Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years after 9/11, much remains to do. We still must learn the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri so we can capture or kill them, achieve intelligence dominance in Iraq so we can protect our forces, penetrate global terror cells to prevent them from attacking us, plug gaps in our homeland security and prevent nuclear material from being acquired by hostile forces bent on using it against America and our allies.

But instead of working on these critical problems, tonight this House is voting to fix something that is not broken, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And we are doing this although we know that the other body will not take up this legislation before the recess.

Mr. Speaker, I worked in the White House when FISA was passed. I understand its bipartisan history and the abuses it corrected.

FISA has been modernized 51 times since then. It is now a modern, flexible statute which includes 12 amendments since 9/11 made at the administration's request. It is a vital tool for the FBI, the CIA and the NSA in their investigations of terrorism and espionage.

All of us support strong tools to intercept the communications of terrorists, track their whereabouts and disrupt their plots. All of us. But there is no evidence that FISA must be totally rewritten in favor of a new regime promoting broad, warrantless surveillance of Americans. None. Yet the White House/Wilson bill does just that.

Mr. Conyers mentioned that a bipartisan group of former government officials issued a statement opposing the Wilson approach. They wrote: ``This legislation would return a complex subject to the murky waters from which FISA emerged by making . . . the FISA court, or applying FISA in any way, optional rather than mandatory . . . FISA provides . . . clarity and should not be abandoned or amended in ways that render it irrelevant.''

Judge William Sessions, who served as FBI director under Presidents Reagan and Bush, and Judge William Webster, who also served Presidents Reagan and Bush as Director of the FBI and CIA, signed that letter, and they are right.

The White House/Wilson bill muddies the water in two major ways. First, the bill rewrites the definition of electronic surveillance so it applies only when the government intentionally targets a person inside the U.S.

This means that if an American citizen in Los Angeles talks to her sister in Mexico, NSA can listen to their phone calls simply by claiming the target is the sister in Mexico. Nearly all international calls and e-mails of Americans can be intercepted under this bill without a warrant using this new definition of electronic surveillance.

The next loophole is even larger. The White House/Wilson bill authorizes the President to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on the communications of American citizens after an armed attack or a terrorist attack or an anticipation of an imminent threat. This includes domestic-to-domestic phone calls and e-mails. But these terms are not defined. Talk about murky waters.

Imminent threat includes acts that are likely to cause substantial economic damage. Is the threat of a trade war an imminent threat?

To allow 60- to 90-day renewable periods for the President to engage in warrantless surveillance is to gut the careful bipartisanship protections in FISA and grant the President unchecked power.

As the Supreme Court has said: ``A state of war is not a blank check for the President.'' Not for this President, or any future President.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and we will have time after this election to do better. The bipartisan substitute which I strongly support is better and would extend from 3 to 7 days the amount of time the NSA has to obtain a warrant in an emergency after surveillance begins, make clear that foreign-to-foreign communications do not require a warrant, even if they are intercepted in the United States, increase the number of FISA judges, and put more resources into expediting the warrant application process, and reaffirm that FISA is the exclusive way to conduct electronic surveillance on Americans.

It includes key provisions of the LISTEN Act, which Mr. Conyers and I produced in May and which has the support of all nine minority members of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, protecting America from terrorism is our constitutional duty. We all know that it is an election season and a debate on surveillance brings political benefits to some. But that is a terrible reason to legislate. I, for one, do not want to suspend our 217-year- old Constitution tonight for political reasons or no reason at all. Vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all for listening now under the law.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. Speaker, we all wish we had connected the dots prior to 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Representative Eshoo of California, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to Representative Holt of New Jersey, ranking member on our Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the prior speaker, and then I will yield the remainder of our time to the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Mrs. Johnson brought up this question of procedural and substantive hoops. This is a claim that she has made before. And I just want to point out to my friend that those procedural and substantive hoops, relating to emergency FISAs, are imposed by the Justice Department and the NSA, not by the law.

No one here wants there to be procedural and substantive hoops involved in getting emergency warrants. All of us want to listen if there is an emergency and get the warrant later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my predecessor as ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and the leader of the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his very impressive service as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in my effort to understand the threats against us, find those who would cause us harm, and prevent them from harming us. I also believe strongly that Congress must act under article I, section 8 of the Constitution to regulate ``captures on land and on water.''

Since this administration started new programs to detain and interrogate terror suspects after 9/11, I have offered to help craft a new legal framework around those policies. I have called on the Vice President, his chief of staff, the National Security Adviser, and the Attorney General to help Congress craft such a framework to eliminate the fog of law. And I have argued that this new framework would empower, not limit, those who must carry out those policies because they would know that they were acting legally.

Today's bill is far from the best we can do. The rule for debate is closed, which means that none of us can improve the bill. And as debate has made clear, this bill was written by the White House in consultation with a few Republican Members. There was no bipartisan consultation and possibly none with any of the Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.

Others will address issues with immunity, coerced confession, habeas corpus, and court review. I want to address the issue which relates to the Intelligence Committee and which I believe is the primary reason for rushing the legislation through. There is a carve-out for the CIA. The bill would permit the CIA to continue a separate program for interrogation that does not comply with the Army Field Manual. If such a program is needed, then Congress must impose strict limits and ensure that we have the tools to do strict oversight.

An amendment which Mr. Skelton and I hoped to offer today would have required notification in advance to the intelligence committees of any alternative set of interrogation procedures; a legal opinion from the Attorney General that they comply with Federal and international law; assurances that they are applied only to those we believe possess reliable, high-value, actionable intelligence; that the Army Field Manual techniques would not work; and that the use of the techniques would not adversely affect our troops who may be captured. Our amendment was not made in order, and I remain very skeptical that Congress can assure that any CIA carve-out will be limited and carefully monitored.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. The bill negotiated by Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner was better. Let us wait for the lame duck session and do this right. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing we say today can erase the pain that America felt on September 11, 2001. No resolution we pass, no speech we make can bring back the loved ones we lost or repay the heroes who rushed to their rescue.

As I stood at Ground Zero again on Monday amidst the anguished faces, the shopworn photos of loved ones lost, the sad music, the reading of names, flags everywhere, the memories of 5 years ago came rushing back. The frantic calls to my children in New York and Washington. The disbelief that we could be so vulnerable. And as the day wore on, the immense sadness for 3,000 innocent victims and the resolve to demonstrate that this Congress would not bow to terror.

This resolution, however, contains more than memories. It makes a statement about how much progress we have made in this House.

The sad, unalterable fact is that 5 years after 9/11 we have not made as much progress as this resolution claims. We have not brought to justice the most senior leaders responsible for the attacks. We have not plugged some gaping holes in our homeland defense, and we have not shared the sacrifice or stayed united as a Nation in the face of grave danger.

As ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, I want to focus my remarks on how this House has responded to the major intelligence failures of our time, the tragic failure to connect the dots of the 9/ 11 plot; the inexcusable failure to recognize that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD; and the catastrophic failure to predict the violence insurgency that would follow our military action in Iraq, and take the prudent steps necessary to prevent it.

The news, Mr. Speaker, is uneven. I believe our committee did a good job of assessing the performance of the FBI, CIA, and NSA leading up to 9/11; and so did the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, which held 24 days of hearings, including 9 days of open hearings, provided an excellent, bipartisan report with legislative recommendations, and was the basis for the 9/11 Commission's final report.

Over major opposition from some in this body, Congress acted on some of those recommendations and, as our chairman just said, created a Director of National Intelligence and a National Counterterrorism Center, thanks to the courageous lobbying of the 9/11 family members. Our current chairman and I helped lead that effort, and I am very proud of what we did.

As for WMD failures, our committee was the first to document that clandestine sources in Iraq were thin and that the analysis was poor. But then our former chairman shut down the House's inquiry into Iraq WMD. And again in this Congress, our current chairman ceded jurisdiction on this critically important issue to our counterparts in the other body.

Just last Friday that committee released a compelling report showing that our sources were unreliable and that facts claimed by this administration are not supported by the intelligence. According to that report and other available sources, there were no links between al Qaeda and Iraq before 9/11. Yet as recently as last Sunday, the Vice President said ``we don't know'' whether Mohammed Atta ever met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Mr. Speaker, we do know. We know the meeting never took place, and yet the Vice President refuses to acknowledge the facts.

It is one thing to have inadequate intelligence. In an intelligence war, you are never going to have pristine intelligence. But it is another thing to ignore professional intelligence assessments, make end-runs around intelligence agencies, issue hyped statements about intelligence, and use intelligence for partisan gain.

The third failure, the failure to predict and prevent the insurgency, has been in some ways the most painful. More than 2,500 U.S. personnel have been killed since President Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in May 2003, nearly as many as died on 9/11.

Our committee has conducted virtually no oversight over this particular

failure. We have not examined whether the intelligence on the insurgency was flawed or whether policymakers deliberately ignored warnings and professional assessments.

Press reports indicate that the administration may still be trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq. The August casualty reporting excluded statistics on people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets, and other mass attacks. The result is that the August statistics for murder rates in Baghdad appear 52 percent lower than the daily rate for July. Mr. Speaker, I do not think policymakers should engage in creative accounting when it comes to the lives of our sons and daughters or the lives of innocent Iraqis.

According to some reports, a draft ``National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq,'' which reportedly paints a very negative picture of the situation there now, is being held by the administration until after the November election. If that reporting is true, it is deeply troubling and could needlessly endanger the lives of our military and intelligence professionals in the field. And, Mr. Speaker, it would also keep Congress in the dark one more time.

Mr. Speaker, I often say that the point of looking back is to look forward to avoid making the same mistakes again. North Korea is test- firing missiles. Iran is defying the world community on its nuclear program. Yet we do not have solid intelligence on either target. Mr. Speaker, good intelligence leads to good policy.

But instead of insisting on better intelligence, our committee may rush through dangerous legislation on warrantless surveillance without any testimony from administration witnesses. We are issuing staff- written ``brochures'' hyping the threats posed by al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea that do little to explain how little we truly know. It is no wonder that the 9/11 Commission gave Congress a D for intelligence oversight reform.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude where I began. 9/11 forged our Nation into common purpose. It brought out a common humanity and engendered a common resolve to protect America. Our response to 9/11 has been and will continue to be a measure of us. Mr. Speaker, what we should really resolve to do today is to do better together.

At Ground Zero on Monday, the survivors shared something so precious: the hope that their grief and suffering would inspire a Nation to prevent another attack. They were all ages, all colors, all religions, and all backgrounds. The one thing they were not was partisan

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to a dear friend, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to a great member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Gene Green of Texas for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), ranking member on our Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I just have a very short closing comment to make for our portion of the debate, and then I plan to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. So I will make those comments now.

Mr. Speaker, let me close this portion of the debate by once again paying tribute to those who lost their lives on 9/11, to those who came to their rescue, and to those sent to the front lines in the 5 years since. The individual stories of bravery and heroism have provided some measure of light in an otherwise dark, dark chapter.

Five years ago, Mr. Speaker, Members of this body stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of the Capitol in a show of bipartisan unity. We actually did that again on Monday, but I am not sure we recovered the spirit that we had 5 years ago. How I wish we could have, as another member of our committee said, considered a different resolution today, the one that passed the other body by unanimous consent and that was cosponsored by every single Member.

Mr. Speaker, let us not use 9/11 for political fodder. Let us speak with one voice. We owe the American people nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield the remainder of the time on our side to my good friend, Mr. Conyers, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee and coauthor, with me, of H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act, legislation supported by many of our Members and a broad range of civil liberties groups that would require the so-called NSA program to comply fully with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as presently drafted.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we bring the President's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program within legal boundaries set by Congress.

In the House, a number of bills have been introduced, including H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act.

Today, I am introducing the companion bill to S. 3877, sponsored by my Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Their bill is pending on the Senate floor and I believe it is important for our colleagues to be able to study it.

Like H.R. 5371, the Feinstein-Specter bill reaffirms the exclusivity of FISA and provides additional resources to obtain emergency FISA warrants for tracking terror suspects. But their bill also amends FISA to lengthen the period for securing emergency warrants and to designate additional officials to approve surveillance for a short period in advance of the issuance of a warrant.

These are dangerous times but security and liberty are not a zero-sum game. We will be measured in part by whether we uphold the core values that keep our Nation strong.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act (H.R. 5682). The bill has substantially improved since it was first introduced in this body, but it still has a long way to go. I am particularly concerned about the failure of the bill to slow down a potentially catastrophic arms race in South Asia.

This bill would allow the President to enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement with India, the world's largest democracy and an important strategic ally of the United States. Under the proposed agreement, the United States would transfer fissile material and nuclear technology to India in exchange for India's promise to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, subject its civilian programs to a host of international inspections and controls, and continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.

As is an all too common habit of this administration, the key parameters of this agreement were negotiated with little or no congressional input. Congress was forced to add in protections against proliferation of nuclear technology and to ensure nuclear safety largely after the fact.

To this end, the House International Relations Committee has done an outstanding job in reasserting Congress' constitutional prerogatives. Thanks to the hard work of the Committee, the bill now requires that the President report to Congress on the progress that India has taken toward separating its civilian and military programs, toward placing its civilian programs under international supervision, otherwise living up to its end of the bargain. Congress then must vote to grant the President the authority to enter into this agreement. I welcome these improvements.

I also commend Congressman Howard Berman for his tireless efforts to give arms control protections in the agreement some teeth. Mr. Berman was instrumental in adding provisions that would automatically cease U.S. transfers of fissile material if India transferred missile or nuclear technology to third parties in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime or the Nuclear Suppliers Group regulations. These provisions are vital to ensuring that U.S. nuclear technology and materials do not end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations.

But as far as this bill has come, it has not come far enough. The bill still allows the President to transfer fissile material to India without ensuring that India first cease its domestic production. It would therefore allow India to use U.S.-provided uranium for its civilian programs, while diverting all of its domestic production of uranium to the development of nuclear weapons. If India chose to divert its domestic material to its military programs, some commentators have estimated that it could build an additional 50 nuclear weapons every year.

This bill could thus fuel an already accelerating arms race in South Asia. India and Pakistan have engaged in intermittent hostilities for years, and both already have nuclear weapons. Adding hundreds of new nuclear weapons to this equation will unacceptably increase the risk of a nuclear exchange. Pakistan has already hinted that it would increase its production of nuclear weapons if this agreement is approved. We must do all in our power to stop this train while it is still in the station.

I am sympathetic to India's needs for clean, affordable power. I also recognize that India is a crucial ally of the United States. But we cannot allow an arms race to spiral out of control.

Both India and the administration have time to allay these concerns before Congress will hold its final vote on this agreement. I look forward to reviewing the President's report, and will withhold final judgment on this agreement until then.

Mr. Speaker, somehow, I thought Tim and I would grow old together. For 30 years, he has always been there for us: friendly, informed, endlessly patient with our endless questions, and always ready with his wry smile.

There will be a void now in the cloakroom, a physical gap that we all will feel. But more: there will be a void in our Caucus, where Tim has provided such competent guidance, continuity and wisdom.

Godspeed, Tim. You have made a big difference here.

Mr. Speaker, how ironic that we consider this discriminatory, so-called marriage protection measure just one week after successfully renewing by a strong bipartisan margin a landmark piece of civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act brought millions of Americans into the heart of American democracy. It has been a critical milestone in our Nation's ongoing quest to live up to the ideals of equality and freedom embodied in the Constitution. In contrast, today's legislation, if passed, would be a tragic step backwards. Amending the Constitution to limit the rights of a specific group amounts to government-sanctioned discrimination, and tramples on the prerogative of the State to define community values.

Regulation of marriage is historically a State-sanctioned enterprise. How hypocritical it is for those who often invoke States rights to claim this is a Federal issue. I believe I understand something about the cruel effects of discrimination on the individual and society at large.

You see, my father was a refugee from Nazi Germany. His medical school class was the last to graduate before the Nazi purges of Jewish students began. He and some of my family fled Germany a year later.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest joys of my life occurred recently. I became a grandmother for the first time.

I urge this House to carefully assess how our action today will impact future generations. And I wish for little Lucy a world in which prejudice and discrimination are mere footnotes in her high school history book. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act and in strong opposition to this amendment to strike renewal of section 203, a key provision.

The Voting Rights Act is a touchstone of the American Civil Rights movement. It brought millions of Americans into the heart of American democracy. The Act demonstrated to the world, and to history, that we are capable of recognizing the mistakes of our past and acting to fix them.

This is a subject I know intimately. Many years ago, in the early 1970s, I served as Chief Counsel to the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. in 1975, the Subcommittee managed amendments to the Voting Rights Act, and we drafted, debated, and passed section 203 on my watch.

I knew then that section 203 was a vital protection of voting rights. It is no less important today.

By 1975, poverty, poor education, and institutionalized discrimination had combined to turn English-only ballots into a de facto literacy test. Many citizens did not register to vote because they could not read election materials or communicate with poll workers.

Section 203 helped lower these barriers by requiring that jurisdictions with a significant population of ``language minorities'' provide election information in more than one language. It has since been applied to 500, jurisdictions in 31 states.

The success of section 203 cannot be overstated. Study after study has demonstrated that when bilingual assistance is provided, more citizens register to vote, and more registered voters go to the polls. And since 1975, minority voter registration has continued to climb and more minorities have been elected to public office. The result is a stronger, more vibrant, and more representative democracy.

But the job is not yet done.

Today, as in 1975, millions of Americans do not speak fluent English. Some are recently naturalized citizens. Many others are native-born citizens, who may have been raised in homes where English was not their primary language. Because of poor schooling, discrimination, or other factors, these citizens still may not be proficient in English.

Section 203 gives these Americans a voice, allowing them to participate in their native languages

We must remember that the individuals protected by section 203 are citizens. They are family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. And they are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen--including the right to cast an informed vote.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Irma Colen, an extraordinary philanthropist and dear friend who died last week.

Irma gave her time and energy to many needy causes in Southern California. She volunteered countless hours at scores of civic and philanthropic organizations, serving on the boards of the ACLU Foundation, the University of Judaism, and many others.

But it was health care for needy families which held a special place in her heart. When Irma was 12 years old, she had rheumatic fever and had to spend many days in a public hospital. ``I know that if I were going to get better, it would be because the people taking care of me truly cared about my health,'' she said many times over the years. This childhood experience spurred a lifetime of support for the Venice Family Clinic, which provides free health care to homeless, needy, and uninsured members of the Venice community.

Irma worked over 30 hours a week at the Clinic, and countless other hours in the community getting others interested and involved. She was a force of nature, working tirelessly to develop the Clinic's private support base and programs. As a member of the Clinic's Board in 1999 and 2000, I observed Irma's effectiveness in raising millions.

Among Irma's most creative and best known fundraisers for the Clinic was the Venice Art Walk, which she and other volunteers organized in 1981. The event, which includes tours of artists' studios and an art auction, has attracted thousands of visitors and raised millions of dollars for the Clinic.

For these and other charitable efforts, Irma earned scores of commendations and awards, including the President's Volunteer Service Award in 1992. But it wasn't the awards and recognition that motivated her. It was her commitment to caring for the less fortunate among us.

She was a generous friend, a dynamic personality, and a prodigious worker. She will be sorely missed by Lou and their family, scores of her friends, and generations of patients whom the Clinic has ably served.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution and to support a more responsible alternative, which, unfortunately, is not made in order for debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this body who thinks tracking terrorist finances is a bad idea. As the 9/11 Commission said, ``follow the money.''

But any intelligence program, no matter how critical to national security, must comply with law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled today in the Hamdan case that no President has unlimited powers; no President is above the law, even in matters of national security.

Although this program has been operating for over 4 years, virtually no one in this House knew about it, and there has been absolutely no oversight. Two Members were briefed in 2002 when the program began. One Member in 2003, two in 2005, that is a total of five. And now several dozen more, including me, last month, only after it became clear that the program had leaked. The only reason I and others were briefed is the administration wanted to stay ahead of the press curve.

Mr. Speaker, if you vote for the Oxley resolution, you are certifying that the program is in full compliance with all applicable law. As previous speakers have pointed out, the second finding of the resolution states the program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders; appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted.

How can you know this? I don't know this. No Member has been briefed more than once. No hearings have been held and no reports issued.

Moreover, I feel this White House will use a ``yes'' vote as an authorization for further programs, scope unknown.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go there. Remember the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan? Until today, in the Hamdan decision, the White House has been using that vote to support unlimited detention as well as the NSA program.

There are some legitimate issues raised by this resolution. Leaks can get people killed. Those who leak highly sensitive intelligence information can damage our national security. The resolution many of us wanted to offer makes this clear. But if we prosecute newspapers and erode the first amendment, we will end up killing our Constitution.

In May, the House Intelligence Committee held open hearings on the role and responsibilities of the media in national security. We received over 25 submissions for the record, and the overwhelming sentiment was to tread lightly on action that could chill our first amendment freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in that hearing, if anyone wants to live in a society where journalists are thrown in prison, I encourage them to move to Cuba, China or North Korea to see if they feel safer.

This resolution asks Congress to give the administration another blank check. It is unworthy.

Mr. Speaker, over my years in the House, I have supported budget reforms to make the process more transparent and to eliminate excessive congressional spending. I joined many of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--in making the hard-fought and difficult deficit-cutting votes of the 1990s.

Now, sadly, in this new decade and century, Congress must again take steps to impose fiscal discipline and balance the federal budget. In theory, the line-item veto seems to be a sensible idea, although fraught with constitutional questions, and I have voted in favor of similar legislation in the past.

At times, I have also voted in favor of cutting or eliminating the Estate Tax. In eras of government surpluses, we could afford such tax cuts.

However, times have changed.

The Line-Item Veto bill is little more than a hand-over of Congressional authority to a White House that has already elevated overreaching to an art form.

At the same time, this new decade has seen a distinct lack of congressional oversight. In the current climate, a line-item veto is a step in the wrong direction, and cedes even more Legislative Branch power to a President accustomed to invoking extraordinary constitutional authority as needed.

To be truly effective, a line-item veto should be considered along with other measures to help restore some fiscal sanity, such as ``pay- go'' budget rules and earmark reform. But this transparent transfer of power to the Executive Branch is no the answer.

Ironically, on the same day that the House is considering a Line-Item Veto--purportedly in the name of budget-balancing--we are also considering a massive cut in the estate tax.

Although my family would personally benefit from a cut in the estate tax, this is the wrong tax cut, for the wrong people, at the wrong time.

We face the looming retirement of the baby boomers, a war in Iraq, and increasing obligations to our Nation's veterans. We are still inadequately prepared to respond to a terrorist attack, natural disaster or flu pandemic. Our budget deficit is spiraling out of control. And middle class Americans are being squeezed by the rising costs of healthcare, energy and education.

We cannot be so reckless with our fiscal policy.

I will oppose both initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate it that you mentioned bipartisanship and mentioned our committee. I had not been planning to speak during this debate. I have great admiration for the bipartisan sponsors of this amendment. I also agree with their point, which is that the total program must comply fully with FISA. But my view is, as the chairman has stated, that we should deal with this issue in the legislative committee. And the reason we should deal with this issue in the legislative committee is that it is, as everybody here fully understands, very, very complicated. A number of us, 50 of us, are supporting H.R. 5371, The Listen Act.

I would like to ask our chairman: Will you agree that that bill and perhaps others will be the subject of the committee oversight and the subject of a legislative hearing in our committee at a reasonable future date?

And if you would yield to me again, first, to note that the American Bar Association and numerous civil liberties groups support H.R. 5371. But my further question is, Do you agree that the entire program should be covered by law? The President may have inherent authority to do things, but eavesdropping on Americans in America must be covered by the law that Congress passed. I am not asking you to agree to that point because you may not, although I feel strongly about it. But I am asking you whether you agree that it is the Congress that should determine the legal basis for the President's actions and not the White House acting unilaterally.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in a colloquy. Let me just state before we have this colloquy, my position is that FISA, as presently drafted, must cover the entire program. This is my position after being fully briefed on the program, as the chairman said, and being fully briefed by the NSA and the Justice Department about how FISA works. It is my position that FISA can and must cover the full program. Be that as it may, I would like to ask the chairman some questions.

As you noted, Mr. Chairman, some of us on the committee and a total of 50 Members of this House have introduced H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act, which would require that this program be brought fully under FISA, and which also states that more resources will be made available to change the way FISA is implemented so that using electronic means, more staff, whatever it takes, there will be a more efficient way to get 72-hour emergency warrants. I know you are aware of the contents of our bill.

My question to you is are you prepared to hold a legislative hearing in the Intelligence Committee on our bill and any other bills that may be pending before our committee that address this issue of FISA as it is connected to the NSA program?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are you prepared following the legislative hearing or hearings to report a bill to the House floor? Will you personally agree not to block any bill from being reported to the House floor?

Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify this for myself and others who are listening.

You are prepared to consider this bill, H.R. 5371, which would force this entire program to comply with FISA. Actually much credit for the construct of H.R. 5371 does go to Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake. I just want to clarify, and then I would like to yield, H.R. 5371 says the entire program must comply with FISA, and we will hold a legislative hearing on this bill and other bills, the committee will then report legislation to the House floor; is that correct?

Well, our bill, reclaiming my time, does not reform FISA. It just gives resources to make FISA work.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and I would appreciate it if he would answer that comment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the Judiciary Committee would also act. Mr. Conyers is a lead author with me of the bill I am talking about. But I think it is critical that the Intelligence Committee act because we have the membership that is briefed on the program, and if we report a bill to the House floor for action, I would hope that the House would respond to that promptly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, as prior speakers have done, I commend him for speaking truth to power.

Mr. Speaker, 1,184 days ago American troops invaded Iraq to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons weren't there. But American troops still are. I have met some of those troops on my three trips to Baghdad and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Our Armed Forces and intelligence personnel are extraordinary. Many are on their third or fourth tours.

As a mother of two sons and two daughters, and as a newly minted grandmother, my heart goes out to families who have lost their dear ones. I am deeply moved by the courage, dignity and patriotism of the men and women recovering from grievous wounds at Walter Reed and other U.S. hospitals. And I have visited with them.

Our action in Iraqi created a failed state and, tragically, our postwar mission, as presently defined, cannot succeed. There are too few troops to stabilize the country. They are inadequately equipped.

They are fighting an insurgency we didn't predict, at constant risk from IEDs we can't find, with no clearly developed goals to help the new Iraq government achieve political and economic security, and no exit strategy.

Two major failures led us to war, and we had best learn some lessons or risk making the same mistakes again. As ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, these failures haunt me.

Had we got the intelligence right, I believe we could have made different choices, and the pain and loss and anger many feel could have been avoided.

First was a massive intelligence failure in assessing Saddam's WMD capability. The second, equally grave, was the politicization of intelligence by the President and a White House determined to push us toward war.

The failure to assess Saddam's WMD capability accurately has been well documented. As CIA weapons inspector David Kay put it, ``we were all wrong.'' Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, administration officials put stock in bogus sources like CURVEBALL, and self-promoters like Ahmed Chalabi.

But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger policy failures that created the false momentum toward war.

The administration cherry-picked intelligence and hyped the threat. They talked in ominous tones about ``mushroom clouds,'' even though many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons capability.

They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz famously predicted we would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqis would throw rose petals, ignoring intelligence community assessments about the potential for armed resistance.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, the intelligence community's senior Middle East analyst, described how the Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case.

To date, nobody has been held accountable for this misuse of prewar intelligence.

The intelligence failures did not end when we invaded Iraq. Our President declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in May 2003. Senior U.S. officials in Iraq asserted in July 2003 that insurgent attacks represented ``a limited problem of some bitter-enders'' loyal to Saddam.

Yet, 3 years after Saddam's fall, 2,500 U.S. troops are dead, a number confirmed by the Pentagon just today, and insurgents appear more active than ever.

We have surged intelligence resources into Iraq in a frantic effort to find the next IED. As a result, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, where Taliban fighters are reconstituting themselves, even as the United States reduces the number of troops there. Osama Bin Ladin and Ayman al Zawahiri are still at large, inspiring a new generation of recruits to the jihad.

Just as constant deployments to Iraq cause burnout in the Army, National Guard and Reserves, we are also burning out large numbers of intelligence professionals. And assigning them to Iraq means they are not available to address other national security challenges, like Iran and North Korea.

There has been good news. U.S. intelligence agencies operating with Special Operations Forces have tracked down many key terrorist leaders. The takedown of Zarqawi showed the importance of fusing human intelligence, imagery, signals intelligence and a military strike capability in real time. That is how intelligence ought to work. It was a huge tactical victory.

But tactical victories alone are not enough. We need a new strategy for Iraq, a dramatic change of course. We need to hold senior officials accountable for massive policy and management failures. Replacing Donald Rumsfeld, the chief architect of the postwar policy, is long overdue. He ignored the advice of senior military advisers, ignored the careful recommendations of those who understood nation-building, and ignored those horrified by a prison situation careening out of control. And he prides himself, even now, on refusing to change a failed policy.

Congress must also provide aggressive oversight to learn why the administration erred so grievously.

Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have been calling on the administration to develop an exit strategy, and I believe it is now time to begin a phased, strategic redeployment of U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by military commanders. A schedule designed by military commanders, not designed by the U.S. Congress.

I believe the U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large military presence is part of the problem. Beginning to reduce the ``footprint,'' while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will improve our chances for success.

I think we have 3 to 6 months to advance three objectives: first, helping the new Iraqi Government provide electrical power, particularly in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to the Iraqi people. Second, supporting the Iraqi Government in its effort to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi national security force. Third, continuing the process, begun by our able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political leaders. Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.

Mr. Speaker, the next 3 months are critical. We have a moral obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy. But if clearly defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear.

So a change in course is urgently needed. The President's visit to Baghdad was important, but it is not a substitute for needed policy changes. And Congress cannot be infinitely passive. This debate today will only have meaning if, in fact, it leads to a change of course in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to lead. This resolution, in my view, is a press release for staying the course in Iraq. It does not signal a change in policy, and thus I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, how much time of my 30 minutes remains?

It is now my intention to yield to members of the minority of the House Intelligence Committee who are here.

First, I would yield 3\1/4\ minutes to Representative Boswell who is ranking member on our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my California sister, a member of our committee, the ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to Mr. Holt of New Jersey, ranking member of the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, many on this side advocate a strategy for success.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our committee, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the rookie on our committee, Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to explain to our colleagues that this side is not trying to go wobbly. We are trying to articulate what we believe would be a better strategy for success in Iraq.

For our final 2 minutes, I will yield the first minute to Representative Crowley of New York, a member of the International Relations Committee.

To the prior speaker, we are trying to articulate exactly what we should do.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield the final minute of the Intelligence Committee's time to Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the National Security Subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee.

I thank Mr. Murtha for yielding me the 30 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the House passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act. I voted with 105 of my Democratic colleagues in favor of the COPE Act, which will spur much-needed competition in the market for pay-television and high-speed internet services. While communities have expressed concern about the local impact of this bill--and I pledge to work with cities in my district to address those concerns--I believe the act is a crucial step toward providing more affordable broadband services to more consumers.

The COPE Act not only encourages innovation and the wider deployment of broadband networks, it will help drive down the price that consumers pay for broadband services. It requires that service providers pay 5 percent of local revenues to local governments--more than many cities currently receive--and that providers pay an additional 1 percent to support public, governmental, and educational programming. It also contains provisions to ensure that service providers do not discriminate against low-income consumers. These are important improvements over existing law.

The COPE Act is far from perfect. It inappropriately allows the Federal Communications Commission to resolve local ``rights-of-way'' disputes. These are concerns best handled by local governments. When a broken water main interrupts local TV service, it doesn't make much sense for customers to call an 800 number at the FCC. Still, two amendments added to the bill go a long way toward restoring local control. The first institutes a 90-day period during which local authorities and service providers must meet to resolve right-of-way and fee disputes. Only after the 90-day period can either party bring the dispute to the FCC. This amendment empowers local authorities by forcing providers to work with local officials to resolve most right- of-way and fee disputes. The second gives cities the authority to resolve consumer complaints about cable service, including complaints that a cable provider has failed to provide consumers with fair and open access to the Internet. This amendment would give local officials the legal authority to protect consumers and prevent unfair and discriminatory business practices, which could lead to fines for providers up to $750,000 a day.

Equally troubling is the lack of strong ``net neutrality'' language, which would ensure that everyday web surfers have access to the same Internet used by big media companies. Both sides of this dispute want a vibrant Internet that allows fast and fair access to all users. The question is how to get there. Opponents of ``net neutrality'' believe that market forces alone will do the job. I am not so sanguine. I voted for an amendment that would have prohibited service providers from selectively blocking or slowing access to certain Internet content, or from charging certain users extra to send information over the Internet. Though it is not absolutely clear this language is needed now, my vote sends the message that the Internet must remain fair and open to all. I believe we will have more opportunities to address this issue during the conference on the COPE Act.

I will work to ensure that the telecommunications legislation Congress sends to the President strikes the right balance and is reflective of the needs of consumers and our communities. This bill makes important progress, but we can make it even better.

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Intelligence Community made painful decisions about the architecture of our satellite programs. These were hard choices. We have worked carefully to mitigate the damage and retain the capability. The future depends on assuring that our decisions are implemented well. That requires a talented and motivated workforce--both military and civilian.

The legislation being introduced today requires the Air Force to study the impact of proposed personnel cuts on our space programs.

The bill's sponsors believe that the cuts mandated by the Quadrennial Defense Review could have an enormous impact on the space community, particularly the intellectual talent that gives us the edge over our adversaries and that we have worked so hard to build up over the past decade.

Allowing the Air Force to gut its personnel--both Active Duty and contractor support--without the benefit of an impact statement could undercut the careful measures we took to preserve and protect the industrial base.

The Department of Defense comptroller has directed the Air Force to ``aggressively reduce contractor support.'' This is a very dangerous path. Contractors have formed the core of our rebuilt space capability after we literally dropped billions of dollars of research and hardware into the ocean in the 1990s.

While active duty members often are forced to rotate out of the command due to the pressing needs of the service, the contractor community has provided much of the intellectual capacity, stability, and continuity to keep our programs on track.

Today, the Space and Missiles Command, located in El Segundo, California, in my Congressional district, has a record of which everyone is proud--45 successful launches, including 12 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles. We dare not put that record in jeopardy by releasing one-third of our brain trust.

This desire for continuity is also reflected in the Intelligence Committee's report accompanying the FY 2007 Authorization bill, which passed the full House last month. In it, our Committee wrote: ``Simply put, complex space systems acquisition requires extraordinary specialized knowledge, skills, and dedicated effort over time.''

For that very reason, Congress has a right--and a responsibility--to understand the impact of these cuts and be assured that our capability will not be further eroded in the face of pressing national security challenges.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.