Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, an essential component of livable communities is the ability to avoid, withstand and quickly recover from disaster events. Today I am joined by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon, in introducing the Safe Communities Act 2005. This bill will give communities the tools to help them plan for and reduce the impact of disaster events.

The Safe Communities Act will create a new grant program to support state, local and regional planning activities aimed at reducing threats posed by natural and human-caused disasters. Grant-eligible projects include: comprehensive risk assessment and inventory of critical infrastructure, land-use planning for natural hazards and terrorism security, updating building codes and urban design techniques for risk- reduction. The bill will also create a research program to investigate the best practices in comprehensive land use and community planning aimed at reducing threats posed by natural hazards and acts of terror.

The number of people who live in harm's way is expanding dramatically; more properties and more lives are at risk from both natural and human-caused disasters. It is estimated that almost 75 percent of our communities are at risk for some type of natural disaster, be it wildfire, hurricane, flooding, or earthquake. Rising disaster-recovery costs impact us all: taxpayers, the financial services and insurance industry, as well as local communities.

Federal investment in natural disasters should include prevention and mitigation as well as response and recovery. Investment in prevention can save money in the long-term: The World Bank and U.S. Geological Survey have estimated that $40 billion invested in risk reduction strategies could have saved as much as $280 billion in worldwide economic losses from disasters in the 1990s--a $7 return for each dollar invested.

I hope that this bill moves quickly through the legislative process so that the Federal Government can be a good partner to communities to help them prepare for and prevent natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership. I want to acknowledge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I know the gentleman has played a key role; perhaps unlike any Speaker in history, with the difficult dynamic we had, he played a key role. I appreciate the committee leadership that has been acknowledged.

I would also like to express my appreciation for what people out in the country did. We have assembled the largest coalition in support of infrastructure investment in the history of the United States. Groups that ranged from the Women's Federated Garden Club of America, organized labor, environmentalists, people who move freight, people who build the facilities all came together with community activists to provide a critical push, given the political difficulties that all have acknowledged.

It was testimony also to the people who know how important these transportation investments are.

I appreciate being able to have a series of things in this legislation that I care deeply about. I have been working on small starts legislation that would help with streetcars, with commuter rail, with bus rapid transit, and I appreciate the committee having 3 years of investment that is going to help give communities more choices. And certainly with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the ranking committee member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we were assured that this was going to be the best bicycle bill in the history of the United States, and we have it.

I am also appreciative that we have been able, through all of the travails, to keep the fundamental framework of the historic 1991 ISTEA legislation. This legislation produced the flexibility, it produced new tools for communities, it had a bias for being able to plan and put together the pieces right.

We have had lots of upheaval in Washington, D.C. and in the countryside since 1991. It has not been without controversy, but the basic framework is intact. And it means, even though this is not as much money as I would like to see us invest in America's infrastructure, it will be spent more efficiently in ways that communities want.

Because it has taken us 2 years to get to this point, one other thing should be reflected upon. We only have 4 years before we are doing it all over again. I hope that we take this time, learn from the experience, keep the coalition alive in Congress and in the country to make sure that when we come back here in 4 years, which is, sadly, a very short time in terms of major policy, that we are able to build on this, not get hung up over the level of funding, and that we are able to deal with critical questions that cry out for adjustment.

We need to think about what the appropriate role is for Federal oversight. There is a lot of work that is done with the Department of Transportation, frankly, that costs people money in time and energy that may no longer be necessary. I hope we are able to look at that role and gear appropriate Federal oversight in ways that add value, not take it away.

I think it is time for us to look at the match methodology, to have a uniform set of match provisions so that we are not affecting the transportation decisions based on how many dollars we give to the particular project. We need to develop more new tools like the Small Starts project. We have to critically focus on urban freight mobility.

This legislation moves us in the right direction, but we have a long way to go, and I do not think individuals have spent enough time and energy working in their own districts to craft the appropriate solutions. We need to look at the critical connections and refine the connections between rail, air, and roads. The Speaker referenced them in his presentation, but it is not just investing in each of them, it is how they fit together and enhance one another.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better Federal investment than in infrastructure that deals with the environment and transportation in communities. Spent properly, it is the best dollar spent to strengthen that community, make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. This bill is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to working to make sure that it is implemented properly.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed ISTEA, it revolutionized policy and how our transportation dollars are spent. Congress said that we were not just investing in highways, we were going to fund a broader range of transportation modes that truly help to build more livable communities. Transit, bikes, pedestrian access, a greater role for planning and coordination so that we make sure that we are doing the right thing to improve neighborhoods, protect the environment, provide working families with better access to jobs--these were key elements in the original legislation. I am very happy that TEA-LU continues to move us in the right direction as a nation.

The team from Oregon, the entire Congressional delegation, played a critical role in making sure that this bill maintained the funding flexibility and innovative tools that Oregon has come to rely on. We also worked hard to maximize the impact in our State and the Portland Metropolitan area.

The most important element is making sure that Oregon gets its fair share, which has

been achieved in no small part due to heroic efforts on the part of Peter DeFazio, who played a critical role in negotiating the final elements. The Oregon Senators recently released a joint list of over $100 million of projects of statewide significance with a number in the Portland metropolitan area. We have all worked to make sure that regional highway and transit projects are able to move along in times of difficult funding at the State level.

I am particularly pleased that we were able to secure authorization of the next round of expansion for the MAX light rail system. There are streetcar provisions that will help continue Portland's growing and nationally significant streetcar, so critical to the revitalization of neighborhoods. There are also elements that deal with vital freight movement and efforts for programs of statewide significance. There's also important bike funding, including safe routes to school and work that I had done with Congressman DeFazio to create a bike route from The Dalles to Eugene along the scenic Columbia River highway and down the Willamette Valley.

Most important, the delegation's work together has enabled us to begin laying the groundwork so that we will be in a stronger position from a local level and for Federal policy when it comes time for the next reauthorization. Since the current bill has been delayed for nearly two years with eleven extensions we will be right back in this process in just a couple of years, so it is critical that we take advantage of these investments and continue an aggressive future program.

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

One is just struck by the rhetoric surrounding this because only people who are captive inside the beltway bubble would believe the rhetoric about this being a positive development for our country. People do not have to take the word of politicians for this. Any person can deal with reputable

independent analysis from academics, from scientists, even looking at conservative think tanks to find out that the arguments are not sustainable.

This is, unfortunately, serious business. It is not just a list of special tax breaks and dodging hard issues. This is serious business for our country because our addiction to huge amounts of foreign oil that come from unstable parts of the world dooms us to costly dependency and means that we will continue to finance both sides of what they used to call the ``war on terror.''

This bill has no vision of a sustainable energy future for renewables and meaningful conservation, not window dressing but meaningful conservation. People are lining up in this country to buy energy- efficient vehicles that are only available by a handful of producers, and there is an opportunity lost to change that in terms of fuel efficiency. Ten percent of the world's supply of oil is dealt with in our addiction to inefficient energy transportation.

We are even falling behind not just the developed countries like Germany and Japan who have much more efficient use of energy; we are falling behind emerging countries. People on the floor are apoplectic about China buying an oil company, Unocal. Well, China at least is getting its energy house in order. As an emerging country, it has officially committed to a much more dramatic and aggressive program for renewables than the United States.

This bill is not an energy policy. It is a list of tax breaks and special interest favors that does not by any stretch of the imagination translate into a cohesive approach which global reality today demands for this country, demands for any country. It spends over $7 billion in subsidies to oil companies, the most profitable sector of our economy already flush with cash. I will not detail the harmful provisions that are going to come forward that are unnecessary exemptions for the oil and gas industries for compliance with the Clean Air Act, the backdoor immunity to MTBE producers and distributors that unfairly and inappropriatly denies injured parties.

That will be discussed, I think, further here in the course of the debate.

But the point that I want to make is that instead of being a milestone for energy policy in this country, people will look back at what Congress does--because I have no doubt that the rule will pass and the bill will pass--but it will be inexcusable, inexcusable, as people are asked by our interns in the future, by our constituents, by our children, how could we be so wrong-headed? What should have been a milestone for energy policy at this critical time will instead be a tombstone, a monument to an energy policy of previous decades that we will enact to the detriment of our economy, the environment, and our children for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to belabor this. I have great respect for the skills, the great skills, of the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. But it is just laughable to suggest that this is not your bill if you think you ought to dictate to the American public that you have to drive a car that gets 55 miles to the gallon, as if that were the only choice. A meaningful choice to raise CAFE standards the way other countries have done to their great advantage. That would have made more choices available to the American public and is something that is within our power, that we could do. It has nothing to do with forcing Americans to drive a car that gets 55 miles to the gallon. But the lack of a meaningful policy dealing with vehicle efficiency means that it is very difficult. There is a huge waiting list. It took me 6 months to get a hybrid SUV.

We are dropping the ball here. As to the notion that this is the best opportunity in terms of renewable energy, talk to the people in the industry who are ready, willing and able. Ask them if it is the best bill ever. That is not what I hear from people in this industry. I respectfully disagree.

Mr. Speaker, when it has never been clearer that the United States needs to catch up to the rest of the world dealing with energy efficiency and global warming, even the supporters of this legislation agree with the taglines in the New York Times and the Washington Post, ``it is not a disaster'', ``it could have been worse''.

Forget about explaining to our grandchildren; how will the Members of this Congress explain to next Congress' interns about why we settled for the lowest common denominator, continued to finance both sides of the war on terror with our continued dependence on Middle East oil. If we could not get landmark legislation, hopefully this bill will be a tombstone for the energy policy for the last century.

Mr. Speaker, there are two ways of dealing with the medical malpractice problem. One is to take the approach that the House Republican leadership has chosen for years; a narrowly drawn proposal that appeases their partisan supporters but doesn't solve the problem. As I said last year, the rationale was weak and there was little evidence it would succeed. Instead, it may do more harm to the health care community and doctors. Most important, because it is so narrow and partisan, it's very unlikely to become law. Pushing a political solution is the approach that has been tried repeatedly and is what Oregon voters rejected again at the polls last year.

The other approach is to work cooperatively, bringing people to the table to make progress. This is what appears to be happening in Oregon in the aftermath of the last defeat. In Oregon, doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare professionals are working with consumer advocates, trial lawyers, and people from government to fashion a solution that is acceptable; to make progress building on cooperation and trust.

Between the two approaches it's clear that the narrow, partisan, and unbalanced approach is not only questionable on its merits, but is a political dead end. I see no reason to change my longstanding opposition to both the narrow solution and to the approach that created it. Given the nature of the crisis of healthcare in the United States, the problems will only get worse; politicizing them will only put off the day when real progress is achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I take my 1 minute today to discuss CAFTA because there will be little meaningful debate on the most important trade bill of this Congress. CAFTA is important less because of what is in it than what is not and because what it has come to represent.

I come from a trade-oriented community, and I believe in honest trade. I personally asked President Bush to insist upon bipartisan trade legislation that would command at least 250 votes in this Chamber. This is possible if we are fair to workers at home and abroad and more sensitive to the environment.

Instead, CAFTA has been crafted to be the lowest common denominator calculated to pass. By pandering to special interests, it reminds one of the old television show ``Let's Make a Deal.''

This is a lost opportunity. I will no longer support suboptimal trade agreements and await the day when we put principle and people before raw political calculation, pretending that it is trade policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to cast my first vote ever against a trade agreement. While this has very little impact overall in the United States economy, it is very important for the direction of our trade and economic policy. Are we going to continue to parcel out piecemeal agreements? When pushed, are we going to cut side deals and understandings like we have done of late with citrus and steel and textiles and sugar? Are we going to fail to own up to our own agriculture subsidies?

We do not do a very good job in this country anymore enforcing our own labor laws. I am no longer interested in one more suboptimal agreement. Because it has such a small impact, there is no excuse for not advancing workers and their environment at home and abroad. There is no reason to settle for this agreement, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. Speaker, today we will be considering important legislation dealing with the modernization of the Postal Service. It contains some important provisions I have been working on since I came to Congress to make sure that the postal facilities, which are the cornerstone of a livable community, are, in fact, playing by the same rules as the rest of America.

Too often the Postal Service has not played by those rules, with bad results in site location, building and remodeling. While the Postal Service has made some improvements in recent years managing these facilities, this legislation makes clear that the Postal Service will obey local land zoning, planning and environmental regulations, very important developments, playing by the same rules as the rest of America.

It will hasten the day when the U.S. Government itself as the largest landlord, landowner and employer, will lead by example, and behave the way we expect the rest of Americans to behave. It will not cost any extra, but it will help make American families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule. I rise in support of the approach that has been taken. I add my praise for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), for the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for people who have labored long and hard dealing with the first post office update in over a third of a century. What we have before us is a carefully balanced effort to update and modernize this critical service.

I became involved with this effort when I first came to Congress 10 years ago, dealing with one specific element of focus, and that is to make sure that the post office, the local post office, which is the cornerstone of a livable community in small neighborhoods, in small- town America, in downtowns, that those 38,000 postal facilities in every way were assets to the community.

Sadly, what we found was a litany of efforts in the past where the post office basically did not play by the rules. It was idiosyncratic. Local land-use decisions were turned into political footballs. We had a series of efforts where the post office unfortunately ignored environmental regulations, local needs and desires. We set about to fix that with legislation that basically would have required the post office to play by the same rules as the rest of America.

I will say over the course of the 10 years, working with some of the colleagues that I mentioned, working with the Board of Governors of the Postal Service, working with three Postmasters General and others who are active in this effort, that we have come a long way. In fact, in many areas of the United States, we have seen examples where the post office has taken seriously its responsibilities and has been a model player providing that essential cornerstone.

It is important that this not be idiosyncratic. It is important that this approach, this way of doing business, must be codified into law so everybody can be protected. One of the reasons I support H.R. 22 is because it does just that. It requires the post office to obey zoning, planning, environmental regulations. It will be better for the post office; it is better for our communities.

But I want to go a little beyond that, because as I have been involved, I have been struck with the importance, not just in bringing up the physical facilities of 38,000 postal offices around the country, but to be active in terms of the change that is taking place.

The United States Postal Service occasionally comes into criticism by people who are concerned about it, but the fact is the post office handles one-half of the mail in the entire world. They collect only one-quarter of the revenue; they have less than a fifth of the work force; they are more than three times as productive as postal services around the world, and their rates are lower than any other of the developed countries. It is also important that we are ready for the changes that are cascading down upon the Postal Service. The status quo is not tenable. This legislation recognizes that.

I strongly urge, however, that as we come forward with a range of amendments that they be rejected. I appreciate that they are well- intended. Some of them in other contexts I may be interested in, but this is part of this carefully crafted balance. It is important that we not upset the apple cart. It does not take much to derail it. It has been a hard pull to get to this point. I strongly urge that we support making the post office a full partner, that we resist amendments that would upset the balance, and that we can all be, after the approval of H.R. 22, the modernization, so that we can be about the business that is going to have to go on from here. Because there is more work that is going to be done. Controversy is not going to go away. Luckily, this legislation provides a platform that is going to help us all do this important work.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that while we are in the midst of a healthcare crisis for the uninsured, for small businesses, and for practitioners, Congress is recycling the same flawed legislation. The proposal would allow association health plans to bypass the State solvency framework requirements, leaving the consumers at a significant risk.

The reason that over 1,350 business, labor, and community organizations oppose H.R.

525--including organizations such as the National Governors Association, 41 Attorneys General, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, National Small Business United and 69 local Chambers of Commerce--is because it not only misses the point, it will make things worse.

The bill would undermine our efforts to provide essential services to everyone by providing incentives to insure only the healthiest and wealthiest, leaving the vast majority of over \1/2\ million uninsured Oregonians and 45 million uninsured Americans behind. Even worse, the adverse selection process will mean that the insurance pool will be narrower and sicker, resulting in more expensive insurance for most families. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 8 million individuals who currently have health coverage will be switched to a lower benefit plan. Consumers may be denied the proper screening, procedures and treatment they deserve.

These are critical issues for taxpayers and businesses alike. I will continue to work with the healthcare and business community to produce the type of process, discussion and legislation Americans critically deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress to help the Federal Government be a better partner and make communities more livable. One of the simplest ways to achieve that objective does not require new rules or regulations. It simply requires that the Federal Government follow the same rules as others.

Well, H.R. 22 contains language from the Community Postal Partnership Act which I first introduced in the 105th Congress. It requires the Postal Service to abide by the same zoning and land use laws as everybody else and requires that the Postal Service garner input from communities on proposed changes for facilities.

We have had tremendous support for this concept, from homebuilders, the National Association of Postmasters, the Trust for Historic Preservation, Realtors, landscape architects, planners, and from within the postal community itself.

Good government organizations across the country have joined with mayors and local officials who understand that the over-37,000 postal facilities are not just remote outposts of Federal activity. They can, often are, and always should be centers of community activity.

This legislation has had bipartisan support from the majority of the House of Representatives and has passed the Senate, only to become victim of the politics of postal reform which I am pleased the committee has been able to sort out.

It is time, however, to make this relationship something that every community can count on. It should not be the exception, nor should it require extraordinary political action. There should be no variation in the commitment to provide the finest facilities that are part of each and every community. I am happy that the committee has chosen to include this language in the comprehensive postal reform bill.

In turn, I think it is essential that we recognize the valuable service provided by the Postal Service. It delivers more items in one day than Fed Ex does in a year; it manages half the world's mail with one-fourth of the revenue and a fifth of the workforce. It is important that we not just applaud these accomplishments, but give the Postal Service the tools it needs to continue to deliver its valuable service.

This bill accomplishes that goal. It is a delicately balanced compromise which I hope the House will support, rejecting amendments that would upset that balance, and build on this for a better Postal Service in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution honoring and congratulating Lance Armstrong upon hls retirement from professional cycling following his 7th successive victory of the Tour de France. One of the world's most grueling athletic events, this year's Tour de France bicycling race covered 2,254 miles in 21 days.

Aside from his many victories as a racer, Lance Armstrong has become a household name, vital to the promotion of cycling as a sport, a healthy fitness activity, and a pollution-free transportation alternative. These athletic accomplishments are even more dramatic considering his successful battle against widespread cancer. Lance has become a role model to cancer patients and his efforts through the Lance Armstrong Foundation have helped to advance cancer research, diagnosis, treatment, and after-treatment services.

The resolution being introduced today is a deserving tribute to Lance Armstrong and his Tour de France victory, commitment to cancer awareness and survivorship, and promotion of bicycling.

Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act was enacted in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rushed through the House as a suspension bill the day after it was introduced. This process didn't permit the public, let alone Congress, to fully understand it.

The original bill was rewritten in the Rules Committee instead of the bipartisan bill that was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee. Luckily, there were a few sunset provisions that were intended to help keep people honest and evaluate the impacts on the public.

We have now been fighting the war on terror longer than World War II with no end in sight. The policy decisions we make affect the lives of everyday Americans. It is important to keep these policies narrowly focused on items that are necessary for dealing with terrorism and today's modern communication developments while not encroaching on American's fundamental rights. This version is a missed opportunity to narrow the provisions and time limit their applications.

The good news is the public is becoming more aware and involved. Thirteen municipalities in Oregon, including Portland, have already passed resolutions expressing their opposition to the PATRIOT Act.

It seems that the majority of Congress has at least some reservations about this bill. There were more ``no'' votes than four years ago and a bipartisan effort to provide more checks and balances is growing. The Senate version will be better, making it likely that the fiscal legislation will be an improvement over the existing law.

I will continue working to give voice to the concerns and the experiences of Oregonians, as together we fight against terrorism and protect the rights of each American.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this amendment. I am pleased with the efforts that are under way here on the floor to help try to deal with the shape of the PATRIOT Act. This is a critical discussion.

We have been fighting the war on terror longer than we fought World War II, and it appears to be that this is going to be in the American landscape for as far into the future as we can see.

This amendment helps get a handle on the sneak-and-peak provisions. Section 213, which authorizes the sneak-

and-peak investigation, is not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses. It may be used in connection with any Federal crime, including misdemeanors. The PATRIOT Act did not establish oversight standards for these investigations.

The public has a right to know how these activities are being undertaken. We saw one of these searches in Oregon go sideways and devastate the life of a local attorney. Brandon Mayfield was jailed for 2 weeks as his name was leaked to the media, falsely linking him to the Madrid bombing. Now this man is suing the FBI; but he will never, never be able to clear his name.

I appreciate what my friends, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), have attempted to do here, narrowing the application and providing more information to Congress. This is critical. I would hope we would be able to push the limits a little further. I am very apprehensive about this, but we are involved with a process that is very important for Congress.

As I mentioned, this is what we see for as long as the eye can view. In 2001, just days after 9/11, we rushed through a bill that simply cast aside the important by-products that were developed by the Committee on the Judiciary on a bipartisan basis. I am hopeful that this is going to give us a chance to work together to deal with the important security provisions.

Nobody wants America at risk; but it is important that we narrow provisions, wherever possible, that we have appropriate sunset provisions and that we are monitoring carefully. It is critical both for the civil liberties of Americans and for developing the right tools to fight terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Berkley/Crowley amendment to cap assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Under the new leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, progress is being made--slowly-- on the path to democracy and peace. It is ironic that these additional restrictions are proposed on Abbas, yet were never applied to Yasser Arafat. In light of Israel's impending withdrawal from Gaza, I believe that we need to maintain President Bush's flexibility to use United States assistance to promote American interests in the region. Already, aid to the Palestinian Authority is the most heavily restricted, audited, and projectized assistance in the world with aid going directly to the Palestinian Authority only when the President signs a specific waiver. This amendment is one more unnecessary restriction that ties the President's hands to support any movement towards peace and security.

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

It is an interesting proposition that we have before us today. Unfortunately, what is framed in the context of this amendment is more a conclusion rather than something that is dealt with in terms of well- reasoned fact.

Nobody disputes the fact that we need intelligence. Nobody disputes the fact that we are struggling in a global war against terror. The question is the way in which the facility at Guantanamo has been managed, what it represents now, and what it represents in the future.

We have been engaged in this struggle against terrorism longer than the United States fought World War II.

And there is no end in sight. In 2003 we had 205 acts of terror, an all-time record. In 2004 the number more than tripled to 651. I think there is a real question whether the assumption that the facility at Guantanamo has actually enhanced American security more than it has harmed it needs to be examined. I intend to offer a little more discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

I appreciate what was just presented by my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff), who has offered up a legislative approach to deal with the framework for Guantanamo, providing protections and procedures and moving forward with dealing with the problems of enemy combatants. I find somewhat ironic the continued portrayal on the part of some that what we have in Guantanamo now is sort of a Motel 6 with enhanced security and better food than our kids get when they go off to school.

I wish that the resolution that was before us today were based on some aggressive work on our oversight committee in the Committee on International Affairs, which my colleague, the gentleman from California, chairs, because I think it is appropriate for us to understand not just the treatment at Guantanamo, but what impact that has had around the world in terms of perceptions of United States behavior towards enemy combatants.

I mentioned that I am deeply, deeply concerned about the language that is here that asserts that somehow we are better off and more secure as a result of Guantanamo. There is nothing, nothing that is unique to that location and the lawful exercise of interrogation techniques that is unique to Guantanamo. Where do we put them? We can put them in Leavenworth. We have lots of facilities that could be used to secure the enemy and protect the public.

But I am deeply, deeply concerned that there is lots of evidence that we have fallen short of the mark, and it is not just that when you torture and abuse people you get information that is suspect. The reason we reject that behavior as a country is twofold: besides being morally wrong, it puts Americans at risk. If we are going to abuse people, and recall that famous hearing in the other body when questions were put to uniform command, ``would you like American soldiers subjected to these techniques?'' Well, of course he would not. That is why we set standards to protect American soldiers and Americans overseas.

Second, when there are activities where we fail to meet our high standards, whether at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, they have an incendiary effect. Remember, it was not just a Newsweek story that sparked the riots in Pakistan. We were told, in fact, by people there that the story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet was not why the riots occurred. But the point is that there was a perception of American behavior that made people susceptible to thinking the worst. That is why there are a wide number of Republicans, including Senator Martinez, Senator Graham, Senator Hagel, that have raised questions about whether or not Guantanamo has outlived its usefulness for us.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when the history of this period of time is written, we are going to find out in the last 4 years that the information that came from the press, whether it is about prison abuses, about the basis for rushing to war in Iraq, or the consequences of that act, that the press accounts were more accurate than what we were given from the administration as information and justification. And, frankly, Congress has been, in the main, missing in action when it comes to getting on top of those stories, rooting out the truth, holding people accountable, not low-level guards ill trained and ill suited, and looking at patterns of abuse that started in Guantanamo, ended up in Iraq.

These are items that lend itself to the legislative process. With all due respect to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), it is not at all clear that what happened in Guantanamo makes us safer given the fact that we have seen an explosion, that was a poor choice of words, of terrorist acts around the world, including our closest ally, Great Britain, just this last week.

This is precisely what we should be doing as a Congress rather than rushing to approve a feel-good amendment that has not been carefully examined by our oversight committee where there is evidence to the contrary that we may not be safer rather than doing something that would look to all the world as sort of a whitewash of what has happened in Guantanamo. And, most important, where we are going from here?

I would strongly urge the rejection of the amendment by my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just say it is a false choice to suggest that the only alternative is to keep Guantanamo open and operating as it is now. We could easily prosecute detainees who are at risk or a threat or a problem under courts martial. We could close the prison at Guantanamo and shift AT operations someplace else like Leavenworth. We could abandon the failed interrogation policies and conduct them according to the Army Field Manual and get rid of the people who are not at risk. There are other alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the operative elements here before us in the resolution are twofold: one, on the second page of this amendment, there is paragraph 8 that says that we have improved the security of the United States and that what is going on at Guantanamo is essential to fighting the global war on terrorism. The second operative phrase is on the very last paragraph, it is essential to the security of the United States that we continue operating this facility until we are through waging the war on terrorism, which I have already pointed out we have been fighting now longer than World War II.

It is not at all clear that the symbol that Guantanamo has become has actually made us more secure. We have people like Republican Senator Mel Martinez and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who recognize both in terms of the symbol of Guantanamo that has inflamed people around the world, and that we have a situation now where people are dealt with in an indefinite situation, rather than moving forward, prosecuting people under a courts-martial, if they in fact need to be prosecuted. We are not opposed to that.

There are opportunities for providing a framework, which my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), outlined in terms of legislation that he has developed that we could use to move forward, deal with what needs to be dealt with, but do it in a way that is consistent with American values and American principles. And, in fact, if people detained thought that there was some end in sight rather than indefinite detainment, some experts argue we may actually get more cooperation.

There are alternatives. We can put people, for example, in Leavenworth. We ought to make clear that we are playing by our standards, that we are going to play fair, and we are going to move forward.

I think it would be a very appropriate use of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) chairs, to try to find out what the facts of the situation are; whether we are more or less at risk, and what lessons we learn from this sorry chapter in the past.

Our Republican friends have devoted 140 hours to investigating whether or not the Clintons misused their Christmas card list, and there were inquiries from committees trying to find out how they are dealing with letters that were sent to the Clintons' cat Socks. I would suggest that we ought to be able to find the time and the energy to be able to give the appropriate attention to these issues that Guantanamo represents, but I think the resolution in question is not warranted.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, his leadership and his partnership with our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

There is no more important forum for Members of this Chamber to be focusing on than what is happening in the international arena. I am pleased in these troubled times that our chairman and ranking member have provided a framework for us to deal with things that matter, from human rights to the environment. I join in expressing my appreciation for what you gentlemen have permitted us to move forward.

I like so much of what is in this bill. I like the notion that we are dealing with the welfare of the men and women who serve us in the State Department and the related agencies. Too little attention is given to their welfare, the fact that they are in the line of fire and they are producing activities that are every bit as important as what is happening with the armed services.

The money that is put in here and the attention that is given to their welfare and for a platform for them to operate is vitally important.

I appreciate the ranking member mentioning the consulate in Istanbul, which happened to be designed by people back home in Portland, who have demonstrated that we can deal with the welfare of our employees, their security, give them a good working environment, and actually save money. It is a little detail, but it is, oh, so important. At a time when we have seen international acts of terrorism triple from 2003 to 2004, we know that this is important.

I also appreciate what is in this bill to try and move the great battleship that deals with our relationship with Egypt. For years we have spent billions of dollars for work in the Middle East to try to promote a partnership with Egypt. This bill starts to move us away from the preponderance of military aid and move that same dollar amount, but to humanitarian aid. There is an effort that is going to come forward to try to eliminate that. I strongly urge it be defeated. I think that is an important message that is a part of this bill.

I appreciate things that can be found in the language of the bill that deal with disaster preparedness. Many of us from the committee were in the tsunami area and saw the devastation. If we are able to reposition the billions of dollars of assistance to help move these people out of harm's way, to help them not degrade their environment that actually makes them more vulnerable to more loss, I think this is an important step forward. I appreciate the linkage there. In fact, we are told if we had spent $40 billion in mitigation, we could have prevented $280 billion of disaster relief in the last decade, and countless lives that would have been saved.

I appreciate the notion of what this bill does in the language that talks about dealing with planning our troubled urban areas, and that helps these areas where there is an explosion of population and caldrons of unrest that the United States may be able to do a better job of helping these people as well.

In sum, I think we will have a lively and spirited debate over the course of the next day and a half. I appreciate our committee leadership in bringing us to this point. I hope we on the floor will do our job on all of these issues to make it an even better bill before we are done.