Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and tell him we miss him on the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am keenly aware of the economic hardship faced by people in my district and all over the country and the heartfelt questions being raised about the costs and policies involved in this bill. After careful review, however, I believe the bill is needed, and the policies it funds reflect a change in direction from failed Bush administration strategies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the West Bank, all locations I have visited on several trips this past year.

We are ending the combat mission in Iraq, a policy I strongly support. We are also embracing a strategy for Afghanistan, which makes governance, and not projection of military force, the top priority. Mission success there will only come from efforts to eliminate corruption and help the central and local governments provide essential services to the Afghan people; otherwise, that country will revert to a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists intent on attacking the United States and our allies.

Pakistan is even more dangerous because of its huge population, a military larger than ours, and its nuclear arsenal. This bill funds nonmilitary aid and counterinsurgency training to enable Pakistani forces to defeat the growing Taliban threat inside their borders.

A promising security program in the West Bank is also supported, a key building block to a viable and independent Palestinian state. The bill makes explicit that no Palestinian funding will go to Hamas, which continues to rearm and threaten Israel.

For the future, as has been discussed, funding for our troops in harm's way in missions like these will be on budget and fully debated through the regular process in Congress. This is yet another good course correction by the Obama administration, and one I have long advocated.

This is a sound bill and a sound rule. Vote ``aye'' on both.

Madam Chair, one of the most momentous votes I have cast as a Member of Congress occurred in my first year of service. It was a vote for President Clinton's budget, which made some difficult choices--among them, cutting spending and raising taxes to balance the federal budget. While controversial, I knew the Clinton budget charted the best course for the U.S. economy over the long run.

It came as no surprise, but my support for the Clinton budget became the primary issue in my first reelection campaign, which I won by only a whisker. Many of my colleagues were not so fortunate.

Today, the country is again in a perilous economic position--much more so than in 1993. And a new President is again outlining an ambitious economic agenda that could transform American society.

As in 1993, I intend to support the budget. President Obama inherited an economy and federal balance sheet in total disarray. He has made the difficult decision to prioritize long-delayed investments in health care reform, clean energy, and education, and to pay for them with responsible reversals of Bush Tax cuts for the most fortunate among us. I believe he has done so in an honest manner by, among other things, putting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on budget for the first time.

The budget isn't perfect--no budget is. I would prefer more deficit reduction in its out years. But the President has his priorities right, and is making the investments that this nation has put off for too long. This Congress should support him and pass this budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a personal issue for me. I have experienced the tragedy that afflicts many tobacco users and their loved ones.

Both of my parents were chain-smokers in their early years. My mother and her friends started smoking in their teen years because they thought it was cool. My father, a physician, quit smoking when I was young, but our house reeked of secondhand smoke, and my mother continued to smoke until she could no longer hold a cigarette. Both parents died of lung cancer.

It was a nightmare, one I would spare other families. Now as a grandmother of three, I hope my grandkids will never smoke.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 4,000 kids try a cigarette for the first time each day. By the end of this week, thousands of Americans will have died from tobacco-related diseases and thousands more will become new, more regular users like my parents were.

We can take a big step towards breaking this deadly cycle by giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. This bill, which passed this House last July by a huge margin, is the product of a long crusade by my California colleague, Henry Waxman, and is a big down payment on health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $9 billion annually treating tobacco-related diseases; $9 billion could be far better spent on a failing health care infrastructure and increased access to health care.

This bill will save lives and scarce resources. Vote ``aye'' on the rule and ``aye'' on the bill.

Madam Speaker, Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan and I have co-authored H.R. 1786, a bill that will help Americans transition from older, energy-wasting washing machines, refrigerators, and other household appliances to newer, super-efficient versions.

According to the Department of Energy, appliances currently account for about 20 percent of energy bills in a typical household. Many of these ``clunkers'' are the products of another era--manufactured years (sometimes decades) ago, when technology was antiquated and efficiency a low priority. Removing old, inefficient appliances from circulation will go a long way toward cutting energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Our bill will task the DOE with creating a ``Best-in-Class'' appliance program to provide financial ``bonuses'' to retailers for every Best-in-Class product sold (defined as the top 10 percent of models in the product class, in terms of efficiency), and to manufacturers that mass produce Best-in-Class appliances.

Retailers who participate in the program must provide a government- funded ``bounty'' (a reduction in price for a new, more efficient appliance) to consumers who surrender old appliances. Experience shows that many consumers hoard old appliances--perhaps moving them from the kitchen to the basement--eliminating the potential energy savings resulting from the purchase of a newer appliance. This trade-in feature will help take these clunkers completely out of circulation, substantially accelerating our transition to an energy-efficient economy.

This bill is a consensus product, and is endorsed by the NRDC and leading industry groups. We urge its swift passage.

Madam Speaker, in 2007, Congressman Upton and I introduced legislation--which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act--that will revolutionize the way Americans light their homes.

Our legislation bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today's 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020.

That bill was the product of bipartisan and bicameral efforts to forge a consensus between industry and environmental groups. The result was not only broadly accepted, it was groundbreaking. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that the provisions will eventually save $18 billion in energy costs every year, and prevent the emission of 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030. That's the equivalent of taking 20 million cars off the road.

Today, we will introduce legislation that builds on this success by setting efficiency standards for outdoor lighting.

Outdoor lighting currently consumes approximately 4.4% of all the electricity produced in the United States. Most of this lighting is currently provided by outdated and inefficient technologies.

Our bill sets efficiency standards to phase out these inefficient technologies (which include incandescent and halogen lights), paving the way for more efficient and cost-effective lights (such as super- efficient light emitting diodes, or LEDs). The first standard will be set in 2011, the second in 2013, and the last in 2015. The Department of Energy would then have the authority to set rules that raise efficiency standards even further.

The bill also requires outdoor lights to come with bi-level controls, which permit users to alter the amount of light emitted. You don't need the same level of brightness at dusk as you do in the middle of the night. This is important, because these controls will give cities, counties, and other users more control over their own energy usage, empowering them to maximize their own energy conservation efforts.

Finally, like in 2007, we protect the efforts of early innovators such as California, which has already passed an outdoor lighting standard. Our bill allows California to fully implement its law before imposing nationwide preemption.

The energy savings that will flow from these efficiency improvements are stunning. A leading industry group estimates that this bill could eventually reduce energy usage from outdoor lighting by more than 25%, saving more than $6 billion in electricity costs every year. That's the equivalent of more than 50 coal fired power stations.

And like our 2007 legislation, we are proud that this bill is a bipartisan, consensus effort forged after extensive discussions between leading environmental and industry groups.

The United States will not be able to get its arms around the twin, daunting challenges of global climate change and dependence on oil until we pursue efficiency and energy conservation wherever it is technologically feasible.

We believe that this bill, like its 2007 counterpart, is a vital and necessary piece of the solution. We urge its swift passage.

Madam Speaker, one of the most important challenges confronting the intelligence community is learning the nature of and damage done by the worldwide network in nuclear centrifuge technology, bomb components and training run for almost two decades by A. Q. Khan-- the revered ``father'' of his country's nuclear program. Considered a pariah abroad but a hero at home, that task got a lot tougher when Pakistan's High Court ordered Khan released from house arrest last month.

At the recent Wehrkunde Security Conference in Munich, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi astonished delegates, telling us that his government had not decided whether to challenge the court decision but that Pakistan would continue to monitor Khan.

For those who stay awake at night worrying about Iran's increasing mastery of centrifuge technology and the ability of terror groups to access nuclear components, Pakistan's action is distressing.

When Khan ``confessed'' in 2004 to his illegal nuclear dealings, he was promptly placed under ``house arrest'' and pardoned by then President Pervez Musharraf. The U.S. government was denied access to him, and was never able to question him about what he did and what else he knew.

Today, we introduce legislation to condition future military aid to Pakistan on two things: that the Pakistani Government make A.Q. Khan available for questioning and that it monitor Khan's activities.

This much we do know. As a university student in Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Khan earned degrees in metallurgical engineering from institutions in Holland and Belgium. In 1972, he began working for the Dutch partner of a uranium enrichment consortium and almost immediately raised eyebrows for repeated visits to a facility he was not cleared to see and for inquiries made about technical data unrelated to his own assignments.

Dutch intelligence quietly began to monitor him. In 1974, following India's first nuclear test, Khan offered his expertise to Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Later that year, Khan's company assigned him to work on Dutch translations of advanced, German-designed centrifuges--data to which he had unsupervised access for 16 days.

By 1975, the damage appears to have been done. Pakistan began to purchase components for its domestic uranium enrichment program from European suppliers, and Khan was transferred away from enrichment work due to concern about his activities.

In December, he abruptly returned to Pakistan with blueprints for centrifuges and other components and detailed lists of suppliers.

Convicted in absentia by the Dutch government for nuclear espionage, beginning in the mid-1980s, Khan is widely believed to have provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya and possibly Syria and Iraq. His network involved front companies

and operatives in Dubai, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey. Though much of the network was taken down following his confession, there is no conclusive evidence that it was destroyed.

Khan is again a loose nuke scientist with proven ability to sell the worst weapons to the worst people. Hopefully, appropriate Pakistani officials worry as we do that their civilians could become nuclear targets--as could NATO soldiers in neighboring Afghanistan or civilians in any number of Western countries.

Our bill provides a path for the Zardari government to do the right thing--to allow the U.S. to evaluate the full extent of A. Q. Khan's proliferation activities in order to halt any ongoing or future harm.

Madam Speaker, no one can forget the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, which killed five people, paralyzed the Postal Service, and affects the flow of mail to Capitol Hill to this day.

In response, Congress expanded the Select Agent Program, which monitors the possession and use of potentially dangerous biological agents and toxins.

But, the program's authorization expired in 2007, and serious problems persist. Earlier this month, researchers at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases received another wake-up call.

They discovered serious gaps in recordkeeping after finding germ samples not listed in their database. Since then, the Army has suspended some research at the lab while an inventory of dangerous agents is conducted.

That is why it is so important to reintroduce today the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act with my friend Mike Rogers in the House and Senators Kennedy and Burr in the Senate.

The bill requires an assessment of the government's ability to track and control the dangerous substances that can be used to construct dangerous weapons.

It reauthorizes and updates the Select Agent Program, which limits access to and controls the transfer of dangerous biological agents and toxins.

It requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the program and recommend ways in which it can be restructured, to enhance biosecurity and international scientific collaboration.

It requires that the program consider newly discovered agents--such as genetically modified organisms, synthetic compounds, and other agents identified in Homeland Security risk assessments--to ensure that its database is current and comprehensive.

It encourages the sharing of information with State emergency planning officials, which is vital to ensuring that first responders have the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack.

And it ensures minimum biosecurity and biosafety standards for the training of workers in the laboratories that deal with the most dangerous agents.

The threat of biological terrorism on U.S. soil is real and there is still room to improve the way our country tracks and transfers potentially dangerous materials that could be used against us in an attack. This bill will help that effort.

Nearly a decade has passed since weaponized anthrax was anonymously mailed as an attack on Americans. We must act swiftly to improve our capabilities to eliminate these dangers.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me highlight two issues. First, temporary increases in COBRA, FMAP and DSH coverage, a lifeline for hard-hit families and communities. Mr. Waxman played the critical role in the conference on these issues, and constituents in our adjoining congressional districts are very grateful. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center is the only level 1 trauma center near top terror targets, like LAX and the Ports of LA and Long Beach. Without DSH, Harbor will have no surge capacity to treat victims of terror and natural disasters.

Second, energy innovation and efficiency. This is a stimulus bill, and the smart grid and transportation projects it funds are a jobs engine. It sets the framework for future climate change legislation.

Mr. Chairman, enhanced safety net and clean energy jobs are good reasons to vote ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his leadership on the Rules Committee and also on the important issue of keeping people in their homes. Home foreclosures are mounting. They're an epidemic in his district, and I want our colleagues to know that another Member from California is noticing the leadership that he provides on that issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill to provide a one-time--let me stress--one-time delay in the DTV transition. I sympathize with Americans who are unprepared for this transition, many of whom are elderly, minorities, or residents of rural areas. Television is important to our lives and can serve as a vital resource in times of emergency. So for those reasons, I support the legislation.

At the same time, we must not forget that the DTV transition's real purpose is to improve emergency communications capabilities for first responders. The lessons of 9/11 are sadly fading. Hundreds of police and firefighters died at the World Trade Center in part because they could not talk to each other on their radios.

The key to preventing this kind of tragic communication failure is to build a nationwide interoperable broadband network that will allow rescue workers from different units to talk to each other even though they operate on separate radio frequencies. The foundation for this nationwide public safety network is the spectrum that is currently used for analog television broadcasting, and only after analog operations are cleared can that spectrum be put to its best and most important use.

Madam Speaker, in a perfect world this delay would not be necessary. And I want to make clear, again, that further delay should not, must not be necessary once this period ends. But this one-time delay will help protect our most vulnerable citizens while we get on with designing the build-out of the public safety network that is our ultimate goal.

It has been almost 8 years since the 9/11 attacks. Police, firefighters, and EMTs all over the country--and the families they protect--are counting on us to finally get this right.

I thank our chairman for yielding and commend him for his role on this bill and the two that will follow. Let me also point out, Madam Speaker, that our committee is an extremely bipartisan committee. This legislation, I would say to the manager on the Republican side, was reported unanimously by our subcommittee last year, unanimously by our full committee, and was adopted by voice vote on the House floor. This legislation, which applies only to the Department of Homeland Security, was the result of a very careful set of hearings. There may be arguments to deal with this subject in other parts of the government, but I believe this legislation, and the careful way it was considered, is a model for what the House should be doing. And I urge its prompt enactment again.

Madam Speaker, America's first preventers faced an enormous challenge 2 weeks ago, as Chairman Thompson said. They protected key members of the old and new administrations, especially the First Families. Though the so-called ``Purple Tunnel of Doom'' incident meant many ticket holders could not get in, a thoroughly preventable fiasco, our first preventers did manage a crowd of millions for the largest American Presidential inauguration ever, working almost seamlessly with Federal counterparts to do so.

The most important part of this extraordinary feat was the efficient sharing of accurate, actionable and timely information, especially information about threats, with police officers on the ground.

Now that the inauguration is over, local law enforcement shouldn't have to return to business as usual. Information sharing, we should all be reminded, was a huge problem leading up to 9/11. And 8 years later, we still have unfinished business.

Though hard to believe, sheriffs and police chiefs cannot readily access the information they need to prevent or disrupt a potential terrorist attack because those at the Federal level resist sharing information. Over-classification and pseudoclassification, which is stamping with any number of sensitive-but-unclassified markings, remain rampant.

Protecting sources and methods is the only valid reason to refuse to share information. It is no exaggeration that people die and our ability to monitor certain targets can be compromised if sources and methods are revealed. As one who served on our Intelligence Committee for 8 years, I saw this up close and personal. But, Madam Speaker, classifying information to protect turf or avoid embarrassment is wrong. As I mentioned, I served for many years on the Intelligence Committee and became incredibly frustrated with this practice, which the Bush administration elevated to an art form. And sadly, the practice has spread to our newest Federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, the next attack in the United States will not be stopped because a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. found out about it in advance. It will be the cop on the beat who is familiar with the rhythms and nuances of his or her own neighborhood who will foil that attack.

H.R. 553 is an attempt to establish a gold standard at DHS when it comes to classification practices. It requires that all classified intelligence products created at the department be simultaneously created in a standard unclassified format if such a product would help local law enforcement keep us safe.

This is unprecedented. Furthermore, the bill requires portion marking, the identification of paragraphs in a document that are unclassified, permitting the remainder of the document to remain unclassified.

I misspoke, Madam Speaker. The portion marking is for portions that are classified, to leave the remainder of the document unclassified.

The measure will promote accountability by requiring the DHS Inspector General to randomly sample classified intelligence products and identify problems that exist in those samples. It also directs the Secretary to develop a plan to track electronically how and where information classified by DHS is disseminated, so that misuse can be prevented.

And finally, the legislation requires the Secretary to establish extensive annual training on the proper use of the classification regime, and penalties for staff who repeatedly fail to comply with applicable classification policies.

Madam Speaker, a key to homeland security is personal preparedness. A prepared public is not likely to be terrorized. Access to important unclassified information is essential to ensure preparedness, and this bill protects the public's right to know. It enjoys broad support by privacy and civil liberties groups.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of first preventers and first responders everywhere, I urge passage of this essential bipartisan legislation, again commend our committee members and staff for their work on this legislation, and urge its prompt consideration following our action by the Senate.

Mr. Chair, the American economy is foundering in some very troubled waters.

Business after business--including some of the biggest names in corporate America--is collapsing. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs in the last few months alone--more than 55,000 in just the last few days. The unemployment rate is skyrocketing, approaching levels not seen in generations.

Millions of Americans have lost their homes, and millions more may lose theirs as adjustable rate mortgages reset and the foreclosure crisis spreads. Lending has barely improved since the credit markets froze last fall, despite a $350 million (and soon to be $700 million) infusion of taxpayer funds.

California has been particularly hard hit. 523,624 Californians lost their homes last year--a five-fold increase from 2006 levels. The state is running a $42 billion budget deficit, and may have little alternative but to cut health and education funding to the bone. Los Angeles County alone is looking at a $173 million shortfall in health care funding next year--the amount it takes to keep the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center operating.

My constituents are hurting. Credit unions and small banks, which do much of the day-to-day lending that keeps communities functioning, have laid off hundreds of workers. Car dealerships that have been pillars of the community for decades are closing. Reductions in state funding are forcing school districts to consider drastic staff reductions.

In times like these, the federal government has an obligation to take swift, decisive action. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes the stimulus needed at this perilous moment, and I intend to support it.

A few provisions of the bill stand out as particularly crucial.

This legislation includes nearly $200 billion to help states maintain essential health care and education programs. In California, these funds could be the vital lifeline that keeps hospitals operating, avoids the layoffs of thousands of teachers, and helps the state stave off bankruptcy.

The bill includes a $20 billion investment in the development of health information technology systems. Health IT will not only generate thousands of new high-paying jobs, it will reduce costs of providing care, help reduce errors, and provide a down-payment on the development of a universal health care system.

The bill includes $30 billion to help build a new clean energy infrastructure that will grow green jobs now and lay the foundation for long-term energy independence. The $11 billion investment to upgrade our electric grid is an especially crucial first step toward the deployment of energy efficiency programs, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, and the transmission of energy produced by renewable sources.

The bill also makes a long-overdue investment in our nation's education system, with more than $150 billion going to Head Start, kindergarten, public elementary and secondary schools, and college programs. This spending--along with a renewed focus on performance standards and new, creative approaches to teaching--will help ensure that our children

have the skills to compete in the global economy in the years to come.

This is not a perfect bill. One can question whether some of this spending would be more appropriately considered in an ordinary appropriations bill, and whether a small uptick in paychecks caused by tax cuts will lead to much new spending. I hope that the bill can be improved as it moves through the legislative process.

But the package is, on the whole, worthy of support. It may not be the only step we must take to revitalize our economy, but it is a necessary one. I urge its swift passage.

Madam Speaker, today I voted to disapprove the release of the second half of the so-called TARP funds. The Senate has already approved the release, so mine is essentially a protest vote. But it is a protest that should be heard.

The Bush Administration presented the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to Congress as an asset purchase program. We were told that the Treasury Department would use the funds primarily to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets, and then banks and credit unions would use their cleaned-up balance sheets to free up credit while the government helped renegotiate home mortgages. The focus was supposed to be about keeping people in their homes.

But looking back, it feels more like a classic bait and switch. Rather than spend the money as promised, the Bush Administration took advantage of loopholes in the law to funnel money directly to banks, who have been loathe to part with it. And the Bush Administration did this with scant oversight or accountability. We still have little idea how the first $350 billion was spent, or whether much of it made any difference.

What is clear is that little of the funds went to the small banks and credit unions that actually keep our communities growing. I understand that only one bank holding company in my district, out of dozens of struggling community banks and credit unions, has received any help under the TARP.

The TARP has essentially become a $350 billion bank consolidation fund. And in the meantime, the key driver behind this crisis--home foreclosures--has been all but ignored.

My constituents have noticed, and they continue to express overwhelming disapproval of the way the program has been run thus far.

Yesterday, I voted for H.R. 384, Chairman Frank's TARP Reform and Accountability Act, which I believe would have made vital changes to the TARP--including the adoption of a home foreclosure program modeled after the one proposed by FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.

But I understand that the Senate has no plans to take up the Frank Bill, and instead will rely on assurances from NEC Chairman Larry Summers that the Obama Administration will use the second $350 billion responsibly.

Larry Summers is a friend and an enormous talent, and I have great respect for President Obama and his team. But Congress is the constitutionally designated steward of taxpayer dollars. We should insist on the limitations in the Frank bill before releasing another $350 billion.

I expect to support a robust and effective stimulus bill. I wish the second tranche of TARP had been totally revamped and added to the stimulus proposal.

Madam Speaker, America's first preventers will face an enormous challenge next Tuesday. They must protect key members of this and the next Administration--especially the first families--and manage crowds of millions for the largest American Presidential Inauguration to date, working seamlessly with federal counterparts to do so.

Unprecedented efforts will be made to share information--especially information about threats. Information sharing was a huge problem leading up to 9/11, and 7 years later, we still have work to do.

When the Inauguration is over, local law enforcement shouldn't have to return to business-as-usual--where it is still difficult to get accurate, actionable, and timely information about threats and tactics to police officers in the field.

Though hard to believe, sheriffs and police chiefs can't readily access the information they need to prevent or disrupt a potential terrorist attack because those at the federal level resist sharing information. Over-classification and pseudo-classification--stamping with any number of sensitive but unclassified markings--remain rampant.

Protecting sources and methods is the only valid reason to refuse to share information. It is no exaggeration that people die and our ability to monitor certain targets can be compromised, if sources and methods are revealed.

But classifying information for the wrong reasons--to protect turf or to avoid embarrassment--is wrong. During my 8 years on the House Intelligence Committee, I became incredibly frustrated with this practice--which the Bush Administration elevated to an art-form.

And, sadly, the practice has spread to our newest federal agency: the Department of Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, the next attack in the United States will not be stopped because a bureaucrat in Washington, DC found out about it in advance. It will be the cop on the beat who is familiar with the rhythms and nuances of his or her own neighborhood who will foil that attack.

H.R. 553, the Reducing Over-Classification Act, and which passed the House unanimously in the 110th Congress, is an attempt to establish a gold standard at DHS when it comes to classification practices.

It requires that all classified intelligence products created at the Department be simultaneously created in a standard unclassified format if such a product would help local law enforcement keep us safe. This is unprecedented.

Furthermore, the bill requires portion marking--the identification of paragraphs in a document that are classified--permitting the remainder of the document to remain unclassified.

The measure will promote accountability by requiring the DHS Inspector General to sample randomly classified intelligence products and identify problems that exist in those samples.

It also directs the Secretary to develop a plan to track electronically how and where information classified by DHS is disseminated so that misuse can be prevented.

Finally, the legislation requires the Secretary to establish extensive annual training on the proper use of the classification regime, and penalties for staff who repeatedly fail to comply with applicable classification policies.

A key to homeland security is personal preparedness. A prepared public is not likely to be terrorized. Access to important non- classified information is essential to ensure preparedness, and this bill protects the public's right to know. It enjoys support by privacy and civil liberty groups.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of first preventers and first responders everywhere, I urge passage of this essential bipartisan legislation, and its prompt consideration in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, today we are introducing legislation that will begin a long-needed course correction in U.S. interrogation policies.

In the months and years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, I repeatedly urged the Bush administration to establish a legal framework that allowed the United States to identify, detain, and interrogate those who would harm us while protecting our fundamental values. Instead, the administration claimed for itself the right to ignore core provisions of U.S. law regarding the treatment of detainees. It brushed aside international agreements like the Geneva Convention, which have both protected our troops and set the bar for human rights.

The result is that United States has paid a steep price in eroded moral authority. We've flouted the very legal protections that we've tried to export to the rest of the world. We've undermined the international human rights standards that we helped create. And we've provided a huge recruiting tool to al Qaeda.

For many years, the sponsors of this legislation have fought to restore respect for the law and human rights to our detention and interrogation policies.

Now, with the election of a new President, we believe that goal is within reach. This legislation is an essential first step.

First, the bill requires the closure of the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay. The prison is so widely viewed as illegitimate, so plainly inconsistent with America's proud legal traditions, that it has become a stinging symbol of our tarnished standing abroad.

The Supreme Court has brought the curtain down on the legal fiction on which the prison was premised. It's time for Congress to take the next step and close it permanently.

Our bill would require the President to close the facility within 1 year of enactment and give him a range of choices for dealing with the detainees. These options include transfer to a detainee's country of origin, so long as that country provides certain assurances regarding treatment of the detainee; transfer to a facility in the United States to be tried before military or civilian authorities, like the first 1993 World Trade Center bombers, who are currently being held in Supermax prisons in the United States; transfer to a qualified international tribunal; or, if appropriate, outright release.

Second, the bill prohibits the interrogation of any individual held by a U.S. intelligence agency or its contractors using any technique or treatment not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Torture and abusive treatment is not only contrary to American values, the law, and international human rights agreements, there is no evidence that it yields reliable intelligence. This legislation will require that our intelligence agencies do not engage in such practices.

Third, the bill forbids the Central Intelligence Agency from using a contractor or subcontractor to carry out an interrogation, ending a practice that has been fraught with abuse.

Finally, the bill requires that the intelligence community provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to any individual in its custody, providing transparency and accountability that will restore the world's confidence in our detention and interrogation practices. The notion that our country essentially ``disappeared'' some detainees is abhorrent--we are not the Soviet Gulag or the Chilean military.

The portions of the legislation relating to the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay are identical to H.R. 2212, which I introduced in the 110th Congress, and the remaining provisions are identical to legislation introduced earlier this week by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

We urge swift passage in both Chambers.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on bringing up this resolution so promptly.

Madam Speaker, I've seen Israel up close and personal on almost two dozen trips. I've seen thousands of spent missiles stockpiled in Sderot, witnessed destruction of homes and buildings, and know a government official from Israel who was seriously wounded. I have also spent time on Israel's border with Lebanon, including a trip there

during the 2006 Hezbollah war while rockets flew overhead.

Israel, indeed any country, has a right to defend herself from attack. The U.S. must stand by our only democratic ally in the Middle East. Hamas' ability to strike Israeli cities is continuing evidence that it has been receiving illicit arms for use against Israel--no doubt with the complicity of its sponsors in Iran.

However, Israelis are not the only victims. The Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank have paid a huge price, too. They have been held hostage by the Hamas leadership since its 2006 coup against the Palestinian authority. And they are being used as human shields.

That said, Israel's effort must minimize civilian casualties and maximize Red Cross access. Measures to permit humanitarian aid must be sustained.

As this resolution states, our President must work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and sustainable cease-fire, promote a two-state solution, and encourage and strengthen moderate Palestinian voices.

This House is doing its part today. Following Senate action yesterday, we signal bipartisan, bicameral support for this effort.