Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, my many years of public service have been enhanced by contact with talented community leaders representing numerous organizations and every part of the political spectrum. Among them, Russell J. ``Rusty'' Hammer--former President and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce--stood out.

Rusty died in late January at the young age of 54, succumbing to a rare form of leukemia that he had been fighting with characteristic courage and grace since 2003. He is survived by his wife Pamela and children Gerald and Jennifer.

Rusty Hammer's career was marked by early political success with his election, at age 18, to the Campbell, California City Council--making him the youngest elected official in U.S. history at that time. Three years later, he was selected as mayor, making him one of the youngest American mayors ever. In 1982, he retired from politics, began a distinguished career in the private sector, and never looked back.

In 2001, following 7 years as CEO of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Rusty grabbed the reins of the Los Angeles Chamber. Under his skilled leadership, the LA Chamber was transformed into a thriving and profitable organization--the ``go-to'' group for area entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes.

Rusty was also a passionate advocate for the least fortunate, and understood that good schools and a healthy environment are fundamental to the Los Angeles area's appeal.

Rusty's insatiable spirit was evident during his battle with cancer. He published a book--``When Cancer Calls Say Yes to Life''--which he said he wrote to help others struggling with the disease.

Madam Speaker, Rusty Hammer touched many lives. He will be missed.

Madam Speaker, maybe because I, too, lost many family members in the Holocaust, I felt a special affinity for Tom Lantos. His story was an integral part of him. I was moved every time he described himself as the only Holocaust survivor in Congress. And so were many others.

Tom was eloquent, passionate, insightful, elegant--and fierce in his advocacy. His questions of witnesses before his committee could be withering. He had a point of view and was unblinking in his efforts to communicate it.

In personal terms, Tom was a lovely human being--devoted to Annette, his daughters and that enormous crowd of grandchildren and great- grandchildren. But he was also devoted to his colleagues, this institution, to our country, and to achieving peace in the Middle East.

At a time of such entrenched partisanship--which he deplored--we desperately need more, not fewer, Toms. Sadly, that is not likely to happen.

I shall miss him terribly.

Shalom, haver.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his leadership. I also commend many on the other side, including Mr. Hoekstra, for their devotion to getting intelligence right.

I hope we have bipartisan agreement on the subject before us. But, Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to correct the record. Last night in his State of the Union address, the President said: ``If Congress does not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens could be in greater danger.''

As a Member who worries 24/7 about terrorist threats against our country, I strongly object to that statement. It is inaccurate and yet again a bald-faced attempt to play the fear card and to jam Congress into gutting a carefully crafted, three-decades old bipartisan law called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

FISA, Madam Speaker, does not expire on Friday. Only the hastily cobbled together Protect America Act amendments to FISA expire on Friday.

This country will not go dark on Friday. Our government has aggressively used surveillance tools, and in the past year or so secured warrants in compliance with FISA. Those warrants do not expire on Friday.

As for the claim that citizens will be in greater danger, in my view actions that fail to follow the laws Congress passes and ignore the requirements of the fourth amendment put our democracy in grave danger.

Madam Speaker, security and liberty are not a zero-sum game.

In October, the House passed thoughtful legislation, the RESTORE Act, to replace the flawed Protect America Act. Once the Senate acts later this week and the House has had adequate time to review documents concerning activities of telecommunications firms, we should conference our bill. Fifteen days is a good estimate of how long it will take to send a responsible bill to the President. Let's act responsibly. Vote ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, today all Democratic members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing & Terrorism Risk Assessment are introducing legislation that will put the Department of Homeland Security on the path to better information sharing by turning back the tide of over-classification that imperils our ability to make America safer from terrorism.

The ``Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2007'' (ROC Act) gives Congress the tools to curtail the federal government's widespread and mushrooming practice of classifying practically everything that moves.

Almost three and a half years ago, the 9/11 Commission made clear the urgent need to eliminate the over-classification of intelligence information by the Federal Government.

The Commissioners found that over-classification interferes with the sharing of critical information between the Federal Government and its State, local, and tribal partners on the front lines of our nation's homeland security efforts.

Sadly, the numbers tell us that we're still not heeding the 9/11 Commission's warning.

According to the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives, the number of new classification actions jumped from eight million in 2001 to 14 million in 2005. During the same period, the quantity of declassified pages dropped from 100 million in 2001 to 29 million in 2005.

To make matters worse, we learned this past year that some agencies were withdrawing archived records from public access and reclassifying them.

Together with the exponential growth in the amount of material that is classified, we've seen the level of spending on classification go up considerably.

In 2001, $4.5 billion was spent on classification but by 2004, we were spending $7.1 billion.

In addition, there has been a troubling proliferation of new policies and labels to limit the distribution of sensitive but unclassified information across the Federal Government.

At the Federal level alone, there are over 28 distinct policies for the protection of this ``SBU'' information.

Unlike with classified records, there is no monitoring of or reporting on the use of SBU information markings or its consequences.

The proliferation of these SBU ``pseudo-classifications'' interferes with interagency information sharing--increasing the cost of information security and limiting public access.

It's also an obstacle to sharing information with our first preventers and first responders in the field--precisely what the 9/11 Commission warned against.

During this session, Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Intelligence that I chair has held numerous hearings and received invaluable input from subject matter experts on what first steps to take to address the twin problems of over- and pseudo-classification.

The bill we're introducing today reflects that input.

The goal is simple: make the Department of Homeland Security the ``gold standard'' when it comes to preventing over-classification and to limiting the use of sensitive but unclassified markings.

The only way to ensure that the Department gets it right going forward is to promote an enforceable and understandable strategy that applies to everyone.

DHS is an excellent place to start and--if it gets a handle on its own burgeoning over- and pseudo-classification addiction--can become a ``best practices'' center and the test bed for the rest of the Federal Government.

Accordingly, our bill will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a strategy that will: allow the classification of documents only after unclassified, shareable versions of intelligence have been produced; develop a new ``sensitive and shared'' information program that will provide protections for certain sensitive and unclassified information for limited periods of time under narrowly tailored circumstances; propose new incentives and disincentives to encourage Department personnel to classify documents properly and to use ``sensitive and shared'' markings sparingly; create training programs and auditing mechanisms for all Department employees in order to ensure that the Strategy is being implemented properly; establish an independent Department declassification review board to expedite the declassification of documents when the need for public access outweighs the need to classify; and propose legislative solutions to ensure that the Strategy is implemented in a way that not only promotes security but also fosters both information sharing and the protection of privacy and other civil rights.

Our Subcommittee plans to move this legislation early next year and hopes our colleagues in the House will join us in the effort to ensure that the Federal Government gets accurate and actionable information to those who need it in a timely fashion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am enjoying my return to the Commerce Committee, where I serve under a great chairman, John Dingell.

Our committee has a history of producing strong bipartisan legislation. The regular order works, and we do good work when we follow it.

As a grandmother and grandmother-to-be, I watched in horror this summer as millions of toys were pulled off of American store shelves due to lead-tainted paint, detached magnets, and other hazards. I was further dismayed because Mattel, one of the companies responsible, is headquartered in my congressional district and employs 2,000 of my constituents to design and market its toys. I am pleased to say that Mattel has worked hard to fix its problems, though I will continue to recommend that it move some of or all of its manufacturing back to this country, where quality can be carefully monitored.

Madam Speaker, for all the reasons my colleagues have mentioned, H.R. 4040 is a landmark bill. It sets a high bar for toy manufacturers like Mattel, and strengthens government scrutiny of industry. H.R. 4040 was written the right way, the bipartisan way, and through the regular order of the House. In terms of process, it is a model for Congress at its best, and grandmothers, grandmothers-to-be, children, and our committee will be better for it.

I urge passage of this bill.

I thank Chairman Reyes for yielding, and I'm proud to be part of this debate along with him, Ranking Member Pete Hoekstra and other friends from my long service on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of this committee for 8 years, the last 4 as ranking member, I remain passionate about intelligence issues and very proud of the thousands of my constituents who comprise the industrial base that builds our intelligence satellites.

As we have heard, this is the first intelligence authorization conference report in 3 years. It is the House's main tool for setting directions and conducting oversight of our intelligence community. It includes new tools, record funding, investments in language training, and a provision I have pushed for years: multilevel clearances.

I honor and support the work of the brave women and men of our intelligence community around the world. Often their families cannot accompany them on their assignments and in many cases don't even know what they do. I visit them often, and if they are tuning in, let me say thank you again on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Two items. First, interrogations policy. For years I have urged a clear legal framework around detention and interrogation policy in the post-9/11 world. The scandal over destruction of the interrogations tapes was avoidable. As ranking member in 2003, I urged in writing that planned destruction of tapes was ill advised. The committee was not advised in 2005 that the tapes

were destroyed, and the thorough hearings now in progress may reveal that the committee was deliberately misled. That would be disgraceful. There should not be a separate interrogations program. That's why I support the Senate language requiring all interrogation procedures to conform to the Army Field Manual.

Second, the Iran NIE. I've read it in its entirety, and I'm proud of those who wrote it. They did careful work, and they spoke truth to power.

Intelligence is not policy. It is a tool which helps wise policymakers develop policy. Instead of blaming the messenger, policy experts and security experts should use the conclusions in the NIE to support tough sanctions, which we need, and diplomacy, which we lack. They should also understand that this NIE identifies gaps in what we know.

This policymaker is wary of Iran's possession of advanced missiles, its work on many dual-use technologies that could be part of a restarted nuclear weapons program, and its ongoing sponsorship of terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, on balance, this conference report is responsible and it is needed. Vote ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, as the only grandmother Blue Dog, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. I strongly support AMT relief for 55,000 taxpayers in my congressional district, and 23 million Americans nationwide. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Simply providing relief to this generation while raising taxes on future generations is the wrong way.

Put another way, the $50 billion price tag for this AMT vote can either be paid for responsibly, or we can send the bill to our children and grandchildren.

In my seven terms in Congress, I have always supported fiscal responsibility and have made scores of votes that are faithful to that principle. Among them was a career-risking vote in 1993 for the Clinton budget; my vote in 1994 to cut $100 billion from Federal spending; my vote in 1997 for a balanced budget; my vote against the Bush tax package which provided unnecessary relief for the top tax brackets; and now these AMT votes.

Madam Speaker, I dedicate my vote today to my first grandchild, Lucy, and to her brother and cousin, who will be born early next year.

Mr. Speaker, while the process has been difficult, this rule is worthy of support, and the underlying bill is a test of our will to solve the cataclysmic challenge of our time: global warming.

This rule and this bill give us many tools, from fuel efficiency to alternative fuels to renewable energy standards. They also incorporate thoughtful, thorough appliance efficiency standards reported on a bipartisan basis by the Commerce Committee and previously enacted by this House.

As co-author with Fred Upton of the light bulb provisions, let me underscore how important they are. In this bill, we ban, by 2012, the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb, which emits 10 percent of its energy as light and wastes the remaining 90 percent. Sounds like this House. We phase out remaining inefficient bulbs by 2014, and by 2020 light bulbs will be three times more efficient, paving the way for the use of superefficient LEDs manufactured in the U.S. by 2020.

Mr. Speaker, it takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb and even less time to vote ``aye.''

Importantly, the bill gives the Department of Energy the authority to craft a rule to give the lighting industry the flexibility to sell a range of bulbs, but there are protections. The rule must save as much energy as a flat requirement that all bulbs be 3 times more efficient than today's bulbs. And if DOE doesn't get its act together, the flat requirement will automatically became law.

Though I believe that Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) are an important technology, the intent of these standards is that at no time will CFLs be the only lighting choice available to American consumers. The bill also requires that DOE find ways to minimize the amount of mercury in CFLs and provides incentives for high-efficiency lighting to be manufactured in the United States.

I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Boxer and Congressman Upton (who has been my partner in all things light bulbs) for their tireless work on these provisions.

Finally, I'd like to thank Jay Hulings, my Legislative Director and Committee staff--notably John Jimison on the House side, and Deborah Estes on the Senate side--for their long hours and dedication to getting this job done.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and commend her for her leadership on this legislation, along with Mr. Rohrabacher. In 2 months in Congress, you have hit the ground running, and we're all very proud to serve as your colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution congratulating the Port of Los Angeles on its 100th anniversary.

When I first came to Congress in 1992, the Port of L.A. looked far different than it does today. It wasn't quite the sleepy port of 100 years ago, with mule-driven trains and wooden ships. It was a regional presence. But today it is the largest container port in the United States and part of the fifth busiest container complex in the world. It supports over 250,000 jobs at the port and adjacent communities and nearly 1 million jobs worldwide. It is an economic powerhouse whose importance to Southern California and the Nation cannot be overstated.

In recent years, the port has taken great strides to address the challenges that come with being a major port in the 21st century. It has dedicated millions to ensuring the quality of life for the surrounding communities, many of which are located in my congressional district. It has also taken on groundbreaking environmental initiatives to reduce the air pollution that it generates. Maybe most importantly, 100 years ago there was no such thing as a maritime security strategy. Today, the issue is of paramount importance, and the port has been a national leader.

In the hours after the September 11 attacks, port officials, the Coast Guard, and local law enforcement executed a pre-approved plan that quickly and efficiently secured the port. The planning, communication and execution we saw that day became the inspiration for many of the security initiatives that have come since, including the SAFE Port Act, which I coauthored with my California colleague, Dan Lungren, and which became law last year.

As I mentioned, Congresswoman Richardson deserves enormous appraise for her leadership on an issue that was very timely but which the rest of us had overlooked. I don't think this resolution would have come to the floor without her initiative. And it really is a big deal to the San Pedro community.

I look forward to working with her as her partner when we celebrate the next 100 years. We may be feeble, but we will be here.

And at this time, I would like to insert into the Record an article from today's edition of the Daily Breeze.

[From the Daily Breeze, Dec. 5, 2007]

Port of Los Angeles Marks 100 Years Since Its Creation

(By Art Marroquin)

San Pedro Bay had been struggling as a port for nearly a

half-century, but the mud flats surrounding the inland harbor

failed to excite railroad magnate Collis P. Huntington.

So rather than run his Southern Pacific Railroad down to

San Pedro, Huntington bought more than 200 acres in Santa

Monica in the hope of bolstering his vision for a ``Port Los

Angeles.''

He built a wharf that extended 4,720 feet into the Pacific

Ocean, attracting more than 300 cargo ships during its first

year in 1893.

``He wanted people to think his port was close to Los

Angeles, when in fact it wasn't,'' said Ernest Marquez of

West Hills, who chronicled Huntington's efforts in his 1975

book ``Port Los Angeles: A Phenomenon of the Railroad Era.''

``If he was successful, then the region's economy would

have been at the mercy of Southern Pacific and that would

have been disastrous,'' Marquez said.

While Huntington tried to get his Santa Monica port

recognized as the official harbor for the Los Angeles region,

efforts were already under way to bulk up the port in San

Pedro.

U.S. Sen. Stephen M. White, the Los Angeles Chamber of

Commerce and Los Angeles Times Publisher Harrison Gray Otis

believed the port should be a city-operated enterprise and

pushed efforts to build a ``Port of Los Angeles'' in San

Pedro Bay.

``Those men saw potential for the mud flats in San Pedro,''

Marquez said. ``They believed the harbor could be developed

by lots of digging and dredging.''

To a lesser extent, interests in Redondo Beach and Playa

del Rey had tried to enter the fray, but those efforts

quickly fell by the wayside, setting the scene for an epic

battle that became known as the ``Free Harbor Contest.''

Congress established the River and Harbor Act of 1896,

which created a commission to decide whether federal funds

should go to Santa Monica or San Pedro.

Three years later, Congress put its money on San Pedro and

breakwater construction began a short time afterward.

``There was no way a harbor of this magnitude could have

been developed in Santa Monica because there are too many

cliffs on the beach, and it was wide open to the ocean,''

Marquez said. ``San Pedro was favored because the harbor went

inland and protected ships from the open seas.''

The city of Los Angeles then annexed a 16-mile strip of

land to connect to the port in 1906. The communities of San

Pedro and Wilmington were annexed three years later.

The city's newfound ownership of the port gave rise to a

new harbor commission, a three-member panel appointed in 1907

by then-Mayor A.C. Harper.

The 100th anniversary of the harbor commission's creation

will be marked during a celebration at 4 p.m. Sunday.

The bash will include historical displays, refreshments,

boat shows and a performance by Taiwan's Evergreen Symphony

Orchestra. A fireworks display is set for 7 p.m.

The first commissioners--George H. Stewart, Frederick

William Braun and T.E. Gibbon--regularly met in downtown Los

Angeles and made ``big news'' during the rare occasions they

traveled about 20 miles south to San Pedro, according to

Geraldine Knatz, executive director for the Port of Los

Angeles.

The panel didn't have a budget and its members often had to

pay for expenses out of their own pockets, she said.

``When the voters approved the annexation and bond

improvements for port improvements, the money went to the

Board of Public Works, not the harbor commissioners,'' Knatz

said. ``It got so bad that all the commissioners resigned in

disgust by 1913.''

The first harbor commission faced many of the struggles

that persist today, such as building new infrastructure and

bolstering regional economic development, Knatz said.

``When you read through the meeting minutes from 100 years

ago, you learn that nothing really changes,'' Knatz said.

``There will never be enough money, you'll be lobbied by

different interest groups, and you'll always have to deal

with residents who live near the port. It's always going to

be hard.''

The port has come a long way since those early years, with

the arrival of cargo container ships in 1937, the advent of

towering gantry cranes during the late 1960s and, more

recently, an environmental push aimed at reducing diesel

emissions from ships and trucks.

About 15.8 million cargo units passed through the ports of

Los Angeles and Long Beach last year, accounting for more

than 40 percent of the nation's imports. That number is

expected to double by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030,

according to local economist John Husing.

Additionally, some 500,000 people in Southern California

are employed directly and indirectly by port-related

businesses, Husing said last month.

``The port is a vital part of our national economy, but it

is just as important locally, providing good jobs for

generations of local residents,'' said Los Angeles City

Councilwoman Janice Hahn, whose 15th District includes the

port.

To remain competitive, the port must continue to grow while

also keeping the environment in mind, Husing said.

Several shipping companies operating at the Port of Los

Angeles are studying expansion options that call for

environmentally friendly accommodations, such as AMP

technology that allows container ships to ``plug in'' to a

generator and operate on electrical power while docked,

rather than idling on their diesel engines.

China Shipping was the first company to use the technology

at the Port of Los Angeles, resulting in the elimination of

300 tons of pollution-forming nitrogen oxides since 2004,

according to port officials.

``Growing green is imperative if any kind of expansion is

going to happen,'' Knatz said. ``It's always difficult to be

out front on these issues, but we can't afford to be a

follower.''

Indeed, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach approved a

clean air plan in 2006 aimed at reducing emissions by 50

percent over the next five years.

The ports are poised in 2008 to roll out the plan's first

provisions, including a so-called Clean Trucks Program that

calls for replacing or retrofitting about 16,000 diesel-

spewing big rigs with cleaner-burning vehicles by 2012.

``The time has come for us to truly commit to cleaning up

our air and limiting emissions from the port,'' Hahn said.

``It is my hope that working together, we can finally have

both a productive and efficient port, but also clean and

healthy communities.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend his service on the Rules Committee and his long service, much of which I shared, on the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. Many in this House, including me, have worked over years to get surveillance right. This bill does a good job, a far better job than the bill reported last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Protecting America from the real threat of additional attacks requires

the strongest possible tools. It also requires a flexible, agile and constitutional set of authorities to guarantee that those who do the surveillance clearly know the rules and obey them and that Americans who may be targeted have appropriate safeguards.

This legislation arms our intelligence professionals with the ability to listen to foreign targets, without a warrant, to uncover plots that threaten U.S. national security.

The bill also protects the constitutional rights of Americans by requiring the FISA Court, an article III court, to approve procedures to ensure that Americans are not targeted for warrantless surveillance.

I have reviewed the changes to this legislation made by the manager's amendment. This amendment makes the bill stronger in two important ways: First, it clarifies that nothing in the bill--repeat, nothing-- inhibits the ability to monitor Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction or any terror group or individual who threatens our national security. Second, and this is a point that was just addressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), it clarifies that nothing, nothing, in the bill extends any rights to people who are not in the United States legally. Undocumented aliens, people who aren't citizens or have overstayed their visas receive no rights under this bill. Some may try to scare us into thinking otherwise, but they're just wrong.

The bill does not change current law, and this is a point that may have been overlooked by the gentleman from Michigan. It does not change current law regarding the surveillance of undocumented aliens. Since 1978, FISA, which was enacted in that year, has extended fourth amendment protections to persons legally in the United States. The Protect America Act, which the Republican minority in this body supported in August and which was enacted into law that month, continues that same definition. The Protect America Act defines the coverage of the bill just the way this legislation does. We're not changing the coverage of U.S. persons as defined in 1978 and since under the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. Speaker, terrorists won't check our party registration before they blow us up. Security and liberty are not a zero sum game. The RESTORE America Act will protect the American people and defend the Constitution. Vote ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this has been an interesting debate. I have sat through every minute of it. During the debate on the rule, I spoke for this bill and for the rule; and now I speak strongly against this motion to recommit. As you have already heard, it is redundant. We have inserted language in this bill that takes care of the problem. In the manager's amendment, language was added at the request of the Blue Dogs, and I am proud to be a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, and that language specifically refers to terrorist organizations, and the Revolutionary Guards are one such organization.

So I would like to say for two reasons there's no need to support this motion to recommit: one, it kills the bill by using the word ``promptly''; number two, it is redundant with excellent language that we added to the bill in the manager's amendment. As I have said before, this is not a zero sum game. We don't get more security and less liberty or more liberty and less security. We either get more of both or less of both.

These amendments carefully restore, it's called the RESTORE Act, the balance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress wisely

passed 20 years ago. Vote for this bill and against the motion to recommit. We will restore that balance.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, one need look no further than the chaos in Pakistan or the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to understand that troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained--and that the surge, which I have always opposed, has done nothing to achieve political stability.

Today, with this bridge funding vote, Congress signals to the White House yet again that enough is enough, that the combat mission in Iraq must end, and that we will force that change.

No one in this chamber questions the courage or commitment of our brave women and men in uniform or their willingness to tackle

any challenge put before them. But we have sent them on an ill-defined mission with no apparent end point, and which consumes staggering amounts of our talent and treasure at the expense of countless other priorities.

This bill also redresses a glaring loophole in the Military Commissions Act--a bill I strongly opposed. By requiring that all U.S. Government agencies and personnel must adhere to interrogation techniques contained in the Army Field Manual, we send an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world that the United States--the world's oldest functioning democracy--does not permit cruel, inhumane and degrading practices, or torture, and complies fully with Federal law banning torture and our international obligations.

The Iraq Troop Redeployment Bill is good policy, and long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in free and fair trade. Trade creates jobs in the United States and helps build our relationships with countries around the world.

But not all trade agreements are created equal.

That is why I evaluate trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. I voted against NAFTA in the face of enormous pressure from my own party, and against CAFTA because I felt it suffered from the same flaws as NAFTA. I stand by those votes and believe that subsequent events have proven them to be sound.

But on carefully reading the Peru FTA is worth supporting.

This FTA makes real strides in protecting workers and the environment, and the key is that core ILO standards and adherence to multilateral environmental agreements are enforceable obligations. For example, this means that Peru cannot violate the Convention on Marine Pollution or allow employers to use temporary contractors to substitute for striking workers. If it does, the United States can bring a case against Peru, and just like the other provisions of the agreement, the case could end with Peru being subjected to sanctions. This gives these provisions real teeth.

Chairman Rangel has secured the protections many in my party have demanded. I urge us to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Madam Speaker, during my years in public office, I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with many extraordinary constituents committed to a seemingly endless array of good works and causes. None has served their community more ably and admirably than my dear friends Ed and Marilyn Fitzgerald, recent recipients of the prestigious YMCA ``Good Neighbor'' Award. The Fitzgerald's volunteerism and decades-long service to the needy, to members of the Armed Forces and area veterans, and to the communities of Lomita, Wilmington, and San Pedro--all located in my Congressional District--make them richly deserving of this recognition.

I first met them years ago when their daughter Sharon applied to the Air Force Academy. Sharon received my top recommendation, and attained the rank of Captain before leaving active-duty to be a full-time mother. To this day, Ed and Marilyn are members of my Academy Nominating Committee.

Although technically retired, Ed and Marilyn have never stopped working, and probably log more volunteer hours than most people put in at the office. Whether it is teaching children to read at Taper Avenue School, or distributing food and clothing to the homeless at Beacon Light Mission, the Fitzgeralds do not waver in their efforts to help those less fortunate. Not content to help only with the basics, the couple also organizes movie and museum excursions for kids, whale watching trips, and other activities inner-city kids might not have a chance to experience.

The active military and veterans' communities in Los Angeles County-- among the Nation's largest--have also benefited from the Fitzgerald's advocacy. Both volunteer at the Long Beach Veterans Hospital, transporting immobile veterans to and from doctor's appointments, and both devote hours of their time to helping the many veterans, including homeless veterans, in the Harbor Area. They reach beyond helping their neighbors by raising awareness nationally on behalf of America's POWs and MIAs.

And I only recently learned of Marilyn and Ed's fundraising campaign to gather and ship audio-video equipment to our troops in Iraq. Separation during wartime can severely affect morale--a problem the Fitzgeralds believe our soldiers and their families should not have to endure. With Sharon's husband serving in Iraq, this tireless twosome is even working on a better way to correspond with family members stationed overseas.

Madam Speaker, other communities have selfless people like Marilyn and Ed. But I am grateful to them every time we meet. They are true patriots.

Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding to me, and I thank my ranking member, Mr. Reichert, for his generous remarks.

Madam Speaker, on 9/11 we were attacked by foreigners who had come to this country legally. The next time and, sadly, I believe there will be a next time, my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be U.S. citizens. Homegrown terror is a phenomenon many countries are scrambling to understand, including the British, as they are under major threat from it. Theirs is a peculiar kind with a large Pakistani population that is not well assimilated.

But America has a problem too, unique in nature, and we fail to understand it at our peril. Far from being immune to the danger of homegrown terror, think Timothy McVeigh or Theodore Kaczynski, the threat today is infinitely greater and more likely to be influenced by events in the Middle East or by the larger struggle against radical Islam.

What causes an individual or group to, first, coalesce around a set of radical principles or a charismatic leader, activities permitted by our Bill of Rights, but subsequently to embrace a violent agenda intended to inflict maximum pain and disruption on his neighbors, potential treason, is not well understood.

In recent testimony before our Intelligence Subcommittee, some common traits and characteristics emerged. Said RAND Corporation's Bruce Jenkins: ``It is the same age group that is susceptible to being recruited into gangs. These are young men who are going through identity crises, looking to define themselves. If you have a narrative that exalts violence, that attempts to project that violence as a personal obligation, that offers the tantalizing prospect of clandestinity, identity, all of those are appealing to that specific age group.''

Combine that personal adolescent upheaval with the explosion of information technologies and communications tools, tools which American kids are using to broadcast messages from al Qaeda, as Chairman Thompson just said, and there is a road map to terror, a retail outlet for anger and warped aspirations. Link that intent with a trained terrorist operative who has actual capability, and a ``Made in the USA'' suicide bomber is born.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1955 was carefully constructed by Dave Reichert and me, as ranking member and chairman of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. The bill passed out of subcommittee and full committee unanimously. This bill has strong bipartisan origins. As one who believes that this body's best work is done on a bipartisan basis, I think this bill is a testament. Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the Nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism and the steps we can take to stop it.

Madam Speaker, free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution. But violent behavior is not. Our plan must be to intervene before a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior, to understand the forces at work on the individual and the community, to create an environment that discourages disillusionment and alienation, that instills in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future.

The legislation before us today offers that opportunity. It is, I would suggest, the key to prevention. If we fail to prevent, the best we can do is manage consequences. Prevention is better. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on this side, may I ask?

I assure the chairman I will just take a brief amount of time.

I want to note for the body that this has been an excellent debate. We are bipartisan, we are unanimous, everyone understands the problem, and everyone wants to solve the problem. It is extremely refreshing, and I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate.

I want to make two additional points. Number one, our bill was sequentially referred to the Judiciary Committee, and the Judiciary Committee agreed to report it for it to be brought up on the consent calendar. I would especially like to thank Chairman Conyers for his cooperation and note that our staff, our excellent staff, worked out this agreement.

My second comment is that a companion bill, the identical text, has been introduced in the Senate, and referred to the Government Affairs Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction there, and I hope that following passage here, should we be able to pass the bill today, there would be prompt action in the other body and we would have a law to send to the President to sign this fall.

In conclusion, this is a good process and I think an excellent result. It will make America more safe.