Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and his leadership in bringing it forward with my friend and colleague, the chairman of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes there is so much work that transpires in the course of the International Relations Committee dealing with things that are too far removed from the world's viewpoint at any given time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from New York introducing this legislation. He brings to this debate the experience of somebody who not only was a Peace Corps volunteer years ago, but continues his interest and concern, although not a member of the committee, somebody who has repeatedly brought his attention and expertise and interest. And that is what I think is the strength of what we can do in this Chamber: having the strength that comes from people who have the experience, the concern, use this platform to be able to focus the attention in this country and around the world on these things that seemingly are minor on the world stage. But given the devastation that has been incurred on this small country, the loss of life, the upset, the loss of progress, being able to look at an opportunity like this, it is not just for Nepal, but it seems to me it is a demonstration of taking some of these intractable issues around the world and indicate that there are opportunities for hope.

I just appreciate Congressman Walsh bringing this forward. I know he has had some other experience in the past looking at other modest conundrums, like in Northern Ireland, where his follow-through and his commitment makes a difference, and it is part of the richness of the experience here in foreign affairs.

I hope that this is something as we move forward to a new session, that we will be able to keep the focus, the direction and the attention, because coming out of what we see in Iraq, we are going to need more than ever opportunities to find areas of agreement and to reinforce the positive aspects of diplomacy.

I appreciate again the opportunity to speak in support of this and strongly urge my colleagues to not just support this, but this is something where people think about ways that they can help spread this word for this important work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2125, the ``Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006.''

Three years after the end of ``Africa's World War'' and having conducted the most logistically complicated election in history, the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, faces its best chance for peace and progress since independence. However, credible mortality studies estimate that over 1,000 people continue to die each day from conflict- related causes, mostly disease and malnutrition, and pervasive state weakness threatens backsliding and a return to wide-spread violence. The international community has played a critical role in supporting the DRC until this point, and with the inauguration of the new democratically elected government, such support will be even more important going forward.

I am particularly proud of the role played by Lisa Shannon, a constituent of mine and the founder of Run for Congo Women. After learning about the Congo on Oprah, Lisa decided to do a solo, 31 mile run on Portland's Wildwood Trail to raise money for Women for Women International's work in Congo. Just over a year later, Run for Congo Women has blossomed into a global effort to raise awareness and support the women of the DRC. Lisa has tirelessly walked the halls of Congress to promote the bill we're passing today and is a shining example of the difference that one committed individual can make.

Mr. Speaker, today I reflect on the gentleman from Iowa's almost four decades of public service, 30 of them as a distinguished Member of this House of Representatives. I am referring to my friend, Jim Leach.

For many of the 12,000 men and women privileged to serve in the House of Representatives since the founding of the Republic, their careers are distinguished by service in this Chamber. Jim Leach is one of those rare individuals for whom Congress itself is distinguished by his service. There is no one from whom I have learned more by his words, his deeds and his friendship. He is one of the few among us who, when he speaks on the floor of the House, people who care about substance listen. He consistently chooses the right words, and invites people to be part of the process. He listens. He is never drawn into petty partisan politics that too often rear their ugly heads.

For 30 years we have been privileged to watch his conscientious and thoughtful work on the Financial Services and International Relations committees. Jim predicted the savings and loan crisis, and was spot on in his observations about American diplomacy from the Middle East to North Korea.

He was always dignified and principled, one of the few people who navigated the legislative halls successfully without being mired in partisan politics.

Indeed, in his congressional campaigns, he refused PAC contributions, didn't want out-of-State donations, he wouldn't run negative ads, and he rejected outside groups who tried to run negative ads on his behalf. He may have actually won his election by playing by the rules widely accepted as the norm and by which most prefer to operate. He may have won, but it wouldn't have been Jim Leach and we all would have been the poorer.

While Iowa has lost Jim's service to Congress, America need not lose his service, his intellect and his unique talents. Ambassador John Bolton's appointment to the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations expires at the end of the year, and the United States cannot afford a gap in our representation. We desperately need a strong, positive direction to guide multilateral diplomacy in the United Nations.

There is not another American who is better suited to advancing United States interests in that important forum by temperament, experience or intellect than Jim Leach. Remember, as a young foreign service officer, he actually served at the United Nations under then- ambassador George H.W. Bush before returning to Iowa as part of his family's business, and then on to 30 distinguished years of service in this body.

If anything, Jim may be better suited as a diplomat than at partisan politics. He is the most diplomatic politician I have ever met. Black and white was not Jim's view of the world, especially if grays and even colors were part of the picture.

This week my colleague Jim Walsh and I will be circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle, a letter that would urge President Bush to consider the appointment of Jim Leach as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations. It is a nomination that no doubt would be greeted by acclaim. It would pass the United States Senate I predict unanimously, and we would all be the better off.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in signing this letter for the nomination of Jim Leach.

Mr. Speaker, as the Congressman with the privilege to represent Estacada, Oregon--the Christmas Tree Capital of the WorId--I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Christmas trees are a large part of Oregon's nursery and tree industry. In fact, Oregon leads the Nation in Christmas tree production, with 6.9 million trees sold last year at a value of nearly $108 million to the Oregon economy. In particular, Clackamas County-- which I am proud to represent along with Ms. Hooley--is the largest producing county in the country with $36.8 million in sales from 17,500 acres of Christmas trees. Across our state, there are almost 1,600 Christmas tree operations, encompassing an area over one and half times the size of Washington, DC and employing close to 10,000 people at total wages of over $32 million.

Oregon farmers began hauling Christmas trees for out-of-state sales by horse and wagon at the turn of the 20th century. It's now the sixth- largest agricultural industry in Oregon, and our crop covers 31 percent of the market. Oregon Christmas trees can be found across the country and across the world.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for offering this resolution. As we head into consideration of the 2007 Farm Bill, it provides an important reminder that the agriculture upon which many of our communities depend is more than corn and cotton. Our federal farm policy should reflect the diversity of American agriculture and ensure a fair playing field for all of our farmers and ranchers.

Already, Oregon nurseries and vineyards, ranchers, and farmers are leading the way, showing how we can craft winning policies that are good for farmers, the land, the environment, consumers, our water supplies, and wildlife. I look forward to the opportunity to work with my friends on the Agriculture Committee, to build on this good work and take it to the next level, and, in true Oregon tradition, create an opportunity to unite citizens throughout the state.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too rise in support of H.R. 6121, the reauthorization of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program. My good friend and colleague from Wisconsin gave a clear and convincing summary of what the bill is about, and I see no reason to actually prolong this. I agree with the sentiment, and I strongly support it

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too rise in support of S. 1140.

I appreciate the clear analysis from my friend from Wisconsin. I would have just one other element to add, and that is that I think it is particularly fitting and appropriate for our committee to advance this and to commemorate Senator Roth. He was keenly interested in environmental protection in the course of his career and was one of the most aggressive and active supporters of Amtrak, at a time when, as my colleague and friend mentioned, Senator Roth was a fiscal conservative to the bone.

But he was very clear that investment in a national rail passenger service, Amtrak, was good sound fiscal investment. It was good for the environment. It was good for transportation. I am only sorry that it is not a railroad bridge that we are naming after Senator Roth, but I am proud to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.

I am honored to follow my friends Mr. Shaw and Mr. Kolbe, who have invested in making this work, and it is an example of how trade policy can, in fact, be bipartisan. This is one of those examples.

For those of us who entered political life during the Vietnam War era, the passage of normal trade relations and the final step towards normalization of relations with Vietnam is nothing short of astonishing. I was honored to accompany President Clinton on his historic visit to Vietnam in 2000 and to watch the spontaneous outpouring of, interest and it appeared even affection, for the American President and for America at that point. This agreement cements this important political relationship with a key Southeast Asia partner and demonstrates a roadmap for other former enemy countries to repair relations and proceed together along a mutually beneficial path.

It contributes to the continued process of reform in Vietnam, strengthening the rule of law, promoting transparency in government, and decreasing that government's role in the Vietnamese economy.

It is also good economic policy for both the United States and Vietnam, strengthens the international trading system in the wake of the collapse of the Doha Round. U.S. exports to Vietnam have increased over 150 percent since that historic visit with President Clinton to over $1.2 billion last year, and Vietnam continues to be the second fastest economic growth engine in the world.

Vietnam has agreed to open their markets to U.S. manufactured goods, services, and agricultural commodities, including things we care about in Oregon like beef, apples and pears.

Imports from Vietnam are also important in supporting many jobs in the Northwest, as my friend from Puget Sound mentioned. Companies, I would say, like Nike and Intel have the same sort of interests, and it will also provide advantages for American consumers. Access to U.S. markets can also play an important role in Vietnam's fight against poverty as it seeks to emulate the progress of the other ``Asian tigers,'' which have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and sickness in East Asia.

However, I would offer two points of caution. I am concerned that the administration has agreed to self-initiate antidumping investigations against the Vietnamese textile industry, which employs 2 million people and is Vietnam's second largest export earner. By creating an uncertain atmosphere for U.S. business in Vietnam, I am concerned, and I hope that this concern is not proven to be founded, that the agreement between the administration and the Senators from North Carolina will deter U.S. companies from operating in Vietnam and harm companies that depend on imports from that country, limiting the benefits of this agreement both for the United States and the Vietnamese people, as well as setting, shall we say, a dubious precedent for future trade policy.

I do encourage the administration to work closely with the United States stakeholders and attempt to find a mutually acceptable conclusion to this issue that is fair to the parties involved and does not set a dangerous precedent.

I would also repeat on the floor what I have said to friends and people that I have met in Vietnam, Vietnamese officials at the highest level in both countries, that the Vietnam record on religious freedom and human rights continues to be an impediment to a full flowering of the partnership with the United States. It decreases the legitimacy of the Vietnamese Government in the eyes of their people and people around the world.

A truly close relationship can only be based on shared values and the Vietnam Government's record must improve in the area of human rights and religious freedom. And it is not just about the relationship between the United States and Vietnam and helping oppressed people in Vietnam. It is only with this freedom of the economy and religion that they are going to be able to benefit the full flowering of their economy.

Mr. Speaker, in the end, permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam is a win for both the United States and Vietnam on all fronts. And I for one enjoyed working with the junior Senator from Oregon who helped lead the passage in the Senate, demonstrating once again that trade does not have to be one of these mindless partisan issues. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor the life of Monroe Sweetland, along with my colleagues Tom Lantos, Anna Eshoo, and many other of Monroe's California friends.

The most important Oregonian most people have never heard of passed away earlier this month. Even though I knew Monroe would soon be leaving us, and even had quite a lucid farewell conversation with him shortly before, it's still hard to believe that he is gone.

Here's a man whose lifespan of active political life stretched from the Hoover administration to George Bush the second. Monroe engaged in every single important political debate of our times from economics to foreign-policy to civil rights: He was in Indonesia, during the year of living dangerously; was one of the most powerful men in Oregon during the Truman administration as a Democratic national committeeman for a Democratic administration when every elected leader was Republican; and, he had tremendous influence on appointments and policy decisions from judicial appointments and personnel decisions to policy direction. He was a journalist, an educator, and a politician but most of all a passionate advocate for making the world a better place.

From the time I first met Monroe Sweetland as a college student directing Oregon's campaign to lower the voting age, he was a steady presence in my political life and development. He always provided me good, sound advice, gentle but firm encouragement and tremendous support.

He knew everyone who had made a difference in his party for three quarters of a century. Monroe earned the respect and affection of principled opponents, including Senator Mark Hatfield who defeated Monroe when they ran against each other for Oregon Secretary of State in 1956. It was great to hear and feel the respect these two Oregon giants had for one another, and one hopes that someday that can come back into fashion.

As recently as 1998, Monroe ran for the State Senate mounting a close campaign against Verne Duncan, a longtime incumbent. To the end, Monroe conducted his campaign, as his entire career, with civility and affection, being able to point out differences with precision and civility that made people feel good about politics.

Most of all, Monroe was tireless and effective. He was gentle and kind but resolute in

what he believed in. He was a fierce partisan fighting for his party, his candidates, and his country but never approaching, let alone crossing the line in the 37 years that I knew him. He was unstinting in his beliefs but never cruel or unkind in his judgments.

The sadness on his passing is tempered by the knowledge of his rich and full life and that thousands of Oregonians and people around the country are the better for his friendship and his life's work.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her leadership.

This is sort of a bizarre rule that is limiting debate on three very critical areas, but I would like to just focus on one because under the guise of protecting property rights, H.R. 4772 is back before us, and it will undermine the quality of life for most Americans.

I find no small amount of irony that our friends on the Republican side of the aisle who say that they support local control are now going to gut some of the most basic protections for neighborhoods, businesses, and the environment to make sure that they are decided at the State and local level. Remember, these are our same friends who have come to us with provisions to strip away from these same Federal courts being able to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance or on marriage. Those are too important to be given to the Federal courts, but you are going to take away opportunities for people to be able to deal with the most fundamental of issues in terms of neighborhood quality and throw that into the Federal courts without having an opportunity to work it through at the State and local level.

The Supreme Court itself has recognized that State and local courts are the best way to deal with things that are inherently local in nature. I spent 10 years as a commissioner of public works in the city of Portland. I watched development proposal after development proposal come over the transom. If your rules were in place, it would not help the little developer because they would not have the firepower to be able to go through the Federal process, but it would have been an amazing club for big developers to have their way for proposals that were incomplete, inadequate, or not carefully thought through. In some cases, there were things that were making mistakes. In others, they were trying to do something that would have threatened adjacent businesses, adjacent homeowners. What we did was work with them, going through the process, and as a result, time after time, we had better results.

This would undercut that effort. That is why 36 attorney generals, including Mr. Chabot's attorney general, says that this is an unnecessary Federal intrusion and it ought to be resisted.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Our friend from New York set the right tone.

Basically I must respectfully disagree with the chairman of the committee. Maybe everything has been said, but I do not think everything has been heard. That is why his attorney general joined with 35 other attorneys general in saying this is flawed, unnecessary, dangerous legislation.

They basically flunk Property Protection 101. It ignores the fact that planning and zoning is to protect everybody's property. Now, the gentleman from Cincinnati would not yield to me. I wonder, if I yielded him 30 seconds, if he would answer a question.

Does Hamilton County or the City of Cincinnati have any protective zoning and planning mechanisms that occasionally require more than one decision to be able to reach a rational decision? I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman

My question is, in Hamilton County or Cincinnati, does it ever occur that there are other activities locally in dealing with the local planning and zoning process that would require an additional step or two? I yield 30 more seconds.

I appreciate the gentleman's clarification, because I have the same experience you have. I was a county commissioner. I was the commissioner of public works for the City of Portland. I had example after example where there were imperfect applications that were thrown over the transom. I can think of one where there was a massive shopping center that was going to be in an industrial area where they wanted a zone change that required extensive efforts to protect everybody's property protection.

I find it outrageous that you are going to be proposing, under your legislation, short-circuiting that local property protection.

It is ironic that the same committee is telling us that the Supreme Court is not competent to deal with issues of marriage, same-sex marriage. It is not competent to deal with something as complex as the flag amendment. Somehow you are going to be rocketing proposal after proposal into the Federal courts where the Supreme Court has already said that it is not the best place to deal with things that are uniquely local and State in nature.

It is not the small property owner that is going to benefit from this. The little old grandma that you are talking about in the first instance is not filing complex planning and zoning proposals, in the main. This will be utilized by large developers who can wear down communities. And we have seen it happen. When it happens to small communities, where all of the fire power that was arrayed before the Judiciary Committee comes to bear, wearing them down, it is going to make it very difficult to provide those local protections.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is why unions, planning associations, Clean Water Action, why the Defenders of Wildlife, over a dozen other environmental and conservation groups, including the Trust for Historic Preservation, and as I mentioned 36 attorney

generals, including Mr. Chabot's attorney general in Ohio, say this is flawed and unnecessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that rather than trying to drive a wedge into the planning process in local communities, processes that are designed to help to provide protections for everybody, I would strongly suggest that this legislation be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there are 35 other attorney generals that are Republican and Democratic, from Alabama, from Connecticut, from Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Kentucky, noting the gentleman in the chair, from Idaho--I think he is a Republican--Delaware, Arizona, Alaska, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nevada, Mississippi, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. I mentioned Wisconsin, and I do think we ought to reemphasize again Ohio, the home State of the sponsor of this legislation. All these attorneys general oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I looked at the website of one of the witnesses that Mr. Chabot brought from Cincinnati, and looked at a couple of the things that he has been successful in achieving, as significant expansion in a landfill, siting a 1,000-foot radio and TV tower.

These are the sorts of things that I worked on as a county commissioner; I assume Mr. Chabot worked on when he was a county commissioner. It took years, for example, for us to deal with sitings for radio tower emissions because local people, neighbors and representation from industry were going crazy.

But the lengthy process was worth it; we produced the safest standards in the

country that the industry ultimately adopted. Using Mr. Chabot's approach, it would allow those powerful interests to have bypassed us and gone to Federal court. We could not have stood up to them.

The neighborhood would have been at risk. It is exactly the sort of thing that people elect local officials like we used to be to protect. I think it is outrageous that Congress is going to undermine them.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I was not disparaging the gentleman. I was talking about his cases that he advertised.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify. I find it interesting that my colleague from Cincinnati somehow thinks that, because I noted his witness represents people siting radio towers in landfills, that I was disparaging him. I did not say anything like that. I gave real-life examples of why his bill is going to destroy property values.

If you have a 1,000-foot radio tower next to you or a landfill expansion, in your home town that may make one person more money, but it has the potential of eroding the protections of everybody around them. Those are the real-life examples that they refuse to acknowledge.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the years since we enacted our attack against Iraq, the threat from Iran has only grown more difficult, and our capacity to meet that threat actually has diminished. It is one of the reasons many of us opposed that action against Iraq.

There is no question Iran's President is a thug, an anti-Semite, and a dangerous man. He exploits Iranian national grievances to consolidate power and has openly expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Well, our troops are bogged down in Iraq, placing them at risk should Iran launch a wave of terrorism. We have done nothing to break our global dependency on oil, the control of which gives Iran its greatest ability to blackmail other countries.

Now, I appreciate the good will and passion of the sponsors of this bill, bringing a critical issue before us. I rise in opposition, however. We have been at this point before. We passed an earlier version of this bill. The Senate rejected it as an amendment to the defense authorization. I appreciate that there have been some positive changes that have been made to this legislation. One is a sunset. The earlier bill would have made it permanent.

And I appreciate that it contains a provision that I authored that would prohibit assistance to groups who had appeared on the State Department's list of terrorist groups in the last 4 years. However, the problem is nothing in this legislation points us in the direction of a solution. It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a difficult diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most sensitive point. The timing for this legislation could not be worse.

While the United States has largely been missing in action from the diplomatic game, the European Union and Iran have been making progress at developing a formula that would lead to the suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment program and the start of serious negotiations. This bill specifically targets Russia, which may have some influence with Iran and which is critical to a unified diplomatic front.

This bill has another fundamental flaw besides sanctioning people whose help we need to reach a diplomatic solution. It gives equal weight to overthrowing the Iranian government as it does to nonproliferation. These two goals work against each other.

Yes, the regime's human rights record is atrocious, but preventing them from developing nuclear weapons should be our first priority. By not prioritizing behavior change over regime change, we pull the rug out from anyone in the Iranian leadership who values survival over the nuclear program and eliminates incentives for diplomatic solutions.

Now, in my opinion, Iran holds, if not the key, a key to many of the issues that confound us in the Middle East. Their cooperation ultimately is going to be critical if we are going to be able to deal with the mess that our policies have created in Iraq, the problems that we are facing in Afghanistan with a resurgence of the Taliban, and it is going to play a key role on issues that deal with Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas. They are like a puzzle. And, sadly, Iran is one of the missing pieces.

After September 11, when the United States took action to overthrow the Taliban, our interests and Iran's aligned, and we were able to coordinate quietly but effectively. They were partners with us at some tough sessions in Bonn when we were having the negotiations that set up the Afghanistan government. And in the midst of this tentative effort at cooperation, President Bush decided to declare Iran part of the axis of evil and most hope for progress disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, the irony is that Iran is one of the few nations in the world where the majority of the people still have a positive view of the United States.

This is difficult. It is not easy. But to simply sanction potential partners and confuse what our priorities are, I am sad to say, is going to be a step backward. We ought to make clear to Iran that they need to stop their support for terrorism, end development of nuclear capacity, and begin the process of free, fair, and open elections. But I am sorry to say that this legislation in front of us ignores the opportunities that we have incorporating the lessons we learned in our success with Libya.

I respectfully suggest that this is legislation that we ought to reject, and that we ought to instead prioritize what our goals are with Iran, and we are going to. By all means, have our sanctions but not be reckless in terms of the pressure we try to exert against the very people who are going to be necessary to help us with a diplomatic solution to prevent nuclear proliferation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's work because the bill that we have before us, as I mentioned earlier, is, a substantial improvement over the one that was approved by the House earlier this year. I had hoped it would come back to our committee because I think these issues are worthy of further discussion, and there is more fine- tuning we could do.

For instance, dealing with the provisions for terms of the promotion of democracy, reading the language that is in this bill, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in exile in France, would have qualified for U.S. assistance. We could have had a debacle like we had with Chalabi. I don't think it is as tight and precise as we would like.

But most important, it fails to deal with the fundamental choice we need to make between whether we want regime change or whether we want to stop nuclear proliferation.

I deeply appreciate the points raised by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). We could end up actually making the situation worse.

I am deeply troubled that we are going to ratchet up the pressure on the very people who we most need for a diplomatic solution, the people like China and Russia who are going to be key to ultimately resolving it.

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem that we have great difficulty with is that some of the most disagreeable people, some of the most dangerous people, are people that we ignore at our peril. We should not do that. We should engage them directly, diplomatically and not under the auspices of this bill, which I hope that the House will reject.

Mr. Speaker, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, H.R. 5825, seeks to expand the administration's power by giving the President greater flexibility over a program that he has already abused. If our experience with this administration proves anything, it is that reducing congressional oversight would be a mistake.

Less than a year ago the American public learned how the president had blatantly disregarded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by authorizing a warrantless eavesdropping program on American citizens. After this program was uncovered, we discovered that the administration had authorized the National Security Agency to build a massive phone records database. Now the President asks that we pass legislation to legitimatize illegal activities that have already occurred and the current Republican leadership is all too willing to comply.

This legislation does not solve any problems or make our country more secure, it simply grants the administration the authority to implement more programs that violate the civil rights and liberties of American citizens.

We must hold this administration accountable for its actions and not retroactively approve an illegal program. Surveillance activities must be done consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and should protect both the American people and our freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed and perplexed that the administration and the Republican leadership refuse to provide meaningful legislation dealing with suspected terrorists and instead attempt to repeat the mistakes of the past. H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act, does nothing for our security and attempts to add legitimacy to the current improper actions of the Bush administration.

By not adhering to the strictest standards when putting suspected terrorists on trial, we run the risk of punishing innocent people who could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is now widely known that potentially hundreds of inmates in Guantanamo Bay may in fact have had nothing to do with terrorism, If we accept this legislation to be the new law of the land, we will be skirting our moral responsibility to be vigorous in our pursuit of terrorists while remaining just in our cause,

This administration has repeatedly shown that it will make the wrong judgments and has repeatedly crossed the line while never acknowledging its own mistakes. Rather than stepping back to address the flaws that resulted in the Supreme Court's ``Hamdan vs, Rumsfeld'' decision, the administration and the Republican Majority continue to charge forward with more of the same. Congress can and must do better.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 5 years I have been working with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to make it illegal to continue the barbaric practice of game bird and illegal dog fighting.

Unfortunately, these practices continue because the purveyors of them have settled on the tactic of having minimal sanctions, not having meaningful penalties in our statutes. Unfortunately, this takes on new urgency because it is not just the fighting and the violence and the illegal betting and other criminal activities. We are now finding, for instance, that viruses like bird flu can be spread through this vile trade.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House Republican leadership to stand up to the dark, shadowy forces that allow these evil practices to continue. Allow the bill that has been cosponsored, bipartisan, 324 cosponsors, to be voted on, on a suspension calendar. In fact, it won't even take the 40 minutes we normally allocate, because I am quite confident that we don't find any of the apologists for this barbaric trade who would be willing to stand up in public to defend what they protect in the back rooms of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this year's Defense Appropriations Conference Report is a step up from previous defense spending bills. It contains funding for some very inventive programs and industries located in my district and throughout Oregon that will prove vital to strengthening our national security and military preparedness.

This conference report also provides funding to the Department of Defense to begin researching and expanding its unexploded ordnance cleanup capabilities. Recently a pilot program has been implemented for the first wide area assessment which has already yielded valuable information for improving our ordnance removal methods. It is my hope that this is only the beginning of what will hopefully become a comprehensive approach to cleaning up unexploded bombs here at home as well as abroad.

Another important program that will receive funding from this bill is the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, which gives small businesses from my area involved with defense and military applications the ability to contract on a level playing field with the rest of the defense industry. Through this program, a coordinated effort between state, local, and the private industry, the Pacific Northwest is able to make its contributions to our Nation's security. From this we can ensure that the inventive and cost-effective solutions generated locally are implemented into our national defense strategy.