.

I believe all of us want our great Nation to prosper. So today, we celebrate the greatest Nation on Earth, and we do so by a visionary step in our Nation's future. We are an intense people and we celebrate today the immensity of our intensity.

We all know, based on this harsh winter that just passed, and here on a spring-like day with summer soon a coming, that winter will come again, and it will ask, What were you doing last summer? I want it to be said that I was doing something to try to save the lives of 45,000 Americans that die every year because they are uninsured.

I don't want to be with that crowd that could best be described as cynics. I picked up today's paper, and a friend of mine, the former Speaker of this House, says that what we're about to do is a grand social experiment, radical, he said, social experiment.

Well, in my congressional district, if it is that I am to help improve the coverage of 290,000 residents, give tax credits and other assistance to 177,000 families and 22,500 small businesses, put me in the radical column.

If it's to improve Medicare beneficiaries, extend coverage to 161,000 uninsured people in the district I'm privileged to serve, then I'm radical.

If it's going to protect 1,100 families from bankruptcy, radicalize me.

If it's going to allow 60,000 young adults to obtain coverage, in the congressional district that I represent, on their parents' insurance plans, then Newt, please know that I'm radical.

As we go forward here today, I guess perhaps it would be good to look back on some from yesterday. Ronald Reagan said, There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what is morally right. That was Ronald Reagan, an icon by all standards.

Another one said, Each time someone stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.

Now, I saw around this Capitol yesterday and around this Nation a lot of lack of hope.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of passing a bill that will lay the foundation for comprehensive health care reform. We have discussed and debated various aspects of this bill for over a year. Now, it is time to act.

Developing and executing major reform efforts has never been easy or pretty. Violent

and divisive debates waged when Congress was considering legislation that instituted Medicare.

And yet, few would dispute that this program is essential to delivering quality health care to some of our Nation's most vulnerable communities--the elderly and disabled.

Like reform efforts of the past, the health care reform bill has been met with blind criticisms and incessant fear mongering. Amazingly, some of my colleagues talk about horrific scenarios that will result from passing the bill and ignore the horrific conditions that people are enduring right now. They don't speak for me. They don't speak for the 161,000 uninsured Floridians in my district, and they don't speak for people who know that this bill is fiscally responsible and takes a multifaceted approach to improving our health care system.

Every single day, people are forced to choose between paying their mortgage or financing costly life-saving treatments. Every single day, seniors are forced to choose between buying food or buying their medication. Every single day, people are dying prematurely because they don't have regular access to health care services. You can't tell me that these people don't want or need health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, health care reform boils down to whether you believe that 47 million uninsured Americans is an unfortunate but acceptable fact, or an injustice that must be addressed.

Achieving comprehensive health care reform requires a uniquely American approach that preserves what works and introduces new elements that will allow us to meet 21st century needs and goals. This reform bill does just that. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this historic bill and ensure that our fellow Americans have access to affordable and high quality health care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from California.

The last time I looked, I thought we were talking about celebrating the distinguished career of an individual named Mr. Lumpkin and naming a post office. I understand the desperate need that our colleagues have to talk about what is about to take place in America that is particularly historic since they have had a negative drumbeat about it for the last 15 months.

Please know this, I hear all the time on the floor of the House what the American people want. If we put some harsh reality into it and took out this poll or that poll, what we would learn is that a significant number of the American people want this health care measure that we are talking about and, indeed, more. When I hear someone say that the American people don't want this, and I heard one of our distinguished colleagues earlier on the minority side say that people in his district don't want it, well, people in my district do. And so I guess he and I cancel each other out. And if you went through the entire body, I think you would find that the same thing exists.

Now, I also have ranted right here on this floor and I meant it to be such that people will understand. I don't want to hear anybody else say that what we are proposing is socialism. And when they talk about a tremendous government takeover, I particularly know that all of us know that Medicare is a government program, and every one of us experienced at some point in our town hall meetings people saying to us, I don't want the government in my life. And I say, are you on Medicare? And they say, yes. And I say, well, that's a government program. Medicaid is a government program. There are poor people in nursing homes. There are people that are sick that if they did not have Medicare, they wouldn't have anything.

So I ask my colleagues, whose side are you on? Are you really on the side of people who would argue that 32 million people that are going to be covered under the Democratic plan would not be covered if we did not do something, as I believe we are historically going to do? And, therefore, it's troubling to me. I gather that the National Institutes of Health is not a government program, the Center for Disease Control must not be a government program, the Army, the Pentagon, they must not be government undertakings. And so all of this talk about government as a person is very disturbing to me as a person.

The same thing that people raise here in their fear-mongering is the same thing that took place with reference to Social Security.

It is the same fear-mongering that took place about Social Security, oh, by the way, another government program. So it is not as if money is going to be evaporating. The same insurance companies that have made a ton of money are going to make two tons of money whether we pass this bill or not, and they have already in our faces shown us that they are willing to raise prices on the American people as desperate as we find them at this time.

I also want to put to rest this business about Slaughter House rules. I serve with Ms. Slaughter, and I'm honored to do so. And what I think people must not have done is read ``Slaughterhouse-Five.'' In ``Slaughterhouse-Five,'' there is a bird who says, poo-tee-weet, p-o-o- t-e-e-w-e-e-t. The jabbering bird symbolizes the lack of anything intelligent to say. Thank you very much. Poo-tee-weet.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I won't take 3 minutes. My good friend that just spoke--and he is my good friend--we serve together on the Select Committee on Intelligence--carried on in a manner, again, to say what the American people want. How do you continue to say what the American people want when, in fact, all of us are Americans, and anybody listening and looking would know that we have ideological differences, which we are permitted. But to come down here the last time that I spoke--and I want to spell it for the reporter again: P-O-O T-E-E W-E-E-T, poo-tee-weet--that's what the jabbering bird said when he didn't have anything intelligent to say, and that comes from ``Slaughterhouse-Five.'' ``Slaughterhouse-Five'' also talks about free will on Earth. And, evidently, we don't understand that process.

Despite the unquestionable need for health care reform, some have sought to dominate the health care reform discussion with fear- mongering, misinterpretations and misinformation. They've stymied the progression of the reform process in the name of fiscal responsibility, bipartisanship, parliamentary procedure, and patriotism. These justifications are egregious. There's nothing bipartisan about continually opposing a bill that independent Federal agencies have repeatedly recognized as a substantive and reasonable approach to reform. There's nothing fiscally responsible about allowing premium State and Federal health expenditures to rise to unprecedented levels. There's nothing American about depriving men, women and children of the guaranteed right to health care in the richest country on Earth.

Today when Americans across the country are losing their homes, their jobs, their health insurance and their hope, we, as elected officials-- American-elected officials have the opportunity and duty to deliver. We can't afford to back down. We've come too far and have too much to lose. Extreme times require extreme measures to ensure that we pass a health care reform bill that America needs and deserves.

Madam Speaker, despite the unquestionable need for health care reform, some have sought to dominate the health care reform discussion with fear mongering, misinterpretations and misinformation. They have stymied the progression of the reform process in the name of fiscal responsibility, bipartisanship, parliamentary procedure and patriotism.

These justifications are egregious. There is nothing bipartisan about continually opposing a bill that independent federal agencies have repeatedly recognized as a substantive and reasonable approach to reform. There is nothing fiscally responsible about allowing premiums, state and federal health expenditures to rise to unprecedented levels. There is nothing American about depriving men, women, and children of the guaranteed right to health care in the richest country on earth.

Today, when Americans across the country are losing their homes, jobs, health insurance and hope, we as elected officials have the opportunity and duty to deliver. We cannot afford to back down. We have come too far and have too much to lose. Extreme times require extreme measures to ensure that we pass a health care reform bill that America needs and deserves.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, does a privileged resolution lie against a rule as the gentleman's privileged resolution that he has read, does it lie when, in fact, no rule has been established or passed by the House with reference to this matter?

Madam Speaker, following me will probably be as many as 40 or more of my colleagues on the other side. Many of them will use terms like ``ramming,'' and ``the American people.'' I don't know what part of discussing a matter for the greater portion of the last 14 months that people do not understand.

I also get a little tired of hearing my colleagues talk about socialism. And I would ask the American people if socialism, as you understand it, is so bad when government acts than perhaps it is. Some of my colleagues believe we should eliminate Medicare. Let's eliminate Medicaid. Let's eliminate the Social Security safety net. Let's eliminate the Centers for Disease Control. Let's eliminate the National Institutes of Health. All of these are government-run programs.

In the greatest country in the world, it is morally wrong for millions of our fellow Americans to not have affordable, portable health care. We all should be willing to share in order to help the least of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary relief efforts of Royal Caribbean International following the earthquake that devastated Haiti this past January.

Long before this latest tragedy brought the world's attention to Haiti, Royal Caribbean had been committed to bringing economic development and opportunities to the impoverished nation. Royal Caribbean has been partnering with Haiti's tourism industry for almost 30 years, employing a large number of Haitians and maintaining a resort at Labadee, a port off the northern coast of Haiti. Therefore, when the earthquake shook the country, they personally felt the effects of the tragedy before them and were compelled to find a way to assist the people of Haiti.

Royal Caribbean immediately set out to provide the people of Haiti with emergency relief. Using their cruise ships for delivery, Royal Caribbean has brought over 120 pallets of materials to Haiti. Additionally, they have provided monetary support to emergency assistance organizations, such as the Pan American Development Foundation, which also provide emergency supplies to the island.

I commend Royal Caribbean for their rapid response to this tragedy and the much-needed assistance and aid they have provided. Furthermore, I would like to express my support for their dedication to long-term rebuilding of Haiti.

Although many found it controversial, I believe that Royal Caribbean's decision to continue to dock at Labadee was the right decision. If the cruise line had bypassed Haiti, it would have worsened an already devastating situation. By continuing to bring guests to Labadee, Royal Caribbean kept Haitians working and brought tourist dollars to the country at a time when Haiti's already struggling economy was at a complete stand-still. This commitment to keeping the Haitian economy going is truly admirable.

I thank Royal Caribbean for their exemplary service to the people of Haiti, not simply in providing emergency aid in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, but in their 30 years of work in Haiti and in their commitment to ensuring a sustainable recovery.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the policy of the United States on wild animals at the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

CITES was created in 1973 to regulate international trade in endangered species to ensure that it does not threaten their survival. Launched with a few signatory nations, CITES has now 175 parties that have an international obligation and responsibility to protect our planet's endangered animals and plants. Adherence to these protective measures has proven to have benefited the conservation of animals and plants worldwide.

Unfortunately, more and more species are at risk of extinction and international trade, both legal and illegal, has exacerbated the dangers. International wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars a year and to include hundreds of millions of live plants and animals and derived products such as food, leather, fur, ivory, and timber. Such high levels of exploitation of and trade in wild animals and plants, together with other factors such as habitat loss, are capable of bringing some species close to extinction.

Between 1979 and 1989 more than 600,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory, cutting the continent's population in half. Nevertheless, poaching has continued with an estimated 38,000 elephants killed annually and 23.2 tons of poached ivory seized since 2007. As sea ice declines, polar bears will not be able to adapt to a terrestrial-based life resulting in increased mortality, reduced reproduction, increased human-bear conflicts, and overall drastic decline of populations. Bobcats keep being poached for their skins. Several sharks are been severely depleted with declines as high as 99 percent in some areas as a result of the high demand for their fins and meat. Overfishing, increased consumer demand and inadequate enforcement of infractions have led to historically low populations of bluefin tuna.

This month, CITES' signatory nations will meet for the 15th Conference of the Parties to review the status of species in danger of extinction and establish trade restrictions. The

conference will consider proposals offered by several countries to either enhance protections of endangered species or to remove or downlist some animals from the endangered species listings and reauthorize international trade. Several countries which benefit from trade of animals' derived products, such as elephants' ivory, sharks' fins or bluefin tunas' meat, are putting economic interests before wild animals' survival, risking to bring species close to extinction. This is unacceptable.

My resolution will help preserve many endangered animals by urging CITES to accept proposals that protect these species and oppose those proposals that put them in greater danger.

Madam Speaker, the United States has a moral obligation to protect endangered species and their natural habitat. Wild animals are a very important part of our commonly held natural resources and contribute to the diversity and stability of our environment. We must continue to maintain a balanced and healthy ecosystem that allows for the coexistence of both human beings and the world's most incredible species.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting wildlife and environmental conservation across the globe by supporting this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution congratulating the National Urban League on its 100th anniversary.

From humble beginnings, the National Urban League has become the famed organization that it is today. Founded by Dr. George E. Haynes and Ruth S. Baldwin in 1910, the National Urban League created its first department in the area of housing in 1913.

Today, the League has expanded its operations to include over 25 national programs in 36 states, as well as in the District of Columbia. The League does extraordinary work aiding African American communities on a range of critical issues affecting the nation. Through programs designed to empower African Americans in areas of education, civil rights, civic engagement and health, the League combats inequality while improving the lives of countless people.

I am immensely proud of my own affiliation with the Urban League, going back over 35 years. In 1974, I was one of the founding members of the National Urban League of Broward County, the 104th affiliate chapter in the United States. Our goal then was to help alleviate some of the racial tensions felt throughout the community during desegregation. I went on to serve on the original board of directors for the local chapter, where we worked to empower the community, increase educational opportunities for our children, and change lives through strong advocacy for essential public services. I am pleased to add that we enjoyed numerous successes.

Over the past century, the League has made great strides in education and youth leadership and played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement. Working closely with leaders such as A. Philip Randolph and Martin Luther King, Jr., the League assisted in planning the 1963 March on Washington, and carried on the hard work of advocating for equality and

opportunity in the tumultuous decades of that era. The magnitude of these accomplishments, and countless others, cannot be understated. The League's efforts have played an integral role in shaping local communities throughout the United States, advancing many of the rights that Americans today take for granted.

The National Urban League continues to improve American society through programs that positively impact education and youth, health and quality of life, entrepreneurship and business development, workforce development, and housing. Through workshops, summer programs, hands-on- learning opportunities, and other endeavors, the League enriches the quality of life of African Americans of all ages.

Although we can take great pride in the many outstanding accomplishments of the National Urban League, its work is far from over. As part of its effort to galvanize greater action, the League recently began an initiative called ``I AM EMPOWERED,'' a social mobilization campaign of volunteers to increase awareness of the League's efforts to achieve further progress in education, jobs, housing, and health care. With 100 years of experience behind them, the hard working and dedicated men and women of the National Urban League are well poised to carry forth its important mission through the next century of progress.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution congratulating the National Urban League for its 100 outstanding years of service to our great nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4573, the Debt Relief for Earthquake Recovery in Haiti Act.

It is almost 2 months to the date since the already struggling nation of Haiti was rocked by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake.

Approximately 3 million people were affected and 230,000 are estimated to have died. Those that survived are facing unimaginable conditions, with a crumbling infrastructure that has hindered the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Out of this destruction, however, the Haitian people have been given the incredible opportunity to right the wrongs of the past and rebuild their nation stronger than ever before.

Though I commend our government's generous contributions of humanitarian assistance and that from foreign nations, Haiti cannot be self-sufficient and its recovery cannot be sustainable if a substantial amount of its resources must go to paying debts that were amounted out of desperation or by repressive, irresponsible regimes.

Despite previous debt relief, Haiti still owes a total of $709 million in debts to multilateral financial institutions. Meanwhile, the IDB has estimated earthquake damages to total nearly $14 billion.

How can we in good conscience expect Haiti to send money to foreign governments and international financial institutions when there are people sleeping in the streets, children going hungry, and schools and hospitals reduced to rubble?

I have long fought for the people of Haiti, both on the island and in our own Nation. On this issue in particular, last Congress, I offered an amendment which passed the House of Representatives unanimously that put Congress on record encouraging the expedited cancellation of Haiti's international debt.

At a time of extreme instability and crisis, Congress and the United States government must do all within our power to help ensure a long- term sustainable recovery for Haiti.

I applaud Congresswoman Waters for her long-standing commitment to debt relief for Haiti and for other deserving nations and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Peace Corps for 49 years of global service and to recognize National Peace Corps Week.

Since its inception in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, the Peace Corps has placed nearly 200,000 American Volunteers in 139 countries around the world to contribute to the cause of peace and human progress. Its impact has been felt in developing nations across the globe where Peace Corps Volunteers have assisted on a variety of issues, working hand in hand with the people of these nations to build a better future for their communities.

There are currently 7,671 Volunteers serving in 76 countries who are dedicated to better understanding the people of other nations while helping to promote a better understanding Americans in an effort to find common ways to work together to address global challenges.

Among those Volunteers are three distinguished individuals from the 23rd Congressional District. Laura Alexander has been serving in Tanzania since August of 2008. Aysa Gray is currently serving in Namibia, where she has been since September of 2008. And Peggy Defray started in April of 2009 her service in Namibia as well.

With the help of these dedicated young people and the generations of current and former Volunteers from all over the United States, the Peace Corps has become a symbol of America's commitment to expand opportunities and assist those in need throughout the world.

For example, the commitment of Peace Corps Volunteers in the area of HIV/AIDS assistance, awareness, and prevention has been a crucial part of the global response to this pandemic. Volunteers have also made significant efforts in the areas of education, agriculture, the environment, and more recently, business development and information technology.

The lasting contributions made by those in the Peace Corps, past and present, are truly remarkable. I am thankful for the opportunity to honor the Peace Corps for 49 years of excellence during this National Peace Corps Week.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and achievements of my dear friend Frankie Drayton Thomas, who died on February 27, 2010, in West Palm Beach, Florida from a sudden heart attack. She was 81 years old. My thoughts and prayers go out to her son, James Thomas of New Carrollton, Maryland; daughter, local attorney Iola Mosley; sister, Lillie B. Drayton; brother, James Drayton; and the rest of her family and friends at this most difficult time.

Frankie Drayton Thomas, known to all as ``Frankie,'' was born in West Palm Beach, Florida to Iola and Frank Drayton in May of 1928. She attended public schools and graduated from Industrial High School as an honor student in 1946. In 1950, Frankie graduated from Howard University in Washington, D.C. and went on to earn a Master's Degree in Public Administration from Florida Atlantic University.

A pioneer in her own right, Frankie became the first black college- trained social worker hired by the State of Florida's Department of Public Welfare. In the 1960s, she helped improve the lives of the less fortunate as a social worker in Washington State and, later, the Glades community. After years of hard work and dedicated service, Frankie rose to an administrative position in the Florida Department of Family and Youth Services. She retired from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services as Director of Resource Development and Volunteer Services in 1995.

Frankie was a ``Renaissance woman,'' also devoting herself to many political, social, and family endeavors. In June 1951, she and her good friend Gwendolyn Baker Rodgers co-founded Charmettes, Inc., an international organization 19-chapters-strong that unites women in the name of community strength. One of the many projects and services that she initiated as 1st Executive Director of the Charmettes is the annual contribution to the Howard University Cancer Research Center. From 1981 to present, the Charmettes have contributed nearly $350,000 dollars to this effort.

Furthermore, Frankie was the founding president of the Northwest Democratic Club in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She has served on the Board of Directors of the Urban League and the Board of Directors of Southeast Hospice. In fact, she was the first African-American female in the country to head a Hospice Board of Directors and also served on the Board of Directors of the Girl Scouts of America. Frankie was also a member of Delta Sigma Theta and served as a Parliamentarian of the Broward County Chapter.

Well-known for her political savvy, she organized and executed many political forums and helped to elect many candidates to office, including myself, as well as most of the Broward County Commissioners and school board members, Governor Bob Graham, Sheriff Ken Jenne, Attorney General Bob Butterworth, and President Bill Clinton.

Madam Speaker, Frankie was a social worker, public servant, community leader, activist, mentor, and philanthropist. Above all, however, she was a beautiful person whose compassion and spirit touched countless lives. A great voice for humankind has been lost. Frankie was my friend and she will be missed dearly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 117th anniversary of the founding of Payne Chapel A.M.E. Church in West Palm Beach, Florida, an institution that is as old as the city itself.

The theme of this year's celebration is ``Enhancing the dream; bright hope for tomorrow''. Payne Chapel was the dream of Ed Walstine, Philip Akery, Bell Jones, Susan Gee Cook, Margaret Akery, D. Jones, and Haley Mickens, who were strongly determined to prepare the way for carrying out ``The Great Commission'' of preaching and witnessing for Christ. They founded their church, known as Bethel, in January of 1893. It was a pioneer era, and the first church was established in ``The Styx'', now Palm Beach. The first trustees were J.J. Gordon, D.J. Jones, and Philip Akery.

In 1894, under the pastorate of Rev. T.W. Wilson, the church's name was changed from Bethel to Payne Chapel in honor of Bishop Daniel A. Payne. Payne Chapel was built at Banyan and Tamarind Avenue, under the pastorate of Rev. A.S. Simms, 1894-1895. During the pastorate of Rev. M.T. Carey, 1910-1914, the church's parsonage was built. Rev. S.W. Adair organized the first rally for the new Payne Chapel A.M.E. Church between 1917 and 1920. It was Rev. E.J. Jackson who purchased the present site and laid the foundation between 1922 and 1923. In 1924, Rev. S.W. Adair was again appointed pastor and began work on the new church.

In 1928, a hurricane completely destroyed the old church on Banyan Street. The first Sunday in January 1929, services resumed in the basement of the ``New Church on the Hill''. Over the years, many additions were made to Payne Chapel under the pastorate of different reverends to complete the New Church. The main auditorium was dedicated in 1937, new pews were added in 1942, and the church was cleared of all indebtedness in 1948. During the pastorate of Rev. H. McNeal Harris, 1963-1966, the present parsonage was built, and under Rev. Stephen M. Peck, 1969-1981, the church was completely air conditioned.

Between 1981 and 1987, land was purchased for two parking areas, the church office, pastor's study, and Christian Education Office were erected in the lower auditorium, and the lounges were completely renovated.

In 1988, the New Genesis was instituted under the leadership of Shepherd W.J. Jackson. The church underwent a series of renovations and restoration, including new paint inside and out, safety guard doors, a new roof, pews, furniture, lighting, carpeting, state-of-the-art sound system, piano, organ, and tiling. Furthermore, the mortgage was liquidated and another parking area and additional property around the church were purchased.

In November 2002, Bishop John Hurst Adams assigned Rev. Samuel E. Sullivan to Payne Chapel. Under his pastorate, Payne Chapel underwent further renovation and debts on the roof and organ were liquidated. During the 2004-2005 hurricane season, the church and parsonage sustained major wind and water damage. Payne Chapel's keepers worked hard to restore it to its former magnificent grandeur. The church's interior was gutted and treated for mold and mildew, and carpeting, pews, and other furnishing and equipment were replaced.

On December 2, 2007, Bishop McKinley Young assigned Rev. Milton Broomfield to pastor Payne Chapel into the future. I am certain that Payne Chapel can look forward to great things under Rev. Broomfield's leadership.

Madam Speaker, from 1893 to 2008, 30 pastors, 24 presiding elders, 36 bishops, and three assistant pastors have served Payne Chapel A.M.E. Church. Payne Chapel is more than a building; it is a living testament to the community that built it. As we celebrate the 117th anniversary of its founding and remember the untold numbers of dedicated people who have contributed to making the church what it is today, tomorrow is indeed bright and hopeful.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1105 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Members that the Intelligence Committee has received a classified document from the Department of Justice that is related to the PATRIOT Act authorities currently set to expire at the end of the month.

The House may consider a 1-year extension of the PATRIOT Act today so the Intelligence Committee will be making this document available for Member review in the committee offices located in HVC-304. Staff from the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, as well as personnel from the Justice Department and with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, will be available to answer any questions that Members may have. Members who want to review the document should call the Intelligence Committee to schedule an appointment.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution, as announced by our Clerk, provides for consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, under a structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill, makes in order only those amendments printed in the rule, and the resolution waives all points of order against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions and provides that the Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the Chair of the Intelligence Committee or his designee and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill.

The resolution provides for a motion to consider the Senate bill and substitute its text with the text of H.R. 2701 as passed by the House. The resolution waives all points of order against the Senate bill and its consideration. It also makes in order a motion that the House insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate and waives all points of order against such motion.

The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote for same-day consideration of a report from the Rules Committee through the legislative day of Friday, February 26. It also permits the Speaker to consider motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Friday, February 26. The Speaker shall consult with the minority leader on the designation of any matter under this authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

As vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know that the intelligence community is the first line of defense against terrorists, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, and other rogue elements who wish to do us and our allies harm here at home and across the globe.

This legislation provides policy guidance for 16 agencies of the intelligence community while also improving oversight and helping to prevent disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and a misinformed Congress can have on national security.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of meeting many of our intelligence professionals in over 50 countries around the world during my oversight travel as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I cannot overstate how much I and the members of the committee, and I am sure all Members of this body, appreciate them and are humbled by their service. Their dedication and commitment became more evident when seven Americans made the ultimate sacrifice during a terrorist attack in Khost, Afghanistan, this past December.

But the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day was a startling reminder to all Americans that in spite of our best efforts we are still under attack, and we still have much work to do to get it right. The constant threat from violent extremists reinforces that now more than ever, and we must give the intelligence community the resources and flexibility it needs to thwart the continuing and emerging threats to United States national security.

For the last 4 years, our country has gone without an intelligence authorization bill. I find it very distressing that the House Intelligence Committee, which was created to ensure proper oversight and accountability of our intelligence community, has worked diligently every year to pass a bill but has not seen one signed into law in recent years.

As we have seen, the intelligence community is in dire need of independent oversight. Sadly, when we created the Director of National Intelligence, we did not create an independent Inspector General. This bill would remedy that flaw by making clear that the Inspector General does not serve at the whim of the Director of National Intelligence and also has an independent responsibility to keep Congress informed.

Some of my colleagues on the other aisle have argued against the creation of a new Inspector General. I would respectfully disagree with their assessment. It is clear that this provision will help to streamline and coordinate oversight.

This bill also contains a provision in the manager's amendment providing sensible reforms to the Gang of Eight process. As vice chairman of the committee, I have seen that process abused in the past, and I am glad that we are taking a careful step towards reform. I believe that the administration has a statutory and constitutional duty to keep members of the Intelligence Committee, all members of the Intelligence Committee, fully informed on certain intelligence matters. Therefore, by reforming this process, the bill enhances transparency and bolsters Congress' capacity to conduct important oversight.

The bill also clarifies the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence to cooperate with GAO investigations initiated by Congress. GAO can provide the Congress with valuable expertise and assist with oversight functions, especially in areas of auditing and security clearance reforms.

I have stated time and time again that the intelligence community is not diverse enough to do its job of stealing and analyzing foreign countries' secrets. Diversity is a mission imperative. When I came on this committee, I came on after the legendary Lou Stokes, who served on this committee and advanced many measures that are in law today dealing with intelligence. My good friend and my good friend from California's good friend, Julian Dixon, who has departed life, carried that banner, as did Sanford Bishop when he was on this committee.

I, along with many other members of the committee, particularly Chairman Reyes, Anna Eshoo and others countless throughout the years, Jane Harman included, we have fought for continuing diversity on this committee. We need people who blend in, speak the language, and understand the cultures in the countries that we are targeting.

As my colleagues on the committee and I have mentioned on many occasions, when the intelligence leadership comes to testify, we don't see a lot of diversity at the table. We don't see enough women at the table. It is time for the community to get serious about improving diversity for the sake of our national security.

A real diversity effort means more than just staging recruitment drives at colleges with a lot of black students or Latino students. Diversity means hiring, hiring more Arab Americans. It means hiring more Iranian Americans, more Pakistani Americans, more Chinese Americans and more Korean Americans. If the intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global face.

I have offered an amendment on diversity in the intelligence community to the underlying bill. My amendment contains a requirement for the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on a comprehensive plan to improve diversity in the intelligence community. It calls on the Director to report on specific implementation plans for each element agency in the community. It also requires information on plans to improve minority retention, not only at the junior and mid- grade levels, but at the senior and management levels as well.

Finally, it requires that the Director of National Intelligence report to the congressional Intelligence Committees on the efforts being made with diversity training and how improvement in diversity will be measured. This amendment, along with many other important provisions in this bill, will make our intelligence community more effective, more efficient, and more accountable.

Given the immense security challenges facing our Nation, it is vital that Congress pass this legislation so that we may continue to fulfill our commitment to the safety and well-being of the great American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

You know, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from California's desire to address Flight 253; but in my view, his complaints that the bill is outdated ignores the rule. The rule makes in order an amendment by Representative Schauer directed at the lessons of Flight 253.

Now, listen, the intelligence community, constituted of 16 elements, is organic. It is constantly in a state of change, and there is considerable coordination and collaboration regarding the globe, not just one airplane, not just one individual. And when you isolate one individual, like the person that was on Flight 253, you do have that anomaly to show that we are steadily being set upon. But that was mild by comparison to some of those incidents that never make it in the public realm.

I am reminded of the constant saying that success has a thousand fathers, but failure evidently doesn't even have a mother because anytime there is a failure, the whole community is set upon, while day after day after day, year after year after year they're stopping countless attacks on this country that go unnoticed, whether it be in the field of cyber, whether it be on the battlefield. We are constantly in that position. There have been hundreds of successes to protect our homeland security.

Certainly I will yield to my friend.

Well, when you speak of the President's directions, there were several principal matters that the President referenced in his, as you put it, threatened veto. But the veto, more specifically, the principal objection was to the Gang of Eight restriction that many of us in the committee supported for the reason that we think--and thought--that each of the intelligence members should be advised by the President the same as those of the Gang of Eight.

You know, we use these terms around here. The Gang of Eight are the central players--the Speaker, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the committee Chairs and ranking members. That is who that small kernel of people are who receive specific information. I hope the public at least understands some aspect of that.

The point that I was trying to make and will continue to make is--let me give you a for example. In the last month, I have visited our intelligence operations in nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Ukraine, Germany, just to mention a few. In each of those places--and there were others that will go unmentioned--in each of those places I learned of immense success and reporting of successes coming back here to the intelligence community and to the President. Nobody talks about that in the newspaper. Nobody talks about that in this particular setting. You pick three incidents out of thousands of successes and point to a community's failures. I can't accept that.

For 10 years I have watched on this committee these people work their hearts out, Republicans and Democrats, under the leadership of--friends of mine and yours--Porter Goss, who led this committee, others long before Leon Panetta, and the other committees that don't even get mentioned at all because most people don't even know that they have intelligence operations. What would happen in this world, what would happen with our allies if we did not have the SIGNET? How would we be having the successes that we are having in Afghanistan today of picking off leaders of Taliban, leaders of al Qaeda?

All the time it seems to me that all that comes out as is, oh, they just took out another one, but it doesn't get played up. If one of them managed to get to Canada and to the United States, then that would be the biggest talk that we would have here in Congress. It's not fair, and fairness to the intelligence community is as deserving as any other parts of our bureaucracy that fail considerably, including this institution.

I was going to yield my time, and I ask the gentleman to take his time, but I am more than happy to yield.

Well, then, I will just take my time back, now that you agree with me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague, who is an absolutely brilliant member of the intelligence community, and he has provided continuing and dedicated service for the period of time that he and I have served on the committee together. There is one thing, I think, I know a little bit more about than he does, and that is our prison system, and that is for the reason that I participated, as a State and a Federal judge and then as a lawyer, in dealing with circumstances in our prisons.

Our colleague suggests that detainees are treated in a certain way, and those particular things--for example, food and the length of the hair or religious convictions--have been litigated ad nauseam in the United States. I can assure you that persons who are in custody in the United States find themselves able to access to the food that comports with their religious requirements and also the other circumstances.

One thing that is great about America is that we do have values, and one thing that is great about us in handling others, even much better than they even ever consider us, is that those values manifest themselves in the treatment of persons who are our enemies.

Now, I am going to try with this document here to put to rest this not-in-my-backyard argument that I continue to hear from my colleagues about Guantanamo.

I first want to commend to my colleagues H.R. 3728, the Detainment Reform Act of 2009, which I filed, and I would urge them to look at it and to look at the detention criteria and at the ways to process detainees, as well as the reporting requirements that transpire. I will not take the time now to go into detail, but that measure is sitting here, and any one of them can join it. I have no pride of authorship, and I've said to Members on the other side and on our side that, if there is something they can add or detract, then please do so.

Regarding where you put people whom we hold and somehow or another the thought being that we can't try people in our Federal system or, for that matter, if we have a situation where every detainee must be tried in military commissions, according to some, well, let me tell you some of the people whom we hold in one prison today.

According to the Bureau of Prisons, ADX Supermax in Florence, Colorado, has a capacity of 490 inmates. There are currently 445, leaving 45 cells available. I can assure you anybody in Guantanamo could be transferred here with no threat to Florence, Colorado. No one has ever escaped Supermax. Supermax officers are some of the best trained in the Nation, and current and former inmates include--let me just give you some of these people:

Anthony Casso, a mobster and former underboss of the Lucchese crime family, is at this prison. Wadih el-Hage, a coconspirator in the 1998 United States Embassy bombings, is in this prison. Matthew Hale, a white supremacist leader convicted of soliciting the murder of a Federal judge, is in this prison. Larry Hoover, the leader of the Gangster Disciples Nation, based in Chicago, is in this prison. Jeff Fort, the cofounder of the Black P. Stones gang in Chicago and the founder of its El Rukn faction, is in this prison. Omar Portee, the cofounder of the United Blood Nation, is in this prison and has never escaped. Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, is in this prison in Colorado. Juan Matta-Ballesteros, the drug trafficker and coconspirator in the Enrique Camarena case, is in this prison. Zacarias Moussaoui-- remember him? He was tried in our regular system as a coconspirator in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Guess where he is? In Colorado, in Supermax. Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bomber, is in this prison. Richard Colvin Reid, the Islamic terrorist, nicknamed the ``Shoe Bomber,'' who also came through our regular system under the aegis of the previous President, is in this prison. Eric Robert Rudolph, convicted of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing, is in this prison. Dwight York is in this prison. Ramzi Yousef, of the World Trade Center bombing, is in this prison.

Enough of this ``not in my backyard.'' We can hold these people.

H. Rap Brown is in this prison. Thomas Silverstein, convicted of murdering a Federal correctional officer, is in this prison. Luis Felipe, founder of the Almighty Latin Kings and Queens Nation, is in this prison. Howard Mason, a drug trafficker, who ordered the murder of Police Officer Eddie Byrne, is in this prison. A leading member of the Aryan Brotherhood, Barry Mills, is in this prison.

So what are you all talking about when you stand around and tell people that we can't hold people in this Supermax prison? We can hold them in Guantanamo. We can hold them in Supermax, and we can do everything that is required of us as a nation in order to protect ourselves in that regard.

Yet what has happened in this institution is you have given the American people a chance to believe that they should be afraid if you hold them in certain institutions in your neighborhoods. Well, they come through your neighborhoods an awful lot, and you evidently don't know about it. I, personally, am just a little tired of your not-in-my- backyard attitude about this particular system. We can hold terrorists, and we can hold criminals, and we've been doing it all of my adult career, and that's 50 years as a lawyer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend on the Rules Committee, I would just like to comment regarding my good friend, Mr. Lungren's comments.

Mr. Lungren, there have been three people who have been convicted in military commissions, and two of them are already free. During that same period of time, under President Bush's administration and under in President Obama's administration, more than 300 people have been convicted in our civilian courts.

And you're correct. I was using the people in the Supermax to make the point no matter who they were, whether they were Zacarias Moussaoui, who certainly isn't an American citizen, or countless others, that we can hold them and that they can't escape. The fear some seem to think is that they would escape.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to have to teach law here, and I never wanted to do that.

The language in the manager's amendment restates existing criminal law prohibitions like those in the Detainee Treatment Act and clearly establishes that the United States will adhere to the rule of law, and that's whether a person is in Guantanamo or whether they are in Colorado.

That said, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I'd inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker for this side, and I will reserve my time until the gentleman closes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that will enhance vital human intelligence collection, fill the critical gaps in our intelligence-gathering activities, authorize significant investment in our Nation's cybersecurity capabilities, as well as provide much needed reform by forbidding the CIA's practice of outsourcing interrogation to private contractors operating outside the law.

It is unfortunate that we live in a dangerous and different world, where we must always be vigilant of those who wish to cause harm to others. This bill is critical to addressing the many challenges we face within the intelligence community.

I want to take this moment of personal privilege to thank Chairman Reyes and the staff of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the Republican and Democratic staff, for their extraordinary hard work and dedication in helping to see this excellent bill to fruition.

Four years is far too long for the intelligence community to go without guidance from its oversight committees. I believe we should get an authorization bill passed and on the President's desk for signature into law. There is going to be added general debate. But when I listened to my colleague, who is my good friend, I kind of feel like that all of the labor on both sides, including speakers that I served with on that committee, Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Rogers, we have worked very actively to get us to the position that we are in with reference to this authorization bill. There have been agreements and there have been disagreements. And there are always things that can be added.

The responsibility of the Rules Committee is to move the agenda. I am very proud of the fact that there is a summit on health care going on at the White House at the same time that we are discussing the authorization bill, and that I am getting ready to leave here and go to a jobs task force, which I believe is high on the minds of the American agenda, which proves that we really can do legislation, prepare legislation, chew gum and walk at the same time. We are an incredible lot of people we are, and just like that we can also secure this Nation, as this bill does in high kind.

But I am going to say to you all one more time, enough of the business about not in my backyard. If I didn't dispel it today, I will see you another time on the floor to have you understand just how extraordinary the Federal judiciary is, just how extraordinary the intelligence community is, and just how important it is to our Nation's security that we allow them to function accordingly.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.