Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I commend him and the ranking member for crafting a very good bill. Many parts of this bill that reflect work we did together in

this committee in years past, and it's wonderful that we will act on it later this afternoon.

With respect to this amendment, I rise in reluctant opposition which I want to explain. I do understand the point that we should not be engaged in political correctness or censorship. I don't think my opposition is based on either of those things.

Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld once wrote a snowflake which asked, Are we capturing and killing them faster than they are rising up against us? The answer was no, and it's still no.

It does matter that we try to win the argument, and not just with the next generation who could become suicide bombers or build the next lethal generation of IEDs, but we win the argument with moderate Muslims, many of whom live in the United States and want to help us.

And their guidance has gone into this guidance, published by the Homeland Security Department, which is that we not use language that inflames.

To the gentleman from Michigan, there is no prohibition in this to quoting the statements of Osama bin Laden and others who use these hateful words. Why would we want to sensor that? The prohibition is directed at ourselves, words that will inflame the very communities we're trying to convince.

I would just close with the observation that if we had thought a little longer about using the phrase ``axis of evil'' we might have, it seems to me, engendered more cooperation on the part of some countries that have, sadly, moved far away from us, and engendered more cooperation on the part of populations which now look at America with disapproval.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Harman-Ehlers amendment, and I'm pleased to be here on the House floor once again with my friend Vern Ehlers to call attention to a looming crisis in our aerospace industrial base.

I represent the heart of the space industrial base and have long called my district the satellite center of the universe. Most of the intelligence satellites built in the United States are built in my district, and that is why it was such an honor to serve for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee and why I'm so proud of the work the committee is doing.

I have always been mindful of the need for a skilled industrial base. Simply put, rocket scientists don't grow on trees.

Earlier this year, on a visit to a major aerospace firm in my district, there was a stark reminder of the crisis facing this industry.

Following a briefing on an important satellite program, I asked if any of the employees in attendance had anything to tell me. A 31-year- old engineer raised his hand and said, ``All my peers are gone.'' Engineers his age, he explained, are leaving the aerospace industry for other fields, and very few are taking their place.

The problem is two-fold. More than 60 percent of aerospace industry workers are over 45, and 26 percent of them are eligible for retirement this year. So the result is a looming demographic cliff that leaves the intelligence community and the industry without the intellectual capital necessary to keep pace with global competitors. There are many reasons for this. Part of it is the training we give kids in secondary school. Part of it is Congress and the Department of Defense, who don't necessarily provide predictable funding streams.

We saw the results of our failure in the 1990s, when we declared a peace dividend, cut our procurement budgets, then tried to do defense procurement and satellite manufacturing on the cheap, and guess what happened? Launch failures, performance problems, and engineers abandoning the industry in droves. We have finally managed to regrow some of these specialties just at a time when, again, because of age and because other careers are more sexy, we may lose these people forever. This will hurt our national security. And this is why our amendment

expresses the sense of Congress that a skilled workforce is essential to the intelligence community's success, and that the Director of National Intelligence should work cooperatively with other government agencies to sustain and expand a diverse workforce.

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to Mr. Ehlers, I would just like to say that so much in the Intelligence bill before us--like multilevel clearances, like very sensible comments on the National Applications Office, like prohibiting the use of contractors for CIA detainee interrogations, like the requirements for more briefings for more Members of the Intelligence Committee--are ideas that were generated some years back when I had the privilege of being ranking member on the committee.

The committee matters. Bipartisanship matters. I want to commend my coauthor for the enormous work he does on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Chairman, in closing debate on this amendment, I would point out that one of the words in it, one of the things we hope to improve is ``diversity'' in the aerospace industrial base. This matters for lots of reasons. First of all, it reaches the whole talent pool in America, which is something we ought to be doing. But second, it matters because, as we've learned, to our detriment, a lot of the people we should be recruiting and retaining in intelligence fields, in aerospace and elsewhere lack the diversity necessary to penetrate the hard targets.

So I would call this a win-win. If America can't produce scientists and engineers to protect our national security, we are at grave risk.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for this amendment. I urge an ``aye'' vote for the underlying bill and salute both the chairman and ranking member for bringing it to the floor on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have often said that the terrorists won't check our party registration before they blow us up. Security has been my focus since coming to Congress seven terms ago. I have served on almost every security committee here, including 8 years on the Intelligence Committee.

Our security policy must not be partisan, and that is why last week's compromise on FISA was so meaningful. And that is why Charlie Black's comments in an upcoming Fortune magazine interview that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil ``certainly would be a big advantage'' to his candidate and that the Bhutto assassination ``helped us'' were so outrageous.

Yes, he and Senator McCain have apologized; and they should have. Another attack here or the assassination of a democratic political party leader anywhere harms all of us.

Seven years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and young kids still want to be suicide bombers. These are tough challenges, and there is no room for reckless talk.

Madam Speaker, my phones are ringing off the hook, and my e-mail accounts are full. By the hundreds and hundreds, my constituents are saying, ``don't cave in,'' ``don't toss due process out the window,'' ``no compromise on our civil liberties'' and ``all surveillance of Americans should require a warrant.'' One of the most powerful, ``The U.S. Constitution has been `marked up.' Don't shred it.''

I agree, now and always. The hard part is deciding whether the FISA compromise before us meets my constituents' requirements and my own.

After reading every word of it, and after many, many hours working to develop and revise portions of it, I conclude that the compromise replaces bad law, the Protect America Act, with law that actually improves many of the provisions of the underlying FISA law which has served our country well for three decades.

Let me highlight three issues.

First, this bill makes clear that no president can ignore it ever again. FISA is the exclusive means by which our government can conduct surveillance. In short, no more warrantless surveillance.

Second, it expands the circumstances for which individual warrants are required, by including Americans outside the U.S., and it protects Americans from so-called reverse targeting.

Third, it requires Federal court review to determine whether communications firms, which assisted in post-9/11 activities, get civil liability protection. If the evidence is inadequate, courts can deny immunity, and immunity does not cover government officials who may have violated the law.

I have lived with FISA up close and personal for many years. I am angry about the way the Bush administration abused it and disrespected Congress. My constituents are right to demand that Congress show courage and stand up for the Constitution. Security and liberty are reinforcing values, not a zero-sum gain. This bill, though imperfect, protects both.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which you have just identified, and I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Harman-Ehlers amendment and the underlying authorizing legislation.

Madam Chairman, I represent the heart of the aerospace industrial base,

and have long called my district the ``satellite center of the universe.''

I have always been mindful of the need for a skilled and diverse industrial base. Simply put, rocket scientists don't grow on trees.

Earlier this year, on a visit to a major aerospace firm in my district there was a stark reminder of the crisis facing that industry. Following a briefing on an important satellite program, I asked if any the employees in attendance had anything else to tell me. A 31-year old engineer raised his hand and said, ``all my peers are gone.'' Engineers his age, he explained, are leaving the aerospace industry for other fields, and very few are interested in taking their place.

The problem is twofold. More than 60 percent of the aerospace industry workers are over 45, and 26 percent of them are eligible for retirement in 2008. And, as a Nation, we have failed to inspire our kids, particularly girls, to go into STEM fields, science, technology, engineering and math.

There just isn't a pool of qualified workers for NASA and others to draw from. The result is a looming demographic cliff that leaves NASA and the industry without the intellectual capital necessary to keep pace with global competitors.

But the problem extends beyond NASA. The United States depends on this industrial base to give us the capabilities on the ground, in the air and in space that are essential to the way we wage war, collect intelligence and protect our homeland. This looming workforce shortfall could cripple not only NASA's ability to reach its goals, it could deal a serious blow to our national and our economic security.

The Harman-Ehlers amendment expresses the sense of Congress that a skilled workforce is essential to NASA's success, and that NASA should work cooperatively with other government agencies to sustain and expand a diverse workforce.

Madam Chairman, almost 50 years ago President Kennedy inspired a whole generation of Americans. American talent and ingenuity put a person on the moon in a decade. We need that kind of ambitious goal to inspire the next generation to be scientists, engineers and astronauts.

If we fail to dream big, to ask our kids to imagine a future beyond our humble planet, they will pursue other fields. There will be no one to invent the technologies and programs on which NASA's success and our national security depend. That future, Madam Chairman, is unacceptable.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the Harman-Ehlers amendment, and would like to thank my coauthor, Vern Ehlers, a senior member of the Science Committee, who did seminal work in this field, is a true leader in this field, and a valued partner.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to yield the balance of my time. I'm inquiring whether I'm the last speaker or Mr. Ehlers is the last speaker.

Madam Chairman, in closing the debate on this amendment, I would just observe that during my first two terms in Congress, in the last century, I served on the Science Committee. It's a great committee. And I commend the current chairman, Mr. Gordon, for enormous leadership. He is fast and swift, and on his game. And this is probably the most important work we will do for our children and grandchildren. And as a grandmother of three, I want one of those children, like Mr. Feeney's wife, to want to be an aerospace worker.

I hope that one of them chooses that occupation. I hope it's there for them.

This amendment, the Harman-Ehlers amendment, is our effort to keep this

potential alive, to make sure that our best and brightest kids want to do this work, and then that hopefully our dreams remain big and putting a person on the moon is just a first step to surveying the heavens in ways we can't even imagine.

So on behalf of dreamers, on behalf of an extraordinary industrial base, much of it in California's 36th Congressional District, and on behalf of three little grandchildren whom I love dearly, I urge an ``aye'' vote for the Harman-Ehlers amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that everyone is rushing to catch a plane, but I thought we could all welcome a little bit of good news; and that is, that one of our colleagues, Kristen Gillibrand, gave birth in the middle of the night to her second son. Mama is doing fine. The son is 7 pounds, 14

ounces; 20 inches long. I think she is the first Member of this House to leave an Armed Services markup to go into labor and deliver a child.

I send her good wishes from all of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that takes a modest but essential step toward solving our Nation's emergency communications crisis.

For over 6 years, I have worked passionately to prevent a tragic repetition of the communications problems that led to the deaths of hundreds of first responders on 9/11--namely, the lack of an interoperable network that would have allowed police and firefighters in the twin towers to communicate with each other. This issue has been one of my highest priorities as a policymaker.

In recent years, Congress has appropriated grant funds for first responder communications and freed 24 MHz of new spectrum for public safety use. But our efforts have fallen short. Police, fire, and emergency medical service agencies across the country still rely on a balkanized patchwork of aging radio systems that hampers interagency coordination and puts lives at risk.

This year is our best chance, and maybe our last chance for years, to change our emergency communications landscape with a single, interoperable network for all of our Nation's brave first responders.

Next February, the DTV transition will free valuable broadcast spectrum in the 700 MHz band. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission designed an innovative auction for a block of this spectrum. The winner of the so-called ``D'' block would be required to build a nationwide, wireless broadband network to serve both commercial and public safety users.

This sensible, market-based approach recognized that public safety agencies are cut off from the advances of the 21st century, plagued by the lack of a national communications platform and chronically short of funding. The FCC envisioned a public-private partnership to provide state-of-the-art technology to public safety users and fund a multi- billion dollar public safety network with private capital.

Unfortunately, the D block failed to attract a winning bid. In the aftermath of that failure, we have learned much about the flaws of the first auction and what we must do to get it right the second time. The FCC is now laying the groundwork for a new auction that I fervently hope will lead to a successful shared network.

Congress should be involved in this process and ensure that the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, the not-for-profit entity representing public safety in this partnership, is an independent and effective voice for first responders.

The legislation I introduce today will start a conversation about how to achieve that goal. It authorizes $4 million--a modest, interim funding stream--to help the FCC establish this new interoperable network and allows the FCC to grant part of these funds to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee to cover its administrative and operational costs.

My legislation includes requirements to ensure transparency and promote vigorous oversight by both Congress and the FCC. It prohibits the Public Safety Broadband Licensee from accepting third-party funds after receiving FCC grants and from using government funding to repay outstanding debts. The bill also mandates strict reporting requirements to the FCC and Congress.

On 9/11, hundreds of firefighters and police officers died at the World Trade Center, in part because of their hopelessly impaired communications systems. Sadly, nearly 7 years later, public safety agencies still struggle with the exact same problem.

The D block auction is our best chance to solve the interoperability crisis that will plague our response to the next natural disaster or terrorist attack. Congress should act now to ensure its success.

Madam Speaker, representing the 36th district of California since 1992 has given me the opportunity to meet many veterans and learn their stories. One special veteran and friend, Ed Foster, has an incredible story--one I would like to share with my colleagues on the eve of his retirement from the Torrance Job Service Office.

Edward Earnest Foster enlisted in the Army at age 19, and served as a medic in the Korean war. As a medic, soldier and veteran, he has touched the lives of countless individuals. He has advanced the cause of veteran's rights throughout the South Bay, and I am not alone in expressing enormous gratitude for all he has done.

Ed received nine medals on his tours of duty in Korea, including a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star with a ``V'' for valor. With the same strength of character that got him those medals, he has fought on behalf of all veterans.

Locally, Ed's contributions have been invaluable. In his post at the State Employment Development Department's Torrance office, he has worked to make sure area veterans find the work and dignity they deserve.

Perhaps his most notable and lasting initiative is the ``Visit a Vet'' program, which promotes visits with veterans at VA hospitals to let them know they are not forgotten and thank them for their service. We should all heed his call of ``let us not just think of our veterans on holidays but do it all year long.''

Ed Foster is a tireless advocate for veterans everywhere, and a wonderfully dedicated man. He represents, to me, what it means to serve one's country for a lifetime. Ed retires this month at the young age of 76. On behalf of the entire community, I say thank you, on behalf of a grateful nation.

Madam Speaker, the Space and Missile System Center, SMC, at L.A. Air Force Base plays the critical role in the design, production, and launch of our country's most sophisticated military satellites. Located in El Segundo, CA, in the center of my congressional district, SMC has enjoyed 58 consecutive successful launches. Employing 6,500 military and civilian personnel nationally, with a whopping $10 billion annual budget--SMC is a major economic driver in southern California.

The importance of SMC to our national security cannot be overstated either. In my many terms in Congress, I've always worked closely with the SMC commander, who is much more than a mission manager. LTG Mike Hamel, the present commander, retires in July, and I rise to honor his extraordinary service.

Mike and I have often talked about America's strategy for space. Framing a new, nationally integrated space policy--one bringing together the civil, military, and commercial sectors--is a common goal of ours. I applaud him for his visionary leadership on this issue--and look forward to more conversations about getting it right.

Mike Hamel has served his country with distinction for 36 years, since receiving his commission as second lieutenant from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1972. In the course of 16 assignments, he rose to the rank of lieutenant general, which he attained on June 1, 2005.

The change of command ceremony occurs May 15, a date Congress is in session. Though I will miss the transfer of command to the very able GEN John Sheridan, I look forward to partnering with him and to welcoming a tanned and relaxed Mike Hamel to Washington after he and his wife, Linda, complete their drive across the country.

Thanks, Mike, on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Madam Speaker, death pulls hard at our heartstrings, whether it comes after a long, full life or one cut tragically short. Rayburn ``Ray'' Knabe lived a life mature in length and rich in contribution.

Ray Knabe embodied the values and ambition of his generation, commonly referred to as the greatest in our Nation's history. His hard work, military service, and the large, loving family that survives him are testaments to a remarkable life.

Born and raised in Mackinaw, Illinois, with his five siblings, Ray marriedLucille Hermann. The couple lived in Illinois, California, and finally Idaho, and produced three children--one of whom, Don, is a dear friend and Los Angeles County supervisor. The couple celebrated their 67th anniversary in November.

Ray served admirably in the United States Navy during World War II.

Ray had a knack for precise craftsmanship, a skill he honed during his career which began at the J.I. Case Tractor Company in Illinois through his tenure at Western Gear Corporation in Southern California, where he ultimately retired. Ray was a registered professional engineer, mason, and member of the American Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

In his later years, Ray finally decided to relax, and dedicated more time to golf, travel, and the occasional trip to the casino with Lucille. Sunday mornings in Idaho were spent at the Eagle Christian Church, where the pews now feel a little emptier.

My heart goes out to Lucille, Don, and the rest of Ray's wonderful family.

Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to serve under Chairman Dingell on the Energy and Commerce Committee and to support this effort to keep the Medicaid safety net intact. That our chairman shepherded this must-pass bill through our committee with unanimous support is testament to his enormous legislative skill and bipartisanship.

Unless we pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, public hospitals and the essential services they provide will be at grave risk. A major public hospital in my district, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, is among them. It is the only level 1 trauma center near top terror targets like LAX and the ports of Long Beach and L.A. In the event of an attack, Harbor would be on the front lines. As a teaching hospital, it helps train the next generation of doctors.

Mr. Speaker, if all seven Medicaid regulations are implemented, Los Angeles County will lose $240 million in annual funding, the equivalent of closing a public hospital like Harbor. Harbor is already overcrowded. It needs more help, not less. It needs to offer more services, not to close. H.R. 5613 will stop these catastrophic cuts, and it deserves our full support.

I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye'' and to join in overriding a White House veto should one occur.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for yielding.

The State of Israel and I are about the same age. And the connection has been deep and constant throughout my life. My late father, a refugee from Nazi Germany, spoke fluent Hebrew and fondly remembered his early visit to Israel, then under British mandate. He returned to Israel many times, though never to his childhood home in Germany.

I, too, make frequent visits to Israel, two in the past year, and am proud of many friendships and recognition as a passionate advocate for the U.S.-Israel security relationship. Many of our joint security programs with Israel, like the Arrow Missile Defense System, continue to be among my highest priorities in Congress. Just a week ago, Mr. Speaker, Congressman Mark Kirk and I urged full sharing of the U.S.- Israel early warning system to protect Israel from the possibility of incoming Iranian missiles.

Sixty years ago, as has been said, President Harry Truman was first to recognize the State of Israel. The United States and Israel have been democratic allies ever since in times of war and fragile peace.

Israel has become a technology and economic powerhouse, a beacon for the Jewish diaspora, a protector of the rights of women and its minority Arab population. And yet, according to an excellent State Department report, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are growing. Most of Israel's neighbors do not recognize her right to exist, and Iran's leader actively threatens to destroy her.

Some of Israel's actions are provocative, to be sure. Halting new settlement construction and easing checkpoints could go a long way to ease tensions. Yet as a recent MiamiHerald.com article points out, a key piece of the Israeli dream remains a mirage. For all their successes, Israelis remain unsure that their country's presence is truly permanent. No other nation on earth faces that fear, and the fear is not unfounded. Israel distributes gas masks and practices bomb shelters drills. This is hardly birthday fare. But 60 years is a milestone and perhaps a miracle.

During Passover week, we retell and celebrate the story of the Jews' exile from Egypt and quest to return to Israel.

That quest continues. Dayenu. Peace remains illusive, but that for sure is what my father would wish and so do I.

My oldest grandchild, Lucy, is 2 today. She, my other two grandchildren, and my four children are never out of my thoughts as I wrestle with what are the right and wise security policies to protect our country.

I served 6 years on the Armed Services Committee, 8 on the Intelligence Committee, and 4 on the Homeland Security Committee where I chair its intelligence subcommittee.

I received so-called ``Gang of Eight'' briefings on the operational details of the terrorist surveillance program from 2003 to 2006, and I regularly receive classified threat briefings.

Some in this Chamber in both parties seek my views on security issues, and I hope my advice is helpful. On the matter before us it is as follows:

First, the world is very dangerous and we need to protect against threats.

Second, actions we take can and must comply fully with the rule of law. FISA has served us well for 30 years. Its framework is still sound.

Third, FISA does need some tweaking, but the technical changes are not controversial.

Fourth, FISA has already provided immunity for telecom firms which follow its provisions. Telecom firms are now protected under FISA.

Fifth, telecom firms are now complying with FISA.

And, sixth, press accounts, especially Monday's story in the Wall Street Journal, make clear there are other programs out there that haven't been told to Congress.

We can't pass retroactive immunity when we don't know what we're talking about.

So happy birthday, Lucy. May you grow up in a country with security and liberty.

Passing the bill before us is a good start.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for the last several years, Congress has been unable to pass an intelligence authorization bill. This means that the Intelligence Committee, entrusted with major responsibilities, a committee on which I was proud to serve for 8 years, 4 of those as ranking member, has been prevented from setting the direction for our intelligence community.

Finally this year, Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate agreed on a responsible bill and included in that responsible bill language to end the so-called ``CIA loophole'' on interrogations. The President has vetoed that bill and continues to insist irresponsibly, in my view, that Congress shall not impose a legal framework around interrogation policy. I strongly disagree and rise to override his veto.

Interrogations are a crucial tool in the effort to prevent and disrupt attacks against America, and Congress should not abdicate our obligation to legislate. Aside from stating the case, the Bush administration has never offered proof that extreme interrogation techniques like waterboarding are effective. I believe Senator John McCain who says that waterboarding is torture, that such techniques do not work.

Article I, section 8 of our Constitution requires Congress to ``regulate captures on land and water.'' This is our responsibility. We have seen the erosion of respect for America that comes from scandals like Abu Ghraib and incarceration without end at Guantanamo Bay. The military and FBI conduct interrogations under clear rules. So why can't the CIA?

Mr. Speaker, my message to the White House is this: Congress is a coequal branch of government. The Constitution plainly gives us the power to legislate interrogation policy, and we must use it.

Vote ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss a short extension of the Protect America Act in order to hammer out a bicameral agreement with the Senate which just passed its bill last night, thousands of intelligence agents are working hard around the world in undisclosed locations, unaccompanied by their families, to prevent and disrupt dangerous threats against our country. Once again, let me say ``thank you'' to them, and let me say that every Member of this Chamber thanks them for their service and prays for their safe return.

This debate is not, as some on the other side want to characterize it, about Democrats wanting to coddle terrorists. We emphatically do not. We want to capture or kill them. It is beyond cynical to suggest otherwise. This debate is not about whether we want court orders for foreign-to-foreign communications between terrorists. We do not. Or whether we are opposed to responsible changes to FISA. We all support responsible changes to FISA.

This debate is about whether the careful framework in FISA, which has lasted three decades while letting us pursue terrorists while protecting constitutional freedoms, will survive.

The bill the Senate passed late yesterday, in my view, is unacceptable. I am mindful that there was a substantial bipartisan majority for it, but some in my party and some in the other party who voted for it tried mightily to improve it and lost. If we have 21 more days, we can consider some of their amendments here and, I would hope, pass them. If we cannot fix the Senate bill, I will oppose it if it comes up for a vote in the House.

Yes, I was one of a small group of Members briefed on the terrorist surveillance program between 2003 and 2006. But those briefings, until the program was publicly disclosed in late 2005, were about operational details only. I never learned that the administration was not following FISA, and I think that was wrong. And that is why for 3 years I have worked my heart out to fashion responsible bipartisan agreement on the need for the terrorist surveillance program to comply fully with FISA. This fall, I urged repeatedly for bipartisan negotiations which, sadly, never happened. It may now be too late, but I am ``go'' for one more try.

I say to the intelligence officers mentioned at the outset of my remarks, to my colleagues, and to the American people, we need to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists, but we must do it within the rule of law. With a clear legal framework, they are empowered to do their job better and from that we will all benefit.

In August, the House was jammed by the Senate into passing ill- advised legislation. I opposed it, and said we did not want to watch the same movie again in 6 months. Well, here we are for the sequel. But this time we must object, and I do object. We can and must do better.