Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly take this to another level. And it is about truth and trust. I, as a former ambassador representing the United States of America, was trained in the State Department as to confidentialities and secret missions that were taking place around this globe. The audacity of someone in the Executive Branch even making reference to a covert agent violates that confidentiality and puts us all at risk.

It is not something you play with. It is not something you use for retaliation. When you out an agent, you are outing all of us.

Our intelligence functions on us having operatives in places where people are plotting against our Nation. Our defense will be in the fact that they bring that information to us and we prepare our defenses.

If these people are exposed, they no longer can gather the information that can save lives and property. So I think this is the most heinous act. I am not even going to get into the debate whether it is prosecutable or not. But, any leader in the executive branch ought to understand that you cannot have people there who will leak this information. The safety of all of our citizens depends on the confidentiality.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that a deputy chief of staff in the White House to even mention the name of Ambassador Wilson, not naming his wife would not know, because she is the one that sent him over there to Niger.

So how did Robert Novak get the information to print her name in the press? So I do not buy the excuses. I do not think the American people, knowing the truth, will buy the excuses. What we have all lost is the faith and the trust in this administration to deal straightforwardly with the American people, and as the gentleman has so brilliantly enumerated all the other misinformation activities involving this administration. We must stop it and we must stop it now because the reputation of the United States has sunk to its lowest point.

Mr. Speaker, when Karl Rove's attorney finally admitted to the Washington Post yesterday that Rove told a reporter Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, he was indeed identifying her. It does not take too much investigative reporting beyond that to actually come up with a name.

Now, Rove's attorney is trying to explain away Rove's actions by stating that he was merely ``discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true.'' Convenient explanation, but are we supposed to believe this from an attorney who previously stated that Rove did not reveal any confidential information?

Clearly, Rove did reveal confidential information when he told Time reporter Matt Cooper that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Karl Rove himself should come forward and level with the American people about his involvement in the Valerie Plame leak. Failing this, President Bush should ask for his resignation.

Mr. Speaker, Washington Republicans cannot have it both ways on Social Security. Since the beginning of this year, President Bush and House Republicans have been telling everyone who will listen that Social Security is going broke. President Bush went so far as to take a field trip to West Virginia to show the American people that there really is not a trust fund where all the surplus Social Security funds are kept.

Of course, the President was being dishonest. The vault is filled with Treasury bonds that must be paid back to Social Security in the years to

come. Regardless, he went to West Virginia and told the American people that the Social Security trust fund did not exist.

So now Congressional Republicans have come up with a brilliant idea: Create private accounts with the money that exists in the trust fund. Who are Congressional Republicans trying to fool? It is clear that the Congressional Republicans are determined to privatize Social Security, despite very little support for the idea.

Mr. Speaker, I would join with my colleagues about today's unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, for it represents a great triumph for American creativity and innovation. File-sharing companies that actively coax consumers into violating copyright laws can no longer escape legal consequences under the guise of fair use. They will no longer be able to rip off from the talent and the hard work of our Nation's creators. In ruling for our Nation's creative artists, the Supreme Court today struck a proper balance

between the protection of intellectual property rights and the need to expand our technologies.

As a representative of Hollywood, my district contains many movie and recording studios, which serve as the driving force behind our local economy and provide tens of thousands of jobs to many of my constituents. As Chair of the Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus, one of my key concerns has been the continuing erosion of our Nation's copyright laws.

Let me share some shocking statistics. According to recent FBI data, U.S. producers of movies, music, computer games, and software lost $23 billion in 2003 to illegal copying. In Operation Digital Gridlock, the first Federal law enforcement action against a peer-to-peer network, regulators seized the equivalent of 60,000 illegally distributed movies last August. It is clear to me that piracy of our creative products has reached an epidemic level, both domestically and internationally, creating a huge drain on our economy, job creation, and technological innovation. We are forced to resort to legal actions to help stem this tide of intellectual property theft.

That is why today's Supreme Court ruling was so important. In the unanimous opinion, the Justices held that ``one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.'' It is this unequivocal guidance from our Nation's highest court that I believe will help enhance the effective enforcement of our Nation's copyright laws and strengthen the public's respect for the value of intellectual property rights.

Of course, efforts to address privacy should not inhibit the continuing growth and development of our digital economy. New technologies should benefit not just the content distributors but the creative forces as well. But as the entertainment and technology sectors work together to utilize file-sharing networks to create new innovative and legal forms of content distribution, I hope today's decision will send a message to all pirates that winking and nodding at digital theft will not be tolerated any more than theft itself. I am confident that the lower courts will carefully apply this well-reasoned opinion in finding Grokster and other similar companies liable for activities that will induce their customers into illegal use of creative products.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that Mr. Tomlinson needs to go, because yesterday Patricia Harrison, who was the former cochairman of the National Republican Committee, was selected as the next president. He has secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate guiding principles for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content.

Our first amendment rights are being eroded away and we can see through that. There needs to be transparency.

Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and both politically motivated.

Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives who share his ideological views.

Yesterday, Patricia Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, was elected as CPB's next president. Mr. Tomlinson also secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Tomlinson suppressed a public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans judge PBS to be ``fair and balanced'', compared to network and cable television.

Tomlinson, also diverted taxpayers' money to hire a partisan researcher for a stealth study to track so called ``anti-Bush'' and ``anti-Tom DeLay'' comments (by the guests) of ``NOW with Bill Moyers''--a move that currently is being investigated by the Inspector General.

Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting.

The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between Washington DC politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back in. Our amendment will prohibit the CPB President from exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it has even come to arguing for safeguards we used to take for granted, but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. Speaker,

Whereas John C. ``Jay'' Magin was born March 20, 1937, in Port Jefferson, New York, who as a toddler traveled with his family as his father, a radio engineer for the Civil Aeronautics Administration, worked to establish landing control towers at airports during World War

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I had two amendments that I was going to offer on the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, and they have to do with restricting funding for opening a new office that would monitor dissenting and ideological statements.

Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that will help end the partisan attacks on public broadcasting by prohibiting the funding of the new Office of Ombudsmen at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The creation of such office is partisan, unnecessary, and contrary to the spirit of the law that created CPB, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Corporation of Public Broadcasting, CPB, Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has inserted politics into our public media and has taken the public out. Recently we learned that Mr. Tomlinson secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Furthermore, the ombudsmen were appointed by Tomlinson based on their purported political ideology--``one for the left and one for the right.'' These actions are in violation of the original mandate established by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This historic act forbids ``political or other tests'' from being used in employee actions and prohibits interference by Federal officials over public media content. Congress intended that the CPB serve as a firewall against outside political pressures, and the creation of the ombudsmen office at the CPB clearly contradicts that spirit.

Secondly, hiring outside ombudsmen at CPB is completely unnecessary. NPR already has an in-house ombudsman. In response to the unfounded accusations of liberal bias, the PBS board recently selected an independent ombudsman that is in line with the original bill's language, which states that the ``production and acquisition of programs'' is supposed to be ``evaluated on the basis of comparative merit by panels or outside experts, representing diverse interests and perspectives appointed by the corporations.'' There is clearly no need to spend additional taxpayer's money for the monitoring of public broadcasting programming, especially through the lens of political ideology.

The amendment I am offering today simply restores what was already in place by legal precedent by prohibiting the funding of the Office of Ombudsmen at CPB. This amendment is in the spirit of the 1967 act, which forbade ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.''

The American people, in poll after poll, have judged PBS to be ``fair and balanced'' compared to network and cable television. We do not need outside operatives to intervene. Furthermore, in these times of fiscal crisis for PBS, the last thing we need is to spend taxpayers' money on partisan media police. My amendment will help return balance and objectivity to our public media, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and both politically motivated.

Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that Corporation of Public Broadcasting, CPB Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives who share his ideological views.

According to recent reports, Tomlinson is promoting Patricia Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, to be CPB's next president. Mr. Tomlinson also secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Tomlinson suppressed a public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans judge PBS to be ``fair and balanced'' compared to network and cable television. Finally, Tomlinson diverted taxpayers' money to hire a partisan researcher for a stealth study to track ``anti-Bush'' and ``anti-Tom DeLay'' comments by the guests of NOW with Bill Moyers--a move that currently is being investigated by the Inspector General.

Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting.

The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between Washington, DC, politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back in. Our amendment will prohibit Mr. Tomlinson from exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it has even come to arguing

for safeguards we used to take for granted, but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. Speaker, last week the Iraqi Bureau Chief for Newsweek Magazine left Iraq after being there for 2 years and wrote one final report entitled ``Good Intentions Gone Bad.'' Rod Nordland said the turning point in the war was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Nordland wrote: ``The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and

humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist.''

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody has severely undermined our Nation's position in the world. And yet congressional Republicans are still unwilling to call for an independent investigation to determine what exactly is happening in these prisons.

How can we possibly regain our credibility in the world until we actually investigate the possibilities of abuse? We still do not know why these abuses took place.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent over $200 billion so far on the war in Iraq. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2010, our expenses might be as much as $600 billion.

The two hundred billion dollars we have spent so far would be enough money to provide health care for the 45 million Americans without health insurance.

That two hundred billion dollars would permit us to hire three and a half million elementary school teachers.

That two hundred billion dollars for the war in Iraq is going on America's credit card and that goes right to the deficit--a debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren.

All this might be worth it if we had something to show for it. I think two hundred billion dollars for peace and democracy is a bargain.

But we haven't gotten peace and democracy. That two hundred billion has bought us: over seventeen hundred dead Americans; an unknowable number of Iraqi civilian deaths; a dysfunctional country that cannot move its political process forward; a new haven and proving ground for anti-American extremism; a wellspring of mistrust from longtime friends and allies around the world; and a devastating erosion of American leadership and credibility.

So what are we still doing there? The President says we are pursuing our ``ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.'' But the President has dragged onto a path that, at best, muddles that message.

We are building our nation's largest embassy in Iraq; even before it is complete, we have more than 1,000 embassy staff in Iraq. What is the average Iraqi on the streets of Fallujah--or average Jordanian on the streets of Amman--going to think when he sees that we are building the Largest American Embassy in the World in Baghdad?

I am sure the average Iraqi does not mourn the savage brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. The question is whether he equates our never- ending American presence in Iraq with a new form of tyranny, rather than the freedom the President says he seeks to spread.

The underlying problem with our endless occupation of Iraq--a country that does not threaten the United States--is that it undermines our leadership on issues that DO threaten the United States. North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, global terrorism, emerging deadly international diseases--all these issues are imminent threats that we must confront. Our ability to convince other nations to join us in boldly confronting these threats has been hobbled both by our deceptive entry into Iraq and our lingering departure from it.

Mr. Speaker, our Iraq policy has become a festering wound that bleeds away more and more of America's wealth, America's security, America's leadership, and even America young men and women in uniform. I ask all my colleagues to join me in asking the President seek an exit from this venture at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lantos substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the substitute legislation offered by the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos.

As a former U.S. Ambassador, I know and appreciate that the United Nations serves a most useful purpose. It is the only international body that allows those countries that support the United States and those that do not to sit down in peaceful dialogue to address issues of concern and to work together. To maintain the opportunity to resolve our differences, we must not cut the funds we provide to the United Nations.

Mr. Lantos' bill supports the necessary reforms we all recognize are needed for the

United Nations but does so without malice. Like H.R. 2745, the substitute supports the goal of reforming budgeting procedures, but it eliminates the devastating automatic withholding of 50 percent of the dues we owe to the United Nations. We should not tie the hands of our Secretary of State nor should we give those who do not support the United States, an issue in which to embarrass us. The substitute gives the Secretary of State the authority to make the cut but does not mandate such cuts. A more preferable position.

The substitute also keeps the peacekeeping reforms of H.R. 2745 but does not mandate the vetoing of any new or expanded U.N. peacekeeping operation that does not serve our national interest. Again, the flexibility contained in the substitute is preferable to H.R. 2745.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is the world leader and we should be a leader in all areas including serving as a model country in its relationships to the world community. This means pushing for reforms in the United Nations when such reforms are necessary but it also means being a good citizen and doing our part to fulfill our responsibilities and to be a good world citizen.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Lantos substitute.

Mr. Speaker, how much does the majority leader underestimate the American people? For 6 months now the House Ethics Committee has been unable to meet because the Ethics Committee chairman refuses to abide by the committee's own rules. And now, this week, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says it is the Democrats who are keeping the committee from meeting because, according to him, they want to delay his case before the Ethics Committee until an election year.

If the majority leader really wants his case heard before the Ethics Committee, he should persuade the Ethics Committee chairman to abide by the ethics rules and appoint a nonpartisan staff director. The rules of the committee are clear that the staff be assembled and retained as a professional nonpartisan staff. If the gentleman from Washington (Chairman Hastings) is allowed to appoint his chief of staff, he would be breaking the committee rules by having a partisan staffer on the committee.

Democrats want the Ethics Committee to play by the rules. Please play by the rules.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary chairman turned the lights off on democracy last Friday morning when he halted a hearing on the PATRIOT Act in which opposition voices were given time. After Friday's hearing, it was clear that the chairman does not like to hear from those that do not agree with his opinion; certainly, an abuse to the freedom of speech.

During the hearing, the chairman scolded both Democratic Members and panelists; and when he did not agree with a comment, he demanded panelists wrap it up. When he got really mad, he just gaveled the hearing to an end and stormed out of the room. What appalling behavior for a distinguished leader.

Then, as Democratic members tried to continue the hearing, the microphones in the room were turned off. When that did not silence my Democratic colleagues, the Republicans finally turned off the lights.

Mr. Speaker, some congressional Republicans are abusing their power over this House to silence any opposition to either them or to the Bush administration. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) should not only apologize to everyone who attended Friday's hearing, but to every Member of this House. That is simply not the way the people's House is supposed to work, and it is time this arrogance stops.

Mr. Speaker, today, we may find out whether President Bush and his Congressional colleagues want to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubber stamp for a right wing agenda and radical judges.

President Bush wants to pack the Federal courts with the extreme right fringe of this country, putting at risk the rights and liberties this country has fought for and protected for centuries. He wants to create a Supreme Court that will not act as an independent branch but instead wag its tail at every beck and call.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are out of control. Instead of governing and tending to the Nation's business, they are on a quest for absolute power. They are on a mission to trash our Founding Fathers' commitment to the separation of powers and the abhorrence of simple majority rule.

While the Republicans continue their odyssey for absolute power, Democrats are fighting to protect our constitutional checks and balances and to ensure that we remain a Nation ruled by laws and not by men.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress and Republican President are overcome with power, so much so that they want to fundamentally change our Nation's government into one where a single political party in power holds total control.

And how do the Republicans want to lay claim to absolute power? In order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, the President and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a 200-year-old American rule that permits the Senate the right to extend debate in the confirmation of Presidential nominees.

Mr. Speaker, the role of the Senate in the confirmation of Presidential nominees is a central element of our democracy. The confirmation process underscores our Founding Fathers' commitment to the separation of powers and their abhorrence of simple majority rule. It provides for essential checks and balances to ensure we remain a Nation ruled by laws and not just by men.

We do not need a monarchy. We need to preserve our Republic.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for allowing me to bring this important issue to the floor today. This amendment would require the Attorney General to seek input from local elected officials before designating an area as a high-intensity interstate gang activity area. The bill currently

only requires the Attorney General to consult Governors of the States. California is three States in one; and for a person like me who lives in South Los Angeles, right in the middle of a gang area, I would have a lot to tell about designating that gang area.

The underlying bill gives local communities no input. My amendment would simply require the Attorney General to seek input from local elected officials before designating an area as being a high-intensity gang area. This amendment is not intended to slow down the process of designation or give local officials veto power that supersedes the power of Federal and State officials. Rather, it lets the communities and the people that represent them have a voice in the decision-making.

Addressing the gang problem in our communities is an issue that requires all levels of government working together. Who knows better the problems facing these communities' constituents than the communities themselves? Reducing gang violence requires hands-on intervention and input from those most affected by gang violence.

These communities know, first-hand, the damage gang violence does in their neighborhoods everyday. Their opinions should be heard on the state and federal levels.

The communities affected by gang violence must have the chance to express their views before neighborhoods are classified as a High Intensity Gang Area. Local officials know better than anyone else what is occurring on a day to day basis in their jurisdictions. This amendment would allow participation on all levels of government in this designation process. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and allow local elected officials, in conjunction with federal and state officials, to have input on how their communities are branded as High Intensity Gang Areas.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope the Members would support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment would add 100 new inspectors and 100 new agents to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These inspectors and agents would be assigned to the new high-intensity interstate gang activity areas created by H.R. 1279.

As I mentioned, my congressional district is part of a high-crime area, and there is a gun shop in it that has sparked my attention in recent months. I have been working with BATFE to ensure that this shop does not become a source of gang weaponry in my district. One comment I have repeatedly heard from the bureau is that they simply do not have the personnel necessary to crack down on gun-law violators and keep guns out of the hands of violent gangs.

The lack of proper inspections and detailed reports on how guns get into the hands of gang members hampers the fight against these violent gangs. Congress must assist the bureau by allowing it to have an adequate amount of staff to accurately investigate how illegal guns are getting into our communities and make every effort to remove weapons from gang members' hands.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will just finish up.

These additional inspectors and agents are essential because they would be assigned to assist local law enforcement to cut off the supply of weapons and ammunition to gang members. This amendment would also help local law enforcement and the BATFE compile much-needed data on how weapons are obtained and used by gangs.

This amendment is not a gun control amendment; it is a law enforcement amendment. By improving our enforcement of existing gun laws, gang members will lose the dominating weaponry that permits gangs to outgun police and kill innocent people.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should make every effort to prevent gang members from obtaining their ``Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives continue the assault on crime in our communities while cutting off the flow of guns to gang members.

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