Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Act.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that the current system is broken and whistleblowers are simply not being protected.

Too often our system retaliates against whistleblowers rather than thanking them for standing up for what is right.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has heard from many of them, including Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI Translator who was fired for raising concerns about the way the FBI was translating important information about our security.

Her reward for blowing the whistle included having her security clearance stripped, being fired from her job and being forced to endure a years-long court battle that prevented her from any sort of normal life.

Things were so bad with her case that when she testified before the committee she literally could not tell us anything about her life-- where she was born or which languages she speaks.

Sadly, she is not alone.

The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) has been weakened by court cases in recent years and even the weak protections offered under the WPA do not apply to national security whistleblowers or contractors at those agencies.

The Oversight Committee repeatedly has heard from people who have had their security clearances revoked after blowing the whistle.

We have been told that wrongdoers have been allowed to continue their actions while the whistleblower has been the one made to suffer.

In the 109th Congress I was joined by my colleague Representative Diane Watson in offering an amendment during the Committee's consideration of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act that would have extended whistleblower protections to employees in national security and the intelligence community.

I am thrilled that this legislation will extend these important protections to employees of intelligence agencies and to federal contractors.

Passage of this bill is long overdue.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this legislation, H. Res. 228, and cochair and cofounder of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I rise today to celebrate the 186th anniversary of Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire.

Against incredibly difficult odds, the Greeks defeated one of the most powerful empires in history to gain their independence.

Following 400 years of Ottoman rule, in March 1821, Bishop Germanos of Patras raised the traditional Greek flag at the monastery of Agia Lavras, inciting his countrymen to rise up against the Ottoman Empire.

The bishop timed this act of revolution to coincide with the Greek Orthodox holiday celebrating the archangel Gabriel's announcement that the Virgin Mary was pregnant with the divine child.

Bishop Germanos' message to his people was clear, a new spirit was about to be born in Greece. The following year, the Treaty of Constantinople established full independence of Greece.

As we celebrate Greek Independence Day, we should reflect upon the strong ties between Greece and the United States and the strong commitment to democracy shared by our two countries.

The Greeks of 1821 fought for independence from the Ottoman Empire while drawing inspiration from the ideals and institutions of the United States.

During their war of independence, the Greeks also received support from many Americans, including Presidents James Madison and James Monroe and Representatives Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, each of whom gave speeches and made resolutions and other statements in Congress in support of the Greek revolutionaries.

Just as our defeat of the British Army was remarkable, so too was the Greek triumph over the Ottoman Army, a momentous achievement in world history.

New York City is home to the largest Hellenic population outside of Greece and Cyprus. Western Queens, which I have the honor of representing, is often called Little Athens because of the large Hellenic population in its neighborhoods.

New Yorkers celebrate Greek Independence Day with a parade on Fifth Avenue, along with many cultural events, private meetings and celebrations. These events, hosted by the Federation of Hellenic Societies and other Hellenic and Philhellenic organizations and friends, remind us of the Hellenic American community's many, many contributions to our Nation's history and culture.

Relations between the United States and Greece remain strong with a shared commitment to ensuring stability in southeastern Europe.

I hope permanent solutions can be found for ending the division of Cyprus and finding a mutually agreed upon name for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Additionally, I strongly support the inclusion of Greece in the Visa Waiver Program. Last month, along with Representatives Space and Bilirakis and 18 of our House colleagues, we sent letters to Secretary Rice and Secretary Chertoff urging them to extend the Visa Waiver Program to Greece. Greece is the only member of the original 15 European Union nations not to belong to the Visa Waiver Program.

Greece has met the criteria for the program, including a less than 3 percent refusal rate of U.S. nonimmigrant visa applicants and biometric passports. I hope that they will soon be included in the program, and I ask my colleagues and the Nation to join me in celebrating Greek's independence today.

Additionally, it is my sincere pleasure to pay tribute to the New York Hellenic American community for its many, many contributions to our city and Nation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H. Res. 89. New York City was first founded by the Dutch, and they made a tremendous contribution to the city I am honored to represent and to our country. Two of the Dutch Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, both came from New York.

If you go to the City Museum of New York, there is really a beautiful exhibit that pays tribute to the many contributions in our early days by the Dutch.

I rise in strong support of this resolution and to the preceding resolution, which honors the 95th anniversary of the Girl Scouts. I really rise today to honor the 95 years of educating, nurturing, and empowering our Nation's girls through the Girl Scout programs. Its 3.6 million members learn skills and develop character that help them succeed in the real world.

The Girl Scouts' Web site highlights the organization's focus on the leadership, strong values, social conscience and conviction about their own potential and self-worth of its members. These are vital attributes that help girls grow into the women who will lead our country and inspire the next generation of scouts.

I know personally about the power of being a Girl Scout, because I was one. The basic character and skills I learned then have served me my entire life, and they even serve me now in Congress.

For that I owe the Girl Scouts and the great Juliette Gordon, who founded the organization in 1912, a great debt of gratitude. I am proud that my hometown, New York City, is home to the Girl Scouts' national headquarters. I applaud the scouts for 95 years of empowerment and excellence, and I wish them many more years of helping nurture America's girls.

I rise in support of these two resolutions and applaud the leadership of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing them before this body today, and I urge unanimous support for them.

Madam Speaker, On March 8, men and women around the world celebrated International Women's Day. Women have certainly made enormous strides but as we celebrate the recent successes of women in leadership here in the United States and abroad, we must not forget the many women and girls who are struggling to assert their human rights.

The reality is that women and girls continue to suffer from discrimination and violence and face enormous obstacles in their ability to succeed in any arena. The reality is that women are still not equal to men.

Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours and produce half of the world's food, yet earn only 1 percent of the world's income, and own less than 1 percent of the world's property.

Harmful traditional practices in many nations, such as dowry murder, honor killings and female genital mutilation continue without signs of abatement. An estimated five thousand women are murdered by family members each year and 2 million girls and women a year are at risk of female genital mutilation.

Trafficking has become a worldwide crisis which involves between 1 and 2 million women and children each year.

While many young women are taking advantage of increased opportunities and graduating from higher education in record numbers, there are many girls around the world whose choices are severely restricted because of their gender. Girls in various countries face severe violence, forced early marriage, and dangerous childbirth.

Early marriage almost always ends formal educational opportunities for girls and it is estimated that in the next decade, 100 million girls will be married before the age of 18. In Africa, more than half of girls do not complete primary school education. Due to early childbirth and poor maternal healthcare, there are

approximately 100,000 new cases of obstetric fistula among young women every year.

Women around the world look to the United States for leadership and assistance in advancing women's rights in their communities. We should be doing more to help them. In recognition of this need, I plan to reintroduce the International Women's Freedom Act, which is modeled after the successful International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). IRFA established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which over the past 7 years, has drawn attention to the importance of protecting religious freedom around the world. The Commission's annual report and recommendations has had an impact on the protection of human rights around the world, with many of the Commission's recommendations being taken up by the President, the Congress, and the State Department.

The International Women's Freedom Act will, like IRFA, establish an office in the State Department and a U.S. Commission, which will focus on International Women's Rights. The Commission will draft an annual report on violations of women's human rights abroad and the legislation will force the U.S. to consider these violations when determining foreign policy.

There are many women who we salute on International Women's Day for breaking barriers. But let us also acknowledge the women who face hurdles which seem insurmountable. Those women who live in desperate poverty, who don't have basic health care, and who fear violence from their own family members are the women we need to think about today.

As a superpower, as a country of compassionate concerned citizens, as human beings; let's commit ourselves to doing something about the state of the world's most vulnerable women as we celebrate International Women's Day.

Madam Speaker, today, I, along with Representative Petri (R-WI), reintroduce legislation to subject operators of push polls or phone banks to the same disclosure requirements as other types of political communication. It will not ban push polls or phone banking--it will simply create a level playing field for all types of political communication. Under this bill, any person conducting these types of calls would be required to disclose to each recipient of a call the identity of the organization paying for the call. In addition, the bill would require that campaigns and other organizations that conduct advocacy phone calls report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the number of households they have contacted and the script they used in making the calls. The bill would not interfere with legitimate polling, conducted either by candidates or independent organizations, as it would only apply to phone banks in which more than 1,500 households are contacted within the 25 days preceding a federal election.

Madam Chairman, I regret that I was unable to vote on H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, because of previously scheduled family matters. Had I been present, I would have enthusiastically cast my vote in support of this very important bill. In addition, I would have voted against each of the three anti-worker amendments and the Republican motion to recommit.

As a strong supporter of the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, I have been an original cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act in each session of Congress that it has been introduced.

I believe it is critical that workers be able to make their own decision--freely and fairly--about whether or not to form a union. Although we have had several years of economic growth and high corporate profits, middle-class families in America continue to feel the squeeze of stagnating incomes coupled with rising health care, education, and housing costs. By passing the H.R. 800 today, we can take an important step towards easing the middle class squeeze by giving workers a free choice to join together to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

Some have said that this bill would abolish the secret ballot election. It would not. It simply gives employees a choice. Employees can still petition for an election, but if a majority of workers sign cards saying they want a union now, they get a union, and the employer must respect that choice.

This is about fixing the current system for forming unions and bargaining, which is badly broken. But above all, it is about respect and fairness for middle-class America, ensuring that workers have a choice--and a voice--at work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend my friend, former Representative Michael Bilirakis, for his dedication and service to the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues during his tenure in Congress. Because we represented large Hellenic communities, together we cofounded the Hellenic Caucus in 1996. The caucus now includes more than 120 bipartisan Members of Congress.

Together, Representative Bilirakis and I sought justice for Cyprus and fought for the protection of the Hellenic Islands. The caucus has served to bring a renewed congressional focus on diplomatic, military, and human rights issues in a critical part of the world.

Representative Bilirakis represented Clearwater, Tarpon Springs, and Newport Richie in Florida, where he has contributed to the preservation of the Hellenic community. He is a member and supporter of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA, which works on an international level to promote Hellenism, education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence.

Representative Bilirakis was a valued Member of Congress, and it was a privilege working with him these past several years. I will miss his friendship, guidance and support. I am thrilled that his son, Gus Bilirakis, was elected to Congress and has taken his father's place as the new Republican cochair of the caucus in the 110th Congress. I am looking forward to working with Representative Gus Bilirakis in continuing the important work of the Hellenic Caucus.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him so much for his leadership on this bill and so many other important issues to our State and country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for National Security FIRST, the underlying bill, and in strong support for the open rule that is before us.

Democrats have pledged a return to democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives with an open rule process, and I am very happy to support that pledge with a debate on my bill, H.R. 556.

As Congressman Dreier said last night in the Rules Committee, he said that this doubles the amount of times the Republicans allowed for an open rule on a legislative bill in the last Congress; of course this is legislative bills, not appropriations bills. And even though this bill has strong bipartisan support, we did get several amendments last night.

I appreciate deeply that Chairman Frank supported and called for an open rule, and that in addition he asked for and obtained a preprinting requirement, since the bill is complicated, and Members on both sides of the aisle need to have time to read the amendments and put them in context.

This is the second time this bill has come to the floor. It passed overwhelmingly last year, 421-0, and it is a sound bill that strengthens national security, while encouraging safe foreign investment that helps create American jobs.

I hope and expect that the bipartisan effort that got this bill passed in the last Congress will be here today, and I believe that this open rule reflects the spirit of our bipartisan work.

I would just like to point out that a year has passed since the Dubai World's fiasco, the scandal, and if you had told me that it would take a year to pass this bill, I would not have believed it. And I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this sense of urgency to get this bill done. I am deeply grateful for their support. This is not a political issue; it deserves strong bipartisan support. Nothing is more important than our national security, our homeland security and promoting American jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

I want to thank in particular Chairman Frank for making this bill, the National Security FIRST Act, a priority of this Congress. Democrats and Republicans have supported this bill, demonstrating a desire to enhance national security while avoiding a freeze of beneficial and safe economic investment in our country.

I would like to thank in addition my other Democratic colleagues, Luis Gutierrez and Joe Crowley, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Deborah Pryce, Roy Blunt and Ranking Member Bachus, for their continued support and leadership on this important legislation.

A year ago, Mr. Speaker, Americans woke up to find out that six of the largest ports in our Nation would be controlled by a foreign government, the United Arab Emirates, under the Dubai Ports World. Even worse, this deal had been approved by our government through a secretive process no one had ever heard of. In fact, Congress and senior administration officials learned about this deal by reading about it in the newspapers.

Even before the Dubai Ports World fiasco, the General Accountability Office had criticized the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, or CFIUS, for being overly focused on bureaucratic goals, basically getting deals done with little oversight, without causing a fuss.

Well, the Dubai Ports World deal showed the world the weaknesses in the CFIUS process. The decision was

made, and when they did make that decision, they did not involve any high-level government officials. They did not report to Congress. They used a very out-of-date definition of national security.

Surely anyone in a post-9/11 world would consider our largest ports a national security concern. The 9/11 Commission called it one of the areas that we have the most problems and one that needs the most attention.

As a Representative from New York, which is both target number one for terrorism and the financial capital in our Nation, I felt very strongly that we needed to get something done.

At the time, along with Deborah Pryce, I was the ranking member on the subcommittee which we both served on with jurisdiction over CFIUS, and so we had a front-line responsibility for the issue, and we worked together to put forward this legislation.

Our legislation passed the last Congress 421-0. We hope we get the same result today, and we resubmitted the bill again earlier this year. It is past time to get this done. If you had told the American people that a year after Dubai Ports World and the scandal involved with it we would still be debating CFIUS reform and had not strengthened the system already, I think they would be very surprised.

The need for reform remains even after DPW. The CFIUS process is not catching all the deals that it should.

Last year I personally called to the attention of CFIUS the fact that a company with ties to the Venezuelan Government had purchased a major voting machine manufacturer in our country. CFIUS did initiate a review, and after some time in the process, the company announced that it would withdraw from the U.S. market. Surely we would consider a foreign government owning our voting machines a national security concern.

In the end the process did work, but it worked only after prodding, and it should work better. That is what this bill would accomplish. It puts national security first, addressing the weaknesses in the Dubai Ports World.

The bill requires high-level attention and sign-off on every transaction, and particular attention to transactions involving foreign-government-owned entities.

The bill also creates a formal role for the intelligence community and sets up an independent intelligence assessment. It requires a broad and flexible definition of national security that includes the concerns of 12 different agencies, and it sets up a system for monitoring deals that are withdrawn from the process.

The bill contains very tough provisions to protect national security, including the ability of CFIUS to reopen reviews when companies do not comply with mitigation agreements designed to reduce security risks. This is such a severe remedy that we have hedged it with many procedural protections, and we expect CFIUS to use it only in exceptional cases.

This bill also puts Congress in the picture, making sure that we learn about these deals from CFIUS, not from the newspapers but after the decisions have been made. And by providing greater certainty and predictability in the process, we can encourage foreign investors. I am glad he yielded me this time, because a very important part of CFIUS is we build in predictability and clarity for foreign investment, so that it is not gray, but black and white of where they can go to get a swift approval for safe foreign investment.

This is critical to our economy. Over 5.1 million jobs came into our economy from foreign investment in 2004, and there were 50,000 jobs recently created in New York City after 9/11 from foreign investment. It is very important to economic growth in our country. We want to encourage it, but at the same time, we want to protect our citizens, our number one responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, may I say to Ms. Pelosi, I appreciate your making this a priority and moving it to the floor so quickly. We will be able to work with our colleagues in the Senate to get a strong bill and pass it and sign it into law. I appreciate the support from the business community, the intelligence community, and from the executive office.

I request unanimous consent to place in the Record the statement from the Executive.

What can I say, it is a win-win situation. It is a bipartisan bill. Let's move forward and pass it and enact it into law.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.R. 556--national security foreign investment reform and strengthened

transparency (rep. maloney (d) ny and 58 cosponsors)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 556 and

appreciates the efforts of the House Financial Services

Committee to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment

in the United States (CFIUS). The Administration regards the

Nation's security as its top priority. In addition, the

Administration views investment, including investment from

overseas, as vital to continued economic growth, job

creation, and building an ever-stronger America. Therefore,

the Administration seeks to improve the CFIUS process in a

manner that protects national security and ensures a strong

U.S. economy and an open investment environment that will

serve as an example and thereby support U.S. investment

abroad.

In light of the President's responsibility to ensure the

Nation's security, and in the context of comity between the

executive and legislative branches, we believe the President

should retain substantial flexibility to determine CFIUS's

membership and administrative procedures and to make

adjustments when national security so requires. Accordingly,

the Administration has concerns with some of the provisions

of H.R. 556 and looks forward to working with Congress to

address these concerns, to strengthen CFIUS, and to ensure

the protection of America's homeland and the strength of our

economy.

Establishment and membership of CFIUS

The President should retain the flexibility to determine

and adjust the appropriate Executive Branch membership of

CFIUS and their roles. H.R. 556 should not mandate that CFIUS

have Vice Chairs, nor that CFIUS include members of the

Executive Office of the President. Further, the President

should retain the flexibility to determine roles and

responsibilities of CFIUS and its members. For example, the

Administration opposes any language in Section 6 that would

call for the designation of a lead agency or agencies to

represent other agencies or the Committee in negotiating,

entering into, imposing, modifying, monitoring, or enforcing

mitigation agreements.

Deliberations and decision-making of the committee

The Administration is concerned that the legislation

imposes procedural requirements, such as roll call voting and

motions, which are ill-suited for executive bodies such as

CFIUS and are inconsistent with the vesting of the executive

power in the President. Given the bill's reporting

requirements, such procedures will deter the full and open

interagency discussion that is required to consider CFIUS

cases properly.

The Administration fully shares Congress' goal of ensuring

senior-level accountability for CFIUS decisions. The

Administration supports requiring the Secretary, Deputy

Secretary, or an Under Secretary of the Treasury to sign

CFIUS decisions at the conclusion of a second-stage (45-day)

investigation, as H.R. 556 provides. With respect to cases

for which CFIUS concludes its action at the end of the first-

stage (30-day) investigation, the Administration supports

the House Financial Services Committee's decision to

authorize delegation of this authority. However, in view

of the volume and variety of cases and to ensure that our

most senior officials are able to focus on those cases

that do raise national security concerns, this authority

should be further delegable to other officials appointed

by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The Administration believes that the current 30-day and 45-

day time frames for first-stage and second-stage

investigations provide CFIUS with sufficient time to examine

transactions. The possibility of extensions may discourage

foreign investment by generating uncertainty and delay for

the parties to proposed transactions. The Administration

therefore opposes allowing CFIUS to extend the second stage

(45-day) investigation period. The Administration notes that

the current CFIUS practice of encouraging parties to

transactions to consult with CFIUS prior to filing provides

CFIUS with additional time and flexibility to examine complex

transactions.

The Administration supports the role of the intelligence

community as an independent advisor to CFIUS and appreciates

the bill's inclusion of a provision that ensures that the

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is provided adequate

time to complete the DNI's analysis of any threat to the

national security of a covered transaction. However, language

in H.R. 556 also appears to provide the DNI with the ability

to force a second-stage (45-day) investigation if the DNI has

identified particularly complex intelligence concerns and

CFIUS was not able to satisfactorily mitigate the threat.

Such a policy role would be inconsistent with the independent

advisory role of the DNI envisioned in the legislation and

supported by the Administration.

Notification and reports to Congress

The Administration supports enhanced communication with

Congress on CFIUS

matters to better facilitate Congress' performance of its

functions. CFIUS should be required to notify Congress of

transactions only after all deliberative action is concluded,

as H.R. 556 provides. As discussed above, roll call voting,

particularly if reported outside the Executive Branch, would

deter the full and open interagency discussion that is

required to consider CFIUS cases, and reporting on internal

Executive Branch deliberations, including the positions of

individual CFIUS members, should not be required.

Authorities of CFIUS

The Administration believes current law and regulations

give the President and CFIUS adequate authority to gather all

information needed to conduct CFIUS investigations. The

Administration is concerned that provisions of the bill that

provide CFIUS with additional statutory authority to collect

evidence and require the attendance and testimony of

witnesses and the production of documents would make the

CFIUS process more adversarial and less effective.

The Administration believes its ability to protect national

security would be enhanced by a statutory grant of authority

to impose civil penalties for a breach of a mitigation

agreement. This authority to seek civil penalties, which

could be calibrated to the seriousness of the non-compliance,

would be a useful and effective tool for enforcing those

agreements.

Presidential review and decision

The Administration supports requiring the President to make

the final decision on a case only when CFIUS recommends that

a transaction be blocked or when CFIUS fails to reach a

consensus after a second-stage investigation. Requiring

Presidential action in a broader set of cases would undermine

the President's ability to determine how best to exercise

Executive Branch decision-making authority.

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress

on these important issues.

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

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I will yield to the gentleman on his own time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The CFIUS process already requires comprehensive reporting to Congress on just about every factor conceivable that is relevant to the subject of national security and foreign direct investment. That is the purpose of this bill.

This is not the place to evaluate whether our tax or our regulatory system, our jobs should be changed to encourage foreign investment. That is not the purpose of this bill, and we cannot dress it up like a Christmas tree with all these other items.

I would suggest the gentleman put forward a stand-alone bill or address it in an economic development package, but that is not the purpose of this legislation.

The CFIUS process is put in place and should focus on national security. And while we value foreign investment, we certainly do not want CFIUS to be weighing the value of foreign investment, as per regulation or tax burden or jobs, against any national security risk. The primary purpose is national security. And if there are national security risks that cannot be fixed with an agreement, these transactions should not go forward, period.

I would like to add that the process that we have, the CFIUS process, requires annual reporting to a board setup of a committee on, among other things, all filings with CFIUS, details on the trends in filings, investigations, withdrawals, and Presidential decisions. It requires reporting on mitigation agreements and enforcement, the impact of foreign investment on critical infrastructure, critical technologies, and whether there is a coordinated strategy by one or more countries to acquire critical technologies in the United States.

But to force CFIUS to opine on policy matters outside of its mandate and expertise, CFIUS is not the right body to report on regulation matters or tax matters that the gentleman has put forward in his amendment, and this requirement will also distract CFIUS from focusing on its prime focus, which is protecting our American citizens, our national security first.

These are legitimate issues to raise, and I compliment the gentleman on his thoughtful research and concern, but this is not the area where it should be legislated.

So I join the chairman in strongly urging a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

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

I join Chairman Frank and my colleague from New York in stressing that the CFIUS process is first and foremost for national security, and to give clear guidelines and predictability to foreign businesses to invest in America.

The CFIUS process is supported, if the gentleman is concerned about jobs and the private sector, this is supported almost unanimously by the business sector of our country. They have come out, a whole list of groups, supporting this well-balanced legislation and have called upon it not to be dressed up like a Christmas tree. My other colleague said this did not dress it up like a Christmas tree, yet it is adding unrelated items to the bill. We have bills on commerce, we have bills on education, we have bills in other areas, and that is where this should be discussed.

Foreign investment is very important to our country. It provides 5.1 million American jobs, $1.9 trillion in equity investment; and some 50,000 jobs in New York City are created at this point by foreign investment. But not one of these jobs or dollars is worth risking our national security. That is why we have CFIUS. We do not want to risk our national security for any job, and we have a template, we have a procedure placed in the CFIUS process for direct, safe foreign investment.

I join my colleague in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Speaker and Chairman Frank, on behalf of New York City, which I represent, I am pleased that the House is considering the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.

I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of this legislation in every session since it was first introduced in the 107th Congress.

As you know, the primary purpose of the bill is to increase the flexibility of the Housing and Urban Development Department's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and to make the program available to more local Governments.

The legislation eliminates the requirement that communities applying for BEDI grants must pledge their Community Block Development Grant (CBDG) funding as security for the loan--a rule that puts local Governments between a rock and a hard place.

Since its inception, the larger brownfields program has proven an effective Government response to a serious environmental problem, and it is important that we maximize its use.

Brownfields are abandoned, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where further redevelopment is impeded by environmental contamination. They spot our country from coast to coast, especially in areas with high or formerly high levels of industrial activity, such as older urban areas. New York City, including my district, is full of them.

These locations have potential for economic development but are held back by the environmental problems created by former or current users. The program has successfully used a variety of financial and technical assistance to restore these sites which would otherwise be doomed to further decay.

I am very pleased to support this legislation and thank Representative Gary Miller for introducing it again this year and Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their leadership on this bipartisan issue.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Representatives Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Zoe Lofgren, Lynn Woolsey, and George Miller, I am reintroducing the ``Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act'' which will ensure that hate crimes motivated by gender are accounted for by the FBI and local law enforcement agencies. With accurate data, local communities can identify gender-based hate crimes in their areas and chart their progress toward eliminating them. Moreover, the inclusion of gender will send a strong message that gender-based hate crimes will not be tolerated.

In States with gender-based hate crimes laws, prosecutors typically must present concrete evidence that the criminal act was committed due to gender bias. Obviously, not all crimes against women are gender- based crimes, and prosecutors should have discretion in identifying what constitutes a gender-based hate crime. The process of discussing these differences will improve the understanding of all hate crimes by law enforcement personnel and will improve reporting of these tragic crimes.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act. Through grants to qualifying education organizations, I hope to promote awareness of the Holocaust and the devastating effects of hate crimes. As the generations who survived the Holocaust pass away, we need to make sure that new generations know the horrors of that terrible time. We need to make sure that those who would deny the existence of the Holocaust do not have the ability to rewrite history.

This bill, named after the honored Holocaust survivor who spent his life's work devoted to seeking justice for the six million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, seeks to provide competitive grants for educational organizations working to teach today's youth the lessons of the Holocaust. Through grants from the Department of Education, Holocaust organization programs that are designed to specifically improve the awareness of the Holocaust through such means as classes, seminars, conferences, educational materials, and teacher training, can apply for federal funds to assist in carrying out these initiatives.

Several states now require that the Holocaust be taught in public school curriculums. Though there are resources such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum here in Washington, DC, and similar museums in a few other cities, many teachers are still left with the challenge of teaching a complicated subject without the expertise. Many Holocaust educational organizations have risen to meet this demand, but their resources are limited, hindering their outreach. This bill will provide more resources to these organizations, who have the expertise and knowledge of the tragic events during the Nazi era, to teach more students, teachers and communities the dangers of inter-group conflict and the importance of tolerance in our society.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my Republican colleague, Deborah Pryce from Ohio. This Act establishes permanent authorization for the offices or officers of women's health in five federal agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration.

Women's health research has been historically underfunded in the United States and for years women have been banned from clinical trials. For example, in 1977, the FDA barred all women of child bearing potential from participating in most early phase clinical research, and this continued for 16 years. Unfortunately, sex differences continue to be ignored in medical research today and we have not made up for the dearth of information on women's health.

The offices of women's health in these federal agencies were intended to provide a much needed focus on women's health including research, service delivery, policy, education, and outreach. However, these offices are currently unable to perform their responsibilities due to a lack of support from our federal government. They are severely underfunded and understaffed, and vulnerable to elimination in the future.

The work of these offices is essential to improving the health of women in the United States. Creating a permanent authorization would ensure that these offices retain their allocated funding, are sufficiently staffed, and can accomplish the important work for which they were established.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the September 11th Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act with Representatives Peter King, Rangel, Nadler, Serrano, Israel, Engel, Berman, Schakowsky, and Hare.

We are introducing this legislation because the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, left many surviving spouses and children of legal employment-based visa holders and undocumented workers in jeopardy of being deported, because their immigration status was linked to a family member who was employed at the World Trade Center.

The USA PATRIOT Act initially gave some immigrants amnesty until September 10, 2002. Others, who were not protected by the amnesty provided by the PATRIOT Act, because they were undocumented, also face deportation. The administration has acted with care by not moving forward with deportation procedures for many of them, but their status nonetheless remains in limbo. This legislation would provide permanent relief for the non-citizen dependents of deceased victim of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as determined by the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund. These individuals should not be forced to leave the country because of the actions of the terrorists.

Finally, I would like to thank Moshe and Debra Steinberg for their assistance in preparing this legislation for introduction and for all of the work they have done on behalf of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and urge its swift passage into law.

Madam Speaker, for almost 4 years the administration has been saying, just give us more time, just give us more money, our plan will bring peace. And now they are saying, we need more troops, 48,000 of them. But we have already had four troop increases since we went into Iraq and none of them have brought stability.

Tragically, this war has cost more than 3,100 American lives, 143 from my home State of New York, and thousands of Iraqi lives, as well as more than 20,000 injured American soldiers who will carry their wounds for the rest of their lives.

The bipartisan Hamilton-Baker Commission called for a different approach. They said: ``The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.'' As Mr. Hamilton said: ``The current approach is not working. And the ability of the U.S. to influence events is diminishing.''

The commission called for greater use of diplomacy. And the commission's report stated clearly that we must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops in Iraq. They warned that doing so would continue to stretch our troops too thin, hampering our abilities to simultaneously face other threats in the world.

It would severely affect America's army readiness, and it would not give the Iraqi Government the incentive needed to help bring security. If this assessment is so clearly in opposition to a long-term deployment in Iraq, why is the administration doing the exact opposite?

They are calling for a bigger commitment of troops, for more expenditure of lives and treasure with no end in sight. They speak of victory, but what is victory? Was it finding weapons of mass destruction? There were none. Was it a nuclear weapons program? There was not one. Was Iraq an imminent threat to our security? We were told it was, but in fact it was not.

They claimed that they would exhaust all options before taking military action. But they did not even wait for the weapons inspectors' final report. Was our goal to impose democracy on the entire Middle East? The war has inflamed and destabilized the region. Whatever their justification, they have embarked on a policy that is dragging America into the mire of another country's civil war.

In this civil war we don't know who's shooting. We just know that all sides are shooting at us. We also now know that there was no al Qaeda connection in Iraq before we invaded. The Pentagon's Inspector General has reported that Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's Under Secretary, cooked intelligence reports to make a case to go to war based on al Qaeda. It is tragically ironic that now by invading we have actually made Iraq fertile territory for al Qaeda recruitment.

Madam Speaker, on top of their rush to war and their insufficient planning, their mismanagement is legendary. They initially estimated that the war would cost 50 to $60 billion. But by the end of this year, Congress will have spent about half a trillion dollars, ten times the original estimate.

Last week, we had a hearing on $12 billion that was airlifted into the war zone and now $8.8 billion is unaccounted for, completely missing. Madam Speaker, how much mismanagement and misdirection can this country tolerate?

In November, Americans voted for a new direction for the war, a new direction for Congress. I rise in support of this new direction and against this escalation in Iraq.