Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Conyers for yielding to me and commend him, Chairman Reyes, and others for their work on this bill.

Though I no longer serve on the Intelligence Committee, I have followed this issue with intense interest. This bill contains many provisions that I and others authored over recent years. It is a strong bill and I strongly support it.

It amends FISA to permit more speed and agility in the effort to conduct surveillance of those who would do us harm, but it also provides more resources in a court-approved framework to assure that the constitutional rights of Americans are protected.

I continue to follow the intelligence in my role as Chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee, and threats against our homeland are real. Westerners are training in al Qaeda camps in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Europe, especially Britain, may experience more attacks. Plots have recently been foiled in Denmark and Germany. We helped Britain disrupt the so-called ``liquid bomb plot'' in August of 2006, a plot that could have killed more Americans than were killed on 9/11 as they flew on U.S.-bound airlines from England.

Mr. Speaker, all Members want to protect America. All Members want to protect America. So it deeply saddens me that this is yet another partisan debate. It could have been otherwise.

For several weeks, Pete Hoekstra, who chaired the Intelligence Committee when I was privileged to serve as ranking member, and I tried to fashion a bipartisan bill. Our list of principles could, I believe, have garnered broad support in both caucuses and led to a veto-proof majority in this House.

Americans want Congress on a bipartisan basis to assure we disrupt plots to harm us and protect our Constitution. We could do both and we must do both. This is a strong bill. It does both. Vote ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, October 20, 2007, California State University Dominguez Hills, CSUDH, will celebrate the dedication of the Greg Smith Memorial Garden on its campus. Inspired by the late

Professor Smith's appreciation of nature, commitment to the preservation of the environment, and love for CSUDH, the Memorial Garden will serve as a lasting legacy to this extraordinary father, husband, activist, scholar, and teacher. Supported by his widow, June Smith, her family, and many friends, this garden will provide, as June says, ``a place where people can have quiet contemplation and appreciate nature.''

Greg Smith was a city of San Pedro resident, a leader in my district who became a faculty member at CSUDH in 1968 because he wanted to give back to his community. He taught with intelligence and passion, but most importantly he taught from the heart.

A noted scholar and educator, Greg took his students all over Los Angeles so that they could better understand the demographics and issues of the different communities within LA County. Greg was a political geographer who not only studied how the shifting political landscape affected the world, he became actively involved in organizations such as the California Coastal Commission and Los Angeles Tree Commission in order to influence the preservation of the environment in California.

Greg retired from CSUDH in 1992 after having inspired and touched thousands of students, staff and faculty colleagues. It was 5 years after his retirement, while hiking in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, that Greg died of an apparent heart attack at the age of 66.

Greg was a role model to those who knew him and inspired many to continue his efforts to preserve the environment. His research on environmental stability, preservation of mountain tops, land surface design and river water containment contributed greatly to the Nation's knowledge base and ability to preserve agricultural and natural resources.

Greg met his wife June, a professor of English at Harbor Community College, while they were undergraduates at Reed College in Portland, OR. They have been residents and active members of the San Pedro community since the late 1960s and have two children, Gilia and Cyrus, and a grandson, Hudson Gregory.

I am proud that Greg Smith was my constituent. I am delighted that his family and CSUDH will be honoring the memory of this extraordinary individual with the Greg Smith Memorial Garden.

Mr. Speaker, California is poised to join several other States in requiring its huge pension funds to disinvest in Iran. The decision is bipartisan. I commend my State's Democratic legislature and Republican Governor for this bold move.

So, H.R. 1400 too, is a bold bipartisan move, and I urge its passage. It tightens enforcement of U.S. sanctions, which are working; it conditions future nuclear cooperation with Russia on that country's ceasing its nuclear ties with Iran; and it designates Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who have long carried out terrorist acts in Iraq and the region, as a terror organization.

Mr. Speaker, Los Angeles, California, is home to over 800,000 Iranian Americans. In fact, it's called sometimes the ``Tehrangeles.'' I understand that, because we have such a large population. Our fight, however, is not with the ``Tehrangelenos,'' and it surely is not with the Iranian people either; but our fight, and we must continue it, is against the threats and the actions of the extreme regime in Iran who threaten our Democratic ally Israel and who threaten the entire world with the prospect of a nuclear bomb.

Coercive sanctions are working. H.R. 1400 will add new tools to those sanctions. This is the right way for this country to speak out and the right way for this country to achieve results.

Madam Speaker, if the United States were a house, our veterans would be its foundation. The structural integrity of our homeland has always relied on the selfless service and sacrifice of the women and men in our Armed Forces. Today I rise to honor a veteran, war hero, resident of the 36th congressional district, and my friend-- retired Marine Corps Sergeant and Army combat correspondent Bill Lansford.

The Second World War required endurance and courage from our Nation. Normal lives were put on hold, and the future of democracy rested on the shoulders of America's young soldiers. As a 20 year-old Marine, Bill Lansford fought his way through the Pacific Theater--at Guadalcanal, Bougainville and Iwo Jima, three of the bloodiest battles of the war. Bill served with ``Carlson's Raiders,'' an elite Special Forces unit, and earned numerous decorations for valor in combat.

The conclusion of World War II would not mark the end of Bill's military service. He joined the Army to write radio shows for the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, would that would be interrupted by the Korean War--and his transfer to the 11th Airborne Division where he ultimately achieved the rank of Lieutenant.

The bonds that Bill Lansford forged in battle influenced his life, and he has devoted himself to representing the interests of Hispanic veterans, particularly through the work of the American GI Forum--which celebrates its 60th anniversary next year. Through membership and service, Bill has made a major contribution to the Forum's success. In Los Angeles, he is working to install a monument to recipients of the Hispanic Congressional Medal of Honor. And an upcoming PBS documentary on World War II will feature him and a fellow ``Carlson's Raider'' discussing their wartime experiences.

Bill is married to the wonderful Ruth Lansford, an environmental activist and local legend in her own right. As founder of the Friends of Ballona, Ruth has been instrumental in preserving the beautiful Ballona Wetlands located in my district. The couple resides in Playa Del Rey, California.

I am proud to have Bill Lansford as a constituent, and pleased to commend him for his patriotism and lifelong service to country and community.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his steadfast protection of civil liberties in this country.

Mr. Speaker, in June, I received the CIA Seal Medal, the Agency's highest

civilian award. As one who lives and breathes security issues, this was a tremendous honor which I share with the courageous women and men of the intelligence community, serving in unaccompanied posts in austere locations around the world.

I have visited them and thank them again for their bravery and selfless patriotism. Why do I mention this? Because the issue before us is fundamental to our efforts to track terrorists and to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are protected in the process.

Only a handful of us in this House are fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program, a program which gives those who implement it incredible tools to find people who would harm us or to engage in unprecedented violations of Americans' constitutional rights for improper, ideological, or political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate-passed bill punts on the need for a clear legal framework, to check and balance unfettered executive power. In my view, we are drilling down to bedrock principle here, and sadly we in this House appear poised to repeat the Senate's mistake.

We can track terrorist communications, and we must, but we must do this without starting down the slippery slope to potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy. This is our challenge, and work starts today on building the bipartisan support necessary to do a crucial course correction by the time this bill sunsets.

Madam Speaker, this year, the sport of beach volleyball will say goodbye to its most celebrated player--Karch Kiraly. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge his accomplishments and congratulate him on his retirement from professional beach volleyball. He will cap his illustrious career with the Association of Volleyball Professionals later this month, with a final appearance at the AVP Manhattan Beach Open--a tournament he has won an impressive eight times.

With 148 domestic and international victories under his belt, Karch Kiraly is the winningest player in the history of the game. Remarkably, he has not only won more often than anyone else, but he has won tournaments in each of the last four decades--a feat many consider to be unrepeatable. Clearly, this three-time Olympic gold medalist and six-time AVP MVP richly deserved induction to the Volleyball Hall of Fame in 2001, six years before his retirement.

The AVP Manhattan Beach Open is one of the most exciting annual events to occur in the 36th congressional district. Each August, thousands of people flock to the beach, just steps from the Manhattan Beach pier, to see the best players in the world compete. A victory in Manhattan Beach is one of the sport's most prestigious honors, and for the last 29 years Karch Kiraly has been there vying for the championship trophy.

From his days as a UCLA Bruin, where he led his team to three NCAA championships, to his professional career as the symbol of beach volleyball, Karch Kiraly has performed with uncommon graciousness and poise. In addition to the AVP Sportsmanship Awards he received in 1995, 1997, and 1998, Kiraly is regarded by friends and fans alike as focused, personable, and refreshingly humble.

While Karch Kiraly is retiring as an active player, he has no intention of leaving beach volleyball. We will miss his trademark pink hat, but as a professional beach volleyball commentator and founder and director of the Karch Kiraly Academy, he will continue to play an active role in influencing the sport he took to new heights.

I am delighted to commend Karch Kiraly for his successful and inspirational career. Fans everywhere will miss seeing him playing--and winning--down on the sand in Manhattan Beach, CA.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his long service, both on the Intelligence and Rules Committees.

I am now the Chair of an Intelligence Subcommittee of Homeland Security. As no one in this Chamber would miss, security is my passion, and I think it is our primary obligation as Members of Congress.

I was sitting here listening to the discussion about where is the bill and why aren't we acting on FISA? It seems a little disingenuous, given the fact that the current ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and former chairman, has an article in USA Today in which he says that this move to get the administration to put its surveillance program under FISA ``gives legal protections to foreign enemies who would do us harm.''

Excuse me? FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by a large bipartisan majority in 1978. FISA was passed to assure that Americans, not foreigners, would have their constitutional rights protected when the U.S. engages, as it must, in foreign intelligence surveillance.

I don't think there is anyone here, not that I know of, who is against foreign intelligence surveillance. There is no one in this body, I haven't heard one person say that we think that when the U.S. engages in foreign intelligence surveillance, in foreign countries involving communications between foreigners in different foreign countries, that FISA applies. But FISA can and must apply when Americans' constitutional rights are at issue, and that is the issue we will debate a little bit later.

I want to say that it surprises me again that all of a sudden no one knows what we might be talking about. There have been intense negotiations, I have been a part of some of them, for months over what we might do to make FISA work better. In the 109th Congress, all nine Democrats on the Intelligence Committee authored legislation to help FISA work better; and in this Congress I'm aware of both closed and open hearings by the Intelligence Committee to carefully consider these issues.

So it seems to me quite surprising and disingenuous to hear that, for example, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee doesn't even feel that FISA protects Americans; he thinks that it coddles foreigners.

I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Reclaiming my time, I don't have a copy of the latest draft. It may be one I've seen, but I'm not absolutely positive. My understanding is that negotiations have been going on for quite a long time and that the requirements of the DNI have been met.

What is happening, and I think it's a real tragedy for the American people, is that the goalposts keep moving. I just wonder whether the other side wants this to be a wedge issue or wants to solve the problem.

As one Member here who has worked on this for years, I want to solve the problem; and we will attempt to do that under the suspension rules later today.

Well, what I meant was that I'm aware that there were negotiations going on with the DNI last

evening. So drafts have been shared back and forth. All I said was that I came over to the floor to support the rule to permit this issue to be addressed under suspension, and I don't have in my hand what may be the latest version.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to that, I'm not interested in lunacy, and I know that Mr. Dreier is not, and I'm sure that Ms. Wilson and Mr. Hoekstra are not either.

There is a way to solve this problem correctly. I believe that the draft, which I'm certain will be circulated to everybody imminently, I believe that you will see that it is a very careful and balanced effort to address this problem, and it has been shared.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him again for his service both on the Rules Committee and ongoing on the Intelligence Committee.

It is reassuring that the debate has quieted. As many people have said on both sides, this is a very serious subject. While we were having our break because of a computer glitch, I had the chance to sit on the floor and talk to many colleagues on a bipartisan basis about how this Member who has studied this issue for years sees it.

I point out to colleagues that the bill that has been distributed, H.R. 3356, says on page 2, section 105(a), ``a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located within the United States.''

It is the intention of this bill, which will be made in order on the suspension calendar under the rule, to exempt foreign-to-foreign communications, and it is the intention, I believe, of every single person sitting here, several hundred of us, to exempt foreign-to- foreign communications from the warrant requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

What is really at issue, and I hope this will clarify the subject for some who are still wondering what it is, is whether or not we will have a court approve the parameters, the framework of this entire program, or whether we will leave the dimensions of the program and the activities under the program to the Attorney General or perhaps the Attorney General working with the Director of National Intelligence.

Some of us know the details of this program. It's a valuable program. It's very complicated, and it has many different parts. I, for one, thought that it was being regulated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until I learned recently that the administration had chosen not to follow FISA. I think, and I would hope many on the other side would think, that we must have a legal framework around this program. No more blank checks for this Attorney General or for any future Attorneys General.

I urge approval of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, only a few of us in this House are fully briefed on the terrorist surveillance program. It gives those who implement it incredible tools to find people who would harm us or to engage in unprecedented violations of Americans' constitutional rights for improper political or ideological reasons.

Most of this bill is not in dispute. But the key disagreement is whether a foreign surveillance program with unprecedented reach into the personal communications of terrorists or innocent Americans should be subject to supervision by an article III court. As you have just heard, that review comes in the form of a single warrant approving the contours of the program, called a ``basket warrant.'' Our bill permits time to get that warrant while engaging in surveillance.

So a vote for our bill is a vote for sophisticated surveillance tools needed to catch terrorists and a vote to assure that those tools are not abused. I urge its bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase an old ad, when Ellen Tauscher and Ike Skelton speak, I listen. They work together carefully on important legislation, and this is a piece of important legislation.

I don't know about others in this Chamber, but I am tired. We have been working all day and all night for weeks to try to get to an August recess after accomplishing as much as possible. It is 100 degrees outside. The humidity level is very high, but we are in an air- conditioned place.

In contrast to us, over 100,000 American troops, very brave kids, are in 120 degree weather with 40 to 75 pounds of equipment on their backs, bravely defending America. I think as tired as I am, this bill strikes the right tone and says that in order to fulfill our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, we have to make sure that we have a ready military.

Mr. Speaker, we don't. It is broken. Every expert we have heard from knows that. Our failure to plan adequately for the post-military phase in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere has created a broken military.

So I commend the sponsor of this bill and the others who have helped draft it. I am proud to be a cosponsor in the effort to state clearly that the kids we have sent into harm's way should get the rest and training they deserve.

I would close by saying there was a lot of conversation this morning about FISA and how we are at heightened risk and we are doing the wrong things. Well, I know what is the right thing to do about FISA, and I know what is the right thing to do about a broken military. Pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and commend Chairman Dingell for his enormous work.

Regardless of the business before the House, for the past two weeks, a drumbeat of dire predictions has been maintained on this floor about the so-called terrorism gap--the failure of Democrats to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to permit

our intelligence agencies to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications related to international terrorism. The argument is specious on its face. Democrats are just as committed as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to preventing another terrorist attack on the United States.

As a member of the Gang of Eight from 2002-2006, I am very familiar with FISA and our Terrorist Surveillance Program. While I agree that some technical adjustments are appropriate, the core principle of FISA and the 4th Amendment--that individualized court warrants are required if the communications of a U.S. person are involved--must be preserved.

But my question is, in the context of the CHAMP Act now before us: where is the outrage for the 5 million American kids who have no health insurance and no prospect of getting it unless we pass this bill?

What is the real objective of Members who continue to clutter an essential debate on improving health outcomes for our neediest children with alarmist exchanges on the surveillance of potential terrorists? Perhaps it is to jam Democrats and score partisan points before the August recess instead of reaching out to the most vulnerable among us.

The CHAMP Act reaches out by providing insurance to 11 million children, covering mental health and dental benefits, and by allowing States to cover pregnant women and family planning.

It reauthorizes Title V abstinence education, but requires that it be medically and scientifically accurate, as well as proven effective. I expect every Member agrees that no Federal program should use taxpayer dollars to give inaccurate information to young people.

The CHAMP Act makes improvements to the Medicare program, too, providing our most vulnerable seniors with better coverage for cost- saving preventive care and by making it easier to apply for benefits.

Let me bring the issue close to home. The Venice Family Clinic, located in my congressional district, is the largest free clinic in the Nation. They know something about reaching out to the most vulnerable in our communities.

Clinic staff told me today about an 8-year-old boy and his younger brother. Both of them are on the waiting list for SCHIP because the program is maxed-out--and their working mother doesn't earn enough to buy health insurance.

This child suffers epileptic seizures every couple of weeks. He worries constantly about when the next one will occur, when and if he will be able to see a doctor or have access to medication that could help him. These are not things an 8-year-old in a country as rich as ours should be worrying about.

Expanding SCHIP will cover these children. It will change their lives, and the lives of 11 million other low income American kids.

FISA can, should and will be fixed--and we can fix health insurance for kids, too. Every child deserves the health insurance that my four children and one grandchild have. And I have two more grandchildren on the way. Hopefully, the CHAMP Act will be law before they are born early next year.

Mr. Speaker, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission has been a passion for me, to honor the memories of those who tragically and needlessly died on that day, to show respect for their amazing families, and to keep our country safe.

My roles as coauthor of the intelligence reform legislation and lead House cosponsor with Mr. Hoekstra on its conference was a personal highlight of my service here, and I'm honored to be a conferee on this bill and to stand with Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King in support of it.

The report passed the Senate 85-8 last night. Are people seriously going to oppose a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission?

Sure, there's more to do. But here are many terrific things in this bill. Number 1, it improves vertical information sharing between the Federal intelligence officials and local first responders, crucial if we're to prevent future attacks, a growing possibility according to the recently released NIE on terrorism. The next attacks could be anywhere. We need our capable first preventers to have accurate and actionable information.

Second, it will reform the Visa Waiver Program which, I agree, as it currently operates, is a potential loophole. I worry that a terrorist trained in the Pakistani tribal areas and traveling on a British passport could use that program to come here and to enable a homegrown cell to conduct an effective operation against Americans in America. We need to tighten that program, and this bill does it.

There are things that are not in this bill. I still think we need more reorganization of Congress, and I also think that the legislation proposed by all nine Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee last year to provide an expedited emergency warrant process under FISA should be enacted by this House. That's all the reform of FISA we need. We have authority now to listen to foreigners abroad, despite some claims by the other side. The only thing necessary are procedural reforms, and we should enact them promptly.

I thank the Chairman for yielding to me. I spoke on the rule

about the merits of this bill and commended him for the job that he has done leading the Homeland Security committee in this Congress.

I rise again to clarify something. It seems a shame to me that this good bill is being disparaged. Claims are being made that we have no ability now, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications. That is false. Foreign-to- foreign communications are not covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. We can intercept them, and we should be intercepting them vigorously right now. The question comes up only in circumstances when FISA is triggered because a U.S. person is involved. But in that circumstance, we should still intercept those communications, and we should then be getting emergency warrants, a limited number of individualized emergency warrants when an American is involved. That can happen now under FISA, which has been modernized many times since 9/11. If additional resources are needed to implement the emergency warrant section of FISA, legislation proposed by the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee last year should be enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and salute the bill's sponsor, Barbara Lee from California, as a courageous and clear voice in this Congress.

It's interesting listening to this debate that there seems to be no disagreement about a resolution that will help build stability in Iraq, as others have said. It will make clear that the U.S. is not an occupying force, and it will deny al Qaeda a key recruiting tool.

It is also clear that we are not prohibiting a U.S. presence in the region, even a U.S. temporary presence in Iraq. We have bases in other neighboring countries and the Middle East, and we will have an over- the-horizon force.

I'm really surprised that not only is the White House refusing to follow the law, but those senior White House officials with whom I've spoken numerous times about this issue all seem to agree we don't need a permanent military presence, and yet, stubbornly, they refuse to make clear that we won't have one.

Pass this resolution. Let's do the right thing. Congress, as an article I body, needs to get this White House to follow the law.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis and me, and what it would do is deny funds under this appropriations bill if the ENERGY STAR and the Federal Emergency Management program standards are not met.

Mr. Chairman, it takes 18 seconds to switch one incandescent light bulb. If everyone did this, just one, we would save $8 billion in energy costs, prevent the burning of 30 billion pounds of coal, remove 2 million carts worth of greenhouse gas emissions, and make a big dent in our climate problem.

This amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill so far, and I would urge its adoption now.

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be necessarily absent from voting today as I will be on official business in my district, hosting a Cabinet Secretary.

Had I been present to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment offered by Representatives Lewis, Welch and Weller to prevent CMS from making deep cuts in hospital payments for one year.

As a former Board Member of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, I would have voted ``no'' on Representative Pence's amendment to prohibit funds for Planned Parenthood.

I would have also voted for the bill's final passage.