Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, every so often we encounter an individual who, wittingly or not, becomes a transformative figure--one who leaves a profound and permanent impact on countless lives and their community.

Dorothy Green, founder of Heal the Bay and one of the most influential environmental leaders in California in the last generation, was such a person.

An unlikely activist, Dorothy was a housewife and mother in the early 1970s when her brother was splattered with untreated sewage from an open drain at Ballona Creek, which runs directly into the Santa Monica Bay. Outraged, she convened a group of friends and activists in her living room to form what grew into the 15,000-member strong Heal the Bay. Under Dorothy's leadership, the organization has tackled everything from the health of marine life to oil spills to ocean water quality.

But Dorothy's vision was much broader than the view from her living room window. She also founded the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council and the California Water Impact Network to educate Californians on water policy and to redefine how we use and think of water as a precious and limited resource.

I cannot remember when I first met Dorothy Green. But I do remember being told that if I wanted to run for Congress she was the lode star on water issues. And she was! No issue was too big or too small for her, as long as it has something to do with water. From storm drains to the Peripheral Canal, she knew about it all and inspired thousands to join and support her efforts to fix dysfunctional policies.

On October 13, 2008, Dorothy lost her battle with cancer. Yet her legacy will continue to motivate many. She fought for what she believed until the end. Five days before her death, she penned an op-ed piece from her hospice bed calling for sensible plans to preserve and treat the natural resource she spent her adult life defending.

I am proud to have known Dorothy Green as a friend and colleague. She always focused on getting things done and never accepted the status quo. A brilliant grassroots organizer, her friends--and adversaries-- will all tell you of

her relentless spirit, and modesty. She would probably tell me get to work rather than offer this tribute, but she deserves every bit of praise. The people of California and our priceless environment have lost a dear friend. I assure you, Dorothy, we will fight on.

Madam Speaker, I've seen my home state of California struggle with the Nation's highest teen pregnancy rate--the sad result being thousands of young women dealing with the catastrophic effects pregnancy can impose on their lives. They often lose out on the opportunity to obtain a high school diploma, a college degree or a promising career. For too many, dreams like these are lost at an early age.

In the early 1990s, California took on the challenge to fight this epidemic and focused hard on prevention. After a decade of implementing robust initiatives, the state had lowered the rate by nearly 40 percent. Much of the success is credited to better and more accurate comprehensive sex education.

Results like this are worth fighting for and this is why initiatives like Planned Parenthood's campaign--Sex Ed Week of Action--is vital to raise awareness about safe practices within our communities. These are tough, personal issues for all parents and families but as a mother and grandmother, I agree that they must be addressed.

California is making strides, but there is much more to be done nationwide. As a long-time champion of comprehensive sex education, I've voiced my opposition against unproven abstinence-only education here in Congress. It is an outrage that since 1996, the Federal Government has pursued an ideological and myopic path, investing more than a $1 billion in abstinence-only programs. This has been a huge waste--and the studies prove it.

A report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services concludes that students receiving abstinence-only education are no more likely to abstain or delay sexual activity than students not receiving such instruction.

California also recognized that this is a bad investment for our teens and took a commendable step forward by rejecting these funds from the Federal Government. The medical community agrees too. According to the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association and the American School Health Association, scientifically sound comprehensive sex education is the only approach that produces results--not more unwanted pregnancies.

Empowering teens to make smart choices requires education that is proven to work--logical, right? The evidence is clear, comprehensive sex education is the best path to reducing unintended pregnancy, which is the goal we all share. We can't fail our teens by letting politics and ideology interfere with this basic right to information.

Madam Speaker, recklessness on Wall Street and fecklessness in Washington have brought the American economy to the brink of disaster. Mounting corporate debts and collapsing real estate markets have all but frozen the flow of credit that is the life-blood of our system.

It is now clear that without immediate and dramatic action, we face an economic calamity--not just for Wall Street, but for small businesses, communities, and families around the country.

But while I agree that quick action is necessary, the Treasury Department's original three-page proposal--in essence ``Dear Congress, please send a $700 billion blank check, love, Hank.''--was a nonstarter.

We have come a long way in the past week, thanks mostly to tough negotiations by Democrats and the inclusion of improvements demanded by Senator Obama, my constituents, and others. The result is legislation that I can support.

The bill addresses the concerns of three important groups: families who are struggling to stay in their homes; small businesses and their employees; and taxpayers.

First, the legislation requires that the government renegotiate the terms, including principal, interest rates, or duration, of any mortgage owned in whole or in part by the Federal Government to prevent foreclosures and keep people in their homes. These provisions are vitally important.

The Government now controls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together own or back nearly 50 percent of the mortgages in America, and will be purchasing many thousands of new mortgages or shares of mortgages under this bill. The bill requires that the Government use its new market power to rework many of the flawed mortgages that are at the heart of this crisis. Done right, this effort can help families avoid the wrenching experiences of foreclosure and bankruptcy.

Second, it will allow all financial entities--big banks, regional banks, and local community banks--to sell off the toxic assets that have crippled the credit markets.

It also allows a 1-year write-off of losses stemming from the Government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, removing a major burden from the financial hubs of our communities.

This means capital that breathes life into our economy will flow not just to Wall Street, but to Artesia, Sepulveda, and Rosecrans Boulevards. As one of my constituents, a former auto mechanic, puts it: ``If there's no oil in the engine, the car won't run. You have to put the oil in from the top and clean the parts from the bottom.''

Third, the bill includes a number of provisions intended to minimize the costs to taxpayers. It requires that the Government buy assets, rather than merely cover corporate losses. These assets give the Government an equity stake in the companies it helps--like the stake Warren Buffett just bought in Goldman Sachs. Just like Buffett, taxpayers will profit from increases in these companies' stock prices when the economy recovers.

The bill includes tough new oversight and transparency provisions, including an oversight board appointed by Congress. It provides funding in installments--$250 billion at first; $100 billion after the President certifies that it's necessary; and the final $350 billion only if Congress allows funding to continue. It limits executive compensation and bans so-called ``golden parachutes'' for companies participating in the program.

And, if after 5 years the program has resulted in a loss to the Federal Government, the President must propose a fee on financial services companies to recoup the costs of the program. This means that those whose greed caused the problem will pay for it.

The bill is by no means perfect. Among other things, my preference would have been to include provisions that allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages of primary homes. But as a mother of four and now grandmother of three, I know life requires compromise.

Our action today does not mark the end of America's financial peril. Critical next steps must include substantial reform of the financial regulatory system, a task that will be a priority for a Democratic President and a larger Democratic majority in Congress.

But passage of this bill, I am now convinced, is urgent and necessary to reassure the American people and global financial markets that our economy is secure and major reforms are coming.

Madam Speaker, to many, Hermosa Beach is a beautiful coastal community blessed by perfect weather, endless sun and surf. But few would know that it is home to one of the oldest and strongest international exchange programs in the United States.

It all started in 1967, when the Hermosa Beach City Council established a ``Sister City'' program with the citizens of Loreto, Mexico. Back then, Loreto was a small community on the pristine Baja coast of the Sea of Cortez--famous for sport fishing, whales, cave paintings and colonial missions. Its Spanish mission, founded in 1697, was the first in all of the California's.

Over the past 40 years, the Hermosa Beach Sister City Association (HBSCA) has provided funding and other support for educational and humanitarian programs for Loreto. Among the most notable is the middle school student exchange program. Every spring, Hermosa Beach 7th and 8th grade students travel to Loreto--and vice versa--where they gain language skills, opportunities to learn about a different culture from host families and field trips, and lifetime memories.

The HBSCA also assists the people of Loreto with critical medical care. As recently as 1998, Loreto had no emergency medical treatment facilities. Through a partnership between physicians in Loreto and Hermosa Beach, the HBSCA has been able to provide badly needed medical training and equipment, including paramedic gear and even an ambulance.

Since its inception, Sister City programs have benefited both cities and their citizens. Loreto has become a home away from home for Hermosans, who have in turn helped improve the quality of life for Loretans. One of our Nation's oldest sister city programs shines as a stellar example of the impact global exchange can have on our world.

I congratulate the citizens of Hermosa Beach and Loreto on achieving this impressive milestone.

Madam Speaker, the 36th District is known for more than its pristine beaches and year-round sunshine. We have our fair share of beakers and graduated cylinders, too. It is home to groundbreaking scientific discoveries, many of which come out of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute in Torrance, formerly known as Harbor- UCLA Research & Education Institute. For the past 55 years, this institution has served as the beating heart of the biomedical research community--the modern cholesterol test and the paramedic model for emergency care are familiar inventions that LA BioMed created.

So, the news that Ken Trevett is leaving LA BioMed after 7 distinguished years as its CEO has left all of us with a sense of genuine loss.

LA BioMed owes its standing in the industry in large part to Ken's ability to commercialize its medical successes. His keen business sense helped efficiently convert new medical discoveries into the technologies that have helped thousands of patients. Ken's efforts propelled LA BioMed's profile in the industry, attracting the best researchers and doctors in the country to its laboratories. And its endowment has nearly quadrupled during his tenure.

Ken's success in science and business is matched by his extraordinary community service. He served as a member of the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, South Bay Economic Development Partnership, and the LA Economic Development Corporation, not to mention numerous board memberships at organizations like the American Heart Association. And Ken has taken time to share his expertise and wisdom in classrooms across the South Bay with the next generation of scientists, doctors, and businessmen.

As a member of my ``Medicine Cabinet,'' Ken's voice, though I often rib him about his Boston accent, has played a substantial role in helping shape my decisions on health care policy. His absence will be strongly felt.

I join those whose lives Ken has touched in wishing him and his family continued success at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, TX.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. He is one of the most conscientious Members of this House, and I enjoy being his partner and working together.

Mr. Speaker, there is much to admire and support in this Continuing Appropriations Act. As usual, Chairmen Murtha and Edwards have crafted excellent Defense and MilCon-VA appropriations bills. Disaster relief and

LIHEAP funding are critical to support, and I'm aware of many other efforts by Chairman Obey to make this CR help those in need.

But the act contains two huge flaws which I would like to speak to this morning. First, the homeland security portion of the bill effectively allows some funding for the hastily erected and legally suspect National Applications Office, or NAO. The NAO is intended to make feed from U.S. defense intelligence satellites, our most powerful spy satellites, available to DHS and, in the future, to State and local law enforcement. The specific capabilities of these satellites are classified, but I can say that their ability to capture detailed visual data about activities on the ground is truly stunning.

Before we stand up a new office to turn these powerful satellites toward America, I believe there must be a comprehensive legal framework in place to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. As we speak, that comprehensive framework does not exist.

I agree with the GAO, which recently completed a study of the NAO, and concluded that ``DHS has not fully justified its certification that the NAO complies with applicable laws.'' The GAO says there are significant unresolved legal and policy issues regarding the use of satellite images in law enforcement. There are weak management controls to ensure compliance with the law, and unaddressed privacy and civil liberty concerns.

Second, on a different topic, Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed, as are many of my constituents, that this act allows the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf to lapse. That moratorium has been in place for two decades in Republican and Democratic administrations and Republican and Democratic Congresses.

I know that this lapse is not the favored outcome of many in my party, and I recognize that a new President could reverse it, but that doesn't mean we should signal we are ready even now to impose drilling as close as 3 miles off our coasts when a State does not want that drilling. I am aware that the Republican Governor in my State does not want that drilling.

According to the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration, if we open the entire Outer Continental Shelf for drilling tomorrow, we could expect an increased domestic production of 200,000 barrels of oil per day by 2030. The world consumes around 80 million barrels of oil per day today, and so the impact on oil prices from such a minuscule increase would be, and I quote the Bush administration, ``insignificant.''

And what do we risk for this ``insignificant'' increase in supply? Well, we risk thousands of miles of environmentally sensitive and economically indispensable coastline in California, South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere, and we increase our carbon footprint. These are not risks we should take, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. She is one of the newest Members of Congress, but she is a very active Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, succeeding our late colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, in that position. I want to commend her for her interest in this issue and for all she does for the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach and for Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, which is near her district, surrounded by my district and represented by Ms. Waters who is a coauthor of this legislation.

I rise in strong support of this bill, one that I introduced in the past two Congresses and which, as you heard, has already passed the Senate.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, sitting at a desk trying to memorize a verse or tackle a math problem as jet planes roar overhead every 3 minutes. Let me repeat that. I have been there to see it. Every 3 minutes, a jet plane roars above the little school buildings in Lennox, California, immediately east of LAX.

The children of Lennox, a mostly working-class community, manage amazingly well. I'm enormously proud of the fact that they win educational awards despite studying in classrooms that resemble bunkers. And yet Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, despite the fact that they reached agreement with LAWA, the Los Angeles World Airport Authority, to receive noise mitigation funds, they've been unable to get those funds because of a technical glitch in the law.

That means, Mr. Speaker, that school construction has been stalled in Lennox and in adjacent Inglewood. So we have tried these 3 years to fix that glitch, and that is exactly what this bill will do.

I want to point out--I don't think the bill's manager said this--that this bill does not require the expenditure of new funds. All it does is authorize LAWA to release funds it already has. All it does is provide emergency relief to a lot of kids in a working-class part of Los Angeles who have endured the most onerous conditions while trying to learn.

I want to thank a lot of people for making possible what I hope will be a victory today: First of all, the leadership of the T&I Committee, Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica; Ms. Richardson; my co-author Ms. Waters; and Senators Boxer and Feinstein, all of whom helped get this bipartisan bill on the consent calendar today.

I also want to thank former FAA Administrator Marion Blakley who, while a part of this administration, came to see Lennox, understood what the problems were, and lent her staff to us to help draft this in a way that it would get support from the administration. It has the support of the FAA, it has the support of OMB, it has the support of the Republican side of the aisle; and it's a model, in my view, of the way legislation should be developed and passed in this House.

Finally, I want to thank Congressman David Dreier who made sure that we could get the bill to the floor today. He is not here because just a few days ago his mother unexpectedly passed away. I want to send my sympathy to him and his family at a tough time and note that this bill helps kids just like kids in his Southern California district. This bill does good things for education, and this bill does good things for the reputation of this House.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, but as a Representative of America's most stunning coastline, I do so with some reservations.

There is much to like in this bill. It includes long-sought alternative energy tax credits, which are essential to the continued development of the emerging clean energy industry.

It also requires utility companies to generate more power from renewable energy sources (following the lead of my home State of California), creates a reserve to pay for future research and development of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, and requires the adoption of more energy efficient building codes.

These are all serious, much-needed answers to our energy crisis-- reasoned, carefully crafted, and targeted toward moving us into a new era of clean energy.

That is not, unfortunately, the path pursued in other parts of the bill, particularly those that concern off-shore drilling.

We've heard a lot about drilling these days. ``Drill, baby, drill,'' or so the chant goes. It's a nice pep rally cheer, a clever soundbite. But it's not serious policy, and everybody knows it.

Here are the facts. Oil is traded on a global market, which sets prices based on global supply and global demand.

Given the staggering amounts of oil that the world produces and consumes every day, only a staggering amount of new supply will affect price (particularly given the skyrocketing demand for oil in China, India, and the rest of the developing world).

The amount of oil off the coasts of the United States is very far from staggering. Paltry is more like it.

According to the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration, even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf for drilling tomorrow, it would take years (possibly up to 2030) for that oil to hit the market.

And then, all that drilling would only increase our domestic production by 200,000 barrels of oil per day.

The world consumes around 80 million barrels of oil per day. This new production would be a tiny drop in an ocean of oil.

Even the Bush Administration concedes that the impact on oil prices from such a minuscule increase would be, and I quote, ``insignificant.''

And what do we risk for this ``insignificant'' increase in supply?

A few oil companies will make a little more money. But we'll also put the (mostly) pristine California coastline--an environmentally fragile yet economically indispensible asset--at the mercies of chance, human fallibility, and the ability of new oil rig technology to withstand the inevitable big quake.

That's not a risk that I'm willing to take.

Fortunately I'm not alone. Leadership wisely gave states some discretion. The bill would forbid drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and only allow drilling from 50-100 miles if a state ``opts-in'' (affirmatively passes a law allowing drilling).

I am confident that California is unlikely to ever ``opt-in.''

My strong preference is to retain the moratorium against off-shore drilling, but we don't have the votes to do that. The Democratic Leadership asserts that this compromise is necessary to avoid the calamity of a drilling free-for-all off our coasts. Many in the environmental community and leading newspaper editorial boards in California and around the country concur.

In that case, I can live with it.

I wish we could do better. The American public is engaged. The media is devoting front-page articles to energy issues. We have the chance to make a significant difference in the way our country thinks about and uses energy.

Portions of this bill take big leaps in that direction, and Leadership should be commended for standing by these priorities.

I hope that my three grandchildren will eventually be the beneficiaries of this foresight.

Madam Speaker, today my colleague Mike Rogers of Michigan and I are introducing the House companion to a bill introduced by Senators Burr and Kennedy--the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act.

The bill will provide an important link in the chain of defenses needed to fight the potential threat of bioterrorism.

The bill 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 the list of agents is current and comprehensive.

It encourages the sharing of information with state emergency planning officials, which is vital to ensuring that our 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 substances.

These measures are of vital importance. Over the past several decades we have seen revolutions in technology, economics, and politics that are fundamentally changing the world we live in.

The upside of these developments is obvious. The world is more prosperous, healthy, and interconnected than it has ever been before. But with these revolutions also come challenges.

The same advances in biotechnology that help save lives, can also be used to develop dangerous biological agents and toxins that can take lives.

The new global information infrastructure that is now the backbone of our economy can be used to spread knowledge of how to create and disperse biological weapons.

It is more important than ever that the U.S. government be able to track and control the dangerous materials that can be used to construct these weapons. This bill will help that effort.

In closing, I'd like to say a special word about Senator Kennedy. He has been a legislative hero of mine since my days working as a staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He and Vicki are good friends, and are in my prayers.

Rep. Rogers has amassed an impressive amount of knowledge on this subject, and will play a major role in securing its passage.

Madam Speaker, I applaud my chairman, the bill's sponsors, and the bill's many supporters on a bipartisan basis for bringing such important legislation to the House floor today.

Madam Speaker, this bill is personal for me. Both of my parents are part of the statistics; both of them died from lung cancer from smoking.

As a mother of four and a grandmother of three so far, I am relentless in urging that they and everyone else's kids and grandkids not acquire this horrible addiction.

In California, 138,000 children try a cigarette for the first time each year, and more than one-third of them become regular daily smokers. Some will die as my parents did, slowly and painfully. In my mother's case, though she knew of her dire health prognosis, she never quit smoking.

I think this bill sets the right balance. It's probably as much as we can get through Congress--if we can get it through--at this time, though I would support more and will support more in the future.

The bill reinstates an FDA rule that restricts tobacco marketing and sales to children. In today's consumer culture, children are most vulnerable to attractive marketing campaigns. Tobacco's campaign has been very successful.

The bottom line is we need to put a stop on creating new tobacco users. The bill also requires enhanced labeling of health warnings on product packaging. More effective labeling will better educate the public on the dangerous consequences of tobacco. Given the state of our economy, it is foolhardy to load on health costs that we know--as even the bill's opponents have said--come from those addicted to smoking.

California spends almost $10 billion treating tobacco-related diseases each year. This is critical funding that we need elsewhere.

With the passage of the legislation today, we can prevent this. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, the stories are shocking in their simplicity and brutality: a female military recruit is pinned down at knifepoint and raped repeatedly in her barracks. Though her attackers hid their faces she identified them by their uniforms. They were her fellow soldiers. During a routine gynecological exam, a female soldier is attacked and raped by her military physician. Yet another young soldier, still adapting to life in a war zone, is raped by her commanding officer. Afraid for her standing in her unit, she feels she has nowhere to turn.

These are true stories, and, sadly, not isolated incidents. Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Health Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent of female veterans seen there say they are victims of sexual assault while in the military and 29 percent report being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness, and the downward spirals many of their lives have since taken.

Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show the same sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported--73 percent more than in 2004. The DOD's most recent report, released earlier this summer, indicates that 2,688 reports were made in

2007, but a recent shift from calendar year reporting to fiscal year reporting makes comparisons with data from previous years much more difficult.

The Pentagon has made some efforts to manage this epidemic--most notably in 2005, after the media received anonymous e-mail messages about sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy. The press scrutiny and congressional attention that followed led DOD to create the Sexual Assault and Response Office. Since its inception, SAPRO has initiated training and improved reporting of rapes and sexual assaults but has inexplicably failed to track prosecution rates or how victims are faring within the military structure.

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to the DOD's own statistics, a mere 181 out of 2,212 subjects--or 8 percent-- investigated for sexual assault in 2007 (including 1,259 reports of rape) were referred to courts martial. In nearly half of the cases investigated, the chain of command took no action and in the majority of those that were acted upon, the offenders were assigned administrative or non-judicial punishment. In other words, slaps on the wrist. In more than one-third of the cases that were not pursued, the commander took no action because of ``insufficient evidence.''

This is in stark contrast to the civil justice system, where 40 percent of those arrested for rape are prosecuted, according to the Department of Justice and FBI.

The DOD must close this gap and remove the obstacles to effective investigation and prosecution. Failure to draw bright red lines produces two harmful consequences: it deters victims from reporting rapes and it fails to deter offenders. The absence of rigorous prosecution perpetuates a culture tolerant of sexual assault and rape-- an attitude that says ``boys will be boys.''

The legislation that Mr. Turner and I introduce today calls on the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to end assault and rape in the military--to encourage and increase investigations and prosecutions.

I have raised the issue personally with Defense Secretary Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, and Army Secretary Geren, among others. While they express real concern, thus far the military's response has been underwhelming. The apparent lack of urgency is inexcusable.

Congress can do better too. While these sexual assault statistics are readily available, our oversight has failed to come to grips with the magnitude of the crisis. No doubt the abhorrent and graphic nature of the reports makes people uncomfortable. But this is no excuse for inaction. I applaud the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for holding hearings later this week to shine a light on the failure of existing policies.

Madam Speaker, most of our service women and men are patriotic, courageous and hard-working people who embody the best of what it means to be an American. The failure to stem sexual assault and rape in the military runs counter to those ideals and shames us all.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4806) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a strategy to prevent the over-classification of homeland security and other information and to promote the sharing of unclassified homeland security and other information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to include in the Record an exchange of letters between the distinguished chairmen of the Committees on Homeland Security and Oversight and Government Reform.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2008.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thompson: I am writing about H.R. 4806, the

Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2008, which the Homeland

Security Committee ordered reported to the House on June 26,

2008.

I appreciate your effort to consult with the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform regarding H.R. 4806. In

particular, I appreciate your willingness to work with me to

move a governmentwide over-classification bill, H.R. 6575, to

the House floor so that H.R. 4806 and H.R. 6575 can be

considered during the same week.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 4806

and in recognition of your efforts to address my concerns,

the Oversight Committee will not request a sequential

referral of this bill. I would, however, request your support

for the appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee

should H.R. 4806 or a similar Senate bill be considered in

conference with the Senate.

Notwithstanding the Oversight Committee's agreement to

forgo a sequential referral, I believe it is important to

reiterate my general concern about H.R. 4806 as it applies to

the Department of Homeland Security.

H.R. 4806 creates procedures for the Department to follow

in order to reduce the over-classification of information.

Several

congressional investigations and the 9/11 Commission have

emphasized, however, that over-classification is a

governmentwide problem that requires a governmentwide

solution. Accordingly, I favor an approach that requires all

agencies to follow the same classification protocols and

encourages the sharing of information between agencies and

with the public to the maximum extent possible.

Again, thank you for your efforts to address my concerns

with H.R. 4806. I look forward to working with you to reduce

the significant problem of over-classification throughout the

federal government.

This letter should not be construed as a waiver of the

Oversight Committee's legislative jurisdiction over subjects

addressed in H.R. 4806 that fall within the jurisdiction of

the Oversight Committee.

Please include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Homeland Security Committee Report on H.R. 4806 and in

the Congressional Record during consideration of this

legislation on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Henry Waxman,

Chairman.

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

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

I want to thank Mr. Bilirakis for his generous comments and for his strong support of this legislation. I think this is landmark legislation. I think our committee will get enormous attention for finally trying to attack this insidious problem of overclassification, and I very much appreciate his personal support.

I also want to tell him that I have watched him raise this issue about authorization and appropriation, the need for both actions, by this House. I agree with him. I think we need an authorization of this bill this year. And it is my understanding that all of the individual bills we are debating this afternoon will be included in that authorization bill. So I thank him for pointing out the need for us to act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, of the bills that I am managing on the floor this afternoon, this is the one that I feel most strongly about. This is the one that will make the biggest difference. If we can get classification right at the Department of Homeland Security, a new department, we can then get it right in the rest of the government.

As I mentioned earlier, I am working with Mr. Waxman and others on his committee to see whether we can craft a bill that manages properly all the equities involved in taking this approach governmentwide, but I hope we can work that out. I think this bill sets the right precedent. I urge its passage by the full House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6193) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer policies, procedures, and programs to promote the implementation of the Controlled Unclassified Information Framework applicable to unclassified information that is homeland security information, terrorism information, weapons of mass destruction information and other information within the scope of the information sharing environment established under section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485), and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislation days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to include for the Record an exchange of letters between the distinguished chairmen of the Committees on Homeland Security and Oversight and Government Reform.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2008.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thompson:

I am writing about H.R. 6193, the Improving Public Access

to Documents Act of 2008, which the Homeland Security

Committee ordered reported to the House on June 26, 2008.

I appreciate your effort to consult with the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform regarding H.R. 6193. In

particular, I appreciate your willingness to work with me to

move a govenunentwide pseudo-classification bill, H.R. 6576,

to the House floor so that H.R. 6193 and H.R. 6576 can be

considered during the same week.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 6193,

the Oversight Committee will not request a sequential

referral of this bill. I would, however, request your support

for the appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee

should H.R. 6193 or a similar Senate bill be considered in

conference with the Senate.

Moreover, although the Oversight Committee has agreed to

forgo a sequential referral of this measure, I believe it is

important to reiterate my general concern about H.R. 6193 as

it applies to the Department of Homeland Security.

H.R. 6193 creates procedures for the Department to follow

in order to reduce the proliferation of unnecessary

information classification. This is a commendable goal,

however, investigations by the Oversight Committee have

demonstrated that there has been a proliferation of pseudo-

classification designations such as ``sensitive but

unclassified'' or ``for official use only.'' In my view, any

legislation addressing information control designations

should be implemented on a government-wide basis.

Again, thank you for considering my concerns about H.R.

6193. I look forward to working with you to reduce the

serious problem of pseudo-classification of information

throughout the federal government.

This letter should not be construed as a waiver of the

Oversight Committee's legislative jurisdiction over subjects

addressed in H.R. 6193 that fall within the jurisdiction of

the Oversight Committee.

Please include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Homeland Security Report on H.R. 6193 and in the

Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation

on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers and I am prepared to close once the minority has closed.

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate Mr. Bilirakis' support and the support of the minority members of the Homeland Security Committee and my principal cosponsor of this bill, the ranking member, Mr. Reichert.

It is pretty astounding that there are over 100 ways to block nonclassified information from moving across the Federal Government. With passage of this bill, we will, at least at the Department of Homeland Security, reduce that 100 plus list of poor reasons in many cases to just seven.

Again, I want the commend Ambassador Ted McNamara for his path- breaking work at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and I want to commend the Government Reform and Oversight Committee for a bill that will move under the suspension of rules later today, H.R. 6576, which will take the principles we are debating now with respect to the Department of Homeland Security and apply them government-wide. I think that is very good policy, and we start now, I hope, by passage of this important legislation. I urge an aye vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3815) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make full and efficient use of open source information to develop and disseminate open source homeland security information products, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3815, the Homeland Security Open Source Enhancement Act of 2008, introduced last year by our subcommittee member, Ed Perlmutter, who is, by my lights, though a freshman member, an enormously talented contributor to the work of our subcommittee.

Regrettably, he couldn't be here for this debate this afternoon.

This is an important piece of legislation that will go a long way towards ensuring that the Department offers critical intelligence products that matter to its State, local and tribal partners.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has, at its disposal, nearly limitless amounts of unclassified, open source information and can share it with key stakeholders, regardless of whether those partners have security clearances.

This is crucial because the next attack in the U.S. will not be stopped, as I mentioned earlier, by a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., it will be the cop on the beat who is familiar with the rhythms and nuances of his or her neighborhood who will find out about that attack. An observant police officer somewhere in America will see something or someone out of place and, guided by timely, accurate and actionable and unclassified, open source information, will connect the dots that will unravel that new potential terrorist plot.

The Department, and specifically its Office of Intelligence and Analysis, has pursued a variety of missions without a clear focus. Open source is a case in point.

The Department's open source efforts have lagged far behind the rest of the Federal Government. While the DNI and the CIA have both established programs in this area, DHS, the lead Federal agency responsible for sharing terrorism threat and vulnerability information with State and local law enforcement, has yet to articulate a vision for how it will collect, analyze and disseminate it to stakeholders.

This legislation directs the Department to jump start its open source program and protect the privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans in the process. It will help DHS fill a critical gap in information sharing, and, hopefully, provide its primary customers with timely and actionable information.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close once the minority has closed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I am prepared to close debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am thinking back to those years on the Intelligence Committee, when I would leave classified briefings dissatisfied with the amount of information I was receiving. I would then go out and read my local newspaper or maybe an article that I had saved for airplane reading, and realize that in open sources there was a huge amount of information directly relevant to the problem that had not been organized in a way that I could quickly access it, and that in fact was probably more useful than the classified briefings I received. This happened not one time, not five times, but often.

So the point of Mr. Perlmutter's excellent legislation is to help the Department of Homeland Security, which has primary responsibility for the security of our homeland, make public source information available to those who need it to keep us safe. And those would be our first preventers, police and firefighters in our neighborhoods, and the general public. It sounds obvious, but it doesn't happen. And I appreciate the support of Mr. Bilirakis and the unanimous support of the members of the committee.

Again, I want to commend the bill's principal author, Mr. Perlmutter, for offering this legislation.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6098) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve the financial assistance provided to State, local, and tribal governments for information sharing activities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment Dave Reichert, introduced H.R. 6098 earlier this year, and it was reported unanimously out of our subcommittee and the full committee.

I have to express my personal disappointment that Mr. Reichert is not here for this debate. I know that this is a subject he is passionate about, as am I, as are the first responders, so-called ``first preventers'' who will benefit enormously by its passage.

At issue, Mr. Speaker, is how DHS grant recipients can spend their money when it comes to hiring and retaining intelligence analysts at the State and local levels.

In the 9/11 Act, we were clear, grant recipients could use up to 50 percent of their State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative funding for personnel costs, without time limitations.

The Department of Homeland Security, however, had other ideas. Instead of following the law, it capped allowable personnel costs far below the 50 percent threshold, and it imposed a 2-year limit on how long States could employ intelligence analysts hired with Federal dollars. This has had the absurd result of States and localities firing analysts after 2 years, just to continue to qualify for DHS funding.

Think about this. Someone works for you, is providing excellent, accurate and actionable intelligence analysis that will help us track and prevent the next set of threats, and that person gets fired only because he or she has to be fired in order for money to continue to flow. This makes absolutely no sense.

DHS' approach, likewise, undermines the culture of constitutionality that Congress intended to foster at fusion centers in the 9/11 Act.

Many States and localities want to use DHS grant funds to hire and retain analysts at those centers, which are increasingly becoming the linchpin for information sharing with the Federal Government. To sustain this effort, however, State and locals need money to pay for staff overtime to make fusion centers work, something both Congress and the President, in his National Strategy For Information Sharing, strongly support.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Department's grant guidance ignores this, just as it ignores the stringent privacy and civil liberties training requirements that are the centerpiece of the 9/11 Act's funding provision. By forcing States and localities to fire staff every 2 years in order to access Federal funds, DHS is effectively preventing the ``culture of constitutionality'' from taking root.

When privacy and civil liberties best practices have no time to develop, abuses, like the Maryland State Police's apparent spying on peace protestors and death penalty opponents, are the inevitable result.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6098 fixes these problems by giving States and localities the flexibility they need to hire and retain the staff to keep our communities safe. That is why the bill has been cosponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, and that is why it was approved on a unanimous basis by both our subcommittee and the full Homeland Security Committee last month.

Mr. Speaker, fusion centers, done the right way, are essential for Homeland Security.

I therefore urge passage of this critically important legislation, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side. I am prepared to close debate once the minority has closed.

Mr. Speaker, we have just debated eight bills that come out of the Homeland Security Committee. I think that is a pretty good work product. As I mentioned earlier, four of them, those managed by the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, I think, are excellent policy. They come from a variety of subcommittees. And I want to thank him again, ranking member King and the superb bipartisan staff that has helped move us along. I urge their passage by this House.

The four bills that I have just managed, and that we debated earlier, one of which, hopefully will reduce the pernicious practice of overclassification and selective declassification, a second, which will reduce the ability to put sensitive but unclassified markings on documents, a third which will promote the dissemination of open source information by the Department of Homeland Security, and the fourth, which will end the absurd practice of having to fire people in order to continue to receive Federal funds, all go in one direction. And what is that direction? That direction is to help our first preventers, police and fire services, who know our neighborhoods best, to get critical information in real time about what to look for and what to do.

Without critical information in real time, the cop on the beat could unfortunately miss the plot that is being pursued in the house right in front of him because he or she doesn't know what to look for and what to do.

Each of these bills is designed to get information which the Federal Government may have or which may appear in open source materials to that first preventer in real time. And each of these bills also is designed to reduce and hopefully eliminate the excuses that can cause a Federal bureaucrat to decide that to protect his turf or her turf or to protect himself or herself from embarrassment, to say ``Oh, I will just mark this document `classified' or I will just put an SBU marking on this document and that way the person next door won't get to see it.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong impulse, it's the wrong signal, and with passage of these bills, we send a strong message; and more than that, a strong requirement to the Department of Homeland Security that at least the people who work there cannot, any longer, use or abuse the classification and SBU systems in order to protect themselves.

I'm hopeful that later this afternoon as we debate some additional bills on the suspension calendar, one of the things we will do is to use this principle of limiting the categories for ``sensitive but unclassified'' and take it government-wide. That is legislation that, as I mentioned, has been reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and I believe that will be before us shortly.

I want to say that I endorse that idea. I think it makes sense to reduce the SBU categories across the government. I think we can make DHS the gold standard, but hopefully every department of government that can use those stamps to prevent necessary information from being shared will get the same strong message.

Let me finally say, as one of the co-authors of the Intelligence Reform bill of 2004, that we recognized, when we enacted that bill, that what has been called a ``need-to-know'' culture that has created stovepipes, so-called stovepipes in our government, had to be changed to a ``need-to-share'' culture if we were ever going to be able to connect the dots to prevent the next attack.

Changing a culture from ``need to know'' to ``need to share'' is a very difficult thing to do, but a piece of that is breaking down the ways that individuals prevent information from moving off their desks to the person at the next desk.

And with passage of the four bills we have just debated, I think we send the strongest possible signal. And with passage of legislation that Mr. Waxman, I believe, is going to offer strongly, we continue to send that signal out across the government.

So Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Reichert bill that we have just debated. I urge passage of the four bills that I have been managing during the last hour or so. I call for an ``aye'' vote on the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.