Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of distinguished producer, writer-director, educator and actor, Spike Lee, whose insightful, intelligent films have had a significant impact not only on the film industry but also on American political discourse.

The son of a jazz musician and teacher, Shelton Lee was born in 1957 in Atlanta, Georgia and later moved to Brooklyn, New York, the setting for many of his films and home of his production company, 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks. Mr. Lee learned the value of film as a tool of social commentary and developed his film making skills while attending Morehouse College, where he made his first student film. He also took film courses at Clark Atlanta University and later earned a degree from Tish School of Arts graduate film program at New York University. Through his films and ability to capture the attention of audiences everywhere, Mr. Lee's films such as ``Do the Right Thing'' and ``Malcolm X'' have been used as vehicles to significantly raise levels of social awareness about a variety of important social and political issues that continue to plague American culture and society.

He has revolutionized the role of Black talent in cinema. Widely regarded as one of today's premier American filmmakers, Mr. Lee is a frontrunner in the ``do it yourself school'' of independent films. His most recent work, ``When the Levees Broke,'' a ground breaking documentary focusing on the plight of Americans stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, has garnered rave reviews and is considered by many to be the definitive account of that catastrophic event.

Mr. Lee's trend-setting filmmaking, acting, and groundbreaking producing are just a few of the contributions he has made to greater American culture throughout his career. He has not only paved the way for numerous filmmakers, but has also positively changed public conversations on many social issues.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the talented and inspirational producer and director, Spike Lee, whose genius will continue to touch the lives of generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Human Rights Campaign, defender of civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and force for fundamental fairness and equality for all.

It is with great honor that I recognize this important organization tonight during its fifteenth annual Human Rights Campaign Gala Dinner and Dance. Founded in 1980, Human Rights Campaign initial goal was to support candidates running for Congress who they recognized as unequivocal supporters of civil rights and fairness of all people. Twenty years on, this organization has grown into a national leader in the pro-equality movement. Today, HRC represents over seven hundred thousand members and supporters as the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. HRC works in Congress and the private sector to gain necessary protections for GLBT workers as well as to successfully raise this Nation's awareness of the need for protecting everyone's civil rights, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. The Human Rights Campaign has shown its ability to unite diverse communities to strive, lobby and fight for equality for all people.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Human Rights Campaign, a leader in promoting the rights of all people and as an important force in empowering and inspiring people and communities nation wide.

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I agree with the President and although I oppose overriding the President's veto of this bill, I still don't agree with him. I am opposed to the override because I am opposed to H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act. However, I reject the President's reasons for vetoing this legislation.

I want to thank all of those who served in gathering intelligence to protect the American people. However, I voted against the veto override because I do not support the underlying bill. Through the emergence of several high-profile classified leaks to the media it has become apparent that our intelligence agencies need to be reformed.

From these media leaks, we became aware of the efforts to manipulate intelligence, to falsify a cause for war against Iraq. We became aware of the illegal NSA domestic wiretapping program without a court order. We became aware of the rumored CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe, and the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, used to transport suspects to other nations with less restrictive torture policies. It is regrettable that intelligence is often reshaped to fit doctrine instead of doctrine being reshaped in the face of the facts of intelligence.

The President's opposition to H.R. 2082 was focused on his objection to a provision in the bill that would have required adherence to the Army Field Manual (AFM) on Interrogations by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA. This provision would specifically prohibit acts of torture and abuse. The President's veto of the bill demonstrates a disconcerting disregard for human rights.

I fully support banning the use of interrogation techniques that are not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. This provision in the Intelligence Authorization shows a commitment by the United States and this body to end torture that is sponsored by the U.S. and restore the rule of law.

This body and the President have a responsibility to take action to end all U.S. sponsored torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Our constitution, federal criminal statutes and Senate- ratified treaties compel us to meet this goal. Both the laws and values of America demand an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

Requiring our intelligence agencies to abide by the proven interrogation methods of the Army Field Manual on Interrogation is a first step to restoring public confidence at home and abroad.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Juanita Serrano, who dedicated her life to serving as a community organizer on behalf of Women's Rights and social justice.

Juanita Serrano was born in Cayey, Puerto Rico in 1930 and moved to Cleveland in the 1960's. A single mother of seven sons, she dedicated her life to advocating on behalf of women and the poor. Her commitment to the welfare of others manifested itself in various ways. She participated in many marches and demonstrations in Washington, D.C. and served as the President of the Cleveland chapter of the National Welfare Rights Organization. Juanita was also one of the founding Board members of the May Dugan Multi-Service Center and served on the steering committee which helped create the Thomas F. McCafferty Health Center in Cleveland.

A tireless advocate for women and the poor, Juanita also dedicated her time to improving the life of Cleveland's Spanish speaking community. She served as a board member of the Spanish American Committee and was instrumental in the founding of Cleveland's first Hispanic Catholic Church, San Juan Bautista. Recognized for her life of serving the community, she was the recipient of Cleveland State University's Cervantes Award and was honored as the Grand Marshall of Puerto Rican Friendly Day Parade in 1993. For years Juanita volunteered as a Eucharistic Minister for terminally ill patients at MetroHealth and in 1995, was awarded Volunteer of the Year by the Cleveland Mediation Center.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in celebrating the life of Juanita Serrano, who committed her life to serving her church, her community and her family.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the Cleveland Federal Executive Board, and all federal employees of our community for their individual and collective dedication as public servants, focused on the public good.

The community of federal employees in Cleveland, Ohio, is comprised of more than 25,000 individuals who contribute their talent, trade and expertise daily within an array of roles, including park rangers, administrators, accountants, clerical employees, attorneys, engineers, military personnel, mail carriers, scientists, nurses and physicians.

The professional contributions extended daily by federal employees serve as a foundation of support, safety and security throughout our community. Every day, the environment is monitored; the mail is delivered; veterans receive medical care; our national park is preserved; immigrants are guided to citizenship; citizens are provided with benefits and programs; and the universe is studied and explored by the astronomers.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the members of the Cleveland Federal Executive Board and the thousands of federal employees who live and work within our Cleveland community. Their dedication to their work continues to preserve, protect and strengthen our entire community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Michael McDowell, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Ireland, as we welcome him to Cleveland, Ohio, on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2008.

For almost 30 years, Tim Collins and Thomas Scanlon have organized the St. Patrick's Day Party and Parade, a festive event that brings people together in the heart of Cleveland. On this exceptional day, Cleveland's streets are a sea of green, full with the lively sounds of traditional Irish music, laughter and the spirit of all those joining together to celebrate rich Irish culture.

Born in Dublin, Ireland in May 1951, Michael McDowell followed in the footsteps of his grandfather by dedicating his life to public service and leadership. Mr. McDowell has a decorated political history as a founding member of the Progressive Democrats Political Party, in which he served as President from 2002-2006. While leading the Progressive Democrats Party, he also held the distinguished post of Tanaiste. He was one of 14 Progressive Democrat Teachta Dala's elected to Dail Eireann in the 1987 general election, the first election after the party was founded. In this position, he represented Dublin's South East constituency from 1987-1989, 1992-1997 and 2002-2007. In 2002, he began his 5-year tenure as Ireland's Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and served as Attorney General from 1999 to 2002.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of former Irish politician, Michael McDowell, for joining us as we celebrate St. Patrick's Day in Cleveland. Please also join me in recognition of Tim Collins and Thomas Scanlon for their efforts in organizing this marvelous St. Patrick's Day Party this year, as they have for almost 30-years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

This legislation is a commendable improvement over the irresponsible Protect America

Act passed by this body in August. I am thankful that this new bill does not include retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies. However, the bill still falls short of ensuring the protection of the fourth amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Blanket warrants, institutionalized by the Protect America Act, will continue with the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act. There is a legitimate concern that surveillance of persons abroad can potentially infringe on the fourth amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

These blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency, which increase the likelihood that the civil liberties of innocent U.S. citizens will be violated.

Specifically, in Section 101(702)(i) appears to include a review process of ``Certifications and Procedures'' but these procedures are of a broad nature, make no connection to specific individuals, provide for no showing of wrongdoing and contain no explanation of how collection procedures will actually work. Consequently, the bill fails to uphold standard fourth amendment judicial involvement.

Section 101 (702)(g)(3) states that ``a certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.''

Our county's fourth amendment provides that targets of search and seizure should be stated with particularity. The particularity requirement limits the scope of the search by assuring U.S. citizens whose property is subject to a search is, according to the Congressional Research Service, ``being searched of the lawful authority of the executing officer and of the limits of his power to search. It follows, therefore, that the warrant itself must describe with particularity the items to be seized, or that such itemization must appear in documents incorporated by reference in the warrant and actually shown to the person whose property is to be searched.''

Under current law, reviews conducted by the FISA court do not receive names of targets or organizations which already places some limitation on particularity. But this bill appears to allow the Government to go even further by applying for very broad, year-long authority to issue directives to companies to comply with Government searches as they see fit. This broad authority is reminiscent of the current administration's secret spying program.

Furthermore, Section 101(702)(g)(2)(v) states that a requirement of certification for the targeting of certain persons outside of the United States is that ``a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information.'' FISA warrants already have a lower threshold of ``probable cause'' than criminal ``probable cause'' because the targets are assumed to be terrorist. The language in this section of the bill eliminates the need to find any wrongdoing whatsoever. Because, in the words of the Congressional Research Service, ``[t]he concept of ``probable cause'' is central to the meaning of the warrant clause'' of the fourth amendment, there are grave concerns about the erosion of our civil liberties.

In sum total, allowing the administration to run a surveillance program of such a broad and undefined nature qualifies as ``unreasonable'' under the fourth amendment. Although the purpose of the bill is to target foreigners abroad, by picking up calls coming into and out of the U.S., the program is not targeted at individual terrorists and individualized court orders are not required. The bill ensures that all targeted international communications are not covered by the fourth amendment even if a U.S. citizen is involved. The rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment dictate that the Government must have cause to spy on U.S. citizens. But the language in this bill ensures that the Government can spy on U.S. citizens who participate in international communications if there is no cause. If we permit our constitutional rights to be watered down out of fear, we have given up our democracy. Congress must stand firm and defend the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, we are at the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war based on lies. A war that has cost the lives of over 4,000 of our brave young men and women, the injuries to tens of thousands, over 1 million innocent Iraqis have perished, a cost of up to $3 trillion.

Let us speak out for peace, as the Winter Soldiers today are speaking out for peace by communicating the truth of a soldier's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us speak out for peace as the young people involved in the Stop Loss project are doing. Let us speak out for peace and stop financing this war and use the money to bring our troops home.

Let us speak out for peace, for international peacekeepers to move into Iraq as our troops lead. America has had a long period of silence about this war. Let us be silent no more. Let us speak out for peace.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Progressive Caucus budget because it includes home foreclosure relief. The foreclosure crisis is at the epicenter of our economic slowdown, and northeast Ohio is among the hardest hit in the Nation.

Hardworking American families deserve financial security. Foreclosure undermines the physical, emotional, and financial security of America's families, has a detrimental effect on the greater community. Neighborhoods with foreclosed properties are likely to experience declining property values. Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, my hometown, had 11,000 foreclosures in 2005, more than triple the number a decade earlier.

My home State of Ohio has the ninth highest rate of foreclosures, and fourth nationwide for the number of preforeclosure and foreclosure filings. So I'm urging my colleagues to support this budget for that reason. But there's another reason, too.

We can talk about the transfer of wealth, which is a lot of the discussions that go on. This whole government is an engine to transfer the wealth of the country upwards. We have to recognize it. If there is one engine that's transferring the wealth upwards with great acceleration it's the war. Because this war would be as if every American family took out a checkbook and wrote out a check already for $16,000 and handed it over to the government. Already it has cost each family in this country $16,000. And if we continue this war, if you read Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, the war is going to cost $3

trillion, and by the time we get over it, it will be upwards of $5 trillion.

Let's talk about how this budget is being used to accelerate the wealth of the Nation. Now, portend, it's the Progressive budget which offers an alternative which says, end the war, stop funding the war, stop funding wasteful military spending. We want a secure Nation, but we cannot secure our Nation on lies. The war is based on lies. We're on the fifth anniversary of this war. We went into war based on lies at a cost of $3 trillion now, 4,000 of our troops, a million innocent Iraqis, the morality of the United States, our position in the world all under attack because the truth wasn't told.

This budget is the truth. This budget gives the American people an opportunity to finally have their basic needs met. And those needs are going to continue to be neglected as long as we stay riveted to a war that is based on lies.

Bring those troops home. The Progressive budget does it. Stop the war. The Progressive budget does it. Take a new direction with our international policy. The Progressive budget does it. Take care of things here at home. The Progressive budget does it. Vote for the Progressive budget.

Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker, would the gentleman from Maryland yield to a question?

Can you divulge to this House what is going to be discussed, not the content of it, but the topic that's going to be discussed?

And the debate that will take place regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, what would conceivably be the nature of that debate?

Is it going to be debate over legislation?

The gentleman, in his long experience in the House, could he communicate to those who have, in my case, been in this House 12 years or less, anytime in your experience where the House has debated legislation in secret?

My friend has said two things. One is that there's an assumption that it's going to be about FISA, and another one is that there is going to be a debate of sorts.

When I asked the question if you are aware of whether or not anything like this has happened before, we are talking about specific legislation that is before this House, would the gentleman know what the precedent for this is? Is this unprecedented that the House of Representatives would be meeting in secret preliminary to legislation that it intends to pass? I haven't experienced this in my time; and for information purposes, I would ask the gentleman, who has been here, I think 26, 28 years, if in his experience he can remember that.

When?

On what?

Iran-Contra?

Was that before the hearings or after the hearings?

Well, I mean there's relevance here.

I yield to my friend, Mr. Blunt.

I said was it Iran-Contra?

And they were preliminary to the passing of legislation?

I just want to point out something here, Madam Speaker, as this House proceeds on this track. There are some of us here who feel that this country has drifted towards a version of a national security state. When the House begins to meet in secret on matters that relate to security prior to legislative acts, it raises questions about the Constitution of the United States. I know I am familiar with my friends' awareness that the Constitution gives the Congress the ability to make its own rules. I also understand from the first amendment that Congress wouldn't restrict any establishment of free speech. This is the citadel of free speech. This is the only place in America that someone can stand and say anything they want at any time and be free from any kind of a legal attack.

Once we close that up, we're changing the nature of it at a time when this country's at war, when there have been questions raised about secret meetings and what was told with respect to torture, about secret meetings and what was told with respect to rendition, about secret meetings and what was told with respect to private corporations doing wiretapping.

I just want the Members of this House to incorporate that in their reflections when we proceed to approve an agreement for a secret meeting.

I'd also like to state this, to just share my experience, and that is without referring to any content of any secret meeting I have been in, and I have been in a few at the beginning of my term in the House, I have found from my own experience, from my own experience, that secret meetings end up being occasions for the communication of information of, at least at best, dubious value. And I am not in any way impugning the motives of my good friends who are asking for a secret meeting in this case. But I am sharing with you my experience prior to this moment that secret meetings have been the occasion to communicate information that hasn't been particularly forthright or true.

Now, I could point to individuals, at least one individual who is sitting in this Chamber right now, who, when we had a secret meeting right after 9/11, walked right down that aisle and uttered a famous barnyard expletive after we were being briefed in a secret meeting by a member of the administration. Some of you who were there at the time remember. So I'm just communicating a concern here about the path we're going down, and I can only do that.

I will not attend that meeting. I will withdraw my reservation of objection. But I want to have my friends here know that we ought to be proceeding with the utmost caution in going in this direction. I am not going to be attending such a session. I believe that it violates the spirit of this House, but I will withdraw my reservation of objection since my good friend feels that this is the path that he has to go.

This reflects on what our distinguished majority leader said, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee. In the House under rule XVII, clause 9, it is true that any Member could ask for a secret session, claim they have information. That is a privilege. Furthermore, under rule X, clause 11, and then a subparagraph, the Select Committee

on Intelligence may move to hold a secret session to determine whether classified information held by the committee should be made public.

Now, we haven't seen our distinguished colleague ask for such a secret session, although our other distinguished colleague is requesting it. Now obviously since this has only been done five times in 182 years, five times in 182 years of this institution, it would seem to me that a very high bar has been reached here.

Now my question would be, hypothetically, since any Member has the ability to call for a secret session, if a secret session is requested and the bar that one would assume that we would need to clear to achieve a secret session has in fact not been met, that in fact a secret session was called for reasons for something that was not really all that secret, or not evidence that was probative and weighty, but instead that one person may have felt. And I am not impugning my friend here because he may have some information.

But generally speaking, under the rule, we can all ask for it. But, Mr. Hoyer, I think since you are our senior Member here who is our majority leader, or maybe the Parliamentarian knows, if a secret session is called for and the bar isn't reached, what then? What happens then with that secret session?

And what happens to the Member, if I may.

Would the gentlelady yield?

It is my understanding relative to these proceedings in a secret session that the proceedings of a secret session are not published unless the relevant Chamber votes during the meeting or at a later time to release them. Then portions can be released in the Congressional Record. Is that right, Congressman Jackson-Lee and Mr. Hoyer?

So that is the remedy, that the House could vote at some point to release.

Mr. Speaker, I am unequivocal in my support for the security of Israel and its citizens. I am committed to the right of all people in the Middle East, and the world, to live peacefully. However, because of H. Res. 951's overt lack of balance and its unreconciliatory approach, I oppose this bill.

The resolution appropriately ``expresses condolences to the families of the innocent victims on both sides of the conflict.'' However, H. Res. 951 fails to take a balanced approach to the ongoing violence in Gaza by acknowledging only the rocket and mortar attacks fired on Israel while making no mention of Israel's use of force in the region other than to acknowledge ``the sovereign right of the Government of Israel to defend its territory against attacks.''

The resolution states that the ``rocket and mortar attacks have murdered over a dozen Israelis, inflicted hundreds of casualties, produced thousands of cases of shock and post-traumatic stress, especially among children, and caused severe disruption of daily life.'' The resolution fails to take into account the 117 Palestinians killed in Gaza over the last week or to mention that half of these victims were civilians and at least 22 were children.

Furthermore, the resolution makes no mention of the ongoing Israeli- imposed blockade on Gaza that has cut off Palestinians from fuel supplies and prevented the delivery of food and medical supplies to the Gaza Strip. According to a recent report by Oxfam and other humanitarian organizations, ``the blockade has effectively dismantled the economy and impoverished the population of Gaza. Israel's policy affects the civilian population of Gaza indiscriminately and constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children. The measures taken are illegal under international humanitarian law.''

How can the U.S. be an honest broker for peace if we fail to acknowledge the suffering, as well as the rights, of the people on all sides of this ongoing conflict? To broker a viable peace, we must address the long-standing and structural issues that exacerbate the conflict rather than sweep over them in our condemnation of its symptomatic violence.

The United States must seek to prevent violence and human casualty by setting the stage for productive exchanges which can lead to mutual understanding, security and peace. To achieve this peace it is necessary to integrate an open dialogue with diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending all violence and human suffering. Our involvement in the Middle East should aim to coalesce alienated forces rather than drive them farther apart from one another and from a viable solution. Israelis and Palestinians share a mutual future. Therefore, we should set the stage for productive exchanges which can lead to mutual understanding, security and peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of David Donafee for a life that was dedicated to his family, friends, and public service.

David was a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service for 14 years. He was tragically killed while delivering mail on his route in Parma Heights, Ohio. David was a devoted father who actively supported his children's interest in hockey, as well as a devoted husband and son. David is survived by his wife, Sandi; his two children, Derek and Liam; and his mother, Rose.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering David Donafee. May his life be an example of how we should lead our own.

Guest book for John David Donafee: http://www.legacy.com/CLEVELAND/GB/ GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=103615431

Shellie Rockwell (Broadview Hts., OH)

Sandi, Liam and Derek,

You are in our thoughts and prayers. Just remember that

Dave's presence will forever be with everyone that knew him.

His love for all three of you, his contagious smile and his

easy-going style will be remembered for years to come.

The Rockwell Family

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Derek Owens, a veteran Cleveland Police Officer who will be remembered for his unshakable commitment to the Cleveland community.

Derek Owens was born in Cleveland and remained in the area for most of his life. He graduated from the University of Toledo and later returned to Cleveland to earn his social Work degree from Cleveland State University in 1995. Owens was well known and will be fondly remembered in the neighborhoods in which he served for 10 years as a police officer. He often volunteered for neighborhood block watches and was recognized for his approachability, sense of humor and dedication to helping the community, even during his time off-duty.

Owens is survived by his wife, Erika, daughter Sydni and son, Chandler.

Madam Speaker and colleagues please join me in honoring Derek Owens, a vital member of the Cleveland community and dedicated Police Officer. May his commitment to the community serve as an example to all of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance and honor of Rocco S. Oliverio, Jr. He was a beloved member of his west Cleveland neighborhood, and was known for his dedication to the community. He served Ward 14 as a representative to the Cuyahoga County Central Committee with honor and distinction, and touched those around him with his unique sense of humor.

Rocco was never afraid to get involved and confront the challenges of his home neighborhood. He maintained his faith in the innate goodness of people and the ability of community and public services to overcome challenges. He invested a large part of himself in everything he did and was always genuinely interested in helping; even better, he often had a solution.

Rocco is fondly remembered by his daughters, Shellie Gay and Sheila Hall-Blagg, and his eight grandchildren.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory of Rocco S. Oliverio, Jr., a man whose tireless work towards improving his hometown of Cleveland will set an example for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance and honor of Dolores ``Dee'' Benson, a beloved figure in Cleveland area politics and a loving wife, mother, and grandmother.

Dee was born in 1925 in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where she spent most of her early life. She was an exceptional student at Altoona High School, and had a special gift for foreign languages and science. She was offered a full tuition scholarship to Penn State University, but chose to go to work instead. She married Bud in 1947 and they moved to Cleveland to raise their seven children, Robert, Patrick, Jacqueline, Mary, Elizabeth, Denise, and Christine. She will also be dearly missed by her eleven grandchildren and six great grandchildren.

Dee was incredibly active in her Cleveland neighborhood, serving as President of the Southwest Military Moms; President, Treasurer, and Secretary of Parma Women's Democratic Club; Precinct Committeewoman and Democratic Ward Leader for the community of Seven Hills; and a founding member of St. Anthony of Padua Parish; just to name a few of her many accomplishments and activities.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory of Dee Benson, a much-loved activist whose contributions to her community will continue to uphold her legacy.