Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting in my office watching this debate, and I am absolutely astounded that the general criticism of the gentleman from Arizona appears to be that his amendments appear to be of really no consequence, why are you nitpicking, going after different earmarks. And yet the gentleman has on 11 occasions, I believe, asked to be able to substitute what no one could disagree with, that is, that there would be serious substantive amendments that would go to consequential issues that this House should be given an opportunity to vote upon.

And yet because of the actions of the Rules Committee and the majority party, time and time again this gentleman has not been allowed to do that. And so the American people are being prohibited an opportunity to have their general membership in this House be able to make decisions.

I first came to this House in 1979. One of the things that was crystal clear at that point in time is when you had appropriation bills, every single Member, no matter whether they were a Member of the majority or minority side, had an opportunity to present amendments. Why? Because the power of the purse is the strongest weapon we have in the House of Representatives to be able to exercise the will of the American people, and yet time and time again we are being prohibited from doing that.

And yet the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to give us an opportunity to exercise our constitutional prerogative, to represent our constituents here, and we are being denied that time and time again.

Shame on this House.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183--the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill:

American River Watershed (Common Features), CA

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction

Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources

Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821

Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers

Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $6,700,000

The project will reduce the possibility of loss of life and flood damage by improving the levee system protecting the Sacramento Metropolitan area from flooding along the Sacramento and American Rivers.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the American River Watershed.

American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modifications), CA

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction

Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources

Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821

Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers

Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $66,700,000

This funding will provide for the design and construction of a new spillway at Folsom Dam that will reduce the frequency of flooding in this major urban area.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the American River Watershed.

American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Raise & Bridge), CA

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction

Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources

Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821

Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers

Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $600,000

The Folsom Dam Raise project consists of the selected 3.5' raise of Folsom Dam and reservoir dikes, reconfiguring the Folsom Dam penstocks, ecosystem restoration projects, and the construction of a bridge below Folsom Dam.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the American River Watershed.

South Sacramento County Streams, CA

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction

Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources

Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821

Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers

Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $4,750,000

This public safety project will increase the level of flood protection for the highly urbanized area of South Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento, protecting more than 100,000 residents. The project will increase the level of flood protection from the Morrison Creek stream group, from 50 years to over 200 years.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the Sacramento River.

McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Department of Energy--Nuclear Energy

Requesting Agency: University of California at Davis

Requesting Agency Address: One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616

Amount: $500,000

This request is to provide funding to replace the nation's current sole domestic source of Iodine-125 (I125) production located at the UC Davis McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center (MNRC). In April 2004, the system experienced its fourth and final failure causing production to cease entirely and the system remains inoperable today.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds as the McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center represents the only domestic source of Iodine-125, which is essential in detection and treatment of various types of cancer.

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for us to make a political pinata out of the CIA. How long ago was it that 9/11 occurred? And what did the commission on 9/11 tell us? It said we did not have adequate intelligence. We had lost an entire generation of intelligence operatives as a result of prior action by this Congress.

We can talk about the Church Committee report. We can talk about what happened during the Carter administration. We can talk about what happened in the Clinton administration. We thought we didn't need human intelligence; we could do it all with electronic.

The way to attract people, bright young people, committed patriots, to this country's intelligence is not to go after the CIA, is not, after the fact, for what appears to be political reasons, to threaten criminal investigations of those who are doing nothing more than trying to save this country from attack by others who would try and kill innocent Americans.

This outrage must stop. Do not make the CIA a political pinata, for whatever purpose.

Mr. Speaker, we voted on cap- and-trade, or cap-and-tax, here in this House; and a lot of people are wondering what the American people think about it, what does the rest of the country think about it, and what does the world think about it. Well, the votes are in from the elitists. We've just heard from Great Britain's Prince Charles who tells us unless the rest of the world follows us, we only have 96 months until basically the end of this planet. He says, We ought to stop this idea of consumerism, and we've got to stop the little people from being able to advance themselves. Oh, only the elites. Then there is Vice President Gore; and he, appearing across the pond, said, The passage of cap-and-trade is the best step towards global governance that we've ever seen.

So you may wonder what the people in Detroit think. You may wonder what the people out of work in my district think. But we know what the elites think, Thank God for cap-and-trade so we can keep the little people where they belong. They don't deserve any advancement in the economy. But let the princes of the world continue lecturing the rest of us.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 635 expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives for the service of M. Pope Barrow, Jr. In 1970, as a student at Georgetown Law School, I had the opportunity to take a class from a colleague of Mr. Barrow's who was then working in the Legislative Counsel's Office. It was to teach those of us who were law students what the legislative process was really all about, how you made an idea a law. I recall at the time marveling at the command of the rules and the use of the English language that was presented by that Office, and how they were an integral part of the workings of the House of Representatives.

Later when I came to the House of Representatives the first time in 1979, I made it a practice for my office to regularly consult with the Legislative Counsel's Office to ensure that we, in fact, were doing what ought to be done in order to make legislation a reality on this floor. And although a member of the minority party for all 10 years of my first service in this House, I never despaired of the possibility that I might actually pass legislation. So we wanted to make sure that it was done in the right way, and the work of the Legislative Counsel's Office was always extraordinary. Their ability to continue to work tremendous hours is something to behold.

I would also say that they always acted in a nonpartisan way, so that those of us on the minority side, and then during my return here to the House, my first 2 years on the majority side, which I might say I did enjoy that short period of time, and now once again on the minority, I never noticed a change in the attitude of anybody in the Legislative Counsel's Office with respect to the professional job they did to help those of us who are elected by our constituents to ensure that we get the people's work done in this House.

So, therefore, I am pleased to rise to honor a longstanding member of this Institution's support staff, or Legislative Counsel, Pope Barrow. The House Office of the Legislative Counsel is, as I mentioned, a significant resource and an absolute contributor to the effective execution of a Member's legislative efforts, contributing nonpartisan service to bring important policy objectives to fruition.

I can recall some of the most disappointing moments on the floor of the House when Members have turned to me as we were discussing legislation and I have pointed out what certain words are and they say, don't worry about it; the courts will decide. That's an abrogation of our responsibility under the Constitution. And as one who has had the opportunity to actually see the product of legislation effectively impact the law, that is, as a trial attorney, you know that a word, a phrase, a misplaced comma, an incorrect grammatical presentation can make all the difference in the world in terms of a decision, a real- life decision with litigants before the court. We also know that it impacts the lives of many individuals as they are the beneficiaries of government services or government programs, so it is important for us to attempt to get it right, and Barrow has been one of those people who has dedicated his life to ensure that we do that.

In his various capacities with the Office of Legislative Counsel, he has continued his family's legacy of service to the United States Congress. That legacy, which I understand includes three former Members of the House of Representatives and one Member of the U.S. Senate, is further enriched by the alternate and complementary role that Pope Barrow has served as legislative counsel. He has dutifully served the House of Representatives, guided by the principle that his service might necessarily be equally diligent, regardless of the petitioning partisan, aiming

to minimize the enormous cost to society of having law out there that nobody understands. Those are words to live by in this House.

For his many years of service to this body and his commitment to drafting a body of legislation that is intelligible and coherent, I extend my sincere thanks to Pope Barrow, and I would urge a unanimous vote in support of this resolution.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) such time as he may consume.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we've talked about the professionalism, the dedication of Mr. Barrow. I'd just like to relate a particular incident that came to my attention. It was the day after the House office buildings were shut down because of the anthrax attack. At that time, the Committee on Resources was still in business, bringing bills to the floor for consideration.

So how did they do this?

Well, the only way the committee was able to bring its legislation forward was through the efforts of Pope Barrow, who was working from a dark corner in a conference room in the GAO building, using two BlackBerrys, an aged laptop and the phone. He was able to produce the necessary legislative materials, and the House was able to continue its work but only because of his ingenuity and resourcefulness. It is that kind of dedication, when he could have used any excuse not to be able to perform his job at that time, that has marked his tenure as the legislative counsel, and for that, we thank him profusely.

Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers on my side, so if the gentleman has no more on his side, I will be happy to yield back the balance of my time while urging support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of the Interior-Environment Appropriation.

The following earmark was requested by my office and is listed for funding in this bill:

City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: HR 2996

Account: EPA/STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

Requesting Agency: City of Galt

Agency Address: 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, CA 95632

Amount: $500,000

Description: The City of Galt is being forced to upgrade their existing wastewater treatment facility as a result of increased Federal water quality mandates. The new wastewater treatment facility will put Galt in to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES is the Federal system for the issuance of permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and many of the stringent NPDES permit requirements are based on National Toxics Rule (NTR). The NTR is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that established numeric water quality criteria for priority inorganic pollutants for fourteen States and jurisdictions, including California,

into compliance with Section 303 (c)(2)(b) of the Clean Water Act.

Federal mandates dictate an increased number of contaminants for which the City must treat wastewater. The existing WWTP was not designed to meet most of the new standards, and therefore must be upgraded. The City is subject to mandatory Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fines until such time as the project is completed. This project will enable the City of Galt to come into compliance with these Federal mandates.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds as it responds to EPA mandates to improve wastewater treatment, to provide mitigation against a wider array of water contaminants, in a community acutely impacted by the capital demands of such undertaking.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, some may wonder why someone from California would be here supporting an amendment that appears to be directed towards assisting the other side of the country. It is because of the success of the program to this point. That is, this is not only for the City of New York, but it is for that entire region, and I believe it has shown how it can be replicated in other parts of the country. Also, the greatest concern I have of an attack by terrorists who wish to do us ill would be a nuclear attack of some sort in one of our major metropolitan areas.

The interdiction capabilities of this program could prevent a bomb from entering New York or from leaving the city to head to other parts of the region or Nation. And its lessons, I think, can help other cities around the country where similar initiatives could be implemented. And importantly, and this was used as a point of criticism I believe by the chairman, this amendment would provide $10 million for the procurement of radiation portal monitors, not just in the New York area, but from around the country. It seems to me that because of the success of this program, because of its opportunity for duplication and replication in other parts of the country, this is a worthy amendment.

I believe that these initiatives are designed to save lives. They are, in fact, not just regional but national in scope and deserve national support.

Radiation detection cannot be taken lightly. We must ensure that the federal commitment to a dedicated funding stream is there. So I would urge support of this amendment in restoring funding to the Securing Our Cities project, a critical national initiative and one of a kind.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, article III, section 1 of the Constitution, in describing lifetime tenure of Federal judges, uses these words: ``The judges shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' That is the starting point of our inquiry here in this impeachment.

When you look at article II, section 4, talking about impeachment, it says, ``The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.''

Some people mistakenly believe that you need a criminal conviction as a condition precedent to us acting. That is not true and has never been true. In this particular case we do have a criminal conviction. But the Articles of Impeachment go beyond that to some of the underlying facts, specifically with respect to the sexual assault performed by this judge, Judge Kent.

The question before us is whether or not he is fit for office. The answer seems to be obvious. One who would use their office in this way to commit sexual assault is unfit for any office, but particularly that of a Federal judge. Why do I say that? Because they are given lifetime tenure, and in this circumstance he was the sole judicial officer in this courthouse.

Interestingly, now he says to us we should have some sympathy for him and extend him some mercy because he had no peers to speak with, anybody he could talk with about the serious problems in his life.

The very fact that he was the only judicial officer in that courthouse gave him enormous power, which he repeated to his victims on more than one occasion, saying he was the law, he was the judge. In other words, he had what I refer to as a reign of judicial terror or tyranny over these individuals, utilizing his power as a Federal judge to misuse that power in such a way to put these women in a situation where they thought they had nowhere to turn. Just based on that, he ought to be removed from office.

I should say to our colleagues who are watching in their offices right now, a simple review of the report presented by this committee will show sufficient evidence to justify every single article. We will vote on every single article in this House, as we have always done, and it is important for us to do that so that when we go to the Senate, they have the opportunity to review each single article of impeachment.

This is extremely important, not just for Judge Kent, not just for his employees, who have suffered unnecessarily, but for the entire judicial system.

For us to tarry a single day is to do injustice. This judge is now receiving, as has been said, his salary as a sitting judge while he sits incarcerated in a Federal institution of confinement. What arrogance. And if we do not act, we are letting the word go out that we, the only branch of government that is enabled by the Constitution to act in these circumstances, do not take our constitutional obligation seriously.

We cannot resist acting here and we cannot resist asking the Senate to act as expeditiously as possible. This Federal judge has demeaned his office, has demeaned this country, has demeaned his oath of office and the Constitution itself, and we need now to act. We have sufficient evidence presented on this record for all Members to vote in favor of each and every article of impeachment.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of the Homeland Security Appropriation.

The following earmark was requested by my office and is listed for funding in this bill:

City of Elk Grove--Emergency Operations Center

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: 2010 Homeland Security Appropriation

Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Requesting Agency: City of Elk Grove

Agency Address: 8401 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758

Amount: $750,000

Description: The Emergency Operations Center will provide the necessary tools to receive, assess, and respond to a critical incident. The communications system must provide for a redundant path to ensure that both situational awareness information and strategic orders can pass into and out of the facility without interruption

The proposed EOC will include an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). The ITS will be an important component of the EOC as it will provide a mechanism for controlling local traffic patterns to ensure transportation safety and mobility during an emergency. The system can be used to relieve traffic congestion and through the use of advanced video communications technologies, provide the Elk Grove EOC with a bird's eye view of critical intersections and roadways leading in and out of the City. Wireless video technology will also be deployed at locations determined to be ``sensitive'' for the purposes of Homeland Security.

The Emergency Operations Center has a clear federal nexus. As a result of such national events as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, there has been a renewed demand for local entities around the country to focus on local preparedness and accountability during emergency situations. Elk Grove is home to 140,000 residents and a likely destination for evacuees from the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay areas. In addition, the Sacramento region is subject to potential flooding due to an intricate and aged levee system. Elk Grove has multiple freight and passenger rail lines, one of the largest above-ground propane storage facilities, an airport, and two heavily traveled freeways, Interstate 5 and State Route 99. It is essential that the City of Elk Grove has an Emergency Operations Center to coordinate emergency response efforts in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack.

Having the ability to work regionally and have interoperability between different agencies is critical in the event of an emergency. With the use of advanced communications technology, Elk Grove will be able to work in concert with the County and City of Sacramento, State of California Office of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to share information and respond rapidly to any event.

Mr. Chairman, we have looked at what's happened in Detroit and other parts of this country where we've had high unemployment rates, and we have been directed to offer a solution in a short period of time. The gentleman from the Central Valley has a situation that is every bit as dire; in fact, it is worse in terms of the unemployment rates in the communities that he services.

We are destroying those communities at the present time and the lifeblood of agriculture in those communities that have stood for well over a hundred years is being irreparably harmed. And the gentleman's amendment--although it may not be the best solution, as he suggested-- is the only thing that he has been given an opportunity to present in this body. And he has waited every year that he has been here to try and solve this problem, and yet there has been a failure for us to solve this problem.

And I don't know how we can stand here and say to the gentleman, just wait. Just wait--as he has percentages of unemployment that would shake the rest of this country. When he has people whose livelihoods and whose families' livelihoods are being destroyed on a daily basis, he has heard nothing but silence, silence in this House and from this administration

I would hope that we could support his amendment. It may not be the perfect amendment, I agree. But it's the only thing he has been given an opportunity to bring to this floor, and maybe it will be given an awareness of this House and this administration that you can't throw away a part of the Central Valley of California and say, These are disposable people; these are disposable families; these are disposable farms.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R.

2487--the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill:

County of Alpine & County of Calaveras--Law Enforcement Radio and Data Communications

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 2487

Account: COPS Tech

Requesting Agency: County of Calaveras

Agency Address: 891 Mountain Ranch Road, San Andreas, CA 95249

Amount: $1,250,000

Description: This project creates an interoperable and tactical communications backbone between the Counties of Alpine and Calaveras. Full build out will also connect Counties as far away as San Francisco across the Sierras to the State of Nevada for secondary phone, data and radio interoperability and connectivity. The project fixes local radio operability and interoperability in the two counties in which the Federal Government is the majority land owner.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the imperative for interoperability in the provision of emergency services and administration of public safety in two counties in which the Federal Government is the majority land owner.

Folsom Emergency Operations Center

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 2487

Account: OJP-Byrne

Requesting Agency: City of Folsom

Agency Address: 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630

Amount: $250,000

Description: This project will expand the crucial capabilities of the Folsom EOC to function for both the City of Folsom and as the Alternative County Site. Best practices highlight the importance of having redundant emergency management capacity to ensure a balanced strategy for handling emergencies.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds because it provides a critical capability to both the City of Folsom and California's State Capitol, ensuring emergency operations and first response measures are coordinated with the greatest ability.

Madam Speaker, among the most important issues facing us today are the twin issues of the economy and energy. And unfortunately, in this body and across the other Chamber, we often discuss those two issues separately, as if they had no connection with one another; and yet they have a very, very important link with one another.

When the economy is down, it has an impact on the energy, and when energy prices go up or when energy prices go down, it has an immediate impact on the economy. The strange thing is that as we look at an energy policy that's going to be presented to us by way of a bill from the majority shortly, there appears to be a lack of appreciation for changes in energy policy and their impact on our economy. There seems to be some sort of question as to whether or not we ought to exercise our responsibilities to utilize those energy sources that are most abundant in these United States.

Coal appears to be one of those things that we're going to wrap up, close up, put on the shelf, not allow ourselves to use it. Rather than a real effort for clean coal energy, there appears to be an effort to try and demonize coal and not allow it to be utilized. That makes about as much sense as Saudi Arabia making an announcement tomorrow that they're going to close off all of their production of petroleum. Why do I say it makes about as much sense? Because we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Similarly, with tar sands, shale oil, those sorts of things that we have in abundance in North America, we appear to be saying we ought not to take a look at those.

Similarly, we have abundant sources of petroleum offshore: offshore my State of California, offshore some of our other States in this Union. And yet we have a policy which basically says we ought not to utilize American technology, which has been utilized around the world, to safely extract petroleum.

If you look at my State in California, you go to Santa Barbara, you will see historically there have been leaks from the bottom of the ocean there because of the pressure, because of the petroleum that lies under the ocean floor. We can actually take some of that pressure off by drilling and producing there.

Lastly, I would say someone would have to be a hermit somewhere, stuck in a cave, not to understand that we have a terrible economic problem in California, a terrible problem with our budget, terrible deficits. And one of the ways that we could achieve some sort of stability with our budget in California, our State budget, would be to allow offshore drilling and take those royalties that would come to the State as a result of having that offshore drilling, bringing those moneys into the State Treasury.

We would do two things. We would help increase the security of this Nation with respect to energy on the one hand because this would be U.S. energy production; and secondly, we would have royalties going to the State of California in the billions of dollars, helping take off some of the pressure that we have currently as to which services we're going to cut. Classroom size is going up in the State of California. There are the suggestions that a lot of services will be cut, some severely, and yet we continue to turn a blind eye to the possibility of environmentally safe extraction of petroleum products offshore.

As one who basically was born just a stone's throw from the ocean, who lived the first half of my life--actually, more than that--the first 42 years as a resident of Long Beach, California, as someone who enjoys the beauty of my home State and the beauty of the coastline, I also understand that American technology, American ingenuity, American creativity that's applied elsewhere in the world can be applied here in the United States to produce energy.

Why will we have an energy policy brought forward on this floor that ignores some of the most abundant sources of energy for this Nation makes no sense to me. Surely I support the alternative sources of energy, wind and solar; the traditional ones of hydroelectric, thermal power. But we cannot forget the abundance of natural resources we have in this country.

Mr. Speaker, ``You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.'' Those are things that are said when arresting officers make an arrest in the United States. But now we understand that under the Obama administration, we now have something known as the concept of global justice in which we are now giving Miranda warnings to those that we have found on the battlefield whose only connection to the United States is that they wish to kill Americans.

Isn't that nonsensical? What are we going to do now? Are we going to train our enlisted men and women in the Armed Forces that when they're on the battlefield, instead of shooting, they should pull out their card with the Miranda warnings to make sure that if the person they're encountering is captured, they have to give them those rights? How about preserving the crime scene? This is nonsense.

I thank my ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct for the reasons articulated by the gentleman from California.

But let me talk about another subject that is covered in this bill and one that is of extreme importance. It goes to the question of how we handle those who are at Guantanamo at the present time.

This issue has erupted around this country because people are beginning to understand the ramifications of closing Guantanamo and bringing people here to the United States whose only connection to the United States is that they were caught on the battlefield with the intention of killing Americans. Now, why is it important whether or not we keep Guantanamo open or whether we bring these people to the United States?

We got a little bit of an insight into why it's important by the report by a colleague of ours, Mr. Rogers from Michigan, who, when he was in Afghanistan recently and visited our base there, went to the prison there where we are holding people who we actually captured on the battlefield. He observed the fact that now we have FBI agents Mirandizing, that is, giving Miranda rights statements to those we have found on the battlefield.

In other words, Madam Speaker, what we have done is we have transposed the universe in which these people are being detained from one of a combat atmosphere to one of a criminal proceeding in the United States.

Now, why is that important? It's important because this is happening for the first time in the history of the United States. We did not do this, obviously, during the Revolutionary War. We did not do it during any war we fought, not the Civil War, not World War I, not World War II. If we had followed this same thinking in World War II, our courts would have been overwhelmed. People forget we have had 2 million POWs that we held during World War II, over 400,000 of them in the United States. Never was it thought that they had all of the rights under the Constitution.

But this question has basically been treated by Federal courts in the past with this perspective: the connection you have to the United States is what determines your coverage under the Constitution. That's why someone coming over the border illegally doesn't have the right to all of the constitutional protections because the only connection to the United States is trying to get in illegally.

Here we have people sitting at Guantanamo whose only connection to the United States is that we have reason to believe that they wanted to kill Americans anywhere in the world. So now what we're saying is if we take them from Guantanamo and put them in the United States, they have a connection to the United States. They were brought here involuntarily. And the legal arguments that for years have presented a barrier from their obtaining all constitutional rights, that barrier is pulled down.

So while this bill has language in it, this conference report, as it's being worked on, has language in it with respect to Guantanamo, I don't think we have focused in on what this means. Yes, there's a concern about the threat they may pose to Americans, and that arises out of the fact that some say, well, they could escape from the prisons and then we're told, oh, we've got these prisons they can't escape from.

But it is more than that. It is that they may be released at the direction of Federal judges, and the only reason they would be released is that they somehow now have access to all of our constitutional rights.

So the American people need to understand that we may have a President who says, no, we don't want to release them. We have an Attorney General who testified, no, we're going to make sure they're not released based on everything we do.

The Attorney General can testify before our committee, as he did 2 weeks ago, that they're going to take all steps to make sure people aren't released in the United States who are suspected terrorists. They cannot promise that. Once they bring them to the United States and the judgment of the Federal courts is they are now under the protection of all constitutional rights, we are no longer talking about them as illegal enemy combatants, who never before have gotten the protection of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention, in part, says you will have these protections so long as you act under the laws that have been recognized for warfare. One of them is wear a uniform. One of them is don't attack innocent civilians as a particular strategy and tactic.

So what we're doing is we're turning it all upside down and we're saying somehow we are protecting our values by doing something we have never done

before. We are jeopardizing the national security interests of the United States. We are putting Americans, innocent Americans, at risk by doing this.

I will be happy to yield.

I appreciate that.

And here's what people have to understand. There is a difference between holding someone to try them for war crimes or any other crime, and then you do have them within a criminal justice system. In the past it's been a military tribunal. Remember what happened when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. We established a military tribunal here in the District of Columbia that actually tried those individuals, and they were executed. That was a military tribunal. For what? Murdering a President of the United States in time of war. Now what we are saying is those rights were not sufficient. If that were to happen today, suddenly we would say we have to do it now within the context of the full panoply of constitutional rights, and we are directing that by voluntarily saying we're going to close down Guantanamo.

If anybody has looked at the prisons and jail systems across the United States and compared it with Guantanamo, it is of the highest standard of any of our incarceration units there is. Guantanamo happens to be a place that is not sovereign American territory. That's the important distinction.

I thank the gentleman for his time.