Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one year ago the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, by a vote of 238-194. I was pleased to see this Chamber put science before ideology. The promise of finding cures for a whole host of debilitating diseases seemed bright.

But the year has come and gone, and the Senate has yet to take up its version of the legislation. Further delay is unacceptable. Today, I join my colleagues in the House to urge the Senate to schedule a vote on this critical, life-saving, and life-affirming measure.

This bill takes an ethical and moral approach to a challenging subject while respecting the value of life. It allows for federal funds to support research on stem cell lines derived from the surplus embryos of fertility treatments. Fertility clinics do not need these embryos and they would otherwise be discarded, not implanted. It requires explicit written donor consent, and it does not allow stem cells to be sold for profit.

Many Members of Congress like to talk about ``values.'' Today, I say to them: using discarded embryos to find life-saving cures is our moral obligation. Saving lives is precisely what we should all care about.

Parkinson's disease, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, and juvenile diabetes do not discriminate--every one of us has had a family member or friend whose life has been changed by one of these debilitating conditions. This is not and should not be a partisan or ideological issue. People from both ends of the political spectrum-- from Nancy Reagan to the late Christopher Reeve--have embraced the promise of stem cell research. It is my hope that the United States Senate will follow their lead.

Cures for many serious ailments may lie in stem cell research. We owe it to generations of Americans and their families to help find treatments that could lead to an improved quality of life. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, America is at a crossroads: We can either perpetuate our energy dependence on oil, or we can start taking the necessary steps to develop alternative and renewable energy sources, and wean our Nation off oil.

Sadly, Congress has failed to recognize the urgency of America's energy crisis and will vote today to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Increased drilling for limited quantities of an unsustainable resource in the ANWR is not the answer to America's energy problems, and I oppose this shortsighted legislation.

We cannot depend on this ``quick fix'' to solve a calamity whose ramifications reach far beyond the gas pump. The Bush administration claims that tapping this oil reserve will cause prices to fall, but the simple reality is that it will take years before oil from the ANWR actually makes it to a barrel. Even then, there is not enough oil in the ANWR to reduce our dependence on foreign sources.

Instead, Congress must focus on promoting alternative fuels, clean energy technologies, fuel cells, micro turbines, hybrid (electric) engines and bio-fuels. California and the South Bay are extremely well- positioned to lead in developing these alternatives.

While renewable and alternative fuels are the future, the time to act is now. There is no reason to take a step backwards by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, I recently met a young woman, a constituent, visiting Washington on behalf of the Los Angeles Breast Cancer Coalition. Stefanie LaRue, of Marina del Rey, was recently diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. This is the most advanced stage of the disease, where the cancerous cells have spread beyond the breast and surrounding lymph nodes.

Despite having just undergone treatment, Stefanie had come to Washington to tell me her story and to advocate for breast cancer research. She said to me, ``I just want to do my best to be a voice for women with breast cancer.'' Her inner strength and grace in the face of a very difficult battle are an inspiration, and a reminder of the resilience of the human spirit. I deeply admire her courage, and the way she fearlessly allowed the world to see her beautiful hairless head!

Stefanie is one of 200,000 American women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer each year. What is particularly troubling about her case is that she is only 31 years old. She has no family history of breast cancer. She is a vibrant young woman whose lifestyle prior to the onset of the disease was the embodiment of good health.

We know that certain lifestyles and hereditary factors contribute to the onset of breast cancer. But there is also troubling evidence that environmental factors, such as exposure to certain toxins, may affect a woman's chances of developing the disease. Common pesticides, widely accepted agricultural methods, and even chemicals in everyday household items may contribute to breast cancer. We need to understand these linkages better.

Understanding the causes of the disease is a critical step toward developing strategies for prevention, and ultimately, a cure. That's why it is so critical that the House pass H.R. 2231, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. The legislation, which was introduced by my colleagues Nita Lowey and Sue Myrick, will make grants to research the effects of environmental factors on the incidence of breast cancer.

After decades of research, there is still no known cause, prevention or cure for breast cancer. Every year, over 40,000 women die of the disease. Congress must do what it can to prevent more women from becoming a statistic. I urge my colleagues to pass the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I was proud to serve on the Armed Services Committee for 6 years. I have supported this amendment since I first offered it in 1997. I salute my California sisters, Mrs. Davis and Ms. Sanchez, who have ably taken up the cause.

I became a grandmother for the first time this year. I surely hope that before my granddaughter is old enough to serve in the military this amendment will become law.

Madam Chair, over 200,000 women serve in the U.S. military and approximately 12,000 currently serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. These women are flying helicopters and fighter aircraft. They are driving support vehicles, patrolling bomb ridden highways and shouldering weapons. They serve as an example and an inspiration to the women they meet around the world, and they break down stereotypes held by many men. Yet in some critical ways, women in the military are treated as second class citizens by their own government.

Under current law a servicewoman stationed abroad cannot obtain a safe, legal procedure to terminate a pregnancy in a U.S. military health facility. Instead, she must either take medical leave to return to the U.S. or gamble with a foreign hospital and face the prospect of language barriers, unfamiliar cultural expectations and vastly different standards of medical care. This is wrong.

Let me be perfectly clear. The amendment does not force military doctors to perform abortions, nor does it require any taxpayer dollars. What it does, however, is give servicewomen and female military dependents stationed abroad the same constitutional rights as women living here.

When an individual puts on the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces, she or he accepts the profound responsibility of defending our Nation and protecting our cherished freedoms. A woman who puts her life on the line to defend the fundamental rights of all Americans should not be deprived of her own fundamental right to choose. Vote for the Davis- Harman-Sanchez amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to praise him for his enormous leadership on this issue and praise Ms. Sanchez, the ranking member on the

subcommittee, for her contributions to the issue of port security.

I also want to thank the chairman for letting me speak out of order. I think that is what he just did, and express my gratitude to him and to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lungren, for their enormous effort.

I am the co-author of this bill with Mr. Lungren. It is a bipartisan product through and through. In fact, it is a bicameral, bipartisan product. Many of the ideas came from the House and many of the ideas came from the other body.

One of its grandparents no longer serves here, Representative Doug Ose, who contributed the notion that we should dedicate a portion of Customs revenues to fund multi-year port security improvements. The reason he felt this way, and I surely agree, is that Customs revenues, or most of them, are collected at our ports. Should our ports close, our ability to collect those revenues ends. So I thought his was an inspired idea.

I co-sponsored the Ose bill some years back. It became an integral part of this bill, as did Ms. Sanchez's ideas, as did Mr. Lungren's, and as did some of the ideas of Senators Susan Collins and Patty Murray, who are the coauthors of the GreenLane bill in the Senate.

Their bill is moving. Our bill is moving. Within months, just maybe we will accomplish what I would call a legislative miracle in this session of Congress which has only met 27 days since the beginning of the year. We have had 125 days or so of this year, but only 27 days of legislative business on the floor of Congress. And this, I would proclaim, is the best day, by a lot, that we have had.

Let me mention that even before the legislation is passed, one of the critical issues we address is already generating action. The Department of Homeland Security is moving ahead with name checks against terrorist and immigration lists of individuals with access to our ports and with the transportation worker identification credential, so-called TWIC. These are critical ways we can make our ports safer, and it is a good thing that the administration is listening. In addition, as Ms. Sanchez said, to knowing what is in the box, we need to know who is at our ports.

It has been said over and over again, but let me stress one more time, that this bill provides a strategy as well as dedicated funding for the critical issue of port security.

The ports of L.A. and Long Beach, where my district is, handle over 14 million 20-foot containers annually, representing almost half of the Nation's total. That port complex is the fifth busiest in the world, the first in the Nation. In addition to containers, the complex handles over 1 million cruise passengers, half a million autos and over 50 percent of California's oil each year.

At a time of incredibly rising oil and gas prices, let us understand that Southern California will run out of oil in 2 weeks if those ports close. One out of 24 jobs in southern California relates to the ports.

So, Madam Chairman, the two most important things about this legislation are that it outlines a layered strategy for port security and that it creates dedicated, multi-year funding for port security projects.

Let's just look at Katrina. This speaks to an issue all of us worry about. We didn't have a plan before. We didn't respond during, and we are still struggling to recover now. This bill calls for protocols on the resumption of trade if our ports are attacked. A shutdown of West Coast ports would cost between 1 to $2 billion a day. We saw that 2 years ago.

Since 9/11, the L.A.-Long Beach port complex has only received $58 million in port security grant funding out of $220 million requested.

This bill provides the funding, the strategy, the bipartisan, bicameral support. I urge its passage. This is the first great day of the 2006 legislative calendar.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to say to the amendment sponsor how much I admire him, how much I agree with his point that growing debt and deficits are irresponsible; but in this case, the dollars we are talking about are much smaller than he may believe.

First of all, we are replacing an annual grant program that was appropriated for $175 million last year. Second of all, we are using existing Customs revenues, not new money, to fund what we are talking about.

As he knows, our ports are vulnerable. Al Qaeda attacks us asymmetrically. I admire his intent, I truly do, but I think he should focus on programs that, in the end, will net out as less important and will not cost America and American commerce the amounts of money that it will cost if one of our ports has an explosion or one of our containers contains a radioactive bomb.

I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I commend him for his service on the Rules Committee and also on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule but also in support of the comments that just were made by the bill's co-author, Mr. Lungren.

I support bipartisanship. To my marrow, I support bipartisanship. I think that this bill, which he and I have co-authored, is an excellent bill; and there will be plenty of time tomorrow to debate it. I hope that debate will be in a true bipartisan spirit.

My opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker, is that there are missed opportunities. There are things we could have and should have done in this rule that we did not do. What is wrong with this rule is that the legislation will not have the benefit of several important provisions which, in fact, were in bills before us. I want to explain what I mean.

The Homeland Security SAFE Port Act did include a provision to accelerate the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program so that we can replace outdated planes and boats sometime before my new baby granddaughter graduates from college.

I doubt that a single Member of the House opposes modernizing the Coast Guard fleet. All of us know that this Federal agency has done more than any other, at least in my view, to defend America and stretch scarce dollars to the breaking point after 9/11.

However, in the manager's amendment made in order under this rule, we are deleting the Deepwater Program language. I think that is a mistake.

Secondly, we have already been talking about the issue of 100 percent scanning and sealing of containers. It is something that I strongly support. Identical language to language defeated in the Homeland Security Committee and not allowed to be presented on the floor, was included and reported in legislation by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

My point here is that, on a bipartisan basis, at least one committee of this House has already approved this language. Now it is not in the version of the bill before us but also it is not made in order as an amendment to this bill. That language would help make a good bill a better bill.

The process to develop the bill is good. The process in the Rules Committee was bad. I urge a no vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, everyday, people's lives depend on the quick reaction and competent care of emergency medical technicians and paramedics. Whether it is an automobile accident, heart attack, drowning or gunshot wound, EMTs and paramedics provide vital attention as they care for and transport the sick or injured to a medical facility.

The modem EMT and paramedic programs across the nation would not exist without the significant contributions of Dr. Mike Criley.

Dr. Criley developed the Los Angeles County Paramedic Program in 1969. The program trains first responders to provide critical life support to heart attack victims. Pre-hospital advanced cardiac care was a major innovation in the field of emergency medical services. It was also controversial, as it placed firefighters in a medical role, something both firefighters and many in the health field resisted.

But the program showed its value when paramedics were dispatched to provide onsite medical services after the 1971 Sylmar earthquake. The next year, the television show 'Emergency!' followed the experiences of two fictional Los Angeles County Fire Department paramedics. This legitimized the effort and led to communities across the country instituting their own paramedic training programs modeled after Dr. Criley's innovation.

As a result of Dr. Criley's efforts, the Los Angeles County Paramedic Training Center is named in his honor.

Dr. Criley also discovered a valuable life-saving technique known as cough CPR. He documented that coughing during cardiac arrest or life- threatening heath rhythm disorders pumps oxygenated blood to the brain and maintains consciousness while help is summoned.

Dr. Criley has also been instrumental in training over 100 cardiologists and has taught cardiology to over 6,000 medical students and residents throughout his career. He has developed interactive multimedia programs in three languages that are used around for medical and nursing education programs around the world.

Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Criley has served on the faculty of two of the nation's most prestigious medical institutions. After serving as Director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Johns Hopkins Hospital, he returned to his native California to join the faculty at the UCLA School of Medicine. He is now Chief of Cardiology at Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center where he continues to care for patients, teach, and perform research.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to share how proud I am to have Mike Criley working in one of my district's premier biomedical research facilities, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. His contributions have saved many lives in Los Angeles, and across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Coast Guard officers are measured by the depth of their dedication to protecting our country and its citizens, and by the respect they earn from the men and women who serve under them. By every measure, CPT Peter V. Neffenger is an outstanding commander.

On April 28th, Captain Neffenger concluded his accomplished tenure as Commanding Officer, Captain of the Port, and Federal Maritime Security Coordinator for the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach.

During his three-year command, he skillfully guided over 2,400 active duty, reserve, civilian, and auxiliary men and women through times of dramatic change and increasing responsibility. He leaves the nation's largest port complex better prepared for the daunting security challenges of the 21st century.

Captain Neffenger has overseen unprecedented security improvements at the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach. Under his leadership, the Coast Guard's Los Angeles-Long Beach Sector conducted over 150 vessel boardings and over 500 commercial vessel escorts. The Captain led the Sector in several major exercises, including the largest one in Coast Guard history.

In his role as Federal Maritime Security Coordinator, Captain Neffenger spearheaded the coordination of federal, state and local agencies. He worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs and Border Protection, county and local law enforcement, and others to develop a communications network for law enforcement personnel.

His leadership produced the first Area Maritime Security Committee, an interagency body that serves as a model for ports around the nation. Captain Neffenger was a key member of the expert panel that developed the first National Strategy for Maritime Security, and he established a joint-operations partnership with the Coast Guard and CBP for daily intelligence and information-sharing within the port complex.

Captain Neffenger leaves the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach safe and secure. His foresight, expertise and courage will be sorely missed, but his work in Washington as the Chief of Programs and Budget for the United States Coast Guard will undoubtedly serve our homeland security interests and make our country safer.

On behalf of my constituents and the communities surrounding the port complex, I extend our congratulations to a friend and neighbor, Pete Neffenger, and best wishes for his next assignment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Americans awoke today to deadly terrorist bombings in Egypt and a threatening new tape from al-Zarqawi, and today is our chance to debate a bill that authorizes funds and sets new directions in the fight to protect America. But this rule stifles debate about critical issues and I strongly oppose it.

Members of our committee offered responsible amendments to strengthen this bill, and we were shut out by the Rules Committee. As a result, Madam Speaker, there will be no amendments today about the unlawful eavesdropping on American citizens, the overhyping of Iran intelligence without adequate basis, and the double standard this administration applies to leaks.

Two amendments were filed that dealt with the President's NSA program. Congresswoman Eshoo's amendment, which is different from her request in committee that the budget for the program be disclosed to our committee, would have expressed the sense of Congress that all electronic surveillance, all eavesdropping of U.S. persons inside the U.S., must comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the fourth amendment.

A bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Flake, Schiff, English and me states that FISA is the exclusive way to conduct surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil. FISA has been our policy since 1978, until this NSA program was implemented by the White House.

The American people want our government to track the communications of al Qaeda. Surely I do. But they also want our President to follow the law and the Constitution.

I have been briefed on the President's NSA program several times, and no one has convinced me why FISA cannot cover the entire program. The two amendments, the Eshoo amendment and the Flake-Schiff amendment, should have been made in order.

I am particularly outraged that Congressman Boswell's amendment to require quarterly classified assessments of Iran's nuclear program was rejected. What do we want to do in Iran? Do we want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq? Do we want to have intelligence that is totally wrong and base our national policy on totally wrong intelligence? I don't think so.

Chairman Hoekstra, chairman of our committee, said just this weekend, ``As decisions are being made on Iran, we don't have all the information that we would like to have.'' So why is it a bad idea to require our Intelligence community to update Congress every three months with accurate information so that at least Congress has information on which to base responsible decisions? The Rules Committee apparently thinks that is not a good idea.

Congressman Reyes submitted an amendment to provide dedicated fund for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which we will all recall was a key part of the intelligence reform bill that we passed almost two years ago.

Sure we want enhanced security, but we also want respect for American values and our Constitution. The whole idea was we would have this Board helping craft careful policy that enhanced security and also protected civil liberties. Well, that Board now has two confirmed members and no money, and in this bill we unfortunately do nothing about providing any money.

Finally, Congressman Holt submitted an amendment to ensure that we don't have a double standard on leaks. None of us condones leaks of classified information. That is wrong. But why is it that people are prosecuted for leaks, unless you work in the White House, in which case the President or the Vice President can authorize you to leak classified information to favored reporters in order to discredit political enemies? A double standard is wrong.

This rule is inadequate. Sadly, this bill is inadequate. I ask for a no vote on the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, in my 12 years in Congress, in my 8 on the Intelligence Committee, I have always supported intelligence authorization bills, but never in my 12 years and never in my nearly 4 decades involved in public policy have I been as concerned as I now am about our Nation's security.

Just this week bin Laden and Zarqawi issued new threats against the United States and our allies, yet we do not know what they are plotting. We do not even know where they are. Despite 4\1/2\ years of effort and the expenditure of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, we still do not have a handle on al Qaeda, a threat that is metastasizing and growing ever more dangerous.

We are losing soldiers in Iraq, in part because we never had intelligence dominance. We still do not have it. The so-called war on terror outside Iraq is essentially an intelligence war, but we did not know that home-grown terrorists were going to blow themselves up on London's subways. We did not know about Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul or Dahab, Egypt. We do not know if America will be hit tomorrow or where.

Iran is making noisy threats, but we do not know if Ahmadinejad poses a real danger or if he is bluffing, because our intelligence on Iran is weak. And again we are hearing the drumbeat for war, without a clear idea of where the targets are, whether we can hit them effectively, or what would happen the day after.

We have taken our eye off over-the-horizon threats, the networks of Muslim extremists growing in Europe, Africa and Latin America, the threat of loose nukes from the former Soviet Union and the rising power of China.

Here at home our intelligence reorganization is a slow start-up, and the CIA is in free fall. The Director of National Intelligence, a position Congress created to integrate the activities of the entire Intelligence Community after 9/11, has not taken command yet of that community. Meanwhile at CIA, our premier intelligence organization, 300 years of experience have either been pushed out or left in frustration, and morale is dangerously low.

The DNI is giving away authority to the Pentagon, which is happy to receive it, as it expands its own role in intelligence-gathering abroad and here at home. The efforts to integrate homeland intelligence between the FBI and DHS is still uneven.

And our borders, airports, seaports remain vulnerable. As we speak, the House Homeland Security Committee on which I serve is trying to report a strong port security bill. I hope that effort succeeds. We surely need it.

Given all this, what does this bill do, and as important, what does it not do? It funds an NSA program that in my view violates a clear statute passed by Congress. It fails to require that the program be fully briefed to Members of the Intelligence Committee.

I surely support, and I have said this over and over again, the capability to monitor al Quaeda. I want to know what their plans are so we can disrupt them before they harm us. But I do not support violating the law or the Constitution. Enhanced security without respect for law gives away the very values we are fighting to defend, and I believe that the program I am talking

about can and must fully comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and with our Constitution.

The bill also fails to give clarity to the issue of leaks. Leaks of classified information are wrong, but it is also wrong to have a double standard. When career professionals blow the whistle on controversial activities, it is illegal, a firing offense, but when the President and Vice President authorize the selective leaking of classified information to discredit criticism, it is defended as a prerogative of the Presidency, part of the President's inherent authority.

This bill includes a provision that gives arrest powers to the protective officers at CIA and NSA in order to help them protect agency officials. This provision, in my view, has been somewhat misconstrued in the press as granting new warrantless surveillance powers to these agencies. It does not. It simply gives these protective details the same authority that the Capitol Police, the Secret Service and other Federal authorities have. But, like all new powers, they are susceptible to abuse without strong oversight, and so it would be my hope that we will include more safeguards before this provision becomes law.

I do want to say to the chairman of the committee that I appreciate the bipartisanship which the majority has shown in accepting some initiatives raised over many years by committee Democrats. For 2 years committee Democrats have registered strong opposition to the practice of funding counterterrorism through supplemental budgets. We fought this reckless practice in committee and on the floor.

This year, again, the President's budget provided 22 percent less than what is needed for counterterrorism operations. On a bipartisan basis we are now authorizing 100 percent of the Intelligence Committee's counterterrorism funding needs for 2007 in this base bill, and that is something the majority agreed to, and I applaud them for that.

Second, for years our Intelligence Community has been denied the service of many patriotic Americans from versus ethnic backgrounds, Iraqi Americans, Iranian Americans, who want to serve, but who cannot get security clearances. Committee Democrats offered an amendment to last year's bill to require a multitier system of clearances so that these Americans, despite the fact that they may have relatives in these countries, can get clearances up to a certain level to help us with language and cultural issues. That language is in this bill, and I commend the majority for including it.

On a personal level, Chairman Hoekstra and I have made a major effort to work together to put America first. I am grateful for that and for him. I appreciate your kind words, Peter, and I thank you. We will continue to try to do our best to get the best possible legislation enacted.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, in my view, misses an enormous opportunity to send a message to the White House, and that message is that surveillance of Americans must comply with our law and our Constitution; that intelligence on Iran is not good enough; that protection of privacy and civil liberties must be part of our effort to improve intelligence gathering, not an afterthought; and that we will not tolerate a double standard on leaks of classified information.

I hope this debate, Mr. Chairman, will assure me that this bill is adequate. The dedicated women and men of the Intelligence Community not only deserve our full support, but our best effort to enact funding legislation that truly upholds America's values and America's principles.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that sending messages to the White House is not all we should do here, but there are very few ways to send those messages.

I yield 2 minutes to a senior member of our committee, also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), who is ranking member on our new Oversight Subcommittee, on which Mr. Thornberry is doing, I think, a superb job attempting to oversee activities of our intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend Mr. Rogers that all of us on this committee put America first, though we may disagree about precisely what this bill should include.

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member on our policy committee, 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am the longest-serving member currently on this committee. I love this committee; I love the issues we consider. My district is the place where most of our intelligence satellites are made. It is the location of the Air Force Space and Missiles Command, which just opened a state-of-the-art complex and develops and fields our satellite and missile capabilities.

I was there in El Segundo 2 days ago, and I am immensely proud of the work of SMC and the people who do the work, both in uniform and civilians.

Mr. Chairman, I have traveled the corners of the earth with our committee members. They are my friends. I am very fond of them on a bipartisan basis and I have been very moved by some of the comments made about this bill. A lot of what they say I truly and sincerely agree with. I think this bill is a lot better than it would have been because there has been bipartisan cooperation. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the personal effort that Chairman Hoekstra made to work with me and work with the minority.

What has upset me today, and I do not think anyone has missed it, is what I view as callous, partisan behavior by the Committee on Rules at a level that I have not felt and experienced, at least with respect to the Intelligence Committee. Members on our side offered responsible amendments. All of them were shown to the majority; and in one case, the Boswell amendment, the majority collaborated with us on adjusting the language so it was mutually acceptable. Then at the last minute, for no good reason other than pure partisanship, the Boswell amendment was made out of order.

That experience has prompted me to revisit some of the things that still bother me. The NSA program bothers me. It is not that I do not support the capability; surely I do. I have made that clear. But I do not support any part of that program being outside of FISA, because I believe, based on information that I have, that it can fully comply with FISA. There is no reason to exempt that program.

Mr. Renzi was just talking about the actions of President Clinton that he claimed were outside of FISA. My understanding is that at the time, physical searches were not covered by FISA, and later FISA was amended to cover it. That is the right way to go, and that is what I would hope our committee would end up doing.

Mr. Chairman, it is a tough call whether to support the bill at this stage. I hope and expect that I will support the conference report. I think the conference report will be better than the bill we pass in this House, because I think that the other body and the conference will consider and make decisions about some of these issues we have not addressed adequately here.

In closing, it is always on my mind that dedicated men and women are serving overseas taking tough risks for our freedom. I love them and I have been there to tell them that. This bill has to honor them, which means this has to be the best bill we can field. I do not think it is the best bill we can pass. I will make a decision about my vote later in this debate. I know that some members on our committee will support it and some will oppose it and I respect their views, as I do the views of the majority.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will support this amendment, but I rise to note that the chairman has agreed to modify a provision, and I appreciate the modification that he has made, and that relates to the CIA Director's responsibility under the Freedom of Information Act. The minority felt that the provisions were restricting FOIA requests, and the majority agreed to accommodate us and struck the language, and I would like our colleagues to know that that accommodation has been made. It makes the manager's amendment a better amendment, and I support the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and rise in support of the Fossella amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment, and I think the explanation by Mr. Fossella was excellent.

We had meltdowns, as he well describes, both in New York and Baltimore recently. I think local officials acted responsibly. The information they had showed direct threats to their municipalities, so they had no choice.

We can improve this. We not only need to share information better horizontally, a point we have been making in this committee and one of the reasons we set up the Director of National Intelligence, but we need to share it better vertically. Some of the best ideas are in our hometowns, and some of the best people trying to keep us safe are in our hometowns. I think the Fossella amendment will help us, through the establishment of centers of excellence, develop best practices to share information horizontally and vertically and get best information to those in our hometowns who are trying to protect us.

This is a great idea. I am kind of embarrassed we didn't have it in the base bill. It shows that when this House works together, we bring good information to the floor, and we improve legislation. I only wish that we had been able to bring some other good amendments to the floor to improve this legislation. I say to Mr. Fossella, I strongly support you.

Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Well, I agree. And just reclaiming my time, this is how this House should be working. This is bipartisan collaboration at work. It is going to make our cities safer, and it is going to send a message to the American people of one team, one fight, which is the message they want to hear.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I commend her for her courageous voice in Congress, she knows I do, on many important issues.

I also want to commend our chairman for saying that he will accept this amendment. He should know, and the gentlewoman surely does know, that we have worked together over the years to describe this issue in a manner acceptable to many in the committee. She and I have had conversations on the floor in past years about this issue. This year she is offering her concerns in the form of legislation, and I think this legislation is really very good. I think the goals of democratization and transparency are both good goals. Our President says he supports democratization. It surely is one of our major foreign policy goals.

I am for, and I mince no words about this, the robust use of intelligence to find out the plans and intentions of people who are plotting to do us harm. I do not think this amendment in any way compromises that, and I think the fact that the report is to be prepared and will be delivered to our committee in a classified form makes absolutely certain that we are not advertising to our enemies how we deploy our resources.

So, again, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment and offer my strong support for it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I agree that there is more to explore about this subject in conference. But outsourcing is a big deal, and it is probably a bigger deal than any of us on the committee knows.

Oversight of the intelligence community in today's world means oversight of contractors. We have outsourced more and more of the community, and I think that more serious thought needs to go into the impact of this.

The good thing about the Price amendment is that it does not mandate any particular solution. It just requires the DNI to examine the problem in a meaningful way. It essentially calls for an inventory of contracts and of rules regarding what duties may be outsourced. And I think giving us full information will allow better policy.

I applaud the gentleman for introducing this amendment and urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, though I may not oppose it. I really rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the amendment's sponsor.

Mr. Chairman, there is much that is good in this amendment. All of us, certainly this Member, oppose the leaks, unauthorized leaks, of classified information. That is the wrong thing to do. All of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee not only took the general oath as Members of Congress, but I believe we signed a second oath as members of the committee, and I have no reason to believe that any one of us ever, not for a nanosecond, has compromised classified information, nor would we. I am sure the amendment's author agrees.

I think it is important to say that the Congress wants those who leak in an unauthorized fashion to be prosecuted. I think that is a fair thing to say. I am also in full agreement that the President should use the fullest extent of his power to properly classify information and to protect classified information.

But two things are on my mind, and one of them relates to the language here. One thing on my mind, as I stated earlier, is we should not have a double standard. If we are against leaks of classified information, we should be against leaks of classified information everywhere, and I don't believe, and I am not asking the sponsor, unless he would like to comment, that it is proper for the President or the Vice President to use inherent power to authorize their own aides to discuss what was classified information with selected reporters.

But the question I want to ask the sponsor is this: there is one section of this amendment that I think is overly broad, and it is clause (7) of the findings, where it says, ``Media corporations and journalists have improperly profited financially from publishing purported unauthorized disclosures of classified information.'' That may be conjecture. I don't personally think that is true.

I would like to ask the amendment's sponsor whether he will work with us as this bill goes to conference to modify this language so that it can be absolutely accurate and convey on a bipartisan basis the view that unauthorized leaks are wrong, but that our findings are completely factual on the point.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity. You know, I enjoy working with you, but I doubt, and that is why I said we need more facts here, I don't think we should allege this unless it is factually based. I doubt the motivation in many of these cases was financial. I doubt it.

I understand that books have been written and prizes have been garnered based on publishing classified information, but we have a strong tradition of freedom of the press and a strong constitutional amendment, the first amendment, that protects freedom of speech. So I think we should be very careful in making claims like this.

What I am seeking is just a commitment that we will review this language and make sure that we all feel it is factually based.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers and I do appreciate the comments of the amendment's sponsor on his amendment. I do intend to support the amendment and then to work with him and our chairman on some modifications of that amendment in the conference.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him and Messrs. Flake and Inglis for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body supports tracking the communications of al Qaeda. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the electronic surveillance of Americans must comply with law and the fourth amendment. I believe it must. And as one of the few in this body who has been briefed on the highly classified program we are talking about, I believe it can. This program can and must comply with FISA. That is what the amendment says. The President believes his inherent authority trumps Article I of the Constitution, and I respectfully disagree.

Recommitting this bill and adding this provision will make a good bill stronger and will honor the sacrifice and dedication of those who serve us so courageously in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this month marks the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our troops, who have performed heroically, want to finish their mission and return home.

Success in Iraq depends on true power-sharing, and that will not happen so long as Iraqis suspect that the United States will maintain permanent military bases. That is why I strongly support the Lee amendment, which will send a clear signal to the Iraqi people that the United States does not seek a permanent presence.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the President, the Vice President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about this. Statements by Secretary Rumsfeld alone are not sufficient. Only when the President makes clear that we intend to leave Iraq, not to referee a civil war, will Iraqis realize that power-sharing is their best and last hope.

I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Lee, for introducing this important amendment, and I thank her for her courageous stands all the time in the House.

Mr. Speaker, America recently lost one of her most influential daughters, Willie Grace Campbell. Born and raised as women's suffrage took root, Willie's unwavering commitment and passion for women's rights and civil liberties gave opportunity and inspiration to those like me who knew and loved her.

In an era where career-driven women were uncommon, Willie successfully balanced the challenge of being a mother while pursuing her commitment to education and community service. After moving to Indianapolis with her husband and three children in 1945, Willie established the city's first League of Women's Voters branch and membership quickly grew. She went on to serve as the League's State President and, in 1959, ascended to the national board as a member of the Indiana Advisory Committee of the U.S. Conference on Civil Rights.

A cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Willie launched voter education projects in American inner cities and trained thousands of urban and suburban female voters. She participated in the first White House Conference on Civil Rights in 1965, and emerged from the conference with landmark recommendations and strategies for using litigation, in addition to legislation, to confront restrictive voting rights.

Willie expanded her advocacy in the 1970s, involving herself with the National Women's Political Caucus and the National Women's Education Fund while acting as President and Board Chairwoman of the Overseas Education Fund International. From Latin America and Africa to Washington, DC, Willie's campaign for women's equality and social justice successfully challenged the global status quo. Not surprisingly, she went on to serve on the board of Women, Law and Development International, an organization devoted to the defense and promotion of women's rights.

Even in her last days, Willie proudly served as Vice Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation, a position assigned to her by President Clinton.

Willie was a mentor, not only to me, but to many women in politics and the advocacy community. At age 90, she remained the youngest one in the group, with a ready smile, enormous energy, zest and wisdom. All who encountered her marveled at her passion and purpose.

Willie, you have raised the bar for each of us. I am honored to pay you tribute.

Madam Speaker, the Patriot Act Conference Report which Congress will amend today deals with the outcry leveled at provisions in the original Patriot Act that allow the government to have access to library records.

I strongly agree that the original PATRIOT Act was too broad: it permitted the FBI and

other agencies to issue National Security Letters (NSL)--secret administrative subpoenas--without court approval to obtain a wide range of data from libraries that had little or nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

But embedded in the law was something I felt and still feel was essential to prevent and disrupt terrorist plots: it covered Internet sites at libraries that also function as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), places terrorists use to communicate with each other--something they have done effectively in the effort to evade being monitored.

Though it was extremely unpopular, I voted against early efforts to repeal Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act--the so called Library Provision--because those efforts included ISPs. Last year, Congressman Bernie Sanders' amendment Section 215 expressly did not include ISPs, and I spoke for it on the floor.

Today's bill modifies the PATRIOT Act by barring the government from using NSLs to obtain records from libraries functioning in their traditional roles. Only libraries that also function as ISPs are now covered. This compromise is right and the law ensures that we can continue to monitor terrorist activity on the Internet.

In my view, however, we need to do more. Congress should fold additional checks and balances into the NSL process to protect business and other records in the same way this bill protects libraries. Checks and balances--such as those contained in legislation sponsored by the Intelligence Committee Democrats and senior Judiciary Committee Democrats--would subject NSLs to judicial oversight and enhanced congressional scrutiny.

The specter of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is very real. It is a prospect that keeps me up at night. Clearly, we need modem tools to track 21st century threats, but not at the expense of our precious liberties, which are the essential foundation of American democracy. Today's bill to amend the PATRIOT Act is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, last week I stood at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the largest container port complex in the nation, with my good friend Senator Susan Collins, the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

We both have championed the fight to strengthen security at our ports. As of last week, neither of us had been briefed on the review conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, into the sale of stevedoring and terminal operations of many major eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast ports to a state-owned firm from Dubai. This sale would not only affect the six major US port terminal facility leases that have been reported, but additional operations in 15 other locations, including ports shipping military materiel.

Last week, we stated our concerns about the announced sale and our plan to issue a Joint Resolution of Disapproval.

Today, I am introducing in the House the Joint Resolution which Senator Collins introduced yesterday, S.J. Res. 32. This resolution would do three things. First, it officially disapproves of CFIUS's initial review of the Dubai Ports World deal. Second, it requires CFIUS to rescind its previous decision and conduct a formal 45-day investigation. Third, it requires that CFIUS brief the Congress before allowing the deal to proceed, if in fact that is the decision after a full, complete and proper evaluation of the national security risks posed by this arrangement.

Since Senator Collins and I announced our intentions last week, there has been some progress. Dubai Ports World has agreed to a secondary review, the Administration has agreed to a 45-day assessment of the sale, and, beginning this week, some committees of Congress will now be briefed.

But the bad news is that this process got as far as it did, and that it took deep bipartisan concern to have Congress brought into the loop. When our country considers these important deals, Congress should be on the front lines, not the back bench.

And as we heard yesterday from a Senate briefing, the U.S. Coast Guard cited their concerns over the deal at the time. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a critical role in ensuring the security of our ports, and their reservations make me question why this deal was approved as quickly as it was.

This issue has also served to highlight the fact that our Nation's ports remain inadequately protected.

As a member of both the House Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees, I have consistently worked to improve our national security, and believe much remains to be done. When we focus 9 out of 10 transportation security dollars on aviation security, we fall into the trap of fighting the last war instead of the next one. Fighting terror requires that we look forward, and what keeps me up at night is the possibility of a radiological bomb or human terrorist entering our ports in an uninspected container.

When it comes to port security, we should have solid answers, not lingering questions. In this Era of Terror, there remains a constant threat to our homeland. We don't have the luxury of waiting to harden the obvious vulnerable targets.

I have visited the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex many times. I have authored and co-authored bipartisan port security legislation. Representative Dan Lungren and I will introduce a comprehensive bill soon to ensure a coordinated approach to maritime and cargo security through the authorization of key security programs and initiatives, as well as a dedicated funding grant program to shore up security gaps that exist at our Nation's ports. Senators Collins, Lieberman, and Coleman have introduced similar legislation in the Senate, and both bills will be the subject of hearings in this Congress.

This resolution on CFIUS is prudent; so are our efforts to legislate enhanced port security. I urge its support.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support powerful, flexible, and modern tools to detect the plans and intentions of terrorists who may be operating in our country. For that reason, I voted for the PATRIOT Act, even though I believed and still believe there is room for improvement.

We are being asked today to extend the PATRIOT Act for 5 weeks so that Congress can continue to work on some of its most controversial provisions. I think this extension makes good sense. We must extend it, mend it, but not end it.

To that end, I hope we can soon reach agreement on critical issues. First, we should modify the report to explicitly require that records sought under Section 215--commonly called the Library provision--be connected to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is the traditional FISA standard. A looser standard invites ``fishing expeditions.''

Second, we should explicitly state 215 recipients have the right to challenge a gag order in court.

Third, we should ensure that National Security Leaders are not used as back doors for getting library circulation, medical, tax and educational institutions records, and to modify the ``conclusive presumption'' language which makes it virtually impossible for NSL recipients to challenge ``gag'' orders in court. These and other critical changes to NSLs are included H.R. 4570--a bill that I, my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Conyers and other congressional leaders introduced in December.

As part of the negotiations, Congress must also insist that the President provide the facts on his NSA terrorist surveillance program. His refusal to brief the 36 Members of the intelligence committees, even though hundreds of people in the executive branch have been briefed, violates the requirements of the National Security Act of 1947.

The President also needs to explain why current law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, does not provide an adequate framework for his program. Some claim that FISA cannot handle modern communications. But the fact is that the administration requested, and Congress passed as part of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, numerous changes to FISA to deal with phones, e-mail and the Internet. For example, Congress lowered the legal standards for FISA pen registers and trap- and-trace devices to make it easier to track the calls of terrorists who may be in the U.S. We also expanded these pen traps to cover e-mail and the Internet,

and we granted roving John Doe wiretap authority to deal with the issue of unidentified terrorists switching phones.

Moreover, in the 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act, we extended the FISA emergency provision to 72 hours, so that surveillance is not delayed by the paperwork involved in getting a warrant. All of these authorities were powers that the President asked for and supported.

Mr. Speaker, FISA is modern, flexible, and effective. Since 1979, 19,000 warrants have been approved. Those who prepare the warrants tell me the process is efficient. If the President believes otherwise, he must come to Congress and explain why.

Mr. Speaker, the message conferees, and I am one, must send is that the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. Let me repeat: the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. But we also want our President to follow the law.