Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of John F. Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage.''

Last Thursday, one of our colleagues was chosen as the recipient for this year, the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage,'' as the Profile of Courage in the year 2006.

Our distinguished colleague, Congressman John Murtha, is the recipient in 2006. We want to pay tribute to Congressman John Murtha as the recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award recipient.

Congratulations, Jack.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished American, Allen R. Hughes, who will celebrate his 97th birthday on September 24, 2006.

Allen Hughes was born in Martinsburg, Missouri. His mother Ethel had a wonderful sense of humor and he loved her very deeply. His father William was a street car operator who purchased a 144 acre farm in Fulton, Missouri, which his boys affectionately named ``Hughes' Rock Farm'' because it appeared to be the main crop. Allen had three sisters and four brothers and the family was of modest means.

Allen Hughes married Florence Mertz in 1930. They were married for 59 years until Florence's death and they had one child Richard, born in 1937.

Allen Hughes is a 32nd degree Mason and has been a Scottish Rite member since 1936, over 69 years. He still goes to Lodge and actively participates in the Masonic Order. Mr. Hughes is a registered Democrat who has been known to occasionally stray from his party. The first time he voted was in the Presidential election of 1932. He cast his vote for FDR all four times and has never missed voting in a Presidential or off-year election since. Mr. Hughes has the highest regard for President Harry S. Truman and a profound respect for the Office of President regardless of who occupies it. His son Richard knows this first hand and has the scars to prove that if you can't say something respectful about the President, you shouldn't say anything at all. A true patriot, he takes the privilege of voting very seriously.

Allen Hughes began his career with the Endicott Johnson Shoe Company and worked as a night supervisor for Bi-State Transit in St. Louis, Missouri for 28 years. He retired in 1971 and now lives with his second wife, Sue Harness, on her farm close to Troy, Missouri.

Allen Hughes' son Richard speaks eloquently about his father; ``What I love about my father is his humor, his work ethic (I think he missed less than three weeks of work due to sickness in 46 years), his honesty (his word is his bond), his generosity and his willingness to help others less fortunate than himself, his patriotism . . . he votes, informs himself and loves this country.'' Richard tells me, ``If I could go to the `Father Store' and pick any father, I would pick Allen R. Hughes.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a national treasure and an exemplary American. As Allen Hughes celebrates his 97th birthday, we extend to him our best wishes as well as our gratitude for all he's done for our country. He is a true patriot, a loving husband and the best father in the world to his great son Richard. Because of solid citizens like Allen Hughes, our democracy is strong and our country is decent.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding some time to me.

I have a question to ask of my friend from California: What is the time frame when you say expeditious action on the part of the FDA? What does that constitute? Is it 100 days? Is it 180 days? Is it 30? The connotation is that it is going to be swift. If this passes, if the legislation actually moves, what are we looking at relative to the direction of this amendment?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

So maximum is 120 days?

But they have up to 4 months?

But that is your amendment, not the underlying bill.

And what does your amendment do?

But without any specificity?

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to cosponsor this amendment. I think it is a very important one, and I think it is important also for people that are listening in across the country who support this amendment. Every leading environmental organization in the country supports this amendment, and consumer groups support this amendment.

I think it is important for people across the country to know who is for the bill, and it will say something about the effort that is here on the floor today. The feed industry is for the bill. The frozen food people are for the bill. The Plastics Council is for the bill. Soft drink people, food processors, food additives.

The food additives people are for the bill. Doesn't that say something about what is going into our food and lessens the standards in our country for what we consume? That just gives you, excuse the expression, a taste of who is for the bill.

Now, this amendment allows States to retain and establish their own food safety warnings or standards to protect consumers in four key areas. It is against the risk of birth defects, it is against reproductive health problems, cancer and allergic reactions. Those are four major areas that every single person in this country cares about because they are so serious.

Without this amendment, States are going to have to come to the Federal Government and say, mother, may I?

My friends, nothing is broken. Nothing is broken. Were it not for these special interests that have lobbied so hard for this, which is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. today, we would not have to be on the floor fighting to protect what local governments and State governments have, the laws they have placed on the books.

Now, here is an example. Here is an example of what we have in California. This is the warning. This is the warning that is in the grocery stores and the appropriate places for pregnant women and others to warn them: ``Pregnant and nursing women, women who may become pregnant, and young children should not eat the following fish,'' and it names them.

You know what is going to happen when this thing becomes law? It is going to be buried on a Web site at the FDA. Who the heck is going to go on a Web site at the FDA to read the fine print to find out if they have a warning? That warning is not enforceable. That is why we are offering this amendment in the most key health areas. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add one more comment to this: Whose constituent has come up to them and said, ``Get rid of these good laws in our respective States and local governments''? Not one of my constituents has.

This march to folly, and that is why attorneys general across the United States are opposed to it, it is why food and agriculture heads from States are opposed to it. This is not about consumers, this is about special interests.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271. This bill makes a few cosmetic changes, but the changes do little to address the serious civil liberties concerns that I and countless Americans have raised during the debate over the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

For example, nothing has been done to integrate needed checks and balances into the National Security Letter (NSL) process. NSLs are requests for financial, telecommunications, credit, and other business records issued directly by government agencies in national security investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI and other issuing agencies could issue an NSL only if there was some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all- time high number of NSLs issued. Passage of this legislation will do nothing to change this disturbing trend or enhance congressional or judicial oversight over NSLs.

This bill also fails to address issues related to the President's National Security Agency (NSA) domestic surveillance program. I strongly believe this program must be subject to statutory restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Congress should not stand by in silence and allow this controversial program to continue unchecked.

Unfortunately, in spite of having adequate time to engage in constructive discussions to fix the PATRIOT Act reauthorization Conference Report, the sponsors of S. 2271 chose again to exclude Democrats from negotiations. Instead, they've offered a bill that

makes only a few superficial changes to the Conference Report, and because this bill is being considered under suspension of the rules, we don't have an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments that could greatly improve the PATRIOT Act and ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties as well as our national security.

I oppose this bill and find it regrettable that an important opportunity to initiate real reforms to this legislation has been squandered.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my distinguished colleague, for not only his eloquence on this bill but all the work that he has done on public health issues and health in general for the people of our country.

I rise to oppose this bill, and I do because I believe it is an assault on public health and consumer protection. It is no wonder there has never been a hearing on this bill in the last 8 years.

So this is not about theater. This is not, as the gentleman who introduced the bill said a few moments ago, about theater and deception. This is a very, very serious debate, and it is a debate that should have been taking place in a public hearing, in a hearing of our committee; and it has not. I think that that in and of itself is an assault on the American people. It is disrespectful.

The bill will preempt any State or local food safety law that is not identical to a Federal law, and we do not have those Federal laws. So it will absolutely leave a void. Is the majority saying here that they are set to put into place, if this bill passes, God forbid, that they are going to place on the Federal books, 200 Federal laws in a nanosecond? I do not think so.

Under this bill, the FDA will have to approve any food safety law that is at variance with Federal policy, and according to the CBO, the bill will preempt an estimated 200 State and local laws dealing with food safety. Absolutely, preempt them, right away, 200 State and local laws.

It is going to cost the FDA $100 million over the next 5 years to process petitions from States seeking to retain these laws. There is simply no credible public health justification for the extraordinary steps that this bill takes.

The attorney general of California has weighed in against the bill. I insert this memorandum to the California delegation as part of the Record at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. G. Scott Hubbard, who recently stepped down as Director of NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California to become the Carl Sagan Chair for Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute.

Mr. Hubbard began his career at NASA Ames Research Center in 1987, becoming Center Director in 2002. I have had the pleasure of working closely with Mr. Hubbard on many issues since he assumed the Directorship. He has been an invaluable public servant, guiding NASA Ames through difficult times and inspiring confidence throughout the organization. I'm proud of our work together on many of the new endeavors at NASA Ames, as well as the work to ensure the long-term future of NASA Ames and Moffett Federal Airfield. Mr. Hubbard has always been a thorough professional . . . responsive, efficient and effective.

NASA Ames Research Center is in the heart of Silicon Valley and has played a crucial role in Silicon Valley's success. Director Hubbard demonstrated an unparalleled ability to use NASA Ames' unique position in the high-end research and development community to forge groundbreaking public-private R&D collaborations. Under his leadership, NASA Ames successfully partnered with Silicon Graphics and Intel Corporation to develop the fastest operational supercomputer in the world, and created the Center for Nanotechnology to lead federal research in this revolutionary technology. Mr. Hubbard was integral to the creation of the NASA Ames Research Park, a world-class R&D and education campus with industry, universities and non-profits all taking part. Today, more than thirty small R&D companies and fourteen universities are on-site. Because of his tireless

efforts, high-technology giant Google will soon be adding a new state- of-the-art facility to the Research Park. Under Mr. Hubbard's tenure, NASA Ames established the University Affiliated Research Center with the University of California, which remains the largest R&D partnership ever developed by NASA in our nation.

Beyond his work as Director of NASA Ames, Mr. Hubbard has been a highly respected member of NASA and our country's academic community. He attended Vanderbilt University where he studied physics and astronomy. In 1974 at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Mr. Hubbard co-developed a new radiation detection technology which is now incorporated in the Mars Odyssey Mission. In March 2000, he served at NASA headquarters as the first Mars Program Director and successfully restructured the entire Mars program in the wake of mission failures. Prior to his appointment as NASA Ames Center Director, he was Deputy Director for Research at NASA Ames. In 2003, he served as the sole NASA representative on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board which established the definitive physical cause of the loss of the Columbia. Director Hubbard has also been the NASA Ames Associate Director for Astrobiology and Space Research, the first director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, and NASA's mission manager for Lunar Prospector. Director Hubbard is also credited with conceiving the Mars Pathfinder Mission. He recently accepted a visiting scholar appointment in the Electrical Engineering Department of Stanford University, underscoring the deep respect that Mr. Hubbard has earned in the academic community. At Stanford, Mr. Hubbard's research plans will focus on nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology areas, as well as studying the emergence of the entrepreneurial space industry.

Time and again, Scott Hubbard has proven his commitment to NASA and our nation's space exploration endeavors. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest gratitude to him for his superb public service. He has served our country exceedingly well, and because he has, we honor him for his work and wish him well in his new position as the Carl Sagan Chair at the SETI Institute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Norman J. Pera of Saugatuck, Michigan, who died on January 1, 2006, at the age of 83.

Norman J. Pera was born in Gary, Indiana, where he graduated from Horace Mann High School in 1939. He served honorably from 1942 to 1946 in the U.S. Navy, including active duty in the Pacific Theater during Word War II.

Upon completing military service, he attended the Rose Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana, and graduated in 1948 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He worked for Inland Steel of East Chicago, Indiana, and retired in 1982 as the Assistant Superintendent of the Mechanical Department. Mr. Pera moved to Saugatuck in 1989 and became an active volunteer for many local organizations, giving generously of his time and his many talents.

He is survived by his wife Patricia, the great love of his life for 57 years, their 5 outstanding sons, David, Timothy, Mark, Thomas, and John; his daughters-in-law Ruth, Kathleen, Leslie and Catherine; his nephew and niece Anthony and Mary Ester Merza, and his 11 beautiful grandchildren.

Norman Pera was a principled and decent man who loved his family, his faith, his community and his country very deeply.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of my dear cousin Norman and extend to his beloved family our deepest sympathy. America has lost a magnificent citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Natalie Teresa Lanam, a distinguished and beloved resident of San Mateo County, CA, who died on December 8, 2005, after a long battle with cancer.

Natalie Lanam was a native of San Francisco's Mission District and her Mexican heritage was a source of great pride to her. She was a faith-filled woman who was respected throughout our community for her decades of volunteerism and for the professionalism she brought to every effort she was associated with.

Natalie Lanam was an effective fund-raiser for the causes she held dear. She volunteered for local schools and Easter Seals, and she was best known for her commitment to providing legal services for anyone who needed them, regardless of their ability to pay. For more than 15 years she volunteered for the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and her efforts were honored by the society when they named their building the Natalie Lanam Criminal Justice Center.

Natalie Lanam is survived by her husband of 55 years, the Honorable Bill Lanam who served with distinction on the Superior Court in San Mateo County and who was first elected as a result of Natalie's superb organizing efforts. Natalie and Bill's family of 4 daughters, 2 sons, 17 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren are a testament to the values of Natalie Lanam and her special gifts to the world God has called her from.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a remarkable woman for her lifetime of devotion to her family, her faith, her community and her country and extending our deepest condolences to Judge Lanam and the entire Lanam family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Joint Resolution introduced by Representative John Murtha. This Resolution should be brought to the floor because the time has come for a change in our Iraq policy.

I believe our military has done its job. They were sent to Iraq to depose a tyrant and free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. They accomplished what can be described as one of the most successful and well-executed military campaigns in history, defeating the Iraqi army in a matter of days and going on to hunt down and capture Saddam Hussein.

The issue before us is not ``surrender'' or ``cut and run''. Our troops have accomplished their mission. What they're now having to battle is an insurgency comprised largely of Iraqis who they were sent to liberate. According to our top military leadership, fewer than 7% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign militants and the primary target of the insurgents are U.S. troops.

The violence is taking its toll on the Iraqi people, the vast majority of whom want a stable, secure Iraq free from foreign occupation. A recent poll taken in Iraq indicated that 80% of Iraqis want the American military to leave, and most chilling, 45% believe attacks against U.S. forces are justified. The daily toll inflicted on our military and our national purse (close to $1 billion per day now), is simply unsustainable.

Congressman Murtha has proposed a plan calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, the creation of a quick-reaction force in the region and an ``over-the-horizon'' presence of Marines, and the pursuit of security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Congressman Murtha based his sober and professional judgment on the following:

The U.S. and coalition troops have accomplished all they can in Iraq and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress for the establishment of a stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy.

American troops have become the primary targets of attacks in Iraq, which is significantly impeding progress. Continued military action is not in the best interest of the United States, the Iraqi people, or the Persian Gulf region.

As Commander of Iraqi forces, General George Casey stated in a September 2005 hearing, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.''

The cost of the war to our country, and the burden on the troops to whom Congressman Murtha has dedicated his life, is skyrocketing.

Congressman Murtha knows of what he speaks. He is a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps, a Colonel, the first Vietnam War veteran elected to this body and an unimpeachable, first-hand authority on the needs of our military.

Congressman Murtha is one of the most decorated veterans in the Congress. No one

has taken care of our troops on a more consistent basis since coming to the Congress than Jack Murtha. Previous Presidents know this, this President knows it, present and former members of Congress know it, and most importantly, our troops know it.

Congressman Murtha has been standing side-by-side with our troops throughout the Iraq war, from his presence in Kuwait just days before the start of the war, to his ongoing weekly visits to wounded troops at Bethesda Naval Medical Center and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, to his regular travel to the region to be with our troops. Each and every step of the way Jack Murtha has made sure that our troops have what they need, that their families are cared for, and that our country honors their service as deeply as he does. In one case, when a mother told him that bureaucratic red tape would prevent her son, a young man severely wounded in service to his country from receiving a Purple Heart, Jack Murtha said that if her son didn't get a Purple Heart, he would give him one of his. This is Jack Murtha.

After great personal reflection on the war and its effects and constant consultation with the military leadership, Congressman Murtha has done what members of this body are charged to do: He spoke truth to power. He announced it was ``time for a change in direction'' in Iraq. He did not call for an immediate withdrawal. He has not called for surrender and he has not called for retreat.

Whether Members agree with Congressman Murtha's judgment on the individual details of his proposal, it's become clear that our current policy in Iraq is unsustainable. It's time to tell the Iraqis that the training wheels have to come off . . . it's time for the Iraqis to take charge of Iraq. Today the American people are ahead of us, with some 65% saying it's time for a change. It's time to begin the overdue debate on how and when we bring our troops home. Congressman Murtha has set forth a pragmatic and clear proposal. I'm proud to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report.

The PATRIOT Act provided new authorities, but it also modified long- standing laws. One such change was the lowering of the standard for issuing government requests for financial, telecommunications credit, and other business records.

These requests commonly referred to as National Security Letters or NSLs are issued directly by the government agencies in national security investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI and other issuing agencies had to show there was some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all time high in the number of NSLs issued.

A recent Washington Post article alleged that over 30,000 National Security Letters have been issued by the FBI to businesses and private institutions across the Nation. Even more disturbing, the article alleged that records collected pursuant to NSLs are retained for an indefinite period of time, even when they are not of interest to investigators, and shared with other Federal agencies and the private sector.

As a citizen, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. As a Member of Congress, I am disappointed that we have missed a critical opportunity to get the NSL standard right. We have also missed the opportunity to ensure that NSL recipients have an opportunity to seek meaningful judicial review of the nondisclosure or gag requirements that accompany NSLs and further tailor the statutory framework to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are better protected.

I will vote against the conference report. I think the precious balance of civil liberties and security are damaged here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Radio Station KALW for its continuing service to the people of the San Francisco Bay Area and to congratulate KALW on its fifty-fifth anniversary of operations.

KALW began broadcasting in 1941. It was the first FM radio station in San Francisco, the first educational FM station in the United States, the second non-commercial FM station in the country and the first non- commercial FM station west of the Mississippi River.

In a time of media consolidation, KALW maintains its independence and its dedication to local news. Its programs reflect the extraordinary richness and diversity of the people of the Bay Area.

KALW has received more than a dozen national excellence awards in the past five years for its exemplary news coverage. In its programs it draws on the expertise of a brain trust of local community members, including scholars, job coaches, musicians, independent bookstore owners and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a remarkable national resource, radio station KALW, and extending to everyone involved with the station our congratulations on its fifty- fifth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 136, the Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act, which will add approximately 4,700 acres to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, also known as the GGNRA.

There has been a long journey in the effort to secure the passage of this bill. I was proud to cosponsor the legislation when Congressman Lantos first introduced it in May of 2001 and testified in the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks in support of the bill 5 long years ago.

The bill sets aside precious environmental spaces for the benefit of the broader community. It has undergone changes over the years to safeguard local agriculture in San Mateo County, and as a result, there is broad local support for this legislation.

These efforts don't just happen, it takes people of vision at the local level to recognize the need, to develop a response, and rally support. We have the best, Audrey Rust, the President of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, POST.

Ms. Rust has demonstrated great determination and flexibility in the many years of working on this bill, and she and POST deserve our thanks, recognition, and gratitude.

Acquiring this land is an environmental victory because it is habitat for several rare, threatened, endangered species. Future generations will respect and enjoy the fruits of our efforts and that's why I urge all my colleagues to vote for this critical legislation.

I salute Representative Lantos for his work and thank Senator Feinstein and Representative Radanovich for their efforts to see this legislation through.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think this evening is really a very sad moment for our country. I think that we have hit, unfortunately, sadly, a new low. This Republican bill can be summed up as follows: tax cuts for the most privileged in our country come first. That is their priority, and what is on the other side of this? What is on the other side of this? Child support enforcement and Medicaid, which is the safety net of health care.

Mr. Speaker, who bears the burden of this? Where do these cuts fall? On the most vulnerable people in our society. America can do better than this. This is not just a cut in program. This is a cut in our moral fiber. This is a cut. It cuts to who and what we are as a society. This is wrong. This is wrong, and I think many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle understand that as well.

We are asking Americans at the bottom of the scale of our Nation to bear the heaviest burden, and the tax cuts deliver almost 80 percent of their benefits to the top 3 percent of our people. That is not who and what we are. We can do so much better. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for what the best of the American people is all about, and that is not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William ``Bill'' Lawrence, retired letter carrier and member of the National Association of Letter Carriers, San Francisco Branch 214, who is being honored by the Letter Carriers at their Biannual Congressional Breakfast.

Bill Lawrence began his service to our country when he enlisted in the Navy at the age of 16. After serving in China, he was honorably discharged and settled in San Francisco in 1927. He worked for several years as a cable car conductor, one of the few union jobs in San Francisco at the time. In July 1938, he began his career as a Letter Carrier, immediately joining Branch 214 of the National Association of Letter Carriers. Bill served as Secretary of Branch 214 for 6 years, and delivered mail on the streets of San Francisco for 35 years, until he retired at age 65.

In 1970, Bill Lawrence was elected to the non-partisan City Council of nearby Brisbane, California, and over the next two decades, served twice as Mayor. After his tenure on the City Council, Bill pursued his dedication to public service as the Legislative Liaison for the California State Association of Letter Carriers. Bill has always said that his love of politics stems from the rewarding feeling he gets from helping people. Now at age 97, Bill continues to delight children of all ages when he dresses as Santa Claus during the holidays.

I've always been proud to call Bill Lawrence my friend. He is a kind and generous man, and without his support and that of his wife, Honey Bee, I would not have been elected to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Bill Lawrence's countless contributions to our community and our country. Because of him and his distinguished service, we are unmistakably a better and more decent nation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Friday, October 28, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following votes: On rollcall vote No. 555 I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 556 I would have voted ``yea.''