Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago I stood on this floor and didn't quote rock and roll but quoted a country singer called Johnny Paycheck and his famous song ``Take This Job and Shove It.'' It was the lament of the working man imposed upon by many outside forces but predominantly the government's telling him what to do and taking his money. And here I am 25 years later, now a member of the Budget Committee, once again in the minority, and I hear the same thing from my good friends across the aisle: tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, and pretend you're not doing it.

Let's be very clear about this budget. You can talk about everything else, but I would like to talk about one thing: taxes. Taxes. I didn't think you would be able to do it.

Mr. Chairman, last year we had the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, which means the largest tax increase in the history of the world, by the way. But they did themselves one better. This is even larger. This tax increase is $683 billion. Now, that's not the total tax. That's the tax increase we're talking about. I really thought last year we would never see that topped, but we almost double it this year.

Now, what does this mean? When we were debating in the committee, I said,

and I must apologize for this to my constituents in California, that if adopted and implemented, the Democratic budget would impose on my California constituents an increase, average tax hike, of $3,000. Well, I am corrected. I am corrected. It will actually give an increase, average tax hike, to Californians of $3,331.

Luckily, my constituents don't live in Connecticut, because there they would get an average tax hike of $4,311. This is the gift that keeps on giving, or I guess we should say keeps on taking.

So if you want to know if you can stand on the floor of the House and set a record, if you want to be the Olympic champion on steroids of taxes, vote for this budget. Vote for this budget.

Now, I understand if you're an adherent of Big Government, you need big taxes. So if you do believe that we don't have a large enough government, then vote for this budget, because it will increase the size of the Federal Government relative to local government, relative to State government, relative to the average taxpayer, relative to the rest of the world. It will break all records. The largest single tax increase in the history of the world, $683 billion. Remember that number: $683 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form I am.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the gentleman has raised this point of order rather than allowing a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate-passed FISA legislation.

Let me speak specifically to the point of order and why, in fact, this motion to recommit is in order.

The underlying purpose of the germaneness rule is that it ``prevents the presentation to the House of propositions that might not reasonably be anticipated and for which it might not be properly prepared.'' I cite to 8 Cannon, section 2993. That is clearly not the case here in that this body has dealt extensively with the subject matter of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And, in fact, we were informed by the majority that we were to be prepared to vote on that this week.

Mr. Speaker, despite the difference in titles of H.R. 2857 and H.R. 3773 relating to the motion, that is not controlling under Deschler-Brown, chapter 28, section 24. As a matter of

fact, it refers to the fundamental purpose of the motion. The fundamental purpose of this motion does relate to H.R. 2857, as required by sections 935 and 936 of the House manual.

The report on H.R. 2857 from the gentleman's committee states clearly in its statement of purpose of the bill found on page 57 of that report that the legislation seeks to emphasize, and I quote, ``the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness; and improves program integrity.'' That is from the report on the bill from the gentleman's committee.

In other words, the critical issue of homeland security provides the required nexus between the subject matters of H.R. 2857 and the motions as required under sections 935 and 936 of the House manual.

Further, I would argue, it is clear that the subject matter requirements of section 935 and 936 of the House manual are satisfied. A specific section of the legislation brought to the floor by the gentleman's committee relating to ``Emergency and Disaster Preparedness'' provides on page 71 of the gentleman's committee report that ``H.R. 2857 supports the role of service in addressing emergency and disaster preparedness.'' These are the words from the gentleman's committee's report. ``In addition, this program may engage Federal, State, and local stakeholders to collaborate to achieve a more effective response to issue public safety, public health, emergencies and disasters.''

May I continue my response?

I was attempting to specify the germaneness, quoting specifically from the language of the committee report justifying support for this bill. I did not bring up public safety, public health, emergencies and disasters and effective response thereto. That is the premise contained in the bill and the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be able to respond to public safety, emergencies, and disasters, it does not limit it in the language of the gentleman's committee report to natural disasters. It therefore includes man-made disasters, of which we are very, very cognizant. And 9/11 is perhaps the greatest example. So the bill itself justifies its existence in that the individuals, under the ambit of the bill, to support responses for public safety, public health, emergencies, and disasters are affected in very specific ways by our capacity, our capacity, to determine beforehand what the nature of the disasters and emergencies would be and therefore allow us to array our individuals under this bill in concert, as is stated by the gentleman's report, to collaborate with Federal, State, and local stakeholders. In that way my amendment is very much germane to the main purpose of the bill and the specifics of the bill.

Finally, the language of H.R. 2857 emphasizes the ability to deploy the National Civilian Community Corps to emergencies and disasters. It does not limit it to natural emergencies or disasters, therefore including terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says, with some humor in his voice, that we ought not to be considering the question of wiretapping. That is not the question we bring before us today. The question we bring before of us today and why this is germane is whether or not we have the ability to listen in on those who would kill us and therefore prepare for these disasters before they occur and, more than that, prevent them.

I am speaking to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that intelligence gathered to prevent disaster has nothing to do with the ability of those we are asking under this bill to respond to disaster reminds one of the comment in literature years ago when one was confronted with the incongruity of the law and that person responded by saying: The law, sir, is an ass.

I would not suggest we are at that point here, but I would suggest this: for anyone to say that, to blind ourselves to the information that would allow us to prevent disasters and prepare for the disasters, to say that that is irrelevant to the debate today shows how irrelevant the debate today is to the needs of the people of the State of California, the Nation, and, frankly, our allies. It is germane, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the Speaker's ruling, with all due respect.

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

Would the gentleman yield under his reservation?

I would just like to make something very clear for the record. In a statement that is contained in the Washington Post today, written by the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, he points out that it is not only necessary to extend the Protect America Act but it is absolutely essential, in his opinion and in the opinion of the others in the intelligence community leadership, that we have an immunity for those telecommunications companies that responded affirmatively to the request of our intelligence agency to assist after 9/11. He states unequivocally that it's his opinion and the opinion of the others of the leadership of the intelligence community that we put ourselves at risk if we do not do that and that failure to do that has already visited upon us some problems with respect to cooperation around the world.

So let's just please let the record be correct that it is not just the extension of the Protect America Act, which was the sole subject of the vote that we had 2 days ago, or 3 days ago, but it is also the question of immunity, or the Good Samaritan law, to apply to those companies who have responded affirmatively to the request to save our Nation. And that needs to be stressed. That's the crux of the question, as the gentleman from Maryland made very clear on the floor yesterday, or 2 days ago, in the debate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Maryland knows that I have great respect for his abilities here on the floor and consider him an expert in parliamentary procedure. However, when the opinion of the DNI, Admiral McConnell, comes to bear, I must respectfully tell the gentleman from Maryland that I believe he has the experience upon which we should rely in this Chamber. He is not a partisan. He has served both Democrat and Republican administrations. He was the head of the NSA during at least 4 if not 6 years of the Clinton administrations, and he is, I believe, a straight shooter. He is the one who came to us and said because of the decision by the FISA Court, reinterpreting in a sense the state of the law, that at least 60 percent of the valuable, legitimate terrorist targets internationally are closed off to us if we do not have the provisions of the Protect America Act and, he said, an immunity given to those companies which have assisted us in the past.

Now, the gentleman can smile about it, I understand, but the fact of the matter in he is the top intelligence expert in the United States. He along with the unanimous opinion of the top intelligence officers of the United States have told us that is a fact.

Now, the gentleman, as I said, is a well-respected parliamentarian, a well-respected leader in this House, and I would certainly respect his opinion on those issues. But what we're talking about here is intelligence. And so I think we have laid bare the differences. You on your side believe with your knowledge and experience that the law we had prior to our passage of the Protect America Act is sufficient to protect the Nation. That is directly contradicted by Admiral McConnell, directly contradicted by someone who served both Democrat and Republicans and has had their respect.

I do not recall the gentleman from Maryland ever calling into question the opinion or the direction or the leadership of Admiral McConnell when he served in the Clinton administration, and I don't understand that while his judgment was appropriate there, his judgment is to not be respected here. So the fact of the matter in the dispute is whether we believe the top intelligence officers of the United States that we need this law, including the immunity, or I call it the Good Samaritan law, for those telecommunications companies that have responded positively to our request to help find out what the enemy is doing, or as the gentleman from Maryland suggests, superior knowledge and judgment with respect to this, and, therefore, we ought to put aside what Admiral McConnell has told us in the past and continues to tell us even till today.

To underscore that point, as the gentleman from Maryland knows, a letter was sent by 21 Members on your side of the aisle to the Speaker asking that the Senate bill be presented and stating that they would support it in whole if it were presented on the floor. Now, again, I'm not a math major, but 21 on your side and virtually everyone on our side perhaps, with the exception of three, certainly adds up to a majority in this House.

So, if the question is would the House be given the time to work its will, the statement of support on your side of the aisle in written form from your membership sufficient to create a majority in this House shows that we had the will if given the opportunity to support a bill coming out of the Senate which responded affirmatively to the presentation made by Admiral McConnell.

I again understand the gentleman from Maryland disagrees with the admiral, disagrees with the assessment, but the fact of the matter is a majority in this House disagrees with the gentleman from Maryland. They specifically said in their letter that all of the specific aspects of the bill about which they were concerned were taken care of by the Rockefeller-Bond bill and would support it if it were presented here on the floor and said a key part of that was the inclusion of the immunity for those companies who had assisted this Nation. And, remember, it's not a blanket immunity. It is an immunity only if they acted in good faith at the request of the United States Government from 9/11 up until the present time. That is not a blanket immunity, and that's what we are confronted with here, a failure to allow us just to vote it on the floor. We could debate it then and the gentleman from Maryland and his minority of Members, a strong minority but a minority of Members who believe the admiral is wrong would have their opportunity to debate and attempt to persuade the majority of Members who have already indicated that they support the admiral's position and believe that we should follow on that support with actual legislation.

So that's the point I think that ought not to be lost here. It's not that we're not in charge or you're in charge. It's a question of whether the leadership will allow the majority of the House of Representatives to work its will on probably the most important issue facing the American people at the present time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I have prepared a whole series of remarks to respond to the comments made on the floor as to the substance of the concept citation. Unfortunately, because we're only able to debate the rule, we don't have time to do that. Let me just try to make a couple of points here very quickly.

First of all, the question is, is this the most important thing we should be doing today? Is there a time limit on the action of the House of Representatives that requires us to act on this today? And the answer is no. This doesn't expire today. It doesn't expire tomorrow. It doesn't expire the next day. We are able to do this anytime until the end of this Congress.

But what does expire? The Protect America Act. It expires at midnight tomorrow. We should be doing the Nation's business with respect to that, rather than this. If, in fact, we are serious about the war on terror; if, in fact, we are serious about gathering that information which is necessary to protect us against those who would harm us and those we represent, we would be acting on the FISA Act reconstitution here today. We'd be acting on the Senate bill. That's the time limit.

There is no reason for scheduling this today. We have had 8 months to schedule this. But yet we find that this is what we're going to be dealing with before we go home. And we're going to say it is unimportant as to whether or not we would continue with the Protect America Act. Unimportant except in the opinion of the number one intelligence officer in the United States, Admiral McConnell, who served under Democrat and Republican administrations, who told us if we allow this to go down, that is, the Protect America Act, we will close our eyes for 60 percent of the legitimate terrorist targets around the world prospectively.

What are we doing here?

Mr. Speaker, in 1968, Congress officially moved the Federal holiday acknowledging our first President's birthday to the third Monday in February, so now it is commonly known as President's Day. I rise today to give more specificity to such an ambiguously titled designation and to try to pay appropriate tribute to that first President in our experiment of constitutional self-government.

George Washington was born February 22, 1732, almost 276 years ago. He died on December 14, 1799, at the age of 67, a mere 2 years after choosing not to run for a third term, thereby establishing a precedent now enshrined in our 22nd amendment.

He has been described as America's premier military and civilian leader during the Revolutionary era, and yet, as one historian has recently written, young people in particular do not know much about Washington.

By our time, in the early 21st century, George Washington seems so far removed from us as to be virtually incomprehensible. He seems to come from another place, another time, from another world.

He did not write a literary, political, military, or philosophical treatise that transformed our understanding of philosophy, physics, human affairs, or government. Nonetheless, throughout our history he has been compared to Cincinnatus, that late fifth century Roman figure who spurned his plow for a defense of Rome when so called by the Roman Senate. Why is this so?

The basic facts of Washington's life have been retold on innumerable occasions. Nevertheless, if only because this man is on our quarter, on the dollar bill, and on Mount Rushmore, they bear repeating.

Born in 1732 in Virginia along the Potomac River, he was a fourth- generation American. He was not the first-born son and his family was not in the top tier of the Virginia aristocracy. Probably standing at 6-2 to 6-3, and slightly above 200 pounds, he was a physically imposing man. He once threw a stone over the Natural Bridge in the Shenandoah Valley, which was 215 high, was generally regarded as the finest horseman in Virginia, the rider who led the pack of most fox hunts, and was a graceful dancer.

Washington was an adventurer and a surveyor in the Shenandoah Valley as well as an explorer of the Ohio country, then comprised of western Pennsylvania and parts of present-day Ohio. He became a Virginia militia officer, and was at Fort Necessity in 1754 for that ignominious surrender to the French. He left the Army 4 years later, married the wealthiest widow in Virginia, Martha Dandridge Custis, in 1759, and inherited the now magnificent Mount Vernon when his brother Lawrence died.

At this estate, he was an ambitious farmer, planter, and businessman, at first specializing in tobacco. During the course of time that he had Mount Vernon under his direction, he systemically quadrupled its size, eventually overseeing five farms and introducing new crop rotation schemes that are even today admired for their direction.

While he never seemed to have very much to say, he wasn't indifferent to the larger world. We are told he subscribed to ten papers at Mount Vernon, and in the 1760s, despite owning 50,000 acres, found himself 12,000 British pounds in debt. From this and other things, he came to believe the extant system of commercial trading with his British counterparts was designed for his and his neighbors' perpetual indebtedness. He became a nonimportation believer and a supporter of colonial efforts at self-sufficiency.

As we know, Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. He spoke out against the Stamp Act of 1765, the Declaratory Act of 1766, and the Coercive or Intolerable Acts of 1774. During the First Continental Congress, Washington was a member of the Virginia delegation. After the clashes at Lexington and Concord, he attended the Second Continental Congress, wearing his old military uniform, and was nominated by John Adams on June 15, 1775, to command the volunteer forces that had amassed in Massachusetts because of the British occupation of Boston. On July 3, 1775, he took command of that Army, then called the Army of the United Colonies.

A couple of years ago, I was privileged to spend a semester at Harvard, and I remember walking through the streets just sort of looking at the people playing soccer and baseball, and I saw a monument that appeared to be not very spectacular. I went over to see what it was all about, and it was a monument to George Washington taking over that Army. Inscribed on the walls thereon are the words that he spoke that day to those troops. And while I do not have them from memory, I recall that he indicated to the men then assembled that they were to be united in this effort to fight for freedom. And as I stood there and looked at those words and tried to drink them in, you could almost sense the power of such a magnificent figure of George Washington talking to those assembled scattered troops from all over. He was, in a very simple sense, a commander who commanded the attention and the loyalty of his men. Of course, the Army of the United Colonies was the next year changed to the Continental Army, sounding quite a bit more professional than it was in reality.

While never known for groundbreaking military tactics or strategic innovations, Washington nevertheless displayed admirable courage; exemplified by his exploits in 1755 at Pittsburgh when, with British General Braddock injured, Washington had at least two horses shot out from under him, had bullets graze his uniform, only to be unhurt and commended for his bravery in leading the troops and organizing their retreat.

His subsequent leadership during the Revolutionary War was indispensable to the colonies' eventual success, finally achieved 8 long years later in the Treaty of Paris. He never accepted a salary as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. More importantly, he was a visionary commander, finding such competent and important figures as the 33-year-old Rhode Island Quaker Nathanael Greene and the 25-year- old Boston bookseller Henry Knox.

While he fought a mere total of nine battles of which he only won three, Washington knew he had to keep the colonial forces intact in order to defeat the British and woo the French, a dual task he accomplished by not focusing on captured grounds, a war of posts as they say, but on maneuvering and survival. While highly critical of the untrained and undisciplined colonial forces, as Commander in Chief he wrote annual letters to the State governments and kept Congress knowledgeable of his situation in order to maintain some semblance of trust and harmony.

His surprise military and moral victories at Trenton and Princeton, as well as his steadfastness at Valley Forge the following winter, have gone down in American lore as true measures of commitment, of greatness, of endurance, and leadership. The suffering at Valley Forge was unimaginable. There, he wrote, ``To see Men without Cloathes to cover their nakedness, without Blankets to lay on, without Shoes, by which their Marches might be traced by the blood from their feet, and almost as often without Provisions as with; Marching through frost and Snow, and at Christmas taking up their Winter Quarters within a day's March of the enemy, without a House or a Hutt to cover them till they could be built and submitting to it without a murmur, is a mark of patience and obedience which in my opinion can scarcely be parallel'd.''

He helped to surround Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781, effectively ending the military aspect of the war. And after the Treaty of Paris was finalized, he resigned as Commander in Chief of the American forces and surrendered his sword to Congress on December 23, 1783.

Now, his decision to leave for retirement at Mount Vernon and attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was not one without risk. As James Madison said, Washington would be making a decision to ``forsake the honorable retreat to which he had retired and risk the reputation he had so deservedly acquired.'' He did attend the convention and was elected President. As he later said: ``Whensoever I shall be convinced the good of my country requires my reputation to be

put at risk, regard for my own fame will not come in competition with an object of so much magnitude.''

At the Constitutional Convention, his presence was a calming and vital force. Probably ``the most graphic illustration of the singular status that Washington enjoyed was the decision of the Constitutional Convention to deposit the minutes of its secret deliberations with him for safekeeping.'' And as James Monroe later told Thomas Jefferson: ``Be assured, his influence carried this government.''

His universal admiration helped overcome the suspicions of the possibility of monarchy arising out of the new Constitution and its king-resembling, popularly elected executive office, a suspicion of which he was very much apprehensive. Republics were thought to be possible only in small, homogeneous enclaves, not on sprawling, vast continents. A fear of monarchy and the concomitant heavy-handed government rule, either from necessity or the nature of power-hungry man, was widespread.

As our Nation's first President, he instinctively knew he would be setting precedents for future executives to follow as they walked this tightrope between centralization and dispersion of power, between deference and democracy.

He was twice elected President unanimously by the Electoral College. As one of the premier historians of the founding era has written, ``The whole thing,'' that is the creation of the Constitution, ``was merely words on paper until implemented by Washington's government. Washington knew how malleable the situation was; he understood that every move he and his administration made would be a precedent that would shape the actuality of the Constitution, and he proceeded with great care. It was Washington, for example, who created the structure of the executive offices,'' we now call the Cabinet, ``and it was he who defined the Senate's role in foreign policy and something of the operational meaning of the words `advise and consent.' ''

As Washington himself said: ``We are a young nation and have a character to establish. It behooves us, therefore, to set out right, for first impression will be lasting.''

As President, he believed in the rule of law, however unpopular such a belief might be at any given time. When the Whiskey Rebellion, a popular uprising in four counties in western Pennsylvania protesting an excise tax on whiskey, occurred, when it threatened to stop the normal functioning of civil government, Washington firmly stood against the subverting of civil authorities. More importantly, in relation to constitutional government, Washington was a firm adherent to its principles. He believed, in contrast to others of the age who sympathized with frequent revolutions ex nihilo, that decisions of a republican people ``only be unmade in the same way they had been made.''

This preference for ballots over bullets and appeal to republican, constitutional, ballot-driven self-government would be made again by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and be equally as powerful. Self-government in the new Republic required adherence to the law, that is our Constitution, and the laws under it which articulate the boundaries and dimensions of our communal lives together as citizens.

As he said in his farewell address: ``This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and support. The very idea of the power and right of people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.''

So this combination of constitutionalism and consent, he believed, is the bedrock of self-government.

In 1775 Washington said: ``Make the best of mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish.'' And as President, he ably navigated the waters between Anglo and French factions and their sympathizers, both overseas and within his own Cabinet.

It was Thomas Jefferson's opinion that Jay's Treaty of 1795, an important agreement which kept the United States out of the Franco- British imperial intrigues, that it passed because of the ``one man who outweighs them all in influence over the people,'' Washington.

Perhaps the words of the author Joseph Ellis sum up this magnificent life most eloquently when he says: ``Throughout the first half of the 1790s, the closest approximation to a self-evident truth in American politics was George Washington. A legend in his own time, Americans had been describing Washington as `the Father of the Country' since 1776, which is to say, before there ever was a country. By the time he assumed the Presidency in 1789, no other candidate was even thinkable, the mythology surrounding Washington's reputation had grown like ivy over a statue, effectively covering the man with an aura of omnipotence, rendering the distinction between his human qualities and his heroic achievements impossible to delineate.''

In fact: ``Some of the most incredible stories also happened to be true. During General Edward Braddock's ill-fated expedition against the French outside Pittsburgh in 1755, a young Washington had joined with Daniel Boone to rally the survivors, despite having two horses shot out from under him and multiple bullet holes piercing his coat and creasing his pants. At Yorktown in 1781, he had insisted on standing atop a parapet for a full 15 minutes during an artillery attack, bullets and shrapnel flying all about him, defying aides who tried to pull him down before he had properly surveyed the field of action. When Washington spoke of destiny, people listened.''

Finally: ``His commanding presence had been the central feature in every major event of the revolutionary era: the linchpin of the Continental Army throughout 8 long years of desperate fighting from 1775 to 1783; the presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention in 1787; the first and only Chief Executive of the fledgling Federal Government since 1789. He was the palpable reality that clothed the revolutionary rhapsodies in flesh and blood, America's one and only indispensable character.''

Joseph Ellis's description speaks for itself in relation to the man that we honor this month. Still, it is not only for these facts alone that George Washington has earned our highest esteem. He is also frequently commended in discussions of republican political thought and classical virtue. One historian has recently written that ``Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men.''

Washington's life was immersed in this classical milieu of republicanism, virtue, honor, and deference. Washington loved the classical play ``Cato'' by Joseph Addison in which virtue, not purely self-aggrandizement, is exemplified and praised. As a young man, he copied for himself a text called ``Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,'' a list of over 100 short instructions on how to conduct oneself in the company of others, in society, and in the cultivation of one's manners and morals. While some may call these pithy exhortations trite or simplistic today, are we really going to ridicule Washington for being concerned with his ethical philosophy, a philosophy in which private and public morality are a seamless whole?

Washington did not have a classical education. He did not attend college. He was always insecure about these facts and tried to make ``up for this lack by intensive self-cultivation in liberal enlightened values.'' This self-cultivation was successful and it helped him lead others throughout his military and civilian endeavors. As one scholar has commented, adulation for Washington's classical virtues cannot simply be dismissed. He writes: ``General Greene, a Rhode Islander who became one of his most trusted deputies, told a friend that Washington's very presence spread `the spirit of conquest throughout the whole army.' Greene hoped that `we shall be taught to copy his example and to prefer the love of liberty in this time of public danger to all the soft pleasures of domestic life and support ourselves with manly fortitude amidst all the dangers and hardships that attend a state of war.' In

part, these rapturous assessments simply expressed the excitability of men putting their lives on the line for what seemed a hopeless cause. They needed to see greatness, and so they saw it. But the accounts are too specific and too consistent for that to be the only reason. Soon after Washington's appointment as Commander in Chief, that dour critic of men, John Adams, told his wife that the Virginian was destined to become `one of the most important characters in the world.' Again and again, Washington struck the men of his day as an exemplar of ancient republican ideals, almost as though he had stepped from the pedestal of the ages.''

Another historian has written: ``Washington's writings are crowded with ringing affirmations of revolutionary ideals'' and ``Washington's friends and enemies alike testified that he deeply believed what he wrote. Like Cromwell's captain, Washington knew what he fought for, and loved what he knew. He was of one mind about that.''

Today, Washington speaks to us across the ages about virtue, education, and religious freedom. In his first inaugural address, Washington stated: ``There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity.'' And ``that we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.''

About the importance of seeing education and virtue as one philosophical whole, Washington wrote to his nephew George Steptoe Washington these words: ``Should you enter upon the course of studies here marked out, you must consider it as the finishing of your education, and, therefore, as the time is limited, that every hour misspent is lost forever, and that future years cannot compensate for lost days at this period of your life. This reflection must show the necessity of an unremitting application to your studies. To point out the importance of circumspection in your conduct, it may be proper to observe that a good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.''

In relation to religion, he was also convinced, as he declared in his farewell address, religion was an indispensable foundation for both morality and republican government.

As President, he attended the services of a variety of denominations. He addressed Jews as equal fellow citizens in his famous and articulate letter to the Newport Hebrew congregation in 1790. In it he said, ``the citizens of the United States of America, have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of a enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. . . . May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.''

This commitment to freedom of conscience had been previously heard in 1775 when Washington had written, ``while we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.''

Finally, his Farewell Address, with its encouragement to avoid excessive partisanship, maintain American neutrality, achieve diplomatic independence, in short, to implement ``unity at home and independence abroad'' still strikes the chords of wisdom and prudence in our ears.

I salute the man in whose tribute a monument without words stands in our capital today. Its height, stature and distinctiveness speak for themselves. He was a unique man who seemed to be immune to both bullets and smallpox. It may or may not be true that Washington ``had neither copiousness of ideas nor fluency of words.''

Nevertheless, even a sometime harsh critic like Thomas Jefferson had to admit that ``the moderation and virtue of a single character . . . probably prevented this revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish.''

Now, Washington did say that ``with our fate will the destiny of unborn millions be involved,'' and as we look to his birth, life, service, and death, we know that he was right, and that should give us pause.

Without Washington's character, his perseverance and achievements, all the important historiographical debates over the founding would be merely parlor games of philosophical intrigue. Unlike events in decades and centuries past, Washington believed in, literally started, and served in the system of government which would be called self- government. Feudalism; monarchy; primogeniture; artificial hereditary distinctions, sectarian bloodbaths. These were not to be the demarcations of this new Nation. As Washington, in his cautiously optimistic manner said in his 1783 Circular to the States, ``the foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition, but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.'' These rights were understood and defined on this newly freed and expanding continent, a land of which Washington said, ``is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. . . . It is well worth a fair and full experiment.''

For ``Washington, America was a practical experiment in the preservation of liberty and the success of republican government.'' As he said in his First Inaugural Address on April 30, 1789, ``The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted in the hands of the American people.''

In contrast to monarchies, Washington established the republican principle of rotation in office. ``Presidents, no matter how indispensable, were inherently disposable.''

George Washington was ``an extraordinary man who made it possible for ordinary men to rule.'' In the words of the great Frederick Douglass, the former slave and abolitionist, ``I would not, even in words,'' he said, ``do violence to the great events, and thrilling associations, that gloriously cluster around the birth of our national independence.'' ``No people ever entered upon pathways of nations, with higher and grander ideas of justice, liberty and humanity than ourselves.''

Madam Speaker, we have George Washington to thank for such beneficence. He made it happen. Now let us live up to that challenge to articulate and legislate the contours of liberty and justice for our collective humanity in these United States.

Happy birthday, President Washington. We honor you and appreciate your service to this, to our great country.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, February 15, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Let's think about what we are talking about. The majority is asking us to extend for 21 days a bill that they don't support, a bill that they overwhelmingly voted against, a bill that they said harmed the American people, a bill that they said somehow doesn't protect civil liberties. Now, why do they want to extend it for 21 days if it is terrible? Perhaps there is some mischief in the air. Perhaps what they really want to do is to continue to kick this can down the road so that finally in the war of attrition we will give up and say, you know, those people who helped us, those companies referred to by Mr. Hoekstra that responded to a request by the United States Government to help us in our time of need, that is immediately after 9/11, we are not going to help them.

Remember what the greatest criticism of the 9/11 Commission was of government in all of its aspects, it was that we fail to connect the dots. What does that mean? We failed to put together intelligence information or to gather that intelligence information and put it together in a way that made sense that would give us a forewarning of what was about to take place. And they said it is not good enough to rely on the criminal justice system to gather evidence after the fact to prosecute somebody. No, in a war on terror what you want to do is to prevent the terrorist act in the first place.

So what we have here is a difference on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle in which we believe a Good Samaritan law makes sense, a Good Samaritan law much like what we do to allow people to respond to an accident without having to fear that they will be sued for medical malpractice. And in some circumstances, does that mean that maybe one out of 1,000 times there might be medical malpractice for which you can't be sued? Yes. But we do it because the overall good of the country is enhanced by giving incentives to people to help their neighbor.

That is what happened here. We have either an incentive or a disincentive for companies and individuals to respond to their country and act in good faith. That is what is at stake here, whether or not we are going to be safer or whether or not we are going to play these political games to support a bill that you all voted against.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of our committee, for clarifying what this is all about. In his statement he just said that the President is trying to force us to accept this bill from the Senate so that there can be immunity granted to those communications companies that responded in the affirmative when asked to help this country. So that is what it is. That's what this vote is all about.

You can talk about a 21-day extension. You can talk about wanting to work a little harder. You can talk about this and that, but essentially that is what this vote is. It is the question of whether or not we believe that we ought to grant to those who responded in the affirmative when requested by their country to assist in the aftermath of 9/11, to allow us to collect that kind of intelligence which would prohibit or prevent another 9/11, whether or not we are going to slap them in the face and say because you answered yes, you have to, in the words of the chairman of the Constitutional Law Subcommittee when this was brought up in the committee, let them do it themselves, they have millions of dollars of high-priced attorneys. Now, that's the response we are to tell the American people if asked in the future: Will you help in gathering information so that we can prevent another attack? And, oh, by the way, make sure that you have millions of dollars worth of high-priced attorneys to respond to whatever lawsuit might be out there.

Now, the question here is whether or not the majority is going to allow the majority to do its will. Why do I say that? Twenty-one Members of the Democratic side have sent a letter on January 28 to the Speaker saying they support the Rockefeller-Bond bill. Twenty-one Members. Now, I was never great in math, but I do know that 21 Members on that side of the aisle, added to our Members on this side of the aisle, are a majority in the House of Representatives.

So the question is: Will you allow the House to work its will? Will you allow the bill from the Senate, which 21 Members on your side of the aisle have signed a letter in support of, come to the floor so we can find out whether or not the majority of this House will support it?

We were denied that in the Rules Committee. We were denied that on two specific votes in the Rules Committee, and now the only way we can allow that vote to come up is if we defeat this bill and force those on the majority side and the leadership to allow the majority to work its will.

Interestingly enough, the gentlelady from Texas who just spoke talked about how we ought to support this bill. I remember in August when she stood in that very well and tore up a piece of paper and said this is what we're doing; we're shredding the Constitution by voting for the bill that was then on the floor. And now we're

supposed to understand that the other side wants us to have 3 weeks more of a bill which shredded the Constitution.

Let's understand what we're really doing here. Let's vote this down so we can vote on the bill that the majority of the people in this House and the majority of Americans support.

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the words of my friend from Maryland just a moment ago, and I want to assure him that I do have self-respect and I have respect for this institution. I would not have returned here after a 16-year absence if I had any other feeling. But I returned to this place because of the aftermath of 9/11, feeling that those of us who thought we might make a contribution to the defense of this Nation in whatever way we could ought to do that. And based on that, I will have to tell you, this issue is probably one of the two or three most important issues that I have dealt with since I returned to this institution.

We cannot and we will not continue to protect the American people if we are absent that kind of quality intelligence that is necessary for us to be able to figure out what the threat is and to figure out what the threat is before that threat is acted upon by the enemy. That is why this is so important. And integral to our being successful in doing that is being able to ask for assistance by those who have in their power to give assistance.

That is why it is so important, the matter the gentleman from Maryland referred to, the question of whether or not we would grant immunity to those companies who said yes when the American Government came to them in the aftermath of 9/11 and said we need your help. Without your help, it is impossible for us to get that kind of information that we will be able to utilize to be able to prevent another 9/11.

Now, the gentleman from Maryland said we haven't had enough time. I would suggest as one of the 19 members of the Judiciary Committee, I was given the opportunity, as were Members on your side of the aisle, to review that material that you say we haven't had for a long enough period of time. Interestingly enough, we have had 1 day short of 3 weeks to look at that material. So what makes anybody think if we are given 3 more weeks, 3 more weeks, that the majority side will say that is enough?

The gentleman from Maryland says he doesn't support the Protect America Act, but we are being asked on the floor to extend it for 3 more weeks. The gentleman from Maryland says just 3 more weeks. The vast majority of Members on your side of the aisle voted against it.

So how do we get to a majority position in this House dealing with that necessity of gaining this information while protecting the civil liberties of our fellow citizens? Maybe it is instructive to look at the letter dated January 28 signed by 21 Members of your side of the aisle asking the Speaker of the House to allow us to vote on, what, the very bill passed by the Senate yesterday. The very bill passed by the Senate yesterday was the subject of the letter by 21 Members of your side of the aisle. If you add those Members to our side of the aisle, that is a majority.

Allow us to vote on that up or down. Allow the majority will of this House to be done.

Well, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. As Yogi Berra once put it, ``This is like deja vu all over again.''

When the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, came to the Congress for help, he was only given a 180-day authority to conduct surveillance which he described at the time as necessary to close our ``critical intelligence gaps.'' Of course, that authority expired on February 1, and the 2-week extension of the Protect America Act expires this Friday. Now, while the Democratic majority's so-called RESTORE Act passed by this body recognized the need to defend our Nation beyond 180 days, it would also have repealed core provisions requested by Admiral McConnell, and it also contained a sunset date approximately 2 years from now. While the other body has just passed this evening a 6-year extension of the new FISA bill, it remains to be seen how this will be reconciled with the RESTORE Act passed by this body.

It is certainly my hope that this body will affirm the bipartisan agreement reached by the Senate this evening. It is in concert with the outline of a bill supported by 21 Members of the majority side in a letter they sent to the Speaker just several weeks ago. In my estimation, there is no issue of greater importance to our Nation at

the present time. The surveillance of foreign terrorists is critical to our ability to protect our homeland and to assure the safety of the American people. The other body has risen to this challenge by passing legislation that may not be perfect but which does respond to the basic concerns laid out by Admiral McConnell.

Yet, according to press accounts I've seen, some have suggested that the expiration of the Protect America Act wouldn't be that consequential because they say it would not interfere with surveillance which has already begun. Well, let me suggest that even if that were the case, it completely ignores the impact on new terrorist communications which may arise. For instance, if we get word on Saturday, February 16, that an al Qaeda member in Kandahar is on the line with someone in Munich on a call that travels through a New York switch, this is a conversation which should be of interest to us. The point is, if the Protect America Act is allowed to expire, the bill in the Senate is not passed, this terrorist communication may not be intercepted.

I would add that we have had plenty of time to view this issue. We have had plenty of discussion on the relevant committees, and now the bipartisan bill that passed the other body is available for us to act upon.

What must the rest of the world, much less the terrorists who seek to kill us, think of the national security policy that we have displayed of fits and starts? This hardly resembles the actions of a super power determined to protect its citizens from such an ominous outcome. The only hope that we can have is that such indecision perhaps will be construed as a plan to confuse the terrorists, double jujitsu, if you will.

On the other hand, those of us who view the rest of the world through the jihadist prism may be picking up a very different message concerning the level of our determination.

This on again, off again policy of terrorist surveillance has to end. We must give Admiral McConnell and those in the intelligence community under his charge the tools necessary to protect the American people, and we must do so on a permanent basis.

Does anyone realistically believe the imposition of arbitrary sunsets every few weeks or every few months somehow places us in the position to return to a pre-9/11 world? Such wish fulfillment is no basis for the formulation of national security policy, for we no longer live in a world where wishful thinking is permissible if we are to fulfill our obligation to those who have sent us here to represent them and protect them. This is the first obligation of government. And after 9/11 or 7-7 in London, Bali, Madrid, Amman Jordan, and Glasgow, we no longer have the option to pretend otherwise.

Our policy as a nation must begin with the recognition of this reality. However inconvenient or discomforting it might be for some of us, we must recognize that meeting the challenge posed by those who seek to kill us is going to be a long-term, not short-term, challenge. It therefore requires a long-term investment in our security.

We cannot just be thinking about 2 weeks, or 21 days, or 6 months, or 2 years out. The gravity of the challenge we face requires a commitment which is commensurate with the serious nature of the threat. The American people demand that this be our serious approach.

Although it is my belief that a permanent reauthorization is therefore consistent with the history of the FISA Act, consistent with the threat that we face, and consistent with what the American people wish, the 6-year extension contained in the bipartisan language which passed the other body this evening is a meaningful compromise. We must send a clear message to terrorists that we understand the nature of our struggle. There must be no doubt in their minds that we will never forget what they have done and that we are committed to the long haul.

I take a back seat to no one on the question of the need for vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch. I spoke about this before I returned to this Congress after a 16-year absence. However, when we are told by Admiral McConnell what he needs and then this body does not listen and attempts to reinvent the wheel with the so-called RESTORE Act, there surely should be some compelling justification for such a rejection of the Director of National Intelligence request.

Let me suggest that it has been more than 6 months since the enactment of the Protect America Act. So what is the factual basis to justify the dramatic changes that were embodied in the majority party's so-called RESTORE Act? After all this time, what is the evidence that Admiral McConnell was wrong? We now have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It is no longer necessary for us to speculate.

So how are the changes to the Protect America Act embodied in the RESTORE Act borne out by experience? We now have the basis for making empirical judgments; and unless there are answers to these basic questions, attempts to rewrite Admiral McConnell's bottom line are nothing more than a leap into the dark, a serious existential leap concerning the safety and security of all Americans.

Or is there something else other than evidence at work here? During our legislative hearings in the Judiciary Committee, there were concerns expressed that in reaching the compromise agreement which became the Protect America Act that somehow the White House may have unduly influenced the process. There were questions raised about whether Admiral McConnell could speak truth to power.

Let me first of all say that the interest of the White House in protecting the national security of our Nation is about as much of a surprise as the discovery that gambling was going on in Joe's Bar in the movie ``Casablanca.'' It would be more of a shock to learn the administration, or any administration for that matter, lacked an interest in a matter of such magnitude relating to its essential obligation to protect the American people.

After 9/11, it should never again happen that everything that could be done wasn't done to ensure that we connect the dots. No, the real issue here was one of credibility, or so some attempted to make it, the credibility of Admiral McConnell concerning, as was stated by one of my colleagues on our committee, to speak truth to power.

One interesting incident subsequent to the adoption of the so-called RESTORE Act provides us with persuasive evidence of Admiral McConnell's independent judgment. Regardless of how one interprets the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran, any attempt to attack Admiral McConnell as a tool of the Bush administration would appear to be lacking in any credibility whatsoever. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Admiral McConnell is a man of honor who calls it as he sees it. This is important because he told us how he sees it; and unlike the bipartisan coalition in the other body, our adoption of the majority party's RESTORE Act proved, I fear, that we did not listen to him with seriousness of purpose.

It was not enough that this man had served in Democrat and Republican administrations and had a distinguished naval career. After all, some would say we are talking about the Bush administration. So let me suggest, this is not about President Bush. As bumper stickers I have seen on the road reflect, by 1/20/09 President Bush will no longer be in office. We will have a new administration and a new President, whomever he or she will be.

But whomever they will be, they will continue to face the same threat by radical jihadists whose primary aim in life is to kill us. That will not change. Regardless of which political party occupies the White House, the one advantage we will need to defend against another horrific attack will be the need to learn of their plans before they are carried out, to gather intelligence; and if we are to be successful in doing so, the surveillance of foreign terrorists will be critical to this endeavor.

Independent sources such as Brian Jenkins of the RAND Corporation have stressed that our intelligence capability is a key element in our effort to protect our homeland. He states that in the terror attacks since 9/11, we have seen combinations of local conspiracies inspired by, assisted by, and guided by al Qaeda's central leadership. It is essential that while protecting the basic rights of American citizens, we find ways to facilitate the collection and exchange of intelligence across national and bureaucratic borders.

The development of comprehensive homeland security strategy cannot be conceived in isolation from the need for surveillance of terrorists overseas. The Director of National Intelligence has told us what he needs; and unfortunately, that is not encompassed in the so-called RESTORE Act, which passed this body, this body, in November. Unless the bipartisan agreement which passed the other body this evening is adopted, we will be without the minimum acceptable threshold of protection negotiated with Admiral McConnell last August.

Although this body did adopt the so-called RESTORE Act in November of last year, that legislation would impose additional burdens on the intelligence community which undermined the essential nature of the compromise reached with Admiral McConnell. Furthermore, the RESTORE Act punted on the critical question of whether retroactive protection could be extended to those communication providers who responded to the call for help from their government in the wake of 9/11.

What does that mean? It means simply this: while we recognize in other situations that a Good Samaritan law makes sense; that is, we want to encourage doctors or health care providers who come upon an accident on the highway to utilize their expertise to help those who might be injured at that location without regard to the possibility of lawsuits thereafter, even though we know that that might, in some cases, make it impossible to sue a doctor for what otherwise would be considered malpractice. We make that judgment because we believe on balance it is for the good of society and in most cases will allow extra protections or extra treatment that otherwise might not be there for someone who has been the victim of such an accident.

Similarly, the Senate bill recognizes how important it is that we have the intelligence necessary to identify the threat that is posed by those who would wish to kill us and destroy us in the name of some distorted version of religious purpose.

And so what we have said, at least what the other body has said, what the President has asked for, what Admiral McConnell has asked for is a type of national Good Samaritan law with respect to the collection of foreign intelligence. In other words, when in an emergency situation, in a terrorist scenario, in the aftermath of 9/11, when the government desperately needs to be able to gather as much information as possible with respect to foreign intelligence, foreign actors who wish to do harm to us, the government reached out to various companies who are able to aid them in that way, and all the bill that has passed the Senate does, and the bill which hopefully will be before us sometime this week, all it does is say that if you responded in good faith to the request of the Federal Government to assist in the collection of information about foreign intelligence relative to the threat that is posed by this terrorist effort around the world, we will hold you harmless. We will have you immune from lawsuits.

Now, when this question was presented to us in the Judiciary Committee, one of my friends on the other side of the aisle, in opposing that, said these people have many high-priced attorneys and they can respond to that themselves. Now, what if we took that as our approach to a Good Samaritan law with respect to accidents on the highway? We would say, well, we don't have to worry because these doctors have a lot of money. They can hire a lot of high-priced attorneys. They can defend themselves in court thereafter. Do we think that would encourage doctors and other medical specialists or health specialists to assist? I think not. At least that has been the decision we have made in State after State after State where we have said on balance, for the good of society, we will create these laws.

No, what we passed on the floor of the House, the so-called RESTORE Act, was the anti-Good Samaritan law. It was Good Samaritan beware: if you dare respond affirmatively to a request by your government and act in good faith to help that government obtain the information against foreign actors with respect to their evil intent to try and destroy us, you may be subjected to lawsuit after lawsuit.

Now is this just a figment of my imagination, the imagination of others, the imagination of those in the Senate who brought forth this bill? No, because we know there are numerous lawsuits that have been filed against those companies that they believe responded affirmatively to the request by the Federal Government to assist them in gathering that information in the wake of 9/11.

The idea that a court order should be required before surveillance can take place against a foreigner overseas is precisely the thing that Admiral McConnell warned against. Well, my friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of the rejoinder that they only require a basket warrant under their approach. That does little or nothing to respond to the admiral's concern, for even if it is a basket, the intelligence community is going to have to identify every piece of fruit in that basket. And as Admiral McConnell has explained time and time and time again, in the real world of intelligence, this is simply unworkable.

Furthermore, in the alternative presented by the majority in their RESTORE Act, which presumably they want to go to conference on and against which they would place the Senate bill, the language found in section 2(a)(2) of that House bill creates even more problems. The language of the majority party's RESTORE Act includes a section entitled: ``Treatment of inadvertent interceptions.'' It deals with this situation: the intelligence community believes in good faith that they are dealing with a foreign-to-foreign communications, but inadvertently they capture communication that deals with a foreign-to- domestic call. And you say how could that happen? Well, in the real world, you can only target one end of the conversation. So when we go into this and we target one end of the conversation and in good faith believe that that is going to be foreign-to-foreign, occasionally you might get foreign-to-domestic. So what happens? The language in the majority party's bill says you cannot use that information for any purpose. You can't disclose it. You can't disseminate it. It cannot be used for any purpose or retained for longer than 7 days unless a court order is obtained, or unless the attorney general determines that the information, the information contained, indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Now, you might say, well, that should take care of all situations, shouldn't it? Well, let's say we have a conversation or communication involving Osama bin Laden and the communication involves someone within the United States, and there is no indication, no indication whatsoever in that communication concerning a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. But the conversation, the contents of the conversation, indicate the exact cave where Osama bin Laden may be. We would find ourselves unable to act.

I know that sounds absurd, but in fact that is a fair reading. In fact, it is the only reading of that section of the bill that the other side of the aisle wishes to have passed in lieu of the bill that was presented by the Senate today. It is simply unacceptable.

Now, to be fair, the majority says, well, wait a second. Your concern is not well placed because there is language found in section 22 of the majority bill which provides that it would not ``prohibit the intelligence community from conducting lawful surveillance necessary to prevent Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist or terrorist organization from attacking the United States.'' So they say, you see, we have taken care of that problem. But they haven't.

The problem with this logic is that the qualification found in that language that the surveillance must be ``lawful'' is obviously affected by what is found elsewhere in the bill, including the language contained in section 2(a)2 that I just discussed. Thus by its own terms, any assertion that we will be able to listen to the conversations of Osama bin Laden must be read in light of the remainder of the bill.

Again, why are we going down this road? Why is the majority so insistent on not allowing us an up or down vote on the Senate bill? Why are they so insistent on the product that we produced on this floor that has these problems that I have just mentioned?

Since the enactment of the Protect America Act, the one that we passed on August 5, the one upon which the bill in the Senate is based, what facts and what evidence have arisen which would warrant second guessing the intelligence community and its assessment of the minimum requirements necessary in order to continue the protection of the American people? And, Mr. Speaker, I would say if this is not about facts, if this is not about evidence, then what is it about?

It should be noted that the bipartisan legislation passed by the other body does not contain this entirely unacceptable language I mentioned from section 2(a)2 of the House bill.

Now, surely one thing not at issue is the effect of the Protect America Act and its progeny, the bill produced in the Senate today. Its effect on the civil liberties of Americans is not at issue. Let me point this out. There is nothing contained in the Protect America Act or in the bill passed by the Senate today which would allow the President to target Americans or U.S. persons outside of the law. The Protect America Act did nothing to change this aspect of the law, which has existed since 1978, nor does the Senate bill.

So, there are two things which must be kept in mind. First, if the intelligence community targets someone inside the United States, the community must first obtain a court order from the FISA court. That does not change.

Secondly, if the intelligence community surveils a communication where both ends of the communication are in the United States, the intelligence community must obtain a FISA court order.

Furthermore, if Osama bin Laden or another terrorist calls a U.S. person within the United States, the end of the conversation conducted by the U.S. person, the person he called to in the United States, that end of the conversation would have to be what we call in the law minimized under the existing procedures of the 1978 act.

Let me again emphasize that the minimization process which is applied in cases where information has been inadvertently obtained from a U.S. person is not only in the original FISA statute, but is something with which we have been familiar on the criminal side for decades as well.

In other words, when a court allows for a wiretap in a criminal case in the United States, a domestic criminal case, again, the wiretap is only on one end. So they put a wiretap on a Mafia boss. That wiretap captures conversations from that particular phone to many, many different others, and if in fact it goes to somebody who is not involved whatever in the criminal enterprise, that conversation, that part of the conversation dealing with that person is minimized. If, because of something that attracts the investigator's attention on that end of the line going towards criminal investigation must go forward, then they have to go to court to get a court order with respect to that individual. That is the same way we handle minimization in these FISA cases.

In an interesting exchange during our Judiciary Committee hearing on FISA, Admiral McConnell was queried as to how many Americans have been wiretapped without a court order? The direct response by Admiral McConnell was ``none.'' He went on to say this: ``There are no wiretaps against Americans without a court order. None. What we are doing is we target a foreign person in a foreign country. If that person calls into the United States, we have to do something with that call, that process is called minimization. It was the law in 1978. It is the way it is handled.''

Any suggestion that the intelligence community could somehow operate outside the law because of anything we did in adopting the Protect America Act this past August or in adopting the bill sent over from the Senate is a regrettable reversion to scaremonger.

I would suggest that the attempt to scare the American people into believing we have jeopardized their civil liberties by exposing them to warrantless surveillance does a disservice to rational political discourse. And I would also suggest that except for those on the ideological fringes who might fear their government more than they fear al Qaeda, it will also prove to be a failed political strategy.

You don't have to like President Bush, you don't have to countenance the war in Iraq, to understand who the real enemy is, those who killed over 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11. Nothing in the Protect America Act, nothing in the bipartisan compromise which just passed the other body, would adversely affect constitutionally protected privacy interests.

In the seminal Fourth Amendment privacy case entitled Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the protection of the Fourth Amendment extended to cases involving electronic surveillance of oral communications without the requirement of a physical intrusion.

Before that, there was a question as to previous decisions by the court and whether or not these protections would go if there was no physical intrusion. In Katz v. United States, the court held that the Fourth Amendment did extend to cases involving electronic surveillance of oral communications, even though there was no physical intrusion. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court expressly stated that national security cases were expressly outside the purview of its holding in that case.

Furthermore, in his concurring opinion, Justice ``Whizzer'' White, I think his picture can be found in Webster's Dictionary besides the word ``moderate,'' made the following observation: Speaking of the court he said, ``We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgement if the President of the United States or his legal officer the Attorney General has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.''

In the debate before us where the issue involves the surveillance of foreigners outside the United States, the civil liberties concerned are minimal, if not nonexistent. What do I mean by that? In a case where terrorists might call a U.S. person, the FISA minimization procedures which have applied since 1978 continue to protect the privacy interests of Americans and legal residents in the United States.

Thus, in arriving at a definition of reasonableness on the Fourth Amendment, it comes down to how serious one deems the threat of another 9/11 to be. In fact, if you consider the threat of another attack on the American people to be serious, it would be a terrible mistake to walk away from what Admiral McConnell has told us he needs, for there is perhaps know greater threat to civil liberties than the prospect of another successful attack on the United States. It was for this very reason that the 9/11 Commission itself made the observation that ``the choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home.''

Simply put, if we suffer a terrorist attack at home, another terrorist attack at home, the response of the American people might very well be to cut back on our protection of civil liberties in order to protect us from such terrorist attack.

The 9/11 Commission has suggested that if we do those things that are necessary in our and are constitutional, we ought not to face that false choice of security versus liberty. It is in this context that we must view the legislation currently before this body. It is not a zero sum game, where increasing our Nation's security necessarily comes at the expense of liberty. This is a false dichotomy.

This is not an abstract philosophical debate. No. It involves the targeting of foreign individuals outside the United States. It was for this reason that the United States Supreme Court in the Keith case, much like the 9/11 Commission, noted that were the government to fail ``to preserve the security of its people, society itself would become so disordered that all rights and liberties would become endangered.''

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to observe the FISA debate taking place in the other body. The senior Senator from my State of California, for whom I have great respect, was arguing for more restrictive language, positing FISA as the exclusive means for the conduct of electronic surveillance.

Let me say that this concept is already embodied in the current FISA statute and there is nothing whatsoever in the Protect America Act or the

bill that has come to us from the Senate which in any way alters or affects that. It is irrelevant to the reason for which Admiral McConnell came to the Congress and asked us to close critical gaps in our foreign intelligence.

First of all, it is not clear there was an attempt by Congress to occupy the field when the issue is foreign intelligence or foreign surveillance of non-U.S. persons in contrast to the definition of electronic surveillance within FISA itself. It was recognized at the time that there were constitutional limits on how far the Congress could go. There was testimony to that effect by former Attorney General Griffin Bell, with whom we are all familiar.

Secondly, the House conference report on the 1978 FISA statute contains an interesting admission concerning the scope of the coverage by the statute. The House conference report recognized that the statute's restrictions might impermissibly impinge or infringe on the President's constitutional powers. The report acknowledges that ``the conferees agree that the establishment of this act of exclusive means by which the President may conduct electronic surveillance does not foreclose a different decision by the Supreme Court.''

The conference report explained that Congress intended in FISA to exert whatever power Congress constitutionally had over the subject matter to restrict foreign intelligence surveillance, and to leave the President solely with whatever inherent constitutional authority he might be able to invoke against Congress' express wishes.

The legislative history in the Senate also reveals that the provisions in FISA were intended to exclude certain intelligence activities conducted by the NSA from the coverage of FISA.

With respect to 50 USC 2511(2)(f), it is clear that the legislation does not deal with international signals intelligence activities as currently engaged in by NSA in electronic surveillance conducted outside the United States. The legislative history also makes clear the definition of electronic surveillance was crafted for this very same reason.

It is particularly noteworthy that the FISA Court of Appeals itself states in ``In re: Sealed Case'' that ``all the other courts to have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.'' The court further stated, ``We take for granted that the President does that have that authority.''

The United States Supreme Court itself in the Keith case held that the warrant requirement would apply to national security investigations involving purely domestic targets with no suspected ties to a foreign power. However, Justice Powell carefully distinguished this holding from foreign intelligence cases in writing that ``the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers.'' It is thus clear that the United States Supreme Court itself has drawn a commonsense distinction between domestic surveillance and foreign surveillance.

The Protect America Act and its progeny, the bipartisan Senate bill passed today, they respect these parameters in that their focus is on non-U.S. persons located overseas where an American that is not the target of the surveillance. If a U.S. person happens to be on the other ends of a conversation with Osama bin Laden, the remedy, as I said before, is minimization, purging the non-targeted American's contribution to the conversation.

Thus, there is no need to bar the use or dissemination of such information as required under the terms of the majority's so-called RESTORE Act. Privacy and civil liberty considerations are simply not implicated to any significant degree in the foreign surveillance context.

In order to reach a compromise with the House leadership last August, Admiral McConnell was forced to punt on the issue of those telecommunications providers who came to the aid of their country in the wake of 9/11. The RESTORE Act subsequently passed by this body fails to deal with this issue at all. The message delivered to these companies is simply that you are on your own.

The idea that these companies should be met with the response that you are on your own is simply incomprehensible. They did what they did not because they thought about it on their own, but because they were responding to requests from their government in the wake of the worst attack on this Nation since Pearl Harbor. If there was a mistake in policy, which I do not believe to have been the case, but if there were such a mistake, the mistake was made by the government, not by those who were asked to help prevent another 9/11.

Let us not forget that although we have not been the victim of another successful attack, from the vantage point of the post-September 11 time frame, there was great anticipation about the prospect of another attack. Those who like to inveigh against the failure to connect the dots cannot in the same breath turn their backs on those who sought to make sure that such a thing did not happen again.

Further, I would say, what kind of signal does this send to those who, during some future conflict, are approached by our government to help prevent another cataclysmic assault on our Nation? Our friends on the other side of the aisle should think long and hard before they feed these telecommunications entities to the litigation sharks. It may be a different war, it may be a different President, but this is the worst possible precedent. If you are going to tell these companies that you are on your own, the next time they may tell us, well then, connect your own dots.

This body failed to address this critical issue, which will surely affect the willingness of Americans to come to the aid of our government when this Nation faces future peril.

However, all Americans can find solace from the fact that the bipartisan legislation which passed the other body this evening does meet this challenge. It does say that we would grant immunity to those companies that responded, in good faith, to the request by their government to assist them in gathering this information and would limit it from the date of 9/11 up to the present time. Very specific, very specific with respect to that. And, interestingly enough, there doesn't seem to be dispute or hasn't been dispute about making that kind of prospective. But should we say that those who have helped us in the past in the aftermath of the worst attack since Pearl Harbor are to be viewed as lacking? That somehow they are to take the fall? If there were mistakes, they were government mistakes, and you ought not to attack third parties who responded in a responsible good-faith way.

Both justice and common sense dictate that future Presidents of both parties may need help, may need to call on the help of the American people should we face another terrible event of the magnitude of 9/11.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: this is not a partisan issue. All Americans of both parties have the same desire to raise their families in a Nation of secure communities free from the fear of another cataclysmic attack. The other body has considered this at some length and acted reasonably. We are up against a deadline at the end of this week. The Senate bill, unlike its House counterpart, does respond to the national security needs of our Nation. It is evidence of the fact that the majority and minority can work together to protect the public.

On August 5, this body demonstrated, with the passage of the Protect America Act, that it likewise can put aside partisan differences and meet this most solemn obligation that we have to those who have elected us. Once again, we are called upon to do so.

So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we not go forward with an effort to have a 21-day extension of the current law and kick the can down the road again; that we actually come forth and debate vigorously and vote on the bipartisan compromise presented to us by the Senate today; that we face squarely the question of whether we are going to enact a Good Samaritan law for those companies and individuals who responded to the call of their country, or whether we are going to take a position that only an anti-Good Samaritan law makes sense in the context of this fight against extreme Islamo-fascism.

Mr. Speaker, although even-numbered years have the tendency to raise

the volume of rhetoric, the protection of the American people should transcend politics as a fundamental obligation of government. The other body has put the public interest above partisanship, and I would hope that we can follow their example.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we have consideration of the Senate bill brought forth on this floor within the next 2 legislative days so that the people of the United States can watch their Representatives in this House work their will on that proposal.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House Resolution 975, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 10 a.m., as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Honorable Tom Lantos.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say I rise in support of this bill. Unfortunately, we are at this occasion where we have to have this short-term extension.

But let me just say a couple of things in response to what the majority leader said. In the first instance he said that if we don't have the Protect America Act, but we have the underlying bill, it will work well enough to deal with the problems in an emergency situation. Unfortunately, that's contradicted by the head of our intelligence services. The reason we are here is because it doesn't work.

Secondly, the majority leader said the RESTORE Act, the so-called RESTORE Act that we passed in November is a bill that we passed that should take care of these problems. It is a bill that does not work, and I will give you just one example of its difficulty.

In section 2(a)(2), treatment of inadvertent interceptions, it grants greater protections to Osama bin Laden than it would to an American citizen heard inadvertently in the United States. That happens to be a fact. We've debated it on this floor. Not a single person on that side of the aisle has been able to contradict that. And even the chairman of the Constitutional Law Subcommittee has come to me and said we are right; a huge mistake was made. And yet that was the bill that was passed here and that we are told and the American people are being told needs to go forward.

Frankly, the bill we passed in August, the Protect America Act, is nothing short of a legislative LASIK surgery. We had the head of the intelligence services of the United States come to us and say we were blinded so that we could not see over 60 percent of the legitimate terrorist targets in the world because of an interpretation of the law impacted by the new technology; that is, the way communications are transmitted. It was at his request that we looked at this. We did that in August. We've opened our eyes. We've been able to look at those targets, those legitimate targets around the world. And if we do not act today we will close our eyes once again.

The fact of the matter is, the strangeness of this institution, of only allowing the Protect America Act for 6 months, then coming and saying, Well, the new bill ought to be limited to 30 days, or 15 days, is really something we ought to examine.

Does anyone suggest that the threat out there is a 6-month threat, a 15-day threat, a 30-day threat? It is an almost permanent threat that we see out there. We need legislation that will give us certainty, that will allow us to keep our eyes open, to gather the intelligence necessary to protect our homeland.

You can argue about the Iraq war all you want. This goes to the essence of protecting us against the terrorists who would bring the war to our shores, who have already brought the war to our shores. This goes to the effectiveness of the techniques that are used in today's new technology.

We were asked by Admiral McConnell to do the job. We did the job in August, with the exception of not giving the protection to those communications companies who actually responded to a patriotic request to help in this fight.

For some reason, my friends on the other side believe in the reverse Good Samaritan act: Don't help us; be worried. But bring your attorneys when asked.

Madam Speaker, this afternoon we find ourselves in what only can be described as ominous circumstances.

In 2 weeks, our Nation will no longer be able to conduct critical surveillance

of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. We face this situation because, in order to close what the Director of National Intelligence described as critical intelligence gaps, he had to agree with the Congress the necessary reforms embodied in the Protect America Act would expire in 180 days.

Although this body did adopt follow-on legislation, the majority party's so-called RESTORE Act in November of last year, this legislation imposed additional burdens on the intelligence community which, in my judgment, undermined the essential nature of the compromise reached with Admiral McConnell.

Furthermore, it punted on the critical question of whether retroactive protection would be extended to those communication providers who responded to the call for help from their government in the wake of 9/11. If press reports are accurate, similar ideological currents in the other body threaten to dominate the outcome of this critical issue and potentially the eventual resolution of the larger FISA issue itself, that is, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act issue itself.

There is no issue of greater importance to those of us who serve in this body than the protection of the American people from another catastrophic attack like that we received on 9/11. In fact, this responsibility goes to the very heart of the purpose for which government exists. The very preamble to our Nation's Constitution spells out this obligation to provide for the common defense.

It was for this very reason that on August 5 last year we passed the Protect America Act, which responded to the minimum requirements presented to this body by the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell.

At the same time, Admiral McConnell described this legislation as necessary in order to ``close critical intelligence gaps.'' He defined the concept of a gap to mean ``foreign intelligence information that we should have been collecting.''

Admiral McConnell testified before the House Judiciary Committee that prior to the enactment of the Protect America Act this past August we were not collecting somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of the foreign intelligence information which would have been collected were it not for the recent legal interpretations of FISA which required the government to obtain FISA warrants for overseas surveillance.

This is very serious business, because if you look at our challenge from those who would kill us in the name of some sort of distorted view of Islam, we basically have to assess that risk by way of threat, by way of vulnerability and by way of consequence.

With respect to consequence and vulnerability, we have within our property of information, within our store of information, the ability to make those judgments. In other words, when we look at vulnerability for a particular site, a potential target, we have the information about that target because it is either American owned, privately or governmentally, and we can analyze that and determine what vulnerabilities exist.

Similarly, with respect to the question of consequence, we have that information available as well, because we can make calculations as to a type of attack which might take place, the damage it would do and, therefore, the consequences that would flow from that.

But there is one area of the analysis of risk that is not totally within our information base, and that is the area of the threat. What is the threat? The threat is that which is in the mind of those who would do us harm. It is within the planning of those who would do us harm, and it is within the orders of those who would carry out those attacks on us to do us harm.

That is where intelligence comes into play. Intelligence means gathering information that otherwise is within the authority of those who would do us harm. That means essentially listening in wherever we can on the conversations or communications they may have.

That is the essence of intelligence. That's why it is so important. It is that part of the three-part analysis of risk which is not totally within our information base and therefore that which we have to go out and extract. That's why it's so important.

I am sure that most Americans would agree with Admiral McConnell, a distinguished public servant who headed the National Security Agency in the Clinton administration for 4 years and now serves as our Director of National Intelligence, that the changes contained in the Protect America Act were necessary. Regardless of how one interprets the most recent National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran, any attempt to attack Admiral McConnell as a tool of the Bush administration would appear to be lacking in any credibility whatsoever.

I would say it is somewhat interesting that when he appeared before our committee, one of the questions asked of him was whether he had it in himself to speak truth to power. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Admiral McConnell is a man of honor who, in fact, calls them as he sees them. And, in fact, that's precisely what he has done. According to Admiral McConnell, the Protect America Act has provided us with the tools to close gaps in our foreign intelligence collection. In other words, the law that we passed in August, which necessarily accompanied with it a 180-day sunset as the price of passing it, so, therefore, it is in the law now, that law, as it works, has, in the judgment of Admiral McConnell, provided us with the tools ``to close those gaps in our foreign intelligence collection.'' This act clarified that the definition of ``electronic surveillance'' under FISA would not be interpreted to include intelligence directed at persons reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States. Thus, under the Protect America Act, it is not required for our intelligence community to obtain a FISA warrant when the subject of the surveillance is a foreign intelligence target located outside the United States.

Now, critics of the Protect America Act have suggested that the FISA warrant process should be excused only under circumstances where the communication is a foreign-to-foreign communication. The corollary of this argument is that if a foreign terrorist were to contact someone in the U.S., the intelligence community should be required to first obtain a warrant before listening to the conversation.

Now, let's put aside the fact that were Aiman al Zawahiri to place a telephone call to a sleeper cell, let's say in San Francisco, perhaps that might be the most worrisome of circumstances, and we want to be assured that we would collect that information.

But focusing purely on the practical legal considerations raised by the opponents of the Protect America Act, this formulation is simply unworkable. Why? The problem is that we do not target both ends of the conversation or communication, because we can't. Rather, we target only one end of the communication or conversation, the foreign person located outside the U.S. When a foreign terrorist in Islamabad places a call, the known factor beforehand that we have is that he or she is the one making the call. In the normal course of things, to whom the call is being made is unknown prior to the time that the call is made. Before the call is placed, it is simply not technically possible to note whether the call will go to another foreign destination, say Frankfurt, OR to someone somewhere in the U.S.

The attempt to legislate warrant requirements on foreign individuals outside the U.S. based on whether they place a call to another foreign destination or to a U.S. destination would create an impossible nightmare for our foreign intelligence operations. Admiral McConnell made this very point in questioning during the Judiciary Committee hearing. The admiral responded that ``when you're conducting surveillance in the context of electronic surveillance, you can only target one end of the conversation. So you have no control over who that number might call or who they might receive a call from. The Protect America Act addressed the problem, while at the same time maintaining the longstanding prohibition against targeting U.S. persons in the U.S.''

The Protect America Act was a targeted response to a specific challenge. However, if we're presented with a problem, which has once again brought

us to the House floor this afternoon, by its terms, as I mentioned before, the Protect America Act is scheduled to expire on February 1, about 2 weeks from today, but with a lot fewer legislative days available.

It's interesting, the 5-day work week has gone by the boards; we canceled any consideration of votes tomorrow; we are able to get out of here in the afternoon in good time. That's good for Members who had to leave because of the weather. But what is the reason we're here? The reason we're here is to do the people's business. And is there anything more important than protecting the American people from attack? What can be more important than working out an answer to the FISA problem?

Why is it a problem? Because on February 1 the currently law expires, we go back to the old law, which Admiral McConnell testified under oath did not allow him to gather between 50 percent and two-thirds of the information we otherwise would gather from those who are suspected terrorists or terrorist affiliates around the world.

Unless you think the Islamic radicals who are plotting to kill us are for some reason going to have a dramatic change of heart before the first week of February and, therefore, we don't need the law, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If that is the intention here, then maybe this body should, in the spirit of wishful idealism, pass legislation renouncing wars as an instrumental policy and hope the whole world will follow it. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not likely to be assuaged any more than Hitler was in the decade following the signing of the Kellog-Briand Pact outlawing war. No, these people made it very explicit they want to come here, or go anywhere, and kill us; and there is no indication that's going to change within the next 2 weeks.

I don't want to be or appear unfair to the leadership of this body, for they do recognize in their RESTORE Act, which would repeal the core provisions requested by Admiral McConnell, that the need to defend our Nation will require a commitment beyond 180 days. Their new proposal has a sunset date which is approximately 2 years from now. Now, when I first saw this, my immediate reaction was, again, one of bewilderment. Such a truncated time-frame would require a great deal of optimism concerning the conduct of the war against Islamic radicalism by the Bush administration. On reflection, this did not seem to be a likely explanation. For even President Bush has repeatedly stressed that we are engaged in a prolonged battle with those who would seek to kill us.

So an alternative explanation of the short sunset might be that the nature of the threat is such that the next occupant of the White House, whoever that might be, will have it in their power to bring an end to terrorism's war on us within 10 months of their inauguration. This, to put it mildly, is quite a leap of faith. However, it appears that FISA has become a faith-based initiative in the 110th Congress. For if there is any truth to recent press accounts, it appears that one of the proposed solutions to the current stalemate over FISA in the other body would be to extend the terms of the Protect America Act for an additional 12 to 18 months. The superficial logic of such an extension would enable the next administration to change the direction of foreign intelligence gathering. Despite the fact that the vernacular of ``change'' has come to dominate the race for the White House, I would suggest it has little or no relevance to the challenge posed by terrorists and their network.

One thing is abundantly clear, Madam Speaker, that terrorists are not going to change their objective. Our policy as a Nation must begin with the recognition of reality. However inconvenient or discomforting it may be, we must recognize that meeting the challenge posed by those who seek to kill us is going to be a long-term challenge. It will, therefore, require a long-term investment in our security. We can't just be thinking about 6 months or 12 months or 18 months or 2 years. The gravity of the challenge that we face requires a commitment which is commensurate with the serious nature of the threat.

There is absolutely no excuse for this failure to pursue a permanent reauthorization for intelligence measures which are critical to the safety of the American people. We must send a clear message to the terrorists that we understand the nature of their struggle. There must be no doubt in their minds that we will never forget what they've done, or that we are committed to the long haul.

There is no excuse for this body not providing Admiral McConnell with the tools he has asked for and doing so on a permanent basis. We know this policy of fits and starts isn't going to satisfy the leftist blogosphere anyway. And more importantly, it undermines the necessary confidence of those in the intelligence community that there will be a long-term continuity in the law.

Unfortunately, the majority party's RESTORE Act, which passed this Chamber last November, did not reflect what Admiral McConnell and the Intelligence Committee told us it needs as a minimum. The idea that a court order should be required before surveillance can take place against a foreigner overseas is precisely the thing that Admiral McConnell warned against and which he said had made it impossible for him to collect that necessary intelligence.

While my friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of the rejoinder that they only require a basket warrant under their version of the law, that does little or nothing to respond to the admiral's concern. For even if it is a basket, the intelligence community is going to have to identify every piece of fruit in that basket. In the real world of intelligence, this is simply unworkable.

And what is worse, the language found in section 282 of the majority party's RESTORE Act creates even additional problems. The language that was passed in this body includes a section entitled ``Treatment of Inadvertent Interceptions.'' Now, this deals with a situation where the intelligence community believes in good faith that they are dealing with a foreign-to-foreign communication, but inadvertently they capture a communication that deals with a foreign-to-domestic call. And the language in the majority party's act says that you cannot use that information for any purpose; cannot be disclosed, cannot be disseminated; cannot be used for any purpose or retained for longer than 7 days unless a court order is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information contained within indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Now, this means simply that if we have a conversation or communication involving Osama bin Laden on one hand and someone in the United States, we didn't know he was going to call the United States beforehand, but we now have captured that communication and there is no indication that what is said or contained in that communication concerning a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person, but in that conversation something indicates where Osama bin Laden happens to be at that time or where he is going to be in a very short period of time, we couldn't use that information for any purpose unless we went through a process of finding the Attorney General, having the Attorney General determine that the information contained within indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

And, actually, the Attorney General would have to break the law to make that finding because all the information indicates is where Osama bin Laden is. He is not at that time making any threat against anybody. Now, simply put, that's nonsense. That's not the way we handle legal wiretaps in the United States involving someone who is, let's say, a Mafia member. If you have a wiretap on someone who's a Mafia member and he calls someone who is not also a target and that communication indicates where the Mafia member is or he's about to be and you want to capture him, you can use that information; you can use that information for any purpose.

But we don't allow that here in this bill, which means that Osama bin Laden or another terrorist has greater protection under this law as passed by this House, the majority party's bill, than an American citizen who is accused of a crime in the United States. That makes no sense.

Now, to be fair, the majority responds to this criticism by saying that

language is found in section 22 of the bill which provides this: it would not ``prohibit the intelligence community from conducting lawful surveillance necessary to protect Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist or terrorist organization from attacking the United States.'' That's their catch-all; it takes care of the problem. But it does not. Why? The problem with this logic is that the qualification that the surveillance must be ``lawful'' is obviously affected by what is found elsewhere in the law, including the language found in section 282 that I just discussed. Thus, by its own terms, any assertion we will be able to listen to the conversation of Osama bin Laden, as I just suggested, must be read in light of the bill and, therefore, would not allow us to act in a timely fashion.

Not only did the majority party's legislation, which passed this body in November, fail to address the needs of the intelligence community, it also added insult to injury by throwing under the bus those telecommunications providers who responded to the call of their government after 9/11. And if the press reports are true, the issue of liability protection for these companies is one of the major sticking points of FISA in the other body.

Now, let me suggest that the failure of Congress to address this liability issue will have telling consequences, not only for those companies who came to the aid of their country at a time of great peril, but for our Nation as well.

Failure to act on this critical issue would send this message to the American people: if you are stupid enough to respond to our government when our fellow citizens are threatened by a cataclysmic attack, the very government which sought your help will not be there for you when the ideologues come after you with lawsuits. You might say that this is the majority's position on the matter, the reverse Good Samaritan act.

Do you know what the Good Samaritan law is? It's a law where we grant immunity upon a doctor who comes upon an automobile accident, immunity from prosecution. Why? Because we think it is better to have him or her attempt to help someone that they come upon at the time of an accident and not have to be worried about a lawsuit later on. Now, does this sometimes allow a doctor to screw up, a malpractice, and not be sued? Yes, it does. But we made the judgment that on balance it is better to have people coming to the aid of their countrymen, coming to the aid of someone who is in need, and here we have said don't dare come to the aid of your country because afterward you might be sued.

When I was a young person learning how to type, we used to type something that said, ``Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their countrymen.'' That was the way you learned to type. We'd have to change that now: ``Now is the time for all good people not to come to the aid of their countrymen unless they have got a lawyer and enough money to defend themselves against subsequent lawsuits.'' This would be a terrible precedent for future generations with respect to future conflicts, which, if history is any guide, are certain to occur. The failure to step up to the plate on this issue can only serve to erode our national ethos and a willingness to respond to future crises.

It is time, Madam Speaker, to transcend ideology and to do the right thing. And this has nothing to do with what you think of President Bush. It has nothing to do with what you think about the war in Iraq or the larger war on terrorism. It's not a Republican or a Democratic issue. We're going to have a change of administrations in about a year from now, and whoever that President might be, we must not do anything which would detract from his or her ability to marshal all the resources and support necessary to defeat the enemies of our Nation. The new administration is going to need to call on the help of all Americans, including companies like those whose only offense was to respond to the appeal of the Nation in the aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11 by seeking to help prevent its occurrence.

This ideologically driven abandonment of those who relied on the word of their government following the worst attack on our Nation since Pearl Harbor hardly qualifies as a profile in courage. If there is any culpability to be found from the safe vantage point of 20/20 hindsight, it's not with the communication provider. Rather, if any fault is to be found, it is with the government itself, and the proper recourse lies within the political process. That's why we have elections. On this issue, it is my belief that the American public will overwhelmingly understand the unfairness of walking away from those who responded when the memory of over 3,000 dead Americans was the only known fact at the time. Perhaps it is this reality which makes the lawsuit option more appealing than the normal remedy of the democratic process.

It is indeed ironic that at a time when such respect has been accorded to the Greatest Generation, and appropriately so, in my estimation, we would through our inaction eschew the ethos of service to our country after it has been attacked. It is particularly odd in the light of the fact that there was grave concern that we would be hit again. In fact, you will all recall that this fear was so prominent that a Member of the other body temporarily closed his office. This was the environment produced by 9/11, and we should not reward those who rose to the defense of their country with ingratitude and the prospect of lawsuits. For in the end, if we are to prevail against the terrorists, a tireless, relentless commitment much like that of the generation before will be required. I would hope we would send a message to all who were asked to take a stand to protect our citizens that we will likewise be with you.

There is a serious misconception about what is a allowed under the Protect America Act, which is about to expire. In her statement in support of the majority party's RESTORE Act, which made those changes in the compromise reached by Admiral McConnell I spoke of before, the Speaker observed this: that ``all of us want our President to have the best possible intelligence, our President and our policymakers, so they can do the best possible job to protect the American people. But no President, Democrat or Republican, should have the authority, to have inherent authority, to collect on Americans without doing so under the law.''

Let me point out there is absolutely nothing in the Protect America Act which would allow the President to target Americans or U.S. persons outside of the law. The Protect America Act did nothing to change this aspect of law which has existed since 1978. The problem addressed by the soon-to-expire Protect America Act related to changes in technology which led to gaps in our ability to listen in on conversations by foreign terrorists outside the U.S. This stifling of the capability of our Nation's intelligence community was unrelated to any other considerations envisioned by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978.

In short, the definition of ``electronic surveillance'' constructed almost 28 years ago has not kept pace with changes in technology. When FISA was enacted, almost all international communications were wireless and almost all local calls were on a wire. Over time the evolution of our telecommunications technology has reversed this state of affairs, has turned it upside down. Today most intelligence communications are transmitted by wire. Even though most international communications were not considered to be subject to the FISA Act in 1978, now they are subject to the FISA warrant requirement simply because they are transmitted by wire. That clearly was not the intention of the law. Thus, changes in technology have brought communications within the scope of FISA which Congress did not cover in 1978. Now, this is simply no way to operate in the age of weapons of mass destruction where terrorists are seeking to obtain them. Our intelligence policy must be made by policymakers, not by technological default.

Madam Speaker, the adoption of the Protect America Act last August was designed to address this very issue and to assure that, if Osama bin Laden were to place a call into the United States, there would be no obstacle placed in the way of our ability to uncover any murderous scheme aimed at innocent Americans. Admiral McConnell told us what he needs to prevent Osama bin Laden from succeeding.

However, the majority party in this body has made a dramatic U-turn with the so-called RESTORE Act. Their bill responds to Admiral McConnell with the rebuff that ``we know better and that we will substitute our own judgment for that of the Director of National Intelligence.''

Now, please don't misunderstand me. As a Member of this body, I am the first to defend our right to exercise our oversight responsibilities as a coequal branch of government. Those in this body certainly have the prerogative to pursue a different course concerning our national security policy. However, based upon Admiral McConnell's expertise and service in the last two administrations, one Democrat and one Republican, I would suggest that those who seek substantive changes in what he has told us to be necessary should face a heavy burden of proof.

This burden of overcoming the expressed needs of our intelligence community should be considered all the more difficult in light of the fact that the impact of the Protect America Act on the privacy rights of Americans is itself de minimis. There are two things I would hope we would keep in mind:

First, if the intelligence community targets someone inside the United States, they must first obtain a court order from the FISA Court under the law that we passed in August, continuing what has been the case before. Secondly, if the intelligence community surveils a communication where both ends of the communication are in the United States, the intelligence community must obtain a FISA Court order. Furthermore, if Osama bin Laden calls a U.S. person within the United States, the end of the conversation conducted by the U.S. person would have to be minimized, and that's a term of art, minimized under the existing procedures of the 1978 act. Let me once again emphasize the minimization process which is applied in cases where information has been inadvertently obtained from a U.S. person is not only in the original FISA statute but is something that we have been familiar with on the criminal side for decades as well. It is not something we dreamed up for the FISA Act. It is not something we put into the Protect America Act. It is something that has been within the fabric of the U.S. criminal justice system for at least five decades.

The Protect America Act does nothing to alter the definition of ``electronic surveillance'' under the 1978 act which determines when a FISA warrant is required. So under the scenario where a U.S. person located in the U.S. is involved, nothing would change. The minimization requirements under the law remain intact and are intact today.

Finally, the Speaker's comment about the ``inherent authority of the President'' would not and could not be affected by either the Protect America Act or the leadership's attempt to alter the compromise with Admiral McConnell under the RESTORE Act. Such rhetoric has no relevance to this debate. The majority's law, the majority's bill, the RESTORE Act, which passed this body on November 15, represents not so much a rejection of the claims of executive authority as it does the rejection of the actions taken by this House as recently as August 2007. The language of the majority party's bill places burdens on the intelligence community which have nothing to do with the protection of civil liberties of Americans.

As a matter of law, the FISA appeals court set the record straight in its decision of In Re Seals by stating that all courts, to have addressed the issue of the President's inherent authority, have ``held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.'' Not some courts, not a court, not just the FISA appeal courts, but all Federal courts have so found. Nothing does or could alter the President's inherent authority under the Constitution. So it's not pertinent to this debate.

And finally, the Speaker made the assertion that the majority party's bill protects Americans by providing the Director of National Intelligence with the flexibility he has requested to conduct electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States.

Now, this is the most puzzling of all. Why would Admiral McConnell be happy with legislation which has the effect of replacing what he sought as recently as August of this last year? If the claim were true, it would in essence place Admiral McConnell in the position of opposing himself. However, it's not necessary to engage in speculation because the admiral has been the most vocal defender of the agreement reached by Congress in August. In fact, this is what he said to the Judiciary Committee of the other body:

``The Protect America Act, passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007, has already made the Nation safer by allowing the intelligence community to close existing gaps in our foreign intelligence collection.'' He goes on: ``After the Protect America Act was signed, we took immediate action to close critical foreign intelligence gaps related to the terrorist threat, particularly the preeminent threats to our national security.''

It sure sounds like an endorsement to me. As a matter of fact, it suggests that if we get rid of the provisions of the Protect America Act, as suggested by the majority, that we would be opening up the foreign intelligence gaps that we had previously closed. Why anyone would think the admiral would support legislation which would do this is a puzzle, to say the least.

Now, why is all this so important? The manner in which we approach FISA is of such critical importance because of its direct connection with the larger question of homeland security. I think we ought to do whatever is necessary and is constitutional and lawful to prevent another attack against our homeland, but we should not put ourselves in the position of having to get it right every time. Perfection is not possible in this world. Overseas intelligence collection is absolutely a critical component to developing a successful homeland security strategy.

The relationship between foreign intelligence and the protection of our homeland is very real. Here's how Admiral McConnell explained it to our committee:

``In the debate over the summer and since, I have heard individuals from both inside and outside the government assert that threats to our Nation do not justify this authority,'' that is, the authority he asked for. ``Indeed, I have been accused of exaggerating the threats that face our Nation. Allow me to attempt to dispel this notion. The threats that we face are real and they are indeed serious. In July of this year, we released a National Intelligence Estimate, commonly referred to as an NIE, on the terrorist threat to the homeland . . . ''

In short, these assessments conclude the following: The United States will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. And let me just parenthetically mention the reason why it's limited to 3 years is that is the limit of the NIE's reach.

The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al Qaeda. Al Qaeda continues to coordinate with regional terrorist groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, across North Africa, and other regions. Al Qaeda is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with a goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershock, and fear among the United States population.

These terrorists are weapons-proficient, they are innovative, and they are persistent. Al Qaeda will continue to seek to acquire chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear material for attack, and they will use them, given the opportunity.

Now this is the threat we face today, and one that our intelligence community is challenged to counter. This is the real issue. This is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, if you will, and it remains the central question for us. How do we best protect the American people from another cataclysmic attack? As the National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, those who seek to kill us continue in their resolve to once again inflict mass casualties upon our Nation. The threat is still here. Although we have been successful in thwarting another attack since 9/11, there are no guarantees in this business.

Independent sources such as Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation have stressed that our intelligence capability is a key element in our effort to

protect our homeland. He says this: in the terror attacks since 9/11, we have seen combinations of local conspiracies inspired by, assisted by, guided by al Qaeda's central leadership. It is essential that while protecting the basic rights of American citizens, we find ways to facilitate the collection and exchange of intelligence across national and bureaucratic borders.

Again, the development of a comprehensive homeland security strategy cannot be conceived in isolation from the need for surveillance of terrorists overseas. The Director of National Intelligence has told us what he needs and, unfortunately, that is not encompassed by the RESTORE Act, which passed this body in November. The expiration of the Protect America Act on February 1 will leave us without the minimum acceptable threshold of protection negotiated with Admiral McConnell last August.

The gravity of the potentially cataclysmic consequences of a failure to get it right presents a threat not only to our national security but the protection of our rights as Americans. Anyone concerned, and I hope that is everybody, about the protection of civil liberties should be most alarmed about the potential consequences of a successful terrorist attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. This is the real threat to civil liberties acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Keith case when they noted that were the government, that is the U.S. Government, to fail ``to preserve the security of its people, society itself would become so disordered that all rights and liberties would be endangered.''

In like manner, Brian Jenkins notes that several national commissions convened both before and after 9/11 reached the same conclusion. All agreed ``that the United States has to prepare for catastrophe.'' They also warn that ``national panic in the face of such threats could imperil civil liberties.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission itself issued the following observation concerning the relationship between national security and civil liberties: ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberty than the success of a terrorist attack at home.''

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing more important for us to confront than the expiration of the existing FISA law on February 1 of this year. I would beg us, as a collective body, both the House and the Senate, to come together to work out an answer to this problem, and respond to the request by Admiral McConnell for us to continue to give him those tools necessary to gather that information so that we cannot only know what the terrorists want to do, but to allow us to take timely action to prevent them from succeeding.

A COLD WAR ERA STATUTE IN A WORLD OF WMDs

The changes made by the Protect America Act responded to the needs of our intelligence community. That act meets our national security needs without in any way departing from the framework of the original FISA statute. At the time of the adoption of the 1978 act, our Nation was in the midst of a cold war with the Soviet Union. FISA was designed to accommodate the need to intercept overseas communications without prior court approval. The failure to capture such communications--including those coming into the United States--was recognized as potentially damaging to our national security.

Now, 29 years later, our adversary operates undeterred by balance of power calculation, and its surreptitious means of operation are conceived with the express purpose of avoiding detection in order to succeed in killing innocent civilians. Can anyone seriously suggest that there is not an equally compelling need to uncover the plans of these murderers, regardless of the intended destination of the call? I don't think so, and believe that it would be a serious error to move away from a rationale that remains as valid today, if not more so than it did in 1978.

Pakistan as an Example for the Need for Intel

In this regard, is there anyone who has been following events in Pakistan who does not have an appreciation for the need for the greatest flexibility in our foreign intelligence collection. Although I am sure that we all hope for an outcome in Pakistan which entails stability and democratic elections, our national security policy cannot be based upon hope. This is a nation with nuclear weapons and a segment of the population which subscribes to radical Islamic ideologies. We need the best foreign intelligence possible to ensure that if the unthinkable was ever to happen that we are in the best possible position to detect any potential transfer of nuclear materials or a WMD that could end up in the hands of terrorists positioned in the United States. Good foreign intelligence is essential to the protection of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 843, mourning the passage of Congressman Henry Hyde and celebrating his leadership and service to the people of Illinois and the United States of America.

And at this time I would like to recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), who is the prime sponsor of this legislation, and the successor to Henry Hyde in that seat from the great State of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most fortunate things I've had happen in my life is that I was able to serve for 12 years with Henry Hyde; 10 years during the first period of time I served, and then the first 2 years of my return to the Congress. For 10 of those years, well, all 12 of those years, I served on the Judiciary Committee with him, and he was, in my mind, a great man.

We all have our heroes, I suppose, in life. My dad's a hero of mine. Ronald Reagan was a hero of mine. Mother Theresa is a hero of mine. And in this House, Henry Hyde was and continues to be a hero of mine.

Recently, we have had a lot of debate and discussion in the national press about the appropriate place for religion and religious values in public debate. The speech given by the former Governor of Massachusetts, Governor Romney, has been called the speech reminding people of the speech given by another gentleman from Massachusetts some 40 years ago, President John F. Kennedy. And in their own way, they were both outstanding speeches.

But one of the speeches I recall on the same subject was given by Henry Hyde. It was the speech he gave at my alma matter, the University of Notre Dame, in the same year that Governor Cuomo gave a speech to the university, attempting to the address the question of what the proper role was of religious values in public life.

Now, it was particularized in the fact that both Governor Cuomo and Henry Hyde were Roman Catholics. But what they said there and what Henry said there is not limited merely to a Catholic in public service, but goes to the question of what someone who has deeply held religious values should do when confronted with the great ideas of their time.

Perhaps the greatest example in political history is that of Sir Thomas Moore, also known as St. Thomas Moore, immortalized in the great play, ``A Man for All Seasons,'' when he attempted to try and deal with the tremendous disconnect at times between what in the secular world appears to be an obvious conflict between deeply held values and your responsibility as an elected or appointed figure.

Similarly, in a closer period of time in our history, a work that influenced the speech of John Kennedy was a great writing by John Courtney Murray called, ``We Hold These Truths.'' John Courtney Murray was a tremendous Jesuit priest and political theorist whose work probably was the greatest influence in the Catholic Church during the Second Vatican Council in understanding what political liberty was all about. And I have used both of those writings in trying to understand what my obligation in life is.

But ranking alongside both of those works is this work by Henry Hyde called, ``For Every Idle Silence.'' He took that from a statement by St. Ambrose. He said, Not only for every idle word but for every silence must man render an account. Henry Hyde believed that.

In the speech at my alma mater, Henry Hyde said in 1984, ``This must be an election year. Everyone is talking about theology.'' The reason I mention that is here we are 20-some years past that time, and there are those that believe that this issue is arising for the first time, and somehow we have some difficulty in understanding what it's all about.

So I would just like to reflect on a few words of Henry Hyde in that speech which perhaps would give us some direction as we approach that same issue this year. He said, ``First and hopefully most obviously, we are not arguing about the creation of a theocracy or anything remotely approaching it. We're not talking about declaring ourselves a Christian Nation or a Nation under any religion.''

But he said, ``We are, as our coinage and our Pledge of Allegiance asserts, a Nation `under God': that means a Nation under God's judgment, constantly reminded by our smallest coin that the true measure of ourselves comes from beyond ourselves. Again, for the church as well as for democracy, let us preserve the integrity of both the political process and the church.''

And he went on to say, ``In the second place, we are not arguing about whether `religion and politics should mix.' This formula, so simple, is also deceptive and disorienting. Religion, the expression of what theologian Paul Tillich called our `ultimate concern,' and politics have `mixed,' intermingled, shaped and influenced each other centuries before the conversion of Constantine.''

And Henry goes on to say, ``And this has been true of our American experiment as well. The claim that American religion has always been `intensely private between the individual and God' would surely have come as news to John Winthrop and the Pilgrims, to Jonathan Edwards, to the Abolitionists, to Lincoln, to 15 generations of the black church, and not least to American Catholics taught by the magisterial John Courtney Murray, architect of the Vatican Council's `Declaration on Religious Liberty.' Throughout our history, religious values have always been a part of the public policy debate. Religious values, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition's insistence on the inherent dignity and inviolable worth of each individual human life, lie at the root of what Murray called the `American Proposition.''

``Yes,'' Henry says, ``other influences shaped the Founders of our Republic. Enlightenment modes of political philosophy play their important role, too. But to borrow a phrase momentarily from the Marxists, `it is no accident' that Benjamin Franklin, one of the deistic Founders, proposed as a device on the Great Seal of the United States a picture of Moses lifting up his staff and dividing the Red Sea while the Pharaoh was overwhelmed in its waters, with the motto `Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.'

``Jefferson, often considered the most implacable foe of `mixing' religion and politics, countered with the suggestion that the Great Seal depict the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.''

Henry Hyde understood that we are influenced and informed by our most deeply held beliefs and that it is not un-American to bring those to the debate. He also suggested that what we also understood was that we should not establish any particular religion or demand the American people bow to any particular religion.

Henry Hyde gave us tremendous guidance, and for those in the debate involved today, I would suggest they might want to look at Henry's book, ``For Every Idle Silence,'' including that speech at Notre Dame which he entitled, with his usual good sense and humor, ``Keeping God in the Closet, Some Thoughts on the Exorcism of Religious Values from Public Life.''

Henry Hyde was a remarkable man. He had a great wit about him. You could argue on the floor with him as strongly as possible, and he would come over across the aisle, punch you in the arm and tell you a joke. He took what he did seriously, but he never took himself too seriously. He was an inspiration to me and many others around the world.

I remember one time I asked Henry, do you ever get tired being involved in the debate on the right-to-life, and he said to me, you know, I do, but as I get older and think of my mortality, I think about the possibility of entering the gates of heaven, and I think of the faces of those children whose lives I've saved, standing there saying to me, Welcome, Henry, welcome.

Ultimately, I think Henry's life can be summed up in the last words that he gave to the students and faculty of the University of Notre Dame in 1984. He said this to those students: ``And so I ask again, do you change the world or does the world change you?

``There was a `Just Man' many centuries ago who tried to save Sodom from destruction. Ignoring his warning, mocking him with silence, the inhabitants shielded themselves with indifference. But still he persisted, and taking pity on him, a child asked, `Why do you go on?' The Just Man replied that in the beginning, he thought he could change man. `Today,' he said, `I know I cannot. If I still shout and scream, it's to prevent them from changing me!''

As Henry said to those students that day: ``I hope you go out and change the world!''

Mr. Speaker, Henry Hyde was the just man. Henry Hyde did work. Henry Hyde changed the world. I am thankful for his leadership. I'm thankful for him being a colleague. I'm thankful to be able to call him friend, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 843.

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

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. As one who grew up in the City of Long Beach and spent a great deal of time as a child being taken by parents down to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and having as a college student in the summertime worked in the Port of Los Angeles, I have had the opportunity to see that port grow, along with its sister port, the Port of Long Beach. The progress that has been made there, the advances that have been made there, the jobs that have been created there, the tremendous economic engine that that port is, is an example to not only California and the country but to the rest of the world how you can take a natural resource and in some ways refine it and in some ways make it better than it was before so that it enhances the entire area or the entire region.

The Port of Los Angeles has a distinguished record. It is one that is marked with achievement. It is one that is marked with advances in technology, and it is one that has always contributed to the health of the region that I used to represent in this body some 20 years ago.

I congratulate the gentlewoman for bringing this forth, and I would suggest to my colleagues not only that they support this, but if they ever have the opportunity to be in California and they want to see a magnificent engine of economic vitality, they ought to come by and see the Port of Los Angeles. It is a credit to the people of the region. It is a credit to those who had the foresight to develop it as a working port. And I join everyone else in congratulating those who now are responsible for its continued operation.