Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in brief comment about a former Member of this House who passed away this week, Carroll Campbell. As one who came to this House with Carroll Campbell in January of 1979, I would say that if you were to draw a blueprint for an outstanding Member of Congress, you could do no better than to look to Carroll Campbell. Carroll Campbell served tremendously as the governor of his home State of South Carolina, but before that, served with great honor and distinction in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that he was a man of great integrity. He was one that you admired in every aspect. I can recall him being the first Member from my side of the aisle south of the Mason-Dixon line who came out in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act. He provided leadership in so many areas, whether tax policy, national defense or otherwise.

Carroll Campbell was a champion. Carroll Campbell left us far too soon, and we send our words, our good wishes, and our hopes with his wife and his children. This House is a greater place because of the service rendered to this House by Carroll Campbell.

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Day is a special day we set aside to honor all of our brave service men and women both past and present. It is a day to remember, a day to honor and a day to reflect upon our fellow citizens who, risking their lives, were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It is a day to honor those we know and those we have never met.

It is my privilege to honor one of our veterans in the Third Congressional District of California, Ernest C. Ford. Mr. Ford's story was brought to my attention some months ago. Like many of my fellow colleagues in Congress, we represent our constituents and are honored to have veterans among them. It is their story that humanizes the importance of Veterans Day.

In May of 1927, Charles Lindbergh took off from Roosevelt Field, Long Island, New York and flew into aviation history and into the imagination of a 5\1/2\ year old boy, ``Ernie'' Ford. With the onset of World War II, the young farm boy from Dodge City, Kansas left his family and friends to join a cause larger than himself.

Fifteen years later to the day of Lindbergh's faithful flight, Staff Sergeant Ernest C. Ford graduated from advanced flying school at Luke Field in Phoenix, Arizona. Like many, in what has been referred to as the greatest generation, he served with honor and distinction to preserve Liberty and Freedom throughout the world. Flying over 6,500 hours and 364 combat missions, the most of any pilot in the USAAF during World War II, he showed his dedication to duty, honor and country.

On February 6, 1943, Staff Sergeant Ernie Ford, a transport pilot, is credited with saving three C-47 planes, their crews, and 87 Australian infantry during the battle of Wau in New Guinea, Australia. While the battle raged around him, Mr. Ford proceeded to takeoff on a bombed out airstrip while under enemy fire. Witnessing his lead plane shot down on ascent, he decided to keep his plane low for maximum speed. With the plane only 10 to 15 feet off the ground, Ernie Ford escaped the fate of his comrades before him and showed the remaining C-47's a way to escape the battle.

For his exceptional service, he won a battlefield commission and was promoted to the rank of 2nd lieutenant. At the end of the war in the Pacific, Mr. Ford earned 6 Distinguished Flying Crosses, one garnering a V for valor, 2 Air Medals, and was recommended for our nation's third highest military honor, the Silver Star for his actions at Wau. Along with personal recognition, his squadron received three Presidential Unit Citations and two Battle Stars. Following World War II, he helped stem the tide of communism during the Korean Conflict by flying 21 combat missions. After 23 years of service, Mr. Ford eventually retired with the rank of Major with over 15 decorations.

The gratitude that all Americans owe to Mr. Ford cannot be expressed in mere words alone.

I will tell you everyday that I go to work; I am reminded of our veterans and the sacrifices they made by the sight of the many beautiful memorials erected in their memory. These memorials represent the dogged determination of our veterans and are a reminder of the heartfelt gratitude all Americans owe them for their service.

As President Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary of D-Day said, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.''

I thank you, Mr. Ford, and all our honored American Veterans for your service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, we have all seen a tragedy of tragedies this past week. We are here as representatives of the American people to attempt to try and ensure that the proper governmental response is possible, and it is not a

time for recrimination or finger-pointing. As a matter of fact, I would like to draw the attention to the superb job that has been done by the Coast Guard. I have not heard one suggestion of criticism of the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard, which has in our Nation's history a unique status of being both a civilian operation and a military operation, often is left in the shadows as we look to the other military establishments in this country. But the remarkable job done by the Coast Guard, particularly the work done by the helicopter pilots and those who are working with the pilots to rescue hundreds and literally thousands of people in the affected area, is something of which we should be proud, something of which we should be joyous; and it suggests to me that we should take another look at the way in which we have taken for granted the tremendous efforts made by the Coast Guard.

As we look forward in analyzing what occurred and what is occurring now, we ensure that as we make plans for the future, we equip the Coast Guard with everything that the Coast Guard needs to be able to carry out its functions, the traditional function which we have seen over the past week, and the new responsibility we have given them in the war on terrorism.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss as someone who spent 8 years as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California if I did not remark on what I observed with the breakdown in order that we saw in the city of New Orleans.

Quite simply, when we have a situation in which law enforcement stands by and allows looting to take place with the excuse that it is only for food and water, one should understand that if we say looting is okay for food and water, we will ensure that only the strong get the food and the water and the weak will not.

It was not the weak that were breaking into those places and taking that home; it was, rather, those who were healthy and those who were able to go in and do that, and I doubt that they were running back to assist those who were far less fortunate.

When you suggest that that breakdown in order is allowable, what you do is suggest to the criminal community that they can do more, and we saw the spiraling from food and water to clothes, to appliances, and finally to guns and ammunition; and we saw terrible tragedy that ensued that was man-made, not as the result of the terrible forces of the hurricane and the terrible forces of the flooding that took place thereafter, but rather those who would take advantage of that tragedy for their own purposes.

My only suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that it ought to be a lesson for all of us, all of us, that when we are confronted with tragedies of this sort, whether they are man-made or natural, we must understand the importance of order being maintained.

While some may believe it is in a sense of generosity or a sense of empathy to say that looting is okay for selected purposes, we should understand that ultimately it does the greatest damage to those who need our help the most, the least among us, the weakest among us, those who cannot fend for themselves.

So as we sort things out and as we in this Congress look for those things that are necessary for the Federal Government to do related to the State and local governments, we should understand that we need to have order in the midst of chaos to the extent we can so that we can ensure that our efforts are made to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. It is a terrible lesson that we had to learn once again, but it is a lesson that we ought to embrace and a lesson that we ought to utilize to assist us in any future problem.

We have many things to look at over the next few weeks as we continue in response to this terrible tragedy, but I would hope that we would understand that those who are the least among us, those who are the weakest among us, need the support from the strongest, and that in very real terms necessitates every effort to protect order.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I would like to just make some comments on some of the suggestions that have been made that MICRA does not work in California and refer only to those parts of this bill that are patterned after MICRA.

Prior to the time that I came to Congress for the first tour, I did medical malpractice cases in California, primarily on the defense side for doctors and hospitals, but I also handled some plaintiffs' cases. In fact, I think I had one of the first successful lawsuits against an HMO in the entire country.

MICRA came into California at a time when we had a crisis, when we had a medical crisis of doctors leaving the State of California or stopping their practice.

It was particularly acute in some specialties, but it was across the board. The evidence is there. The history is there. I can tell you it was there; I saw it.

In 1975, the legislature, in response to that problem, passed MICRA. That is what this is patterned after. It had a $250,000 limitation on pain and suffering. It had these other recommended changes with respect to recovery. It has not stopped successful lawsuits against doctors who have, in fact, committed malpractice.

But what it has done is it has taken a part of the process that basically abused the process out. And what it has done is stabilize what was otherwise a tremendous spiral in the medical malpractice premiums that doctors saw.

Now, some have suggested that is not the case in California. What I can tell my colleagues is it stopped the exit of doctors from the State of California. It stopped the exit of specialists from practice in the State of California. And while it did not diminish entirely the increases, it stopped the trajectory of increases. As a result, it did provide a very serious partial solution to the problem that we found in California.

That is the model. To the extent this bill is modeled after MICRA, that is the model we are talking about.

So if people want to talk about pilot projects, we have a 20-plus- year pilot project in the State of California. Ask the medical community whether or not it has been effective. Ask the patients who now have availability to the services of doctors who otherwise they would not have had we not done something in the State of California.

So for those who are wondering whether or not this will work, at least that part of the bill that is patterned after MICRA will. We have now had a 20-plus-year pilot project, and it has proven to be successful.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, if this rule is adopted, the House of Representatives will consider the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. The ultimate fate of this legislation will determine how effective we will be in investigating the

clandestine activities of terrorist organizations and in preventing catastrophic events in the future.

There is, Mr. Speaker, no greater or more solemn responsibility that we have as representatives of the American people. And, frankly, I have been astonished at the characterization of the bill and the record of the Justice Department. As a member of the committee and the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have spent countless hours going over the records, including looking at top secret reports that are lodged with this Congress, and I will state for the record I can find no evidence of a violation of civil liberties. And I would suggest any Member who comes to the floor be very careful about suggesting that there are, without evidence.

That is a criticism of our Department of Justice, that is a criticism of our investigative agencies and our intelligence agencies that is not borne out by the record. I think we should make that very clear, particularly today when we have another instance, presumably, in London, of what we are facing. This is serious business, and allegations that are easily thrust in this body, in my judgment, are irresponsible.

I authored the amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary to require two sunsets of the two most controversial provisions in this bill, but I did not do that based on any suggestion there is any record of a violation of civil liberties. I did that because, it seems to me, it was an indication to the public from us that we would consider doing effective oversight, which we have done.

Some have suggested in 1-minutes this morning that there is something wrong with the process here. I do not understand that. Now, I have been absent for 16 years, but I can recall how things were done 20 years ago. In the Committee on the Judiciary, with respect to this bill, the bill was available on a Friday. We marked it up on a Wednesday. I can recall being a member of that committee when I was in the minority when we received the bill on the midnight before we were supposed to consider things. This is hardly a wrong or improper process.

Mr. Speaker, we considered over 50 amendments in the Committee on the Judiciary. We on the majority side were willing to stay there for several more days. It was the minority who made the motion to call the previous question and withdrew consideration of more amendments on their side. This is a structured bill that has something on the order of 20 amendments available, covering many of the issues that people are concerned about. I would hardly suggest that we are moving with undue dispatch here or that somehow we are not considering this in proper order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This is an important day for us today, not just because of the explosions that have taken place in London today or those that took place several weeks ago, but rather because of 9/11 and our response to that wake-up call of the war on terrorism.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution posits that both the provision for the common defense and the need to secure the blessings of liberty are central to the constitutional order.

Freedom presumes security. The converse is equally true. In the delicate balance of these important interests. Our concern for liberty must not discount the consequences of a failure to keep Americans secure from another terrorist attack. While it is important to avoid hyperbole on such a serious matter, the very nature of American life and the traditional regard for liberty could itself be threatened. It is, therefore, imperative that principles that we take an oath to uphold not be reduced to empty platitudes. Rather, they must be applied to the facts which confront us in the war on terrorism.

The 12 oversight hearings conducted by the Committee on the Judiciary produced no evidence of abuse relating to the act itself. I hope other Members have taken the time to go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as I have, to review the documents that are filed pursuant to the PATRIOT Act by the Justice Department, to see for themselves whether or not they have found any evidence of abuse. I did that. Those are available to any Member who wants to go over there as long as they make arrangements. And I keep hearing time and time again that, even though the Justice Department has not found any abuses, they are out there. It reminds me of those people who used to find communists under every bed: We know they are out there, we know they are there somewhere.

And I have heard on the floor people reciting: Well, the IG for the Justice Department has not found them, we have not found them, but we know they are there. Certainly our debate should be above that.

The provisions contained in the chairman's bill and the amendments adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary provide additional protections against any possible abuse in the future. The sunset of section 206 dealing with roving wiretaps and section 215, which has been referred to, was adopted by the full committee. The bill specifically requires that the government meet a relevant standard when applying for a court order for records of U.S. citizens under 215. Remember, it is an application to a court for an order. We have put in the statute the relevant standard, which was the practice we were told, but people wanted more. We have put that in there.

The chairman's bill, coupled with an amendment adopted by the full committee, explicitly provides that the subject of a court order under section 215 would have the right to consult with an attorney with respect to the order. The amendment at committee clarified that a recipient of such an order could disclose this information not only to comply with the order but to challenge it.

On these and other parts of this bill, we have done the work in the committee to deal with the problems that have been suggested.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Flake-Schiff amendment.

This is another effort in our continuation to support section 215 in all of its aspects, with the protections that I think are reasonable that allow us to take into consideration some of the concerns that people have expressed, even though there have been no examples, I repeat, no examples of abuses under this act.

The Justice Department has told us they have not used this section in the area of libraries. Therefore, I hope they would not object to the gentleman's amendment, because this is going to be used very, very seldom, based on past history. Yet, it is relevant, and we already discussed the ways in which it may be relevant to terrorism cases.

So I would hope that we would have strong support for this amendment, recognizing that this, along with the other changes that we have added to section 215, will allow us to have this still be utilized and utilized in a way that is not undone, as I thought the amendment that we had on the floor just a few weeks ago would have done so.

This is a commonsense amendment. I hope we will get unanimous support for it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, national security letters are sort of a strange beast. It is kind of difficult to figure out what they are. They are sort of like administrative subpoenas, but they are not actually administrative subpoenas. They are limited in their scope. NSLs do not allow the FBI to read the contents of communications but rather the records of communication. That may seem like a legal nicety, but it is a major difference. The Supreme Court has recognized those kinds of differences.

Nonetheless, the recipients of these, while the Justice Department has told us that they allow them to talk to their lawyers, if you look at the statute as it exists now there seems to be a question about that. This amendments makes its explicit. Also, currently under the law, there is no enforcement mechanism when they do issue a national security letter. This amendment allows such an enforcement mechanism by going to a court.

So in a very real sense this amendment both protects those who would receive one of these letters, and if they object to it they can go to an attorney, they can fight it, and it also gives the government a means of attempting to try and secure compliance with it. So in both instances, I think what we have done is give a little more regularity to it. We have given it a little terra firma here, and for that reason I support it and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. This amendment deals with the predicate for the use of wiretaps under the Federal Code.

Current law may not authorize the use of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations of certain other crimes that terrorists are likely to commit. This amendment would fill in a gap in the law by adding six other predicates for the electronic surveillance and monitoring under 18 U.S.C. 2516(1).

While we were considering this bill in committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) had an amendment which added a number of offenses to the wiretap statute. They went all the way from fraud and misuse of visas and violence at international airports, to offenses relating to torture, offenses relating to terrorist attacks against mass transportation, offenses of military-type training from foreign terrorists, offenses related to explosive materials.

There are a number of others that I believe should be in that same category that, unfortunately, we did not include when we considered his amendment. This proposed language would permit the interception by wire or by oral surveillance if the interception would provide evidence of six different types of crimes:

One, arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction;

Two, offenses relating to plastic explosives;

Three, offenses related to attack on Federal facility with firearm;

Four, conspiracy to harm persons or property overseas;

Five, offenses relating to assault on a flight crew with dangerous weapon;

Six, offenses related to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life, by means of weapons on an aircraft.

This amendment does nothing, nothing whatsoever, to affect the standard of obtaining a wiretap. That remains the same. Rather, it merely takes offenses which have a nexus with terrorism and gives law enforcement the additional investigative tool to undercover evidence of their commissions through a wire or oral surveillance.

The ability of law enforcement to intercept communications related to these terrorism-related offenses is a critical aspect of the effort, not only of uncovering evidence of the most dangerous life-threatening activity, but also in strengthening our ability to apprehend these perpetrators before they inevitably strike again.

That is probably the major focus of our efforts with this bill; that is, how do we apprehend these perpetrators before they strike? Such surveillance will better enable law enforcement to be proactive in preventing future terrorist attacks.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the Hyde amendment recognizes a new reality in a very real danger that is growing: the deadly mix of drug trafficking and terrorism. It has now been estimated that nearly half of the designated foreign terrorist organizations are involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs. That is illegal drugs that end up on the streets of our cities, the cities of our allies, poisoning the fabric of their society and our society.

Terrorists, like old organized crime syndicates from the past, have recognized that illegally drug trafficking is a valuable source of financing and just another way to threaten our country. The evidence linking these two criminal activities is overwhelming. Terrorists in Afghanistan are now infiltrating and controlling the cultivation of poppy and ultimately heroin. The deadly bombings in Spain were financed through drug money. Hezbollah has been linked to drug trafficking from South America to the Middle East; and of course the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia has long-standing drug trafficking operations which fund their deadly activities.

The Hyde amendment simply creates a new Federal crime for the trafficking of controlled substances which are intended to benefit a foreign terrorist organization or any other terrorist organization and imposes a stiff mandatory minimum penalty of 20 years. It is a serious crime and one that needs to be stopped, and this amendment would do the job.

I would say that those who have some question about mandatory minimum penalties, this is hardly the place to object to them. This is really seriously two crimes: the one of drug trafficking connected with terrorism. It seems to me this would be precisely the place we would support mandatory minimum penalties.

I think we should be thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for bringing this to our attention. Let us remember that since most of the Afghan heroin goes to Europe and not here to the United States, our Justice Department and hard-pressed DEA are very limited in going after the drug dealers and drug lords who facilitate terrorism directed at our troops. They need some nexus to the drugs coming to the USA.

Please join me in supporting the Hyde amendment. It makes sense. Yes, it is tough; but we need to be tough in this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and commend him for having this Special Order.

When we talk about homeland security, we have to talk about those investigative techniques that are necessary for us to be able to forestall terrorism, terrorist attacks on our homeland; and one of the points I would like to make is prompted by comments that aids to the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary of the United

States Senate said that he would introduce legislation aimed at limiting the government's ability to detain material witnesses indefinitely.

The reason I mention this is that this is just a part of an overall criticism of this technique of the investigative community. As a matter of fact, the New York Times recently described it this way: that we, that is the Federal Government, are ``thrust into a Kafkaesque world of indefinite detention without charges, secret evidence, and baseless accusations.'' Dozens of people, some were held for weeks and even months and the majority were never even charged with a crime. The Times seethes, did ``the Bush administration twist the American system of due process.''

An interesting article appeared today in the National Review by Andrew McCarthy, who is a former Federal prosecutor who has actually prosecuted some of the major terrorist cases in this country, that aptly responds to these criticisms of this effort by the Federal law enforcement community.

He says, In point of fact, material witness detentions have been with us for decades pursuant to duly enacted law, that is, section 3144 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. They were used countless times prior to 9/ 11. Hysteria aside, it should come as no surprise that these are detentions without charges since by definition the person being detained is being detained as a witness, not being charged with a crime.

What would require baseless accusations would be to hold such a person as a defendant, which is precisely what the government refrains from doing in detaining on material witness law. The proceedings, moreover, involve secret evidence only in the sense that all proceedings before the grand jury, whether they involve terrorism, unlawful gambling or anything in between, are secret Under Federal law. The left of course well knows that when investigative information about its champions seeps into the public domain, it routinely complains about the reprehensible violation of grand jury secrecy rules, a useful diversion from dealing with the substance of any suspicions.

Mr. McCarthy goes on, There were many, many people who were identified in that investigation of having had some connection or another with the 19 suicide attackers and their al Qaeda support network. Some of those connections seem intimate, some attenuated; but all of them had to be run down. Just imagine what the 9/11 Commission would have said if they had not been.

So here is the problem, says Andrew McCarthy. You identify a large number of people who at a minimum have information that might be vital to protecting against terrorist attacks and who might in fact be terrorists or at least facilitators. It is very early in the investigation, so you do not have sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime or to say conclusively either that they are not dangerous or they are willing to tell you what they know rather than flee.

What do you do? It would be irresponsible to do nothing, but you cannot watch these people 24-7. There are not anywhere close enough agents for that. Well, the law does not require you to do nothing. The law which existed before 9/11 but used here permits the government to detain people for a brief time in order to compel their information either in the grand jury or some other court proceedings.

Contrary to what you might think from the latest spate of coverage and from the comments to aides of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on the Senate side, the government may not sweep innocent people up and hold them in secret.

While grand jury proceedings are supposed to be kept from the New York Times, for instance, they are not kept secret from the court. A prosecutor has to go to court and get a material witness arrest warrant. This means the arrest does not happen unless the government satisfies a Federal judge that there is a reasonable basis to believe, A, the person at issue has information that would be important to an ongoing investigation and, B, the person might flee without providing that information to the grand jury or the court unless the person is detained until his testimony can be secured.

And that is not all. Mr. McCarthy goes on to tell us the arrested witness, even though he is not being charged with a crime, is given the same kinds of protections that are afforded to actual defendants. The witness must promptly be presented upon arrest to a judge so that a neutral official can advise him of why he is being held. More significantly, counsel is immediately appointed for him at public expense if he cannot afford an attorney. Indeed, if he is a foreign national, the United States is obligated by law to advise him that he is right to have his consulate advised of his arrest. And frequently the consulate will not only obtain counsel on behalf of its citizen but will also closely monitor the case, including by demands for information from the U.S. State Department.

The lawyer is given information about why the witness is being detained. Counsel is permitted to be present at any interview of the witness by the government. And although counsel is not permitted to accompany the witness inside the Federal grand jury, no witness, material or otherwise, has that right, the government is not permitted to interview the witness outside the grand jury unless counsel allows it.

In addition, at any time during the course of the detention, counsel is permitted to make a bail application to the court; and if the judge is satisfied that the bail offered vitiates the risk of flight, the witness is freed on the promise to appear for his testimony.

Furthermore, if at any point the length of detention or the condition of the witness's confinement actually offend the witness's fundamental rights, counsel may submit a habeas corpus petition seeking the witness's immediate release.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, how is that Kafkaesque? How is that somehow putting people outside the bounds of law? How is that having this administration twisting the Constitution in some way?

It is, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, this kind of hyperbole, this kind of misstatement which makes it more difficult for us to do our duty with respect to homeland security. We need to have those investigative tools that have been used against organized crime, that have been used against organized drug dealers and organizations. We need to be able to use those same investigative techniques, those same prosecutorial tools against those who would destroy us as a Nation, against those who have allied with those who have said it is their duty to kill any American, man, woman or child, anywhere in the world, combatant or noncombatant.

We are in a new world, a world of terror, in which we have to respond in ways that, yes, are consistent with the Constitution, but ways that allow us to protect ourselves in a proper and forceful way. And these kinds of criticisms that come from the outside, whether it is with respect to Guantanamo or whether it is with respect to the use of laws which allow our application of the law against material witnesses, these kinds of attacks weaken our ability to do the job.

And with respect to my second point, let me talk briefly about what we have done here in the House of Representatives to respond to the demand for us to respond to this unique challenge that is the challenge of terrorism.

One cannot criticize a Congress for responding as best it could in the direct aftermath of 9/11. One cannot criticize Congress for doing as Congress always does in attempting to respond to some problems, throwing money at it. But one can criticize Congress at a time it has to take a pause and look at what it has done and seen what it can perhaps do better. And that is what we have done with the various bills that we have passed out of the House that were mentioned by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

One of the things that we did in that was respond to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report when they said homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an objective, non- political assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. These assessments should consider the threat of an attack, localities vulnerability to an attack, and the possible consequences of an attack.

Secondly, they told us, Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. Third, they said, Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue

sharing. Fourth, they told us, the Federal Government should develop specific benchmarks for evaluating community needs and require that spending decisions be made in accordance with those benchmarks. Fifth, they told us, each State receiving funds should provide an analysis of how funds are allocated and spent within the State.

Finally, they said, each city and State should have a minimum infrastructure for emergency response.

This is precisely what we have done with the two bills that have been mentioned before. We have said that rational risk assessment should drive our strategy, should drive our tactics and should drive our funding.

The House Committee on Homeland Security, with the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), reported out the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. This bill will reduce the across-the-board formula for providing homeland security funds to State and local responders from .75 to .25 percent. Therefore, under this bill, a greater amount of funds will be disbursed solely based on risk assessment.

In April of this year new-Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before our committee regarding the need within DHS to promote risk-based prioritization and management. He said one of the goals before him is to ``build a culture in which the disparate pieces of information are being transmitted to our analysts so that they, who have the benefit of the fuller picture, can properly analyze all of our information and inform our decision-making.'' We do need to make informed decisions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for having this Special Order this evening for us to have an opportunity to recount some of the things that are necessary for us to do to provide for the defense of our homeland and understand that this threat remains.

The biggest challenge we have here today is that the longer we are successful in forestalling terrorist attacks, the more difficult it is to explain to people why we need to continue to keep our defenses up, the harder it is to explain that these things do not happen by happenstance. Rather, it is because of strong work done by brave men and women involved in the protection of our homeland that allow us to be safer than we would be otherwise.

The worst thing we could possibly do is to not maintain our persistence and our dedication, our true dedication to doing those things that are necessary to protect it, despite the criticism of those who easily look at law enforcement, look at homeland security, the community, and saying they are going too far too fast.

Contrary to that, we know we have not done enough, and while we in the Congress are required to provide the oversight to ensure that there are not abuses in the system and to ensure that no prosecutor, no law enforcement agent takes advantage of those tools we have given them, we also must make sure that they are not cowed by criticism from doing the job that they need to do.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers said we just do not get it. To him I would say, and to others, yes, we do get it.

I came back to this body after 9/11 precisely because of the attack on Americans and the loss of three people that I knew personally. I came back here with the idea that we needed to fight for America and defend ourselves and not tear up the Constitution in the process.

The suggestion made by some that we are engaged in wide-scale torture, that we are somehow morally equivalent with others is absolutely absurd. The proper way for us to respond to allegations is to do what the Congress is supposed to do, and what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) said we are about, which is the proper congressional oversight, not mock hearings like we had last week, not setting up independent commissions, not politicizing this, but doing it in the way the Constitution requires us to do it.

If there is any problem, it is with the Congress not doing proper oversight. We have the commitment from the committees and the subcommittees to do it. Let us rise above partisanship. Let us do the right thing, and let us get rid of this nonsense of a moral equivalency between the United States and some of those terrible regimes around the world. It is not worthy of this body.

Mr. Chairman, let us understand the context in which we are discussing this. This is post-9/11. This is after we have lost 3,000 people. This is after we understood that we had set up inappropriate barriers so that we could look at intelligence information, so that it could give us a forewarning of what might be out there.

There are those who have gotten up here and said, look, there are other

techniques that can be used, a grand jury subpoena, a search warrant. Yes, but that requires the actuality of some proof of a crime at the time.

That is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is the distinction between criminal investigations, in which law enforcement uses search warrants and grand jury subpoenas, and foreign intelligence investigations, in which law enforcement uses section 215 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to request business records.

This amendment would surely restrict intelligence investigations designed to protect against international terrorism and clandestine intelligence activities. These activities do not always appear beforehand to be a crime.

For instance, it was not a crime for the members of al Qaeda to learn to fly airplanes in the U.S. However, if a member of al Qaeda goes into the library and checks out books on the tallest buildings in New York and a book on how to fly a plane, it could be relevant to an international terrorism case under FISA before you have proof of a crime. That is what we are talking about here. You have to go before the FISA court. You have to show that it is related to international terrorism. You just cannot go willy-nilly in and ask for any sort of document that you want.

Also, the Justice Department has looked at this amendment and believes that, in fact, despite the gentleman's efforts to try and eliminate coverage of computers, they believe that the Sanders amendment would cover sign-in sheets, including those using sign-in sheets to use the computer, so that it would not allow this investigative tool to be utilized in intelligence investigations.

Let us understand what we are talking about: intelligence investigations for international espionage. We are not talking about regular crimes. That is why there is a distinction. You are going to prohibit us from utilizing this tool, and there is no example, there is no evidence of abuse.

We have had 12 hearings on this. We have looked at it. In fact, as the law requires right now, the Department has to report to us on a regular basis on these sorts of things. We examine these things. I just ask why you would resolve doubt in favor of compromising our ability to go into intelligence that could lead to the uncovering of a terrorist plot.

We do not have all the lead time when we are talking about these things. That is why there is a distinction in the law carefully built in. That is why we have a separate FISA court. That is why we have judges who have expertise on this. That is why we require the oversight by the Committee on the Judiciary. We have built in these particular protections.

I would just say, rather than present this type of response to legitimate concerns people have about privacy, examine the law as it currently exists, examine the purpose, and understand the difference between a criminal investigation and an intelligence investigation, and why we have this different procedure.

Yes, it is unique, because we have unique circumstances presented to us. We have learned from our errors in the past where we did not have unique circumstances that allowed us to do these sorts of things. That is all we have done here. We are in a new world. We are trying to deal with that world in an effective way without compromising our privacy. And when on the record there is absolutely no evidence, not one modicum of evidence that there has been an abuse by the Justice Department, why we would take this action now, I just do not understand.

So I would ask Members of this body to please defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let us understand first what we are talking about here. We are talking about national security letters, NSLs. They are administrative subpoenas that can be used in international counterterrorism and foreign counterintelligence investigations, not even domestic terrorist investigations. So we are limited to that category.

Secondly, some of the statements that have been made here are questionable in terms of their conclusions, that is, that there is no reporting to Congress. As a matter of fact, NSLs are reported to our intelligence committees, both the House and the Senate. Obviously, not all Members are on those committees, but it is my information that Members can go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and examine the documents presented by the Department of Justice in this regard.

The Supreme Court has upheld the use of administrative subpoenas where the demand is definite and the information sought is relevant. As with other types of subpoenas, the national security letter is a request for information and is not self-executing. In fact, they cannot enforce it. If the recipient refuses to accept the request for information, there is no enforcement mechanism. The FBI would have to obtain an enforcement order from a Federal court, not an NSL.

In fact, the Justice Department has argued both in and out of court that the current law allows for a recipient to obtain preenforcement judicial review of an NSL. As a matter of fact, some of us working on this on the Committee on the Judiciary believe that information ought to be presented to the recipient. They ought to be notified ahead of time, and that is one of the things we ought to be working on.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. It is a third party. There is no doubt about it.

In some cases it is essential to be able to get that information if you are involving yourself in a counterterrorism investigation precisely because you do not want those people to know you are going after that. But the recipient of the letter has the ability to refuse to give that to the authorities.

The idea that somehow we have such an abuse of these letters flies in the face of any presentation we have had from the committees of jurisdiction, that is, the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate. There has been no report to us that there has been an abuse.

I think those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary can work on this if we want to refine it more, if we want to make sure that there is an affirmative presentation to the recipient to let them know they do not have to comply, if there are some sort of other protections we want to wrap around it.

But I also think it is wrong for us to try to do it in this particular venue, and especially when we have a definition of all health records. That goes beyond just personal records. The gentleman's definition is much broader than that in terms of the whole health industry, the whole health insurance industry.

I suggest this is a precipitous action by this body, and I would ask Members to vote down the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of H.R. 2520, which I really view as a noncontroversial, bipartisan piece of legislation that we should all be able to agree on. I think one speaker a moment ago talked about science and our obligation to promote science. I would agree with him, but with this caveat: science tells us what we can do; science does not tell us what we should do. That is an ethical dimension, and we are called upon oftentimes to decide what the ethical thing to do is.

Here we have a piece of legislation dealing with an emerging area of science, but one that has already proven itself to be effective in human application and one that also shows itself to be easily obtained, that is, we either throw away umbilical cords, throw away the umbilical cord and the placenta at the time of birth, or we save the blood that can be captured at that time to make it available such that the stem cells can be taken from that and utilized in this therapeutic fashion. This bill would also allow us to do research with these stem cells.

There is a tremendous frontier out there. There is a tremendous frontier that shows tremendous opportunity for success. I do not want to overhype it. I do not know far it will go, but certainly it has not gotten the attention that needs to be given it. When we talk about stem cells, we can talk about how we obtain the stem cells. We can do it in several ways. And there is an ethical dimension, an ethical dilemma that exists with respect to the second bill that will be up today. There is no such dilemma that exists with respect to this bill.

We can obtain this in very easy ways, voluntarily, asking mothers at the time their children are born to donate these units such that others might be helped. We have been laggard in our approach to this particular area of science. Again, I say, where we have no ethical question, where we have strong support from the scientific community, we should do no less than to support this bill strongly.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, just in response to what was said on the floor, this is a statement that has appeared on the floor, and also in print, which says that the bill before us prohibits Federal funding used for the destruction of embryos.

By its very definition, it requires the destruction of embryos when it does the research. That ought to be very clear. The process talked about requires the destruction of embryos.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of seven children. I am the second oldest. My older brother John is 2 years and 2 days older than I. We grew up together closer than any other members of the family.

After I left this House on the first occasion, within 2 years, my brother developed Parkinson's. He has now suffered with it for 15 years. I have learned a lot of things from my brother, but one of the things I learned most of all was there is a difference between right and wrong. There is a moral dimension in most of the serious issues that we must face.

Would I like to support embryonic stem cell research without a question

of ethics because it might assist my brother? Sure. Would I like to see embryonic stem cell research in the area of cancer where it might have helped one of my sisters who has had cancer? Yes. Would I like to see it in terms of research of cancer that plagues 4-year-old children like my nephew? Of course. But can we divorce all of that from the ethical norm that we must present here?

We look back in history and, yes, America has oftentimes promoted science. But America has made mistakes in the past. The worst mistakes we have ever made in the history of this Nation have been when we have defined a part of the human family as less than fully human and then done things to them that we would not allow done to ourselves.

We have done it with slavery. We have done it with the Tuskegee medical experiments. Other countries have done it as well. The commonality among all of those mistakes, the greatest mistakes in our Nation's history, has been the ease with which we defined members of the human family as less than fully human.

We are talking about embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of the embryo, the destruction of part of the human family. We should remember that as we talk here today. We should resolve doubt in favor of life as we do in our criminal justice system, as we do in our civil law system.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all add my thanks to both the chairman and the ranking member of this committee for the bipartisan way in which they have approached this issue.

I was not a member of this House of Representatives on 9/11. I saw, as did many Americans, an attack that many of us had never anticipated. It only brought memories of what my parents' generation must have felt on the day that we had the attack at Pearl Harbor.

The question before us really now is what is the proper response and what will that response be by our legislative branch. There has been established a Department of Homeland Security. It is an amalgamation of many departments and agencies that previously existed. It has been an effort to try and bring a single focus to a major issue, our response to terrorism. It was a well-done job under the circumstances.

Yet now we are here some 3-plus years after 9/11, and we recognize that everything we did was not exactly perfect. We recognize there are changes that must be made. This authorization bill is the first chance that our committee has to present to the House our effort to try and get our arms around not only this problem but the response to this problem, and that is the Department of Homeland Security.

While there are other elements of the executive branch which deal with this, the primary responsibility is with the Department of Homeland Security, and we have attempted on a bipartisan basis to look at the issues, to do the proper oversight, to try and make some recommendations, but none should be deluded to the fact that we somehow believe this is the total response to the problem.

This is our first effort. This is the beginning of a job that is going to be ongoing. Much like the Defense Department was organized in the late 1940s, early 1950s, and while it took time for Congress to properly get its arms around that, we similarly must do that now.

Time is not on our side. The terrorists are not waiting until we get organized, so we must make sure that we do this in the best fashion possible, in a timely fashion.

I would say that I am very proud of the fact that the bill that has been brought to floor is a bill that got the unanimous support of the members of this committee, both Democrat and Republican. It is a worthy bill. It is a worthy effort at our direction to the Department of Homeland Security.

There will be things that we will do in the future. One of the things mentioned by the ranking member that I believe is a real step forward is establishing the position of Assistant Secretary for cybersecurity. There is a need to have a concentration on that issue. There is a need to have that at a heightened level. There is a need for us to understand the embedded nature of cyberoperations in our society, both public and private. I believe that we have on a bipartisan basis reached that conclusion.

I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for the work they have done. I would ask that the Members support this bill as presented by this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science, someone who worked closely with our committee.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Once again, I want to thank both the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, and the chairman of our committee for the fine work they did in producing the bipartisan base bill, but I rise in opposition to the ranking member's substitute amendment.

This 221-page substitute amendment offered in the nature of a substitute to the 40-some page base bill that we have is obviously more extensive than what was presented on the floor, and the explanation has been presented on both sides as to why this is the case. However, I would like to refer specifically to the comments of the gentleman from Maryland about the additional cost involved in the substitute, nearly $7 billion.

The American people have told us they do want us to do what is necessary for homeland security, but they have also said they want us to spend our money wisely. Press reports, as well as our own examination, has shown that there is in the pipeline in homeland security approximately $7 billion that is unspent. The answer is not to come in here and, therefore, increase the base bill by $7 billion, which is $7 billion over the President's budget, $7 billion over the House-passed badge budget, which, therefore, somehow tries to make a statement that more money spent is obviously going to make us safer.

We need to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security is setting the priorities that are necessary,

is spending the money in the appropriate ways and answers the question why money is stuck in the pipeline.

I would suggest the way to do that is not to give them an additional $7 billion somehow as some sort of attraction for them to tell us how they have not spent that $7 billion, that extra $7 billion that is out there.

Let me just say that the provisions in this substitute constitute sweeping changes, sweeping comprehensive changes in the responsibility, mission and funding for the Department over and above what our bipartisan committee presented in the base bill. Such changes cannot be made, I would suggest, in this type of setting without full debate, certainly more than 40 minutes, and consideration of a possible alternatives and consequences.

There are important questions here. How do we provide security in the area of the chemical industry? The chemical security portion of this amendment requires broad and sweeping regulation of the chemical industry by the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe it is not. I do not think we have the basis to make a judgment on this. I would also suggest it is counterproductive to improving our chemical infrastructure security. It places unnecessary burdens on potentially thousands of sites that may or may not be the sites at risk that we should be focusing on. Again, it is a question of priority.

It ignores the concept of examining high risk to effectively target our security resources. One of the things I thought we had done as a bipartisan committee was come to the conclusion that we really have to be very careful and demand that we set proper priorities, that we cannot go out and try and protect everything; we have to protect those things that are most vulnerable, those things that have the greatest threat, those things that have the worst consequences. I would suggest that this substitute does not do that.

I thank the gentleman for the time that he extended to me.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to place into the Record the words of Dexter Lehtinen, a reconnaissance platoon leader who was seriously wounded in the Vietnam War. After serving our country in Vietnam, Mr. Lehtinen graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School and went on to serve as a Florida State Senator and a United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

On May 8, the world celebrated the 60th anniversary of V-E Day marking the end of the war in Europe. With ceremonies commemorating the Allies victory over tyranny, the day served as a reminder of the sacrifices made to this country by what many call our greatest generation.

In contrast to the fitting tribute paid to the World War II generation, Jane Fonda recently published a book ``My Life So Far.'' There, she expresses regret not for her visits to North Vietnam, her broadcasts on Radio Hanoi nor her cavalier description of our tortured POW's as ``hypocrites and liars,'' but only for being photographed in a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun site.

Let us not forget how damaging her actions were to the POW's and combat troops in the field. I firmly believe in the First Amendment rights all American's cherish, but traveling to enemy soil to criticize our soldiers and airmen during the war is a reprehensible act not easily forgotten nor pardoned.

I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Lehtinen's article and never forget the sacrifices made by all veterans of this great nation.

[From the National Review, April 29, 2005]

Jane Fonda in Wonderland

non-apology not accepted

(By Dexter Lehtinen)

You may have heard that Jane Fonda apologized to Vietnam

veterans in her current book. That's incorrect. She expressed

``regret'' for one photograph, but remains proud of her Radio

Hanoi broadcasts, her efforts to achieve a Communist victory,

and her attacks on American servicemen as war criminals. She

never uses the word ``apology.''

Fonda's latest foray into her past--with her pseudo-apology

for having been photographed while sitting on a Communist

North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, along with her continued

vigorous defense of all other aspects of her trip to North

Vietnam and her support for the North Vietnamese and

Cambodian Communist wars--reminds us that apologies can be

very tricky things. An unqualified apology offered with

sincere regret for the full scope of the wrong by someone who

recognizes the harm inflicted on others can help in

reconciliation. But a ``pseudo-apology,'' offered with

limitations by someone who still defends the bulk of the

wrong, only serves to aggravate the injury.

Everyone knows the negative effects of the common pseudo-

apology, the refrain of which goes, ``I'm sorry if I offended

you.'' Pseudo-apologies attempt to subtly shift the blame to

the injured party, who apparently misunderstood the good

intentions of the offender.

So it is with Jane Fonda's book. In My Life So Far, ``Hanoi

Jane'' expresses ``regret'' for one thing--being photographed

with an anti-aircraft gun. ``I do not regret that I went. My

only regret about the trip was that I was photographed in a

North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun site.'' Fonda amplifies:

``That two minute lapse of sanity will haunt me until I

die.'' She is ``innocent of what the photo implies,'' but

``the photo exists, delivering its message, regardless of

what I was really doing or feeling.'' She makes it abundantly

clear, without apology or regret, that what she was ``really

doing'' was aiding the Communist enemy (who ``touch our

hearts''), and that what she was ``really feeling'' was that

U.S. aviators were war criminals.

The photograph is not Fonda's primary transgression. Of

course, the photo itself became the everlasting graphic proof

of her outrageous behavior. So in a way Fonda is right--in

practice, it is the photograph that reminds generations of

who Jane Fonda really is. In her ``regret,'' limited to the

photograph alone, Vietnam veterans see Fonda's endeavoring to

ameliorate the harm to herself with virtually no regard to

the harm she caused to others.

Hanoi Jane's wrongs go far beyond the photograph. First, of

course, are the facts that she joined the enemy gun crew at

all and made two visits to North Vietnam. Second, Fonda's

self-initiated broadcasts on Radio Hanoi accused Americans of

being war criminals. It was these broadcasts from the enemy's

capital (not the gun photo) that gave her the lasting handle

``Hanoi Jane'' in emulation of ``Tokyo Rose,'' an American

who broadcast Japanese propaganda in World War II. In her

self-proclaimed FTA (``F*** the Army'') rallies, she

claimed that personal atrocities ``were a way of life for

many of our military''.

Third, Fonda exploited American POWs for Communist gain,

asserting that the POWs were being treated humanely following

a Communist-controlled visit. In fact, the remarkable POWs

who showed any resistance to the Fonda visit were beaten

severely and she betrayed the POWs by falsely claiming that

they expressed ``disgust'' and ``shame'' over what they had

done. When the returning POWs reported their torture, showing

their broken bodies as proof, Fonda called them ``hypocrites

and liars.'' She claims in her book that she was ``framed.''

Fourth, Fonda ignored the non-Communist Vietnamese and

Cambodians who resisted the Vietnamese Communists and the

Cambodian Khmer Rouge, showing no concern for their fate.

Fonda continued to support the Communists against indigenous

non-Communists even after American withdrawal. She was not

``anti-war''; she was ``pro-war''--for a Communist victory.

She was not even ``anti-atrocity'' per se, remaining silent

on Communist executions of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians

(such as the 3,000 slaughtered with their hands tied in Hue

in 1968, or the final tragedy following Communist victories

in 1975).

Fonda's hopes for a Communist victory in South Vietnam and

Cambodia were fulfilled. But her hopes for fame as an

instrument of Communist achievements have been dashed on the

rocks of reality--the truth about Communist malevolence and

disregard for human dignity; the truth about the commitment

by most American soldiers to honorable behavior; the truth

about the torture and murder of American POWs. Now her

efforts to promote commercial gain through a limited pseudo-

apology, which is simultaneously withdrawn by a less visible

(yet explicit) defense of her transgressions, will fail on

the same rocks of reality.

Jane Fonda has always lived in a kind of Wonderland--where

American POWs are liars and Communist tyrants are honorable

men. Now she says that ``the U.S. loss represented our

nation's chance for redemption'' and that the Communist

victory ``symbolizes hope for the planet.'' Her latest foray

into the Vietnam War only shows that, unlike Alice, Jane

Fonda has yet to emerge from Wonderland.