Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an excellent example of bipartisan behavior in the drafting. It reflects quite well what we went through in California last week. Particularly, I take note of the fact that this was the largest fire because it had the most fuel. This is one of the challenges we face in California. We have hundreds of thousands of acres that may not have been cleared or burned in more than three decades. That continues to be a challenge. And this body has to take some initiative to correct that. We need to have the ability to clear areas before they burn. But even if we do, there will be fires.

I would hope for many of the people that hear us today and read the Record of today's Journal that they will recognize that some of the information that perhaps was put out was incorrect over the airwaves. Many people talked in terms of too many people too close to wilderness.

When the President visited Congressman Bilbray and my district, Rancho Bernardo, which is at the heart of our two districts, Rancho Bernardo is a suburban, ``Leave It to Beaver'' community. This is an area with an interstate on both sides of it. The fire went on both sides of a 10-lane interstate. It jumped it because 80-mile-an-hour winds will do that. We didn't create that in California; California had that when we arrived.

On the hilltops, firefighters were looking at just ordinary backyards, sometimes hillsides, but ordinary backyards of half-acre, acre lots, or less, and in fact trying to save the houses on them.

So, I would hope that people throughout the country, when they try to characterize what went on in California, would take an opportunity to meet with somebody from the districts in California, Congressman Filner, Congressman Bilbray, myself, and others, because we saw firsthand that firefighters had residential fires from 80-mile-an-hour- , 100-degree-driven firestorms.

Additionally, I would like to bring up something that may not often cross the awareness of the men and women around the country who know about this fire, and that is we not only executed in San Diego County all of the plays that were in the playbook, all of the things which were written on how to fight a fire well from Malibu to the Mexican border, but additionally we wrote some new chapters.

I am very proud that the United States Marines of Camp Pendleton and the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar joined the fight for the first time beyond those who were part of the plan. We were able to mobilize, on any given day, as many as eight additional aircraft which had never been designated to fight fires off the base. They were made available due to the initiative of the Northern Command and of Major General Lehnert and others in the chain of command who said, We have the ability to fight fire. We fight them on our bases every day. We will bring those to bear.

With cooperation from the department called CAL FIRE in California and the Governor's office, that was made to happen in less than 48 hours. So when the book is written on the evacuation and on the fighting of the fire in Southern California, yes, it was devastating for over 5,000 families that lost homes, that lost commercial buildings, that lost trailers or that, in fact, lost their farms and ranches, but, in fact, this was a well-fought fire in which the people of San Diego came together to do the right thing.

I am very proud of the people of San Diego and all of Southern California. I am also very thankful for the United States Marine Corps and the other first responders who made such a difference in our time of need. I thank you for this resolution, and I support and encourage all those to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that his words be taken down for disparagement of the Bush administration.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection as long as the admonishment of the Chair would be that, in fact, there is a caution as to disparaging or appearing to disparage the office or the person of the President or the Vice President under our rules.

I thank the gentleman, and that is an acceptable UC.

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of this committee cannot have it both ways. And the Speaker of the House cannot have it both ways. In their blind hatred for this administration and the President, they would have you believe on Tuesday of last week that you must believe the Ministry of Interior in Iraq and you must believe that the veterans, now serving for Blackwater, murdered in cold blood 17 Iraqis who were unarmed, defenseless, simply for the sport of it. On Tuesday, that is what Erik Prince had to deal with on the orders of Speaker Pelosi and dealt out by Chairman Waxman.

That was Tuesday. By Thursday, we were looking at what we see here today, that the administration was covering up so much corruption, particularly the corruption of the Ministry of Interior. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution not because it is flawless. It has its understandable flaws. But I am going to vote for it because in the whereases it says, whereas, the independent commission on security forces of Iraq chaired by General James L. Jones (Retired) reported on September 6, 2007 that ``sectarianism and corruption are pervasive in the Ministry of Interior and cripple the ministry's ability to accomplish its mission.''

It goes on and on to make the point I am making, just as the majority has already made, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in order to believe that combat veterans, special forces veterans, Green Berets and special forces SEALS now out of the military and out of harm's way in Iraq working for Blackwater, in order to believe that they murdered in cold blood defenseless civilians at an intersection just for sport just after a bomb went off, you would have had to believe the Minister of Interior. And Mr. Waxman would have had the committee believe that on Tuesday. But by Thursday, of course, we have the coverup of such rampant corruption. Yet in the very, very resolution, we have an independent commission headed by a distinguished former general say, in no uncertain terms, there is rampant and widespread corruption. That has not been taken back by the administration.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is Mr. Waxman and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, cannot have it both ways. They cannot go after our troops in harm's way, our contractors serving in those capacities similar, most of them, if not all of them veterans, they cannot denounce every aspect of this war, how we got there and when we go there and then say, but this group is so corrupt we must leave.

The previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, went out of his way to say the third from the bottom in corruption is Iraq, never mentioning that Burma was below that. Burma managed to be one of the two at the very bottom. Mr. Speaker, would the majority have us pull out our representation and support in Burma and leave to those who are already the victims of corruption an even more corrupt government? Or would they, given that this administration in their view is not doing enough, say, We should do more, we should engage, we should spend the money insisting on transparency and reform?

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this resolution because, in fact, I believe the majority and the minority should agree that there is corruption, corruption so widespread in Iraq for the Minister of Interior to frame men and women in harm's way in order to get them out of the way. I do not want this body and this Congress to be a party to framing Americans who are putting their lives on the line as patriots in Iraq.

I ask that people support it on both sides, not because Mr. Waxman isn't trying to have it both ways, but because, in fact, there is corruption in Iraq, and hopefully, at some point, he will begin to believe loyal Americans over those very corrupt entities that he denounces in other parts of his resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill goes too far in jeopardizing our national security.

The freedom of the press is an immensely important principal in our democratic society. That is why the Department of Justice (DOJ) has for the past 35 years followed a policy that strictly limits when Federal prosecutors are allowed to issue subpoenas to the press. These standards are so difficult to meet that prosecutors, under this current policy, are commonly discouraged from even seeking a subpoena for a reporter in the first place.

These protections, which are far reaching, should not be absolute. When critical, highly sensitive national security information is illegally disclosed to members of the news media and published for every enemy of America to see--Federal prosecutors must be empowered to aggressively investigate the disclosure of that information and the prosecution of those responsible. We simply cannot erect obstacles which hamstring Federal law enforcement when sensitive government secrets are divulged. Such disclosure can be treasonous, and reporters should not be able to protect individuals who jeopardize our national security. American lives are more important than the privilege of anonymity that reporters promise to a source who is compromising our nation's secrets.

According to the DOJ, the ``unduly narrow exception to the legislation's broad prohibition on compelled disclosure would hinder efforts to investigate and prosecute those who have leaked classified information, undermine the ability of law enforcement to investigate national security breaches that have already occurred, and weaken Federal efforts to mitigate damage to national security that has already taken place.'' As a member of both the Committees on Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I find these faults with the bill unacceptable.

While I do not stand in opposition to my friends Representatives Mike Pence and Rick Boucher, the primary sponsors of this legislation, I must ask my colleagues to vote no on this bill. H.R. 2102 establishes new dangers without sufficient justification.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the establishment of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation in Temecula, California.

For more than 10,000 years, the Pechanga have lived in the Temecula Valley region of Southern California, where they have been stewards of the land. The Pechanga lived peacefully on this land and prospered until the arrival of Spanish missionaries at the end of the 18th Century.

For the next 75 years after the arrival of the Missions, the Pechanga faced a dark period of pain and oppression in servitude to the missionaries. Eventually, they were forcefully removed from their land and relocated to the hills south of Temecula. It was not until June 27, 1882, by an executive order by President Chester A. Arthur that a reservation was established upon a portion of the lands historically belonging to the Pechanga tribe.

After the establishment of the reservation, the tribe faced many challenges including floods, fires, droughts, economic scarcity, and disease. Yet through these challenges the Pechanga managed to maintain their customs, tradition, language, desire for self-determination, and hope for a better tomorrow.

Now the Pechanga are at a point where the present and the future look much brighter than the past. Members of the tribe have a sense of optimism that they can build a better life for their people and the Temecula Valley as a whole. They have the economic resources to create opportunities for thousands of California families, and they work to maintain a strong and respectful relationship with the federal government.

It is my sincere hope that the next 125 years will be even brighter and more prosperous for the Pechanga Tribe, the Temecula Valley, and our great nation.

Mr. Speaker, today in the Committee on Oversight and Reform, we are going to continue without a doubt the attack on our men and women in uniform. It is clear after last week's debate in which 79 Members of the House refused to denounce MoveOn.org for their attacks on the patriotism of General David Petraeus, there are those who intend to continue to attack the war on any front.

Mr. Speaker, I rise not because I support the war, not because I love war, not because in fact I have any desire to have this war or any war last one day longer than absolutely necessary.

Mr. Speaker, unable to effectively portray our men and women in uniform as guilty of wrongdoing, in spite of the fact that one of our Members called in fact our marines, marines based at Camp Pendleton, killers of women and children in cold blood. Those charges for the most part have already been dismissed.

Our men and women in uniform make mistakes. In the Committee on Oversight and Reform today, we are going to be talking about not our men and women in uniform, but men and women who served an average of 10 years in uniform who have joined private contractors in support of our State Department. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Blackwater. I am not defending Blackwater. The truth is neither Speaker Pelosi nor Chairman Waxman know what happened in Iraq in September. What we do know is that there are investigations going on into the specific incidents, like so many incidents in a country in which every day soldiers, sailors and marines die by IEDs and roadside bombs and other ways of killing our men and women without taking risk to their own lives.

An incident like that apparently occurred in September, but instead of waiting until the IG, the FBI, the State Department concluded their investigations, today, Mr. Speaker, the Government Oversight and Reform will decide that they are going to go after the facts directly. They have subpoenaed directly the CEO of that company, not because he was there, not because he has some special knowledge, but because, Mr. Speaker, it is all about the headlines. The bodies were not even cold on that incident before the Committee on Oversight and Reform began to prepare for today's hearings.

In order to believe that Blackwater is guilty before the evidence is in, you have to believe the Minister of Interior. Mr. Speaker, you have to believe the very organization that former Washington, DC, Chief Ramsey and retired four star General Jim Jones called that organization that he leads, some 300,000 police, 85 percent of whom are Shia, so corrupted and so compromised as to be disbanded. In fact, that is exactly the organization that apparently arrived and apparently is to be believed that some wrongdoing occurred.

Mr. Speaker, when I went to Iraq the last time or one time, I went with Chairman Waxman and now Speaker Pelosi, our unit was guarded by Blackwater. At that time, I didn't hear any objections to the overhead cover provided by Blackwater. I didn't hear any objections to the EOD unit that was protecting us against bombs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the only time there seems to be a desire to have this type of oversight is when the headlines would help demean the very effort we are involved in in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the American people are in fact more knowledgeable of what this war is all about. Not that they want this war, but that they do not want to have the men and women in uniform or those Americans who under contract go to this combat zone willingly, most of them after service in that combat zone while in uniform, demeaned without a fair opportunity for investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I was one of many Members of Congress who asked that today's hearing be postponed until at least the State Department, the FBI, and other organizations had an opportunity to do a proper investigation. I am proud to be a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Reform, but I am ashamed that we in fact are doing trials rather than oversight. We have never done anything more shameless than what we are doing today, going after an organization without waiting for the facts. We

do not oversee Blackwater in the Congress; we oversee the administration, and we should be looking at their reports, we should be looking at what they have done, and we should be in fact reforming anything that is wrong in the administration.

So I trust that today's hearings will be watched by many people, Mr. Speaker. I trust that Members of this body will view this as what it is, a witch hunt, because they can't go after our men and women in uniform.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 30 years of exemplary service that Colonel Frazier of the United States Marine Corps has given to this great country.

Colonel Frazier has served in many capacities since he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1974. During his seven years of enlisted service and 30 total years of service, he served a myriad of posts in a variety of locations worldwide. He has served his country both in enlisted service and in positions of leadership in Saigon, Korea, Okinawa, Thailand, Russia, Camp Pendleton, CA; Parris Island, SC; Australia, Quantico, VA; Stuttgart, Germany; and finally, in Iraq.

In 1989, he earned his BS in Criminal Justice Administration from National University using the Marine Corps College Degree Program. Upon graduation from Top Level School in 2003 he was assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force G-4 Division and completed two deployments to Iraq. He was promoted to Colonel on 1 January 2005 and joined MCIWEST Headquarters in March 2006 and served concurrently as Head, Infrastructure Plans Branch and as Assistant Chief of Staff Facilities, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA.

With such a diverse resume and a multidisciplinary record of leadership positions, his deep understanding of many facets of the United States Marine Corps lends him to being not only just an excellent advocate for our troops, but a quintessential example for how diversely talented a Marine can be. With his willingness to travel, to continue his education and to serve his country wherever and whenever possible, the United States and the U.S. Marine Corps could not have asked for more. In his 30 years of military service Colonel Frazier has proven himself an able and willing leader.

His personal decorations include the Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals, three Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, and two Good Conduct Medals.

Colonel Frazier is married to the former Myra Marie Marbrey of Carlsbad, CA. They have five children: Gerald, an Air Force Master Sergeant, Clyde III, Jeremy, Michael and Anthony.

On behalf of the people of the United States, whom Colonel Frazier spent a career serving, I thank him for his service and commitment to the defense of our Nation; he truly is a great American hero.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to remember those who have died as a result of sudden cardiac arrest, and to introduce a House Resolution in support of the goals and ideals of Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Day.

Sudden cardiac arrest, SCA, is a condition in which the heart suddenly and unexpectedly stops beating, causing blood to stop flowing to the brain and other vital organs. SCA usually causes death if not treated in minutes.

Annually, 250,000 to 450,000 Americans have sudden cardiac arrest, and 95 percent of these people die within minutes. But SCA does not have to take this many lives. Rapid treatment of SCA with a defibrillator, a device that sends an electrical shock to the heart, can be lifesaving. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute, automated external defibrillators, AEDs, which are often found in public places like airports and office buildings, can be used to save the lives of people having SCAs.

On May 20, 2005, 14-year-old Travis Roy was at school in Murrieta, CA, when he suffered SCA. His school, like most schools, did

not have an AED, and tragically, Travis died because treatment could not be administered fast enough.

Since Travis's death, his family has campaigned to raise awareness of SCA and to get AEDs placed in schools. To date, several schools in the southern California area have implemented AED programs, including the Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Temecula Valley Unified School District, San Jacinto Unified School District and Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego.

California has proclaimed September 12 as Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Day, to honor those who died as a result of sudden cardiac arrest. Awareness about sudden cardiac arrest and ensuring defibrillators are available in schools and other public buildings can save lives. Raising awareness of sudden cardiac arrest is a task worthy of Congress's attention.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The fact that this is what one might consider Democrat time being yielded to a Republican probably says just how bipartisan this bill is. This has been worked on in a Republican majority and in a Democrat majority. It's been cosponsored by the chairman and the ranking members of the committees. It is, in fact, an unusual piece of work.

Additionally, this rule, and I've been voting against rules lately because they weren't open and fair. This rule accommodated virtually every amendment offered. In fact, many of the people speaking here today against the bill and against the rule didn't offer any amendments.

Whether you're on the committee or not, this is your opportunity, after nearly 4 years of this being an open process under leadership on both sides of the aisle, this is your opportunity, if you have solutions.

I urge the passage of this rule and the passage of the underlying bill because, in fact, it is the best work the best minds on both sides of the aisle could produce over 3 years.

Now, people who, in fact, are saying they don't want to vote for it are saying we just need more time. In fact, the engine that drives the economic wealth of our country cannot afford for us to simply let the men and women in black robes continue to try to patch a broken system, as the Supreme Court has done. Not moving in this Congress, and rapid pace could be another year, including the other body. Not moving in this Congress would force the Supreme Court to deal with an out-of-date set of laws. We need to vote this bipartisan bill through a very positive rule, and then to final passage.

I strongly recommend that people look at the fact that amendments were accepted by both sides of the aisle, and, as the chairman said, more were accepted by the Republicans, in addition to literally hundreds of suggestions being incorporated into the manager's amendment.

I move that we pass the rule, pass the underlying bill, continue a bipartisan process that, of course, will always have somebody who feels they're not benefited. But, in fact, you can't get this kind of support by people who do not normally work well together unless, in fact, this process has been full and fair, as it has been. I thank the ranking member and the chairman for their bipartisan work.

Mr. Chairman, for those who may be interested, some of my patents have expired and more will.

I am no longer a day-to-day inventor; but I will always have the soul of an inventor, the belief that in fact if you have an idea, you can go to the Patent Office and for a relative de minimis amount of money you can in fact protect that idea for a period of 20 years from the time you ask the Patent Office to protect your invention and give you an opportunity to make a small or not-so-small fortune off of it.

I don't think there is anyone in the Congress who owes their reason for being here to the success of patents more than myself. My company grew and thrived because we were able to protect our intellectual property, patents, copyrights and trademarks. So since I have been here as a non-attorney coming to the Congress and asking to be on the Judiciary Committee, a little bit like Sonny Bono, that is where the things he knew about were legislated. He knew about copyrights and songs; I know a little bit about patents, and a lot about the flaws in the system.

And, Mr. Chairman, there are many flaws in the system. This bill has been the best work by the best minds, both by Members of Congress, but also by staff, trade associations and industry, to bring out those mistakes and to try to find solutions.

Today you have heard a lot of anger and rancor about China. Nobody could want America to prosper more than I do. But, in fact, by next year more than half of all patents in the U.S. will be granted to non- U.S. companies. This is not a debate about protecting patents against foreigners. Foreigners are patenting in our country, and we invite that innovation. It has often led to prosperity in all aspects of America.

I include a long letter from UCSD CONNECT, an organization founded by Bill Otterson and the University of California at San Diego, in which they, along with California Healthcare Institute, BIOCOM, Gen-Probe, Invitrogen, Pfizer, Qualcomm and others who all say this is a good bill, but we have some additional areas we would like to find compromise on. Some of the things in this letter of yesterday are included in the manager's amendment. Some will be included in amendments that will be heard on the floor in a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

In short, this amendment simply seeks to maintain our historic and important American-only right for an inventor who was denied a patent to keep that patent a secret.

Additionally, it allows sufficient time in the process for a patent holder to know that his patent, his or her patent, either will or will not likely be granted significant claims.

For that reason, we struck a balance between the rest of the world that recognizes that patents are normally published after 18 months. We said, no, it will be the greater of the second office action, which can be anywhere from 3 to 5 years or 18 months, and we did so because we believe somebody should know when they receive significant claims or not before they are forced to decide whether or not to retain a trade secret.

It's an important issue; it's one that I believe will allow us a final and lasting way for a secret to be balanced with the interest to not have submarine patents and unknown information.

I yield to the chairman of the full committee.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield to the ranking member of the full committee.

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

I would yield to the full committee chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I guess as a machinist union worker and a mechanic, I'll get that out there so that I get my claim to union membership and to having gotten a lot of grease under fingernails, for Ms. Kaptur's understanding, because I think what she brought up is crucial, and full understanding is essential as to this amendment.

This amendment, if it takes 10 years to get a second office action, will give the inventor 10 years of no one else seeing it. It is an infinite period of time, subject to the 20-year expiration. It is, in fact, an infinite period of time. And as an inventor, I chose the second office action, even though small inventors had said the first office action was good enough, because I was aware that the first office action is most often a rejection over which you overcome most of the objections. The second rejection, if there is one, they usually accept some, and if they give you a rejection, you usually don't overcome them, and the venture community, if you've had a second rejection, tends to discount potential additional claims. So that's the reason I chose those because, in fact, it gives you unlimited time to pursue your patent up to and through a second and, usually, final rejection.

I would be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

It does. Under this provision, if you receive your second and usually final rejection and you say, okay, I'm going to take my, within 90 days, I'm going to discard my patent, that wrapper is not available to anyone. It remains a secret and you're allowed to keep your trade secrets.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'll briefly explain the amendment. Almost every single agency of the Federal Government has rule-making authority. But, quite frankly, rules are, in fact, laws made by agencies. So when the Patent and Trademark Office repeatedly has asked us for rule-making authority, it has been a long process to figure out the best way to allow them to make rules but to retain our genuine constitutional obligation over the effects

of those laws. So, in doing so, what we did was we crafted a constitutional review. We're not allowed to veto these agencies, but we are allowed to overrule them. And in doing so, what we have decided to do is to allow any Member of the House or the Senate to bring a motion in opposition to any rule produced or proposed by the Patent and Trademark Office, and we will, in fact, within 60 days, hear that rule, that opposition and make a decision. This is designed specifically to stop any overreaching under this underlying bill from potentially causing things which we would not have legislated to, in fact, be legislated, while recognizing that we want the Patent and Trademark Office to have the ability to move swiftly and accurately to the conclusion of patents on behalf of our economy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Conyers.

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

Both of my amendments are intended to improve this bill. I don't stand before the Committee of the Whole to say that this bill will become perfect. As a matter of fact, in the general debate, I named companies like BIOCOM and GenProbe and Invitrogen, who are part of UCSD CONNECT, who have specific areas we are including in the material that they want continued work done on. They are, in fact, dissatisfied with the bill because it hasn't done everything it could do. But this amendment on rulemaking which would stop an arbitrary decision by the Patent Office on something it may want to do such as eliminate continuations, et cetera, is there for a reason. And I would hope that people who are going to perhaps oppose the bill as not yet good enough would recognize that it is crucial for this amendment to get into it if we are going to protect against arbitrary action by the Patent and Trademark Office.

And last but not least, Ms. Kaptur was kind enough to ask one more question during the previous amendment that couldn't be answered, and I just want to make it clear on the previous amendment, you will be able to keep your secret through an unlimited period of debate back and forth with the Patent Office up to two full rejections and then 90 days in which to close. And I would hope the gentlewoman would recognize that that is an improvement even if nothing is perfect.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under the current law when your patent claims are granted, you have an obligation to make available to the world and to people of ordinary skill in the art how to knock off your product. That's current law. That has been around since the founding. The deal between the Patent Office, the American people, if you will, and the inventor is that you have disclosed to the world if you are given those claims for a limited period of time. We are not changing that in 200 years. We are protecting your right if you are not granted a patent. That is what current law does; that is what this amendment does.

Mr. Chairman, I am shocked. I'm shocked that this bill and this process is going forward.

When we marked this bill up in the Committee on Government Reform, I was positive that it could not possibly go forward without the section on citizen enforcement being amended, reformed, or eliminated. And yet I am here today not only finding out that it is still in the bill but of the Rules Committee having had the audacity to not even allow it to be considered for amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation is a license for an unlimited amount of suits against the government by the extreme environmental groups. In fact, this bill pays a $75,000 bounty on top of unlimited legal fees to anyone who sues the government even if, in fact, that suit is based on this body's failure to act. Yes. Lawyers will be telling us, by suing us, that we must do more, and there will be no controls. They can sue in all 92 locations around the country. They can sue for any reason. We will have to pay the bill. When they lose, too bad. When they win, they get paid for taking from us not only 100 percent of their legal fees but $75,000 on top of that.

This is a license for America to be held hostage by the trial lawyers. It was deliberate. It was slipped through the committee. They said it was going to be fixed. In fact, nothing has been fixed; and we have been prevented from having an amendment on the House floor. This is undemocratic, and the Democrats know it.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has alleged illegal acts by the President's administration in his speech. I ask that those words be taken down.

The gentleman asked to withdraw the what statements? I couldn't quite hear it.

No, he is not withdrawing them if he claims they are accurate. They are inaccurate.

Is the gentleman withdrawing them without any other reservation?

That's fair. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to lower the tone and the rhetoric for just a moment and in 2 minutes give the American people and the body here the opportunity to reflect on what we're really doing here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I travel throughout the Arab world regularly. People in that area of the world are more afraid of Islamic terrorism than any American here tonight. They count on us to be their eyes and ears. Most of those countries do not have the resources we have.

So when they hear tonight that we don't want a foreign terrorist who calls into a cell in the U.S. to be listened to, they're shocked. They're shocked that we wouldn't at least listen to the foreign side of the operation or see the e-mail, and if the President doesn't sign this by tomorrow, there will be plenty of terrorists who will take note of this because they didn't think, in fact, we weren't able to listen to foreign callers who are calling in to their terrorist cells.

Mr. Speaker, oddly enough, September 11 is a story of exactly this, that we were not listening to Osama bin Laden. We were not monitoring Osama bin Laden's instructions to his cells as they went back and forth into the U.S. and even into my home of San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, what's amazing to me here tonight is that we're arguing as though we're changing the Constitution arbitrarily. Mr. Speaker, what

we're doing is passing a stopgap 6-month, I repeat, 6-month bill. This thing sunsets in 6 months. One of those months, everybody here will be out on vacation or in their districts doing town hall meetings.

The fact is that only 5 months will remain when we come back from the August recess to work further on refinements on a lasting bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would close by saying, if people would understand, that really what we're doing is we're simply buying the ability to leave town and letting our allies and the American people know that they can sleep safely tonight. I urge you to take this compromise bipartisan bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I won't need 5 minutes.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I can take ``yes'' for an answer. Thank you both very much.

The Issa amendment simply prevents the Intelligence portion of the DOD Appropriations bill to be made public.

The budget total for the National Intelligence Program is now authorized to be made public in a provision that was included in the conference report to H.R. 1.

No amendments were allowed during the Conference to fix this problem. The original House-passed version of H.R. 1 did not include this provision.

With so many threats to our Nation's security, it makes no sense to disclose vital information to our enemies.

Traditionally, this number has remained classified for good reason.

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

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

Offered By: Mr. Issa

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with great concern about what the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1 does, but I am more troubled by what this report has left undone.

The purported goal of H.R. 1/S. 4 was to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report. This conference report does not do that. Specifically, this report remains silent on one of the 9/11 Commission's vital recommendations concerning reform of congressional oversight of intelligence.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission Report recommended that Congress should either form a joint House and Senate Committee on Intelligence or that the House and Senate should consolidate their authorizing and appropriating functions for the intelligence community into one committee in each chamber. To this end, I drafted language to offer during the conference on this bill. But, from introduction to floor consideration, under a closed rule, H.R. 1 did not follow regular order. Likewise, the conference was closed to amendment and debate on all but a few provisions, congressional oversight of intelligence not being one of them.

My motion would have included language in the conference report to establish a commission to study the congressional oversight of intelligence. The proposed commission would have examined the impact of the current system of congressional oversight on the intelligence community and specifically addressed at what cost to our national security is the decision not to heed the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Unfortunately, I was blocked by the majority from offering my amendment. In fact, the majority refused to hear any proposals on intelligence oversight during the conference. The omission of any discussions regarding the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on this matter is troubling and has led to an incomplete piece of legislation that will leave America less secure. As such, this report, and our work as a Congress, is left unfinished.