Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation and missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 487; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 488; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 489; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 490; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 491; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 492; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 493; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 494; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 495; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 496; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 497; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 498; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 499; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 500; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 501.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that our current intelligence system has failed us in recent years.

I do not doubt the capacities of individual analysts within our intelligence agencies and know them to be talented and capable individuals. But the configuration of the present intelligence system has denied our leaders the information we need to adequately warn of and respond to terrorist threat.

Our current intelligence structure dates to the National Security Act of 1947. It is a structure directed to a threat that no longer exists, the Soviet Union. We won the Cold War and it is time to reconfigure our intelligence capabilities to fight the next major threat of our generation, the threat of international terrorism.

The bill before us, H.R. 10, responds substantively to the broad range of recommendations offered by the 9/11 Commission. It creates a strong National Intelligence Director with strengthened budget authorities and new flexibility to redirect funding to urgent needs. All management of tasking, collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence will be centralized within the office of the NID.

At the same time, the legislation acknowledges the very real requirements of the largest user of national intelligence products, the Department of Defense. H.R. 10 maintains full support for DOD during a time of war--efforts to integrate our national intelligence effort should not come at the expense of the requirements of warfighters. Indeed the 9/11 Report recommended that DOD military intelligence programs should remain part of that Department's responsibility.

We should reject the criticisms we have heard today about the scope of the House bill. The House shouldn't be a rubber stamp for legislation considered by the other body, any more than the other body should be the rubber stamp for the broad recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Passage of this bill today will allow both chambers to move to conference to reconcile the differences between the two pieces of legislation.

Similarly, I disagree with the notion argued here today that because opponents consider certain provisions to somehow be ``extraneous,'' we should refuse to consider them. The preface to the 9/11 Report succinctly describes the mandate of the Commission: ``How did this happen, and how can we avoid such a tragedy again?'' Such also is our mandate--and we should not consider our work done with a retooling of our intelligence apparatus.

The scope of Public Law 107-306, establishing the 9/11 Commission, was far broader than an examination of the intelligence agencies. It directed an investigation of the ``facts and circumstances relating to the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.''

Improvements to our border security, restrictions on terrorist travel and enhanced authorities to deport illegal aliens all respond to the concerns raised in the 9/11 Report and all provide substantive improvements to the security of our nation.

Intelligence reform only matters if we are able to do something with the information our agencies gather. A strong and effective National Intelligence Director is only relevant if we give other agencies of the government the tools they need to act on that improved intelligence.

It would be irresponsible for Congress to take a pass on acting on the clear security deficiencies described in the 9/11 Report and H.R. 10 answers that challenge.

In my decade of service in this institution, I have taken seriously my responsibility to cautiously weigh the consequences of our action on the Constitutional rights of citizens and to carefully evaluate the expansion of federal powers. I reflect on the perspective of that service as I consider H.R. 10.

H.R. 10 takes a significant step forward in recognizing this inherent tension in a democracy by requiring the National Intelligence Director to appoint a Civil Liberties Protection Officer to be responsible for ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are protected. All proposed and final rules would also be subject to an assessment of privacy rights. I believe this legislation achieves the necessary balance between protecting our society and protecting individuals.

There will still be more to do--both bodies have a responsibility to reorganize internally to consolidate congressional oversight. I am concerned that the other body has adopted a process that is a hollow semblance of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Far from consolidating oversight, amendments adopted by the other body will have the effect of pretending at consolidation while continuing business as usual. This should not stand and the House must take the lead in demonstrating the resolve to actually act upon the

call of the Commission to streamline oversight by the legislative branch.

I encourage my colleagues to support this measure so that we may take the next step of moving this legislation to conference with the other body and producing a final product that will comprehensively address the range of recommendations presented by the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act and urge my colleagues to pass this bill

As the parent of a daughter with Type 1, or juvenile diabetes, I can tell you that it is a terrible disease. People with diabetes must contend with daily insulin injections and blood tests to monitor glucose levels. Hanging above this constant management is the threatening cloud of complications, such as kidney failure, blindness or amputation that this disease so often brings.

The legislation that we consider today reflects an extraordinary opportunity in the field of juvenile diabetes research. Pancreatic islet transplantation has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. The procedure, which involves transplanting insulin-producing cells into an individual with juvenile diabetes, has been performed on over 300 individuals, and the majority of them no longer need to take insulin to stay alive. While significant research remains to be done to expand this procedure to all who suffer with juvenile diabetes, its promise is incredibly exciting for families like mine.

My bill seeks to remove some of the non-scientific barriers currently before the scientists racing to perfect this procedure. A shortage of donor pancreata is one of the major obstacles to higher transplant rates. In 2001, approximately 1,800 pancreata were donated and only 500 were available for islet cell transplantation and research. At the same time, more than one million people suffer from juvenile diabetes. Current Federal regulations do not credit organ procurement organizations (OPOs) for harvesting pancreases for islet cell transplantation toward their certification or recertification. The Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act alters these regulations to credit OPOs for pancreata used for islet cell transplantation or research.

This legislation provides help for an extremely promising procedure, that in turn offers a great deal of hope to the millions of Americans with juvenile diabetes. It gives me great pride to have introduced this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation and missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call Vote No. 473, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 474, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 475, ``no'' on Roll Call Vote No. 476, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 477, `'no'' on Roll Call Vote No. 478, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 479, ``no'' on Roll Call Vote No. 480, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 481, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 482, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 483, ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 485, and ``yea'' on Roll Call Vote No. 486.

Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation and missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 454 on agreeing to the Kelly amendment to H.R. 5025; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 453 on agreeing to the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 5025; ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 455 on agreeing to the Hefley amendment to H.R. 5025; ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 456 on agreeing to the Moran amendment to H.R. 5025.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 13, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 441 to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, to H. Con. Res. 363; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 442 to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 667; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 443 to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 760.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation and missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 422 on agreeing to the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4381; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 423 on agreeing to the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4556; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 424 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 754; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 425 on agreeing to the Jackson-Lee amendment to H.R. 5006; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 426 on agreeing to the Jackson-Lee amendment to H.R. 5006; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 427 on agreeing to the Sanders amendment to H.R. 5006; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 428 on agreeing to the Hefley amendment to H.R. 5006; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 429 on agreeing to the George Miller amendment to H.R. 5006; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 430 on the motion that the Committee rise; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 431 on agreeing to H. Res. 757; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote 432 on the motion to instruct conferees; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 433 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 2634; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 435 on agreeing to the Hayworth amendment to H.R. 5006; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 436 on agreeing to the Kildee amendment to H.R. 5006; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 437 on agreeing to the Stark amendment to H.R. 5006; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 438 on agreeing to the Paul amendment to H.R. 5006; ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 439 on agreeing to the Hayworth amendment to H.R. 5006; and ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 440 on passage of H.R. 5006.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I also want to say congratulations to the chairman of the subcommittee. He has done a fine job and has worked very hard to get this bill through. As a Member of the Committee on Appropriations, I will support this bill.

I do want to have a discussion about this amendment, because, 2 years ago, we enacted the Armed Service Members Protection Act as part of the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act. ASPA was a response to the International Criminal Court entering into force, creating the very real possibility of unconstitutional, extraterritorial and politically motivated prosecutions against military service members. The U.S. is not a party to the ICC, but our troops could face prosecution under the treaty.

As a result, the administration has understandably been very concerned about committing troops to support U.N. peacekeeping operations around the world without some assurance that our troops would not face ICC prosecution. For the last 2 years, we have operated under Security Council resolutions blocking ICC prosecutions.

Unfortunately, 3 weeks ago, lacking the support of the Security Council, the U.S. was forced to drop its request for a third extension of this waiver, meaning that our troops are now subject to ICC jurisdiction. At the end of June, the administration pulled out of two small peacekeeping missions because of this concern.

ASPA created a powerful tool for protecting our troops by prohibiting military assistance to countries that had not signed bilateral Article 98 agreements with the United States, agreeing not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC. The Act also included all of the necessary waivers to protect the President's foreign policy prerogatives.

My amendment today would simply give the President an additional tool to protect our troops by prohibiting Economic Support Funding as well as military assistance to the government of countries that are both parties to the ICC and have not signed Article 98 agreements.

This distinction is important because traditional development assistance through ESF typically is administered by a USAID contract to an NGO. Such assistance would not be restricted. Similarly, funding for the international Fund for Ireland and the Walsh Visa Program could continue, as funding goes to non-governmental entities.

I want to see the U.S. engaged around the world supporting international efforts to keep the peace. That is our responsibility and obligation as a superpower. But we should not have to risk the unconstitutional prosecution of our troops in the process.

A vote for my amendment is a vote for continued U.S. engagement and the continued protection of our personnel deployed around the world in support of multilateral peacekeeping efforts.

Signing an Article 98 agreement, as 90 other nations have done, is not too much to expect from nations receiving millions of dollars in U.S. assistance. We have an obligation to protect our Armed Forces from unconstitutional extraterritorial prosecution.

Moreover, this amendment sends a powerful message to the world community that when we commit U.S. troops overseas we will insist that they be protected by Article 98 agreements, if the Security Council will not do its part.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out that ASPA exempts Jordan, and my argument to the chairman would be that we can exempt Jordan in conference. If this amendment passes, we can exempt Jordan in conference, as I would agree we should.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments on both sides. I think the most compelling argument is that if these countries want to receive money from the United States, it is simple: Sign an Article 98 agreement, and then you can receive the money.

But in these very dangerous times in which we find ourselves, I think the bottom line is we have to protect our American servicemen and women overseas on peacekeeping missions.

It worked in one case. I am informed Eritrea has agreed to sign an Article 98 agreement as we decided to remove our peacekeeping force from that country. So it works, and this is a logical and appropriate conclusion for us to take as a country.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Nethercutt

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

limitation on economic support fund assistance for certain foreign

governments that are parties to the international criminal court

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday June 17, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 260, approving the Journal; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 261, agreeing to the Hinchey amendment to H.R. 4568; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 262, agreeing to the Sanders amendment to H.R. 4568; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 263, agreeing to the Holt amendment to H.R. 4568; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 264, on passage of H.R. 4568, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 265, on agreeing to the DeFazio amendment to H.R. 4567; and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 266, on agreeing to the Sweeney amendment to H.R. 4567.

Madam Speaker, last Saturday our Nation lost one of its greatest leaders. As we mourn Ronald Reagan's passing, we celebrate his life of service as a lifeguard, an entertainer, a union leader, a spokesman, a Governor and a President.

As leader of the free world, he not only defended liberty, he expanded the realm of freedom. He liberated millions with the power of his ideas.

As President, he revitalized the American political system. The bipartisan celebration of his life here is a tribute to his greatness. Let us remember Mr. Reagan's example and work to improve civility and public discourse in American politics.

President Ronald Reagan was an American hero and a personal hero of mine. I met him 18 years ago, but it feels like yesterday. We all feel we knew Ronald Reagan. When he stepped off Air Force One in Spokane, we realized that he was a big man. He was larger than life. He was very personal. He was gracious. He wowed the crowd, and he touched each individual.

Having met Mr. Reagan, I know firsthand how his unwavering vision for our shining city willed the Nation to new heights. Even after his passing, his vision must and will continue to guide us.

God bless Ronald Reagan and his family and his lasting legacy of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Master Sergeant Glen Douglas' sacrifice and service to our nation, which spanned twenty-two years and three wars, the first of which was World War II.

Glen Douglas is one of the most decorated veterans in our region, having received the Distinguished Service Medal and seven purple hearts among other honors.

The following excerpts from the May 4th, 2004 weekly edition of the Colville Statesman Examiner are a testament to the sacrifice, courage, commitment and leadership Mr. Douglas displayed throughout the course of his service.

Douglas's service to our country first began as an

infantryman in Europe with the 101st Airborne (Screaming

Eagles) in 1944 and then in the occupation army with the U.S.

Constabulary. Douglas then served in the Korean War with the

U.S. 2nd (Indianhead) Infantry Division from 1950-1953 before

he was med-evacuated after being wounded for the eighth time.

In the incidents prior when he had been wounded and

evacuated, he would be taken as far as Japan before he would

disappear from the hospital, get clothes and take a boat back

to his Infantry Division. ``I would get very angry having

somebody else lead the men and lose them.'' Douglas said, ``I

hardly ever lost a man when I was leading. After being

wounded for the eighth time, Douglas nearly lost his legs and

spent four years, four months and twenty-six days in the

Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Denver before he was released.

He was told he would never walk again. But Douglas had his

own ideas. ``I was released December 23, 1957'' Douglas

remembered. By 1959, ``I was jumping out of airplanes

again.'' Douglas served two tours in Vietnam with the Special

Forces (Green Beret) and then again with the highly

classified Studies and Operations Group before retiring after

twenty-two years of service.

I was pleased to learn that Mr. Douglas was recently selected by fellow veterans from local chapters of the American Legion, VFW, and Marine Corps League to receive an all expense paid trip to Washington D.C. in order to represent them during the upcoming dedication of the National World War II Memorial later this month.

The Memorial is a fitting tribute to the great courage and selfless dedication of soldiers who fought in the Second World War and as we approach Memorial Day, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the great sacrifices of men like Glen Douglas.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 13, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the following: Rollcall vote No. 172 on agreeing to the Kind substitute amendment to H.R. 4281, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004; and rollcall vote No. 173 on the motion to recommit H.R. 4281, the Smail Business Health Fairness Act of 2004.

I would have voted ``yes'' on the following: Rollcall vote No. 174 on passage of H.R. 4281, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004; Rollcall vote No. 175 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.J. Res. 91, Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944; and Rollcall vote No. 176 on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 414, Expressing the sense of Congress that, as Congress recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, all Americans are encouraged to observe this anniversary with a commitment to continuing and building on the legacy of Brown.

Mr. Speaker, Washington State is facing a health care crisis because medical liability lawsuits have run amok. We are one of 19 States in the country that is in a

health care crisis. We have lost 500 doctors because they could not afford medical liability insurance in my State. What this means is women who are seeking an OB-GYN in some of our communities cannot find one to deliver their babies. That is a crisis. Emergency rooms are not able to stay open 24 hours a day; that is a crisis. We are losing doctors to Idaho, right across the line from my State.

As a member of the Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force, I am pleased to support H.R. 4280, the Health Act, and pleased to support the rule. It is the right thing to do. There is every reason in the world that critics of any reform can try to give to mask the concept that we have to address the issue of medical liability reform first. We will not do that until we pass a bill in this House and we pass a bill in the other body so there can be communication and discussion and resolution of this problem.

To do nothing does not solve the problem, Mr. Speaker. So I am pleased that this HEALTH Act is being brought up again. We have to make sure we establish again and again and again the commitment of the House to medical liability reform, because doctors, hospitals, nurses, and patients are at risk if we do not change this system, modify this system, reform this system with a commonsense proposal that will lower costs and premiums so that doctors can stay in business. The damage that is being done here is that we are losing very good physicians and hospitals are at risk, risking closing, and also nurses are leaving the practice. They are going elsewhere because they are concerned about the liability insurance that they cannot get in States like mine. I urge my colleagues, vote for this measure, vote again in this House to pass it. Then let us urge the other body to adopt the same sort of commonsense reform. We can do that. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 4, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the following: Rollcall vote No. 139 on H. Res. 600, Congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education; Rollcall vote No. 140 on H. Con. Res. 380, Recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education; and Rollcall vote No. 141 on H. Res. 599, Congratulating the University of Connecticut Huskies for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I men and women's basketball championships.