Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which I introduced, along with Representatives Ros-Lehtinen, Crowley and Ferguson. I am proud to stand alongside of them, as well as Chairman Berman and Representative Ackerman, who have been strong leaders on the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, in this historic moment of recognition of these refugees.

I would also like to take a moment to commend the leadership of our late chairman, Tom Lantos, whose leadership on this issue and on all human rights issues has been critical to opening this debate and to recognizing the rights of refugees throughout the world.

This resolution is not just about a forgotten chapter of history. For centuries, long before the advent of Islam and long after it, Jewish communities lived peacefully and often prosperously and productively in Arab lands among Arab people. Their forced relocation and the material value they lost when they were compelled to abandon their homes and other properties in Arab countries has never been redressed. For example, in Iraq, a community of 150,000 in 1948 dwindles to around 10 today. In Egypt, a community of 75,000 in 1945 became between 50 and 100 today. In Yemen and Aden, 63,000 in 1948 became 200 in 2003. 140,000 Jews lived in Tunisia in 1948, less than 100 remained in 2004.

In Morocco, which is hailed today as a bastion of Jewish-Arab coexistence in the Arab world, a thriving community of more than a quarter million Jews lived their lives in peace by 1948; by 2003, only 5,500 remained. Some left willingly, most did not.

While the plight of Palestinian refugees is well known throughout the world and has been a major element in every Arab-Israeli peace plan and negotiation, the plight of these Jewish refugees is rarely mentioned these days. Nevertheless, numerous international agreements pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict have been codified with the rights of the Jewish refugees in mind. U.N. Security Council resolution 242, passed on November 22, 1967, after the Six Day War, calls for a just settlement to the refugee problem without limiting that problem to Palestinians. In fact, the Soviet Union tried to limit that resolution to Palestinians and it was rejected.

Presidents Carter and Clinton stated explicitly that the issue of Jewish refugees must be a part of any comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement. And lest there be any doubt about this status, the U.N. High Commission on Refugees in 1957 ruled that Jewish people that fled Arab countries were, indeed, ``refugees.''

This principle is reaffirmed in the Camp David Accords and in the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. The treaty states, ``The parties agree to establish a Claims Committee for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.'' And it also states, ``Jewish refugees have the same rights as others do.''

These Jewish refugees, Madam Speaker, were expelled systematically under official regime policies, which included state-fostered anti- Jewish decrees, pogroms, murders and hangings, anti-Semitic incitement and ethnic cleansing. They were done in accordance with an Arab League 1947 decree that provided a formula to promote state-sanctioned discriminatory measures that were replicated in many Arab countries in a deliberate campaign to expel the entire Jewish population from their home countries. And unlike the Palestinians, the Jewish refugees, having been expelled from the Arab countries, were absorbed into their host countries, mostly by Israel. About 600,000 refugees went to Israel, and the remaining 300,000 fled to other countries, such as France, Canada, Italy and the United States. In Israel today, the majority of the population consists of Jews from Arab countries and their children and grandchildren.

The right of Jewish refugees from Middle Eastern lands to seek redress does not in any way conflict with the rights of Palestinian refugees to seek redress, and resolution states this explicitly. This resolution merely expresses the sense of Congress that Jewish refugees, many of whom were so effectively absorbed by the State of Israel, should not be denied their legitimate rights and compensation for the property of which they were deprived.

The resolution further states that a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement can be credible and enduring only if it achieves legitimate rights of all refugees, ``including Jews, Christians and other populations'' displaced from Middle East countries. Importantly, it also resolves that the President should instruct the U.S. Representative at the U.N. and all U.S. representatives in bilateral and multilateral fora to use their voice, their vote and the influence of the United States to ensure that any resolutions relating to the issue of Middle East refugees which include a reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue must also include a similarly explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and to make clear that the United States Government supports the position that as an integral part of any comprehensive and much to be desired Arab-Israeli peace, the issue of refugees from the Middle East, north Africa and the Persian Gulf must be resolved in a manner that includes recognition of the legitimate rights of and losses incurred by all refugees displaced from Arab countries, including Jews, Christians and other groups.

There is broad bipartisan support for this resolution, which was passed with unanimous consent from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Many Jewish groups have endorsed the resolution, including the American Jewish Committee, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Hadassah, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Orthodox Union, among others. I must particularly acknowledge the work of B'nai B'rith International and the strong leadership of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, which has led the International Rights and Redress Campaign. As of September 2007, this coalition to secure the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab lands includes 72 organizations and 20 countries.

It is important to deal with this issue now while some of the original refugees are still alive. Justice for Jews from Arab Countries has organized a campaign to conduct public education programs on the heritage and rights of former Jewish refugees from Arab countries, to register family history narratives, and to catalogue communal and individual losses suffered by Jews who fled from Arab countries.

By adopting this resolution and urging that the rights of Jewish refugees be recognized in any future comprehensive Middle East settlement, we are simply seeking to ensure that any such agreement is just, fully just to all parties. As a member of the Quartet, and in light of the United States' central and indispensable role in promoting a just Middle East peace, the U.S. must reaffirm that it embraces a just and comprehensive approach to the issue of Middle East refugees. I urge strong report for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1312, the Arts Require Timely

Service Act, or the ARTS Act, and I thank Congressman Berman and Chairman Conyers for their leadership on this important issue.

Under immigration law, foreign artists or groups must obtain a visa in order to perform in America. However, over the last few years, this process has been severely delayed, leading some nonprofits to stop planning events that include foreign artists altogether. These delays not only impact the immediate availability of foreign artists to perform alongside American artists, but also threaten to impede the ability of U.S. artists to perform abroad.

The ARTS Act would address these delays by requiring the Government to expedite--without any additional fees--visas for foreign artists that are not processed within 30 days of filing, if the visa petition is filed on behalf of a qualified nonprofit organization.

The ARTS Act will help end the delays and uncertainties in the processing of visa petitions for foreign guest artists coming to the United States.

America is a great land of opportunity for artists, and in my district, this is particularly true. New York City prides itself as being an international center for the arts, yet the current system is failing it. It is becoming increasingly difficult for too many foreign artists to come to America to perform. Foreign artists bring to America their own unique artistic abilities, and every time they are essentially prevented from performing in America, we do a disservice to the arts and to ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, the last few weeks, the last few minutes we have heard assertions from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are false and designed to mislead and frighten the American people. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire, that we are dark for 27 days.

Ken Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and the Bush administration admitted that because of the provisions of the group warrants in the Protect America Act that had gone on for a year, didn't change anything. It is still in effect, number one.

Number two, we forget, this House passed a FISA updating modernization bill in November, on November 14. We called it the RESTORE Act. We waited for the Senate to pass a bill so we could go to conference and compromise on it. When did they pass a bill? Not in November, not in December, not in January. Because of Republican foot- dragging, they didn't pass the bill until February, mid-February, three months after we passed the bill here, and two days before we went home for a week for the Presidents Day recess.

The President came out and said it's up to the House to pass the Senate bill, no questions asked. But there are a lot of questions about the Senate bill. Maybe our bill isn't perfect, but their bill is far from perfect, and our bill is closer to perfect than theirs.

So then we said, well, if you don't want, because catastrophe will happen, according to the President and the Republicans if we go home without passing the Senate bill, we will extend the Protect America Act for 3 weeks until we can come back and deal with this. Who voted it down? The Republicans. They said, no, don't extend it. The President said he would veto an extension.

So let's not hear any remarks on this floor from that side about how we are dark because the act expired. It expired because they made it expire. They voted against a 21-day extension that we could have renewed if necessary until we got this all figured out. So let's not hear any less-than-honest assertions about we are dark and we are unprotected and it is the Democrats' fault.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very good bill here. It gives the intelligence community every single tool they need and

every tool they say they need. How does it differ from the Senate bill? In two ways. One, it provides for some closer judicial supervision, because while we are giving the intelligence community the tools they need to wiretap on American citizens, on people who are not American citizens, we have to make sure that our constitutional rights and liberties are protected so that this country, which we have all defended, and we all want to defend, remains worthy of being defended by defending our own liberties.

Remember why we enacted protections in the first place, because the administration at the time wiretapped Martin Luther King. We don't want that to happen again by a future administration. And so we must protect our civil liberties.

We are told that telecom companies, if we don't provide retroactive immunity, they won't cooperate in the future, we won't get their help. Number one, that is an aspersion on their patriotism. Number two, they can be compelled to do so under court order. And number three, they have always had immunity. They have it now. All they have to do to have immunity is to have a request from the administration that says: A, we need your help; B, you are not violating the law if you do what we ask; and C, you don't need a court order. If they get that request, whether those assertions are true or not, as long as the administration says we need your help, what we are asking you to do won't violate the law, and you don't need a court order, they are absolutely immune. And they have always had this immunity.

So why do they need retroactive immunity, they say because the administration won't permit them to go to court and say we were asked for help, we gave that help. We have this request and we got the legal assurances because the administration won't let that go to court because it says it will violate State secrets.

So what does our bill do? It says you can go to court under secret procedures to protect the security of the State secrets, but you can assert your defense in court and get the case thrown out if you at least got the assurance by the administration in advance, which is all the law required. If you didn't get that, then you have no respect for the privacy rights of Americans and you don't deserve immunity. Even if we gave retroactive immunity for the future to the telecom company that helped us next week, they still have the same requirements for immunity. And if they wanted to go to court to assert them if someone sued them, they would still have to go to court and say the same thing. So you are dealing with a one-time fix.

Retroactive immunity takes it out of the courts and says Congress shall say to American citizens you're wrong, you can't protect your constitutional rights in court, you're right. That is a duty for the courts, not for Congress. That is the basis of the protections of all of our rights. The Senate bill goes the wrong way. We protect the telecom companies and protect our liberties. It is the right way to go. I urge adoption of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this carefully crafted legislation which gives our intelligence agencies all the tools they say they need to protect our country while protecting our fundamental civil liberties.

In the last few weeks, we have heard countless assertions from our colleagues on the other side that are false and misleading. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire, when it was the Republicans who blocked attempts to extend that bill temporarily, and they continue to claim that retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is necessary for the security of the country.

The telecom companies aided the administration's surveillance program. Some people, American citizens, believe their constitutional rights were violated and brought a lawsuit against the government and telecom companies.

There are two narratives here. One is that these companies patriotically aided the administration to protect Americans from terrorists. The other is that they conspired with a lawless administration to violate the constitutional rights of Americans. Which of these narratives is right is for a court to decide. It is not the role of Congress to decide legal cases between private parties. That is why we have courts.

We had told the telecom companies they would not be subject to lawsuits for doing their duty. But whether they were doing their duty or abusing the rights of Americans is precisely the issue.

In any event, the existing law already provides absolute immunity if their help was requested and if they were given a statement by the Attorney General or various other government officials stating that the requested help did not require a warrant or court order and would not break the law. They have immunity. Whether those statements are true or not, they can rely absolutely on the government's assertions.

So why do they think they need retroactive immunity? Because of the administration's sweeping assertion of the State secrets doctrine, will has prevented the companies from claiming their immunity.

This bill allows the telecom companies in secret in court to present the evidence for their immunity and to get their immunity, if they obeyed the law. And I remind that obeying the law means simply obtaining a statement from the government that the company's help is needed and that the requested help does not require a court order or violated the law. A company that assisted in spying on its customers without getting that simple assurance from the government does not deserve immunity. And even if we voted retroactive immunity, they would still have to prove that immunity for what they do next week in the same way, and they would have the same problem.

So, by solving the State secrets problem, we give the companies the immunity they need, if they need it, and if they obeyed the law. This still gives our intelligence agencies what they need. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3733, the FISA Amendments Act. This carefully crafted legislation gives our intelligence agencies all the tools they say they need to protect our country, while protecting our fundamental civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what this legislation does not do. It does not require individual warrants for the targeting of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. For three decades, that has been the law, and it will still be the law under this bill. There is no dispute about this.

The bill starts with the recognition that the intelligence community needs to surveil all members of a terrorist group--once that group is identified. Any suggestion that it requires individualized warrants to intercept communications of terrorists overseas is wrong.

The bill maintains the traditional requirement of a warrant when our intelligence agencies seek to conduct surveillance on Americans. And because some foreign surveillance may record conversations with Americans, the bill requires that, when the Government proposes to undertake surveillance of a foreign group or entity, it must first apply to the FISA court, except that, in an emergency, the surveillance can begin immediately, and the court can consider the surveillance procedures later.

In both this bill and the Senate bill, the government must inform the court of the procedures it will use to ensure that it is targeting only foreigners overseas and how it will ``minimize'' domestic information it might inadvertently pick up. The only real difference is that the Senate bill lets them listen first, then go to the court within 5 days. This bill requires that they go to the FISA Court first. But in an emergency, we give them 7 days to listen before they go to the court. So will someone please tell me how this minor difference between the bills somehow gives rights to terrorist?

There is one thing that this bill does not do, and this great body must not do--provide blanket, retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies that assisted in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Such a move would fly in the face of our notions of justice.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have heard countless assertions from our colleagues on the other side that are false and

misleading. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire--when it was the Republicans who blocked attempts to extend that legislation temporarily. And they continue to claim that retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is necessary for the security of the country. But they have failed to provide any evidence for that claim.

The telecom companies aided the Administration's surveillance program. Some people--American citizens--believe their constitutional rights were violated, and brought suit against the government and the telecom companies. There are two narratives here. One is that the telecom companies patriotically aided the Administration in protecting Americans from terrorists. The other is that the telecom companies conspired with a lawless Administration to violate the Constitutional rights of Americans. Which of these narratives is correct is for a court to decide.

It is not the role of Congress to decide legal cases between private parties. That is why we have courts. If the claims are not meritorious, the courts will throw them out. But if the claims do have merit, we have no right to dismiss them without even reviewing the evidence.

We are told that the telecom companies should not be subject to lawsuits for doing their duty. But whether they were doing their duty, or abusing the rights of Americans, is precisely the issue. And that is a legal issue for the courts to decide.

In any event, the existing law, in a wise balance of national security and constitutional rights that this bill does not change, already provides absolute immunity to the telecom companies if their help was requested, and if they were given a statement by the Attorney General, or by various other government officials, stating that the requested help did not require a warrant or court order and would not break the law. They have immunity whether those statements were true or not. They can rely absolutely on the government's assertions.

So why do they think they need retroactive immunity? Because of the Administration's sweeping assertion of the ``state secrets'' doctrine, which has prevented the companies from claiming their immunity.

Title II of this bill will allow the telecoms to show the courts, in a secure setting, if they were obeying the law or if they weren't. It will allow the telecom companies to assert their immunity in court, and to present the relevant documents and evidence to the court in a secret session that protects any ``state secrets.'' The courts can then judge whether the telecom company obeyed the law--in which case it has complete immunity--or whether it did not. And, I remind you, that ``obeying the law'' means simply obtaining a statement from the government that the company's help is needed, and that the requested help does not require a court order or violate the law. A company that assisted in spying on its customers without getting that simple assurance does not deserve immunity.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives our intelligence agencies what they say they need. But it also demands that their extraordinary powers be used properly, and that they follow our laws and our Constitution. This bill will help limit this Administration's disregard for the rule of law. It is a carefully crafted measure, and deserves the support of every member in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act. This carefully crafted legislation gives our intelligence agencies all the tools they need to protect our country, while protecting our fundamental civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what this legislation does not do. It does not require individual warrants for the targeting of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. For three decades, that has been the law, and it will still be the law under this bill. There is no dispute about this.

The bill starts with the recognition that the intelligence community needs to surveil all members of a terrorist group--once that group is identified. Any suggestion that it requires individualized warrants to intercept communications of terrorists overseas is wrong.

The bill maintains the traditional requirement of a warrant when our intelligence agencies seek to conduct surveillance on Americans. And because some foreign surveillance may record conversations with Americans, the bill requires that, when the Government proposes to undertake surveillance of a foreign group or entity, it must first apply to the FISA court, except that, in an emergency, the surveillance can begin immediately, and the court can consider the surveillance procedures later.

In both this bill and the Senate bill, the Government has to inform the court of the procedures it will use to ensure that it is targeting only foreigners overseas and how it will ``minimize'' domestic information it might inadvertently pick up. The only real difference is that the Senate bill lets them listen first, then go to the court within 5 days. This bill requires that they go to the FISA Court first. But in an emergency, we give them 7 days to listen before they go to the court. So will someone please tell me how this minor difference between the bills somehow gives rights to terrorists?

There is one thing that this bill does not do, and this great body must not do--provide blanket, retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies that assisted in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Such a move would fly in the face of our notions of justice.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have heard countless assertions from our colleagues on the other side that are false and misleading. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire--when it was the Republicans who blocked attempts to extend that legislation temporarily. And they continue to claim that retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is necessary for the security of the country. But they have failed to provide any evidence for that claim.

The telecom companies aided the Administration's surveillance program. Some people--American citizens--believe their constitutional rights were violated, and brought suit against the government and the telecom companies. There are two narratives here. One is that the telecom companies patriotically aided the Administration in protecting Americans from terrorists. The other is that the telecom companies conspired with a lawless Administration to violate the Constitutional rights of Americans. Which of these narratives is correct is for a court to decide.

It is not the role of Congress to decide legal cases between private parties. That is why we have courts. If the claims are not meritorious, the courts will throw them out. But if the claims do have merit, we have no right to dismiss them without even reviewing the evidence.

We are told that the telecom companies should not be subject to lawsuits for doing their duty. But whether they were doing their duty, or abusing the rights of Americans, is precisely the issue. And that is a legal issue for the courts to decide.

In any event, the existing law, in a wise balance of national security and constitutional rights that this bill does not change, already provides absolute immunity to the telecom companies if their help was requested, and if they were given a statement by the Attorney General, or various other government officials, stating that the requested help did not require a warrant or court order and would not break the law. They have immunity whether those statements were true or not. They can rely absolutely on the government's assertions.

So why do they think they need retroactive immunity? Because of the Administration's sweeping assertion of the ``state secrets'' doctrine, which has prevented the companies from claiming their immunity.

Title II of this bill will allow the telecoms to show the courts, in a secure setting, if they were obeying the law or if they weren't. It will allow the telecom companies to assert their immunity in court, and to present the relevant documents and evidence to the court in a secret session that protects any ``state secrets.'' The courts can then judge whether the telecom company obeyed the law--in which case it has complete immunity--or whether it did not. And, I remind you, that ``following the law'' means simply obtaining a statement from the government that the company's help is needed, and that the requested help does not require a court order or violate the law. A company that assisted in spying on its customers without getting that simple assurance does not deserve immunity.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives our intelligence agencies what they say they need. But it also demands that their extraordinary powers be used properly, and that they follow our laws and our Constitution. This bill will help limit this Administration's disregard for the rule of law. It is a carefully crafted measure, and deserves the support of every member in this body.

Madam Speaker, the state secrets privilege is a common law doctrine that allows the Government to protect sensitive national security information from harmful disclosure in litigation.

This privilege was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1953 case of U.S. v. Reynolds, a case brought by the widows of three civilian engineers against the U.S. Government for negligence in a military airplane crash. The Government refused to produce an accident report of the crash, claiming that disclosure of the report would reveal secret military information harmful to national security. The Court accepted the Government's state secret claim and allowed the Government to withhold the report without ever reviewing it. When the report was discovered through an internet search 50 years later, it did not reveal any secret military information but, instead, showed the Government's negligence in the crash.

Unfortunately, Reynolds is not the only instance where the secrecy claims have been abused. Exaggerated claims of national security were made in an effort to conceal information about U.S. conduct in Vietnam and the bombing of Cambodia in the ``Pentagon Papers'' case and to prevent prosecution for the unlawful sale of arms to Iran and the funneling of proceeds from those sales to the Nicaraguan Contras. In the ``Pentagon Papers'' case, N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, Solicitor General Griswold warned the Supreme Court that publication of the information would pose a ``grave and immediate danger to the security of the United States.'' Eighteen years later, he acknowledged that he had never seen ``any trace of a threat to the national security'' from publication of the information and that ``there is very rarely any real risk to current national security from the publication of facts relating to transactions in the past, even the fairly recent past.''

What these examples teach is that when a government is allowed to escape accountability by hiding behind unexamined claims of national security, it often will, making judicial oversight of state secrets privilege claim critical to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, in the years following Reynolds, courts have proven reluctant to test Government claims of secrecy, often failing to examine evidence independently and accepting the Government's secrecy claim at face value.

Concerns about the lack of judicial oversight of the state secrets privilege have increased as the current administration has responded to cases challenging the most troubling aspects of its `` war on terror''--including rendition, torture, and warrantless wiretapping-- with blanket claims that these cases must be dismissed outright, before any discovery can proceed. As a result, injured plaintiffs have been denied justice and the courts have failed to address fundamental questions of constitutional rights. Take, for example, the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen who was kidnapped, rendered to a CIA black site, and tortured before the administration realized that it had the wrong man. There is extensive public evidence supporting Mr. El- Masri's case, including a Council of Europe report verifying the accuracy of Mr. El-Masri's claims and the administration's public disclosure and defense of the rendition and interrogation of terror suspects as a valuable tool in its ``war on terror.'' Yet the administration successfully argued that Mr. El-Masri's case should be dismissed before any discovery could occur based on the state secret privilege.

The transformation of a governmental privilege to withhold specific items of evidence into a claim of absolute immunity, and the overall lack of consistency in how courts handle state secret claims, requires Congressional reform. In 1980, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act--known as CIPA--to provide courts with clear statutory guidance on handling secret evidence in criminal cases. Congress also authorized courts to review and rule upon sensitive materials under the Freedom of Information Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. For the past several decades, courts have effectively and safely applied these laws--under the procedures and standards articulated by Congress--to protect sensitive information while also respecting the rule of law and providing fairness and justice to litigants.

It is time to enact procedures and standards for civil cases similar to those that we already have provided for criminal cases. Many have called for this reform, including the American Bar Association, which recently issued a report calling upon Congress to enact procedures and standards that promote meaningful, independent judicial review and ``bring uniformity to a significant issue on which courts have adopted divergent approaches.'' The bipartisan Constitution Project has similarly urged us to ``craft statutory language to clarify that judges, not the executive branch, have the final say about whether disputed evidence is subject to the state secret privilege,'' reminding us that ``reforms are critical to ensure the independence of our judiciary and to provide a necessary check on executive power.''

In a recent hearing held by the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, which I chair, experts like retired Federal judges Patricia Wald and William Webster supported legislative efforts to require independent judicial review. According to Judge Webster:

``As a former Director of the FBI and Director of the CIA, I fully understand and support our government's need to protect sensitive national security information. However, as a former federal judge, I can also confirm that judges can and should be trusted with sensitive information and that they are fully competent to perform an independent review of executive branch assertions of the state secrets privilege. Judges are well-qualified to review evidence purportedly subject to the privilege and make appropriate decisions as to whether disclosure of such information is likely to harm our national security.''

The State Secret Protection Act of 2008 provides much-needed reform by establishing rules and standards for determining state secret privilege claims. The act will strengthen national security by ensuring that legitimate secrets are protected from harmful disclosure, and it will strengthen the rule of law by preventing abuse of the privilege and maximizing the ability of litigants to achieve justice in court.

Modeled on CIPA, but adjusted for civil litigation, the State Secret Protection Act provides for secure judicial proceedings and other safeguards to protect valid state secrets. Under the act, a judge may not blindly rely upon assertions of secrecy and harm contained in an official's affidavit. Judges must review the information that the Government seeks to protect, along with any other evidence or argument relevant to the claim, to determine whether the harm identified by the Government is reasonably likely to occur. Where this standard is met, a judge may not order disclosure of the information. The judge must, however, consider whether a non-privileged substitute can be created that would allow the litigation to continue.

If a substitute is possible--for example, a redacted version of a document or a summary of the information--the government has the choice of producing the substitute or having the court resolve the issue to which the evidence is relevant against it, as happens in CIPA. Where there is no possible substitute, the judge may issue appropriate orders, including dismissing a claim or finding for or against a party on a factual or legal issue. The act allows the Government to raise a claim of privilege to avoid answering allegations in a complaint but prevents premature dismissal of claims before all issues of privilege are resolved and the parties have the opportunity to conduct non- privileged discovery.

Through these procedures and standards, the act allows parties the opportunity to make a preliminary case and provides courts with the flexibility to craft solutions that protect valid state secrets from harmful and serve the interests of justice. Congress has clear constitutional authority to establish rules of procedure and evidence for the courts, and reform of the state secrets privilege in civil litigation is long overdue. I urge all of you, my colleagues in the House, to join us in this important effort.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I joined my colleagues in writing to the President urging him to sign this conference report. This conference report contains a provision that mirrors legislation which I authored with Congressman Delahunt, the American Anti-Torture Act, that would ensure a single, uniform baseline standard for all interrogations conducted by the U.S. intelligence community. I applaud the leadership of Senator Feinstein and the other conferees for including this measure in the report.

Since news of the mistreatment, and possible torture, of detainees in U.S. custody first surfaced, Congress has debated, and legislated, on the subject of the legal, and moral, limits on interrogation. Torture is unworthy of the United States and its people. It places every American, especially every American in uniform around the world, at grave risk.

The United States has historically been a leader in the effort to establish and enforce the laws of war and the conventions against torture. The Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our modern military effectively gathers intelligence and observes international norms of conduct.

We all understand the critical role that intelligence plays in helping us achieve these goals. But torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, besides being contrary to our values, have proven not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Current and former members of the military have made it clear that torture doesn't work.

That includes General Petraeus, who wrote an open letter that the standards in the Army Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'' Lieutenant General Kimmons, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, similarly stated that ``No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under, through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility.''

Mr. Speaker, the President and this administration have repeatedly said that America does not torture. But most intelligent people know the word of this administration cannot be trusted. And to prove the point, when asked to place those assurances into law, the

President refuses. Now Congress must act to override the President's veto and hold him to his word.

And later this week, we will deal with FISA. And all the nonsense spewed by the other side will be dealt with because we will again, as we did last November, pass a bill which will give every tool the administration says they need to them but will place it under judicial and congressional supervision to protect our liberties as well as our safety.

I urge support of this veto override to outlaw torture once and for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the contempt resolutions. Unfortunately, these resolutions are necessary for Congress to meet its Constitutional obligations and conduct oversight and investigations. We provided many opportunities for the administration to avoid this situation. But here we are.

We are here today to consider issuing contempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten for their failure even to appear in response to valid subpoenas issued in our investigation of the firings of a number of United States Attorneys and related matters concerning the politicization of the Justice Department. We issued these subpoenas only after repeated unsuccessful attempts to secure their cooperation voluntarily.

It is one thing to assert a legal privilege; but no one has a legal right simply to refuse to appear at all.

This investigation seeks answers to ensure that the American people can trust the Justice Department to be guided by the law and not by political obligations or pressures.

This resolution is about the rule of law. We are taught about a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses, but this Executive has shown that it thinks the rules do not apply to it. This sets a dangerous precedent for our democracy. Our system of government works only when each branch respects the authority and role of the others, and follows the rule of law.

For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of the rule of law, and for the sake of our Constitution, I urge my colleagues to support the resolutions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5349, a 21-day extension of the existing FISA Act to provide Congress the time to work out the differences between the two Houses on this very important matter. It is a question of our Nation's security and it is a question of our Nation's values. We should not be stampeded into action when there is no need. This administration has the ability to monitor terrorists, and extending current law for 21 days will not remove that ability.

What this debate is really about is whether national security wiretapping should be subject to judicial and congressional oversight, as the bill that we passed last November, the RESTORE Act, provides and as traditional American values insist on, or whether the administration, any administration, can be trusted to police itself, whether American citizens' liberty should be subject to the unreviewable discretion of the Executive as the Protect America Act and the Senate-passed bill provide.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of this resolution. Like all of my colleagues, I was deeply saddened to learn that our good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California, Tom Lantos, had passed away. And he was our good friend, unfailingly courteous and kind and helpful to all.

Tom has left an inspiring legacy, and his passing is a great loss to our country and to the entire world. Throughout his life, Tom devoted himself to human rights and to the cause of persecuted racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. As a survivor of the Holocaust, and the only survivor ever to serve in Congress, he had seen firsthand real evil, and he became a tireless advocate for human rights.

As a youth, he was a member of the anti-Nazi underground, and his life's work was built on opposing anti-Semitism and all forms of racism and oppression and attempted genocide, and on supporting Israel, the country that emerged as the haven for the survivors and refugees from the Holocaust.

Congressman Lantos once said, ``I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.'' But it is this Nation that will never be able to express adequately its gratitude to this great man. His life and devotion to human rights should serve as an inspiration to us all.

My thoughts and prayers, our thoughts and prayers, and those of a grateful Nation, are with Annette and with the rest of Tom's family and friends during this sad time. And in this hour of bereavement, as we mourn the loss of this great man, what can we finally say other than to thank God for Tom's life and work, and to repeat that ancient refrain, ``The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.''

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to affirm America's values and our respect for the rule of law. This bill includes language drawn from the American Anti-Torture Act, introduced by myself and Representative Delahunt, that would extend the interrogation standards in the U.S. Army Field Manual to all interrogations conducted on persons in the custody or effective control of any element of the intelligence community. This will ensure a single, uniform baseline standard for interrogations. That means no more torture, no more waterboarding, no more clever word play, no more evasive answers, no more dishonesty.

People in nations do terrible things in war, but civilized nations long ago recognized that there must be limits on their conduct even during military conflict. Our Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of a modern military dedicated to observing international norms of conduct while waging war effectively. It is a credit to our men and women in uniform that they continue to abide by these rules. It is unforgivable that some civilians here in Washington seem to think that they know better and we must be more brutal than our military and professional interrogators.

I understand the critical role that intelligence plays in protecting ourselves, but torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, besides being contrary to American values and traditions, have proven not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence.

Current and former members of the military have made this clear. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, recently wrote in an open letter to U.S. troops that the standards in the Army Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''

Lieutenant General Kimmons, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence similarly stated ``no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility.''

The Bush administration has long argued that it does not torture but it does waterboard. And we prosecuted, we sent to jail Japanese officers for waterboarding prisoners after World

War II. We knew then that waterboarding was torture, and despite statements from the Bush administration or the nonstatements, we know now that it is torture. Torture places our servicemen and women and our allies at grave risk. We must accept that whatever we authorize and use against our enemies will be turned against our own men and women.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore the honor of the United States. It is time to restore the good name of the United States in a world that has been so sullied by the conduct of this administration. It is time to compel the administration to act in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

I applaud the leadership of the conferees in including the antitorture language in this bill. I urge support for the conference report. I hope this will begin the process of restoring the honor and the integrity of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007.

This bill delivers on the promise of the 13th amendment by creating tough new enforcement tools to punish exploitation, whether by unscrupulous labor recruiters, diplomats who abuse their servants, or brutal pimps.

It provides resources so that nongovernmental organizations, Federal and local law enforcement, and the faith community can work together to liberate victims and bring their traffickers to justice.

It will protect victims of modern slavery in the United States and provide foreign aid and diplomatic tools to combat modern slavery overseas as well.

In many ways, the fight against modern slavery began in New York City in the mid-1990s. There was the infamous ``Bowery Brothel'' case in which Thai women were held in prostitution and literally chained to their beds. And there were the so-called ``Deaf Mexican'' trinket peddlers who were enslaved under our own eyes, unable to ask for help as they were forced to beg on the subways.

Since then, criminal civil rights investigators have uncovered examples of enslavement across the country, including many in the New York City area.

Recently, we have seen the liberation of Honduran women who were forced to drink and dance with clients in dance halls in New Jersey; Peruvian families freed from enslavement by a labor recruiter on Long Island; and the rescue of young American women from a street pimp in Connecticut. All of their traffickers have been convicted and imprisoned because they violated the Constitution prohibition against involuntary servitude and slavery.

More than a century after the abolition of slavery, we would expect slavery to be a closed chapter in our Nation's history. But, unfortunately, it is not. The Constitution promises to end the suffering of all those who have been held in bondage. As a country, we owe it to the victims of modern-day slavery never to stop fighting for their freedom.

This bill, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, renews our commitment to fulfilling the promise of the 13th amendment by providing new enforcement tools and more resources to remove the stain of modern-day slavery from our Nation.

I urge its adoption and thank the chairman of the committee and Mr. Smith who was involved in developing the 2000 act and in developing this act, and I urge its adoption.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation restores the proper role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the maintenance of our national security infrastructure. Let's get the terms of this debate clear before we begin. Anyone who can read will see that this bill does not inhibit the government's ability to spy on terrorists or on suspected terrorists or to act swiftly and effectively on the information we gather.

The American people expect that their government will keep us all safe and free. This bill does that.

The bill does not require individual warrants of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. That has been the law for three decades; that is still the law.

The bill does provide reasonable FISA Court oversight to ensure that when our government starts spying on Americans, it does so lawfully by getting a warrant from the FISA Court. It will put an end to this administration's well-worn ``trust me'' routine.

I trust our intelligence community to gather solid intelligence on threats to our Nation. But protecting constitutional rights is not their prime job. That is why we have courts.

This bill provides for Congress to receive independent reports on how the act is working and what our government is doing. This administration's penchant for secrecy and aversion to accountability will come to an end, at least in this area.

Let me say a word for demands for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. As many of our colleagues have pointed out, any such discussion is premature. We do not even know what we are being asked to immunize or whose rights would be compromised if we did so.

More importantly, Congress should not decide legal cases between private parties; that's for the courts. If the claims are not meritorious, the courts will throw them out. But if the claims do have merit, we have no right to wipe them without even reviewing the evidence. How dare we have the presumption to decide the rights of allegedly injured parties in the blind.

Mr. Speaker, this bill meets every single principle set forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. As one of the co-chairs of the caucus' FISA Task Force, I am pleased to support this important bill. It is true to our Constitution. It is true to our values. It is true to our safety. It will keep us safe and free.

This bill gives our intelligence agencies the tools they have told us they need to make us safe, and gives the FISA Court the tools it needs to ensure that the extraordinary powers we are giving to the intelligence community are used correctly and consistently with our laws and our Constitution.

It's called the separation of powers, with each branch of the government doing what it is supposed to do and acting as a check on the others. FISA exists to ensure that the balance between the needs of intelligence gathering and the protection of the rights of all Americans are balanced.

Most importantly, it restores the role of FISA as the exclusive legal basis for foreign intelligence surveillance. No more making it up as you go along.

Did the telecoms break the law? Were they acting appropriately? Were the rights of innocent Americans violated? We don't know.

How dare we have the presumption to decide the rights of allegedly injured parties in the blind?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill because I believe it does two critical and important things.

First, it provides $50 billion to finance military withdrawal from Iraq, to be completed by the end of next year. I voted against the beginning of the war, and I have consistently tried to end America's involvement in the war. Saddam Hussein is gone, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and there was no Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda or with 9/11. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now in shatters and subject to attack by both Shiites and Sunnis and poses no ongoing threat to the United States. We have no stake in the Iraqi civil war, and it is time to end our occupation.

I signed a letter to the President back in July with over 60 of my colleagues vowing not to support any more money for the war in Iraq unless it was for the protection and redeployment of our troops. I believe this bill is consistent with that commitment. The time has come to end the war, and the money we provide should be used only for that purpose.

The second critical thing this bill does is to end torture by the United States Government. By including in this bill the American Anti- Torture Act, which was introduced by Representative Delahunt and myself, we are saying, once and for all, no more torture. The law now requires the Department of Defense to follow the Army Field Manual, which bars torture or cruel and inhuman procedures such as waterboarding. This bill extends these limits to every U.S. government agency, including the CIA, and ensures a single, uniform, baseline standard for all interrogations of people under U.S. control. In short, that means no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more evasive answers, and no more uncertainty with regard to what is allowed and what is not allowed. It is time to restore the honor of the United States and to force the administration to act in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

When this bill is passed, the President could have two options: He could sign this bill and help bring the war in Iraq to a speedy end. Or he could veto the bill, in which case he will have to explain why he is denying funds for the troops. But we will not vote for further funding without a requirement to withdraw the troops as in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, let's end this war and let's end torture. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the passage of an ENDA that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. I have been a lead sponsor for proposals like ENDA every year since I became a member of the New York State Assembly 30 years ago. I am a proud original cosponsor of the original ENDA bill that would protect the entire LGBT community.

I believe that civil rights are best advanced by bringing forward a bill that adequately protects all members of the LGBT community. While this may be risky, it is not reason to accept defeat before the fact and to leave behind members of the community who desperately need protection against employment discrimination.

As we have seen in many States, the failure to include transgender people in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more difficult to extend protections later. My own State of New York, which enacted employment protections for lesbians and gays, has yet to extend these protections to the transgender community.

The Senate has yet even to introduce its version of ENDA. Indeed, even if Congress were to adopt a noninclusive ENDA, the President has already pledged to veto this legislation. So it is not a question, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, of now choosing to protect a great number of people and leaving behind a smaller number of people as the price of so doing because we cannot pass this legislation into law and protect anyone this year, unfortunately. We must look to the future when we have a President who will support equality. I believe it is important we take a principled stand now and speak with a strong and united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in order to maximize the chance that when we can enact an ENDA bill into law, it will be an inclusive bill that protects everyone's rights. And we must better educate lawmakers and the public about the issues of gender identity and expression.

While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. No one should underestimate the strength of that common commitment or our dedication to seeing it realized. Transgender Americans, because of a lack of familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford.

And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too effeminate.'' That is not our intent, nor do we believe it is an accurate reading of the bill, but congressional intent does not always carry the day. Splitting sexual orientation and gender identity disserves the entire LGBT community and invites the kind of legal mischief that has undermined other civil rights laws.

The fundamental issue is this: There are still too many places where it is entirely legal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender employees. We must bring an end to this unfair, unacceptable and un-American situation.

When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that includes all the people who need its help.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2106) to provide nationwide subpoena authority for actions brought under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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, I rise in support of S. 2106, the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act of 2007. This bill is substantially identical to H.R. 3921, a bill that the House Judiciary Committee reported by voice vote without amendment on October 24.

This legislation would provide immediate procedural relief to the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by implementing a technical fix to a bill that this Congress passed in the wake of those horrible events.

Eleven days after the September 11 attacks, we passed comprehensive legislation, the Transportation and Systems Stabilization Act. That Act, among other things, created a Victims Compensation Fund to provide relief for victims without the need for litigation. It also allowed victims to opt-out of the fund and seek relief in court.

The bill limited jurisdiction over any civil litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

An unintended consequence of our actions, under operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was that subpoena power to secure testimony or documents from nonparty witnesses to any litigation has generally been limited to persons and documents located within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York.

The law we passed in 2001 did not take this 100-mile rule into account. Unfortunately, many of the events relevant to the September 11 tragedy occurred in Boston, where American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 originated, and in the Washington, DC, area where the Pentagon is

located and where American Airlines Flight 77 originated. Both of these locations are far outside the 100-mile limit from the Southern District of New York.

The bill before the House today would remedy this problem by providing for nationwide subpoena service for all parties in the litigation, victims, victims' families and defendants, to ensure that all parties involved have an opportunity to obtain the witnesses and evidence they need to obtain a fair hearing. That was Congress' intent, and we should not allow the unintended interplay between the 9/11 legislation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to undermine that legislative purpose.

The bill also makes clear that the existing power of the Federal court under rule 45(c) to quash or modify a subpoena in order to protect a subpoenaed person from undue hardship or expense is maintained. That is the current rule, and the bill makes it clear that this important protection for witnesses will remain.

Congress has previously approved nationwide subpoena power in other contexts. For example, nationwide subpoena power is available under the False Claims Act, the Veterans Benefit Act and the Civil RICO statute.

This bill has bipartisan support. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent in committee and on the Senate floor. The House version, which is substantively identical to the Senate version, was reported by the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote.

Six years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress and the Nation came together to provide prompt and equitable assistance for September 11 victims. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the laudable goals of that effort are not frustrated by the unintended effect of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this particular case.

I urge the adoption of this measure.

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

I would add, it's somewhat rare in the Judiciary Committee, as my colleague knows.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Speaker, the complicated debate over this bill is not so complicated. It's a very simple bill, as you heard. There's unanimous agreement on it. It ought to pass. I thank the leadership. I thank the leadership and the minority leadership on the Judiciary Committee for expediting the bill to where it is now. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 759, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), marking the 40th anniversary of the Mass Movement for Soviet Jewish Freedom and the 20th anniversary of the Freedom Sunday Rally for Soviet Jewry on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Mr. Speaker, in 1967 the plight of Soviet Jews was severe and largely unknown to the outside world. State-sponsored anti-Zionism and a widespread culture of anti-Semitism made daily life difficult for the millions of Jews living in the Soviet Union. Worst of all, these Jews had no right to leave the country for more welcoming parts of the world, namely, Israel and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to this reality, 1967 saw the rise of an organized movement to rescue the Soviet Jews, the Mass Movement for Soviet Jewish Freedom. Looking back 40 years later, we can all chart the profound success of that movement which lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of persecution and poverty and into freedom. Beginning in 1971, this movement made possible the mass exodus of Soviet Jews from the Soviet Union to the shores of Israel, the United States and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to represent the largest community of former Soviet emigres in the United States, and I have the great fortune of knowing many of those leaders and entrepreneurs who owe their livelihoods and freedom to the success of that movement organized in 1967.

The former Soviet Jewish community of Brooklyn, New York, from Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Uzbekistan and elsewhere has returned the humanity and kindness shown to them years before in their new capacity as industrious, law-abiding, and dynamic members of American society. In neighborhoods like Brighton Beach, Coney Island and Bensonhurst, you can witness every day how hard they have worked in order to secure happiness for their families and how they strive to give back to the Nation that rescued them from persecution.

Mr. Speaker, no discussion of this movement of Soviet Jews would be complete without mention of Jacob Birnbaum, an exceptional leader and human being who worked night and day to bring this issue to the forefront of our minds so many years ago. Earlier this year, I was very proud to introduce a resolution honoring Mr. Birnbaum, and I am pleased that Congress passed it, thereby bringing official recognition to a leader who made an incalculable difference for the lives of many thousands of Soviet Jews and others throughout the world.

In addition to the courageous work of Mr. Birnbaum, tribute ought to be paid to the other pioneers and national organizations who fought so strenuously for the liberation of Soviet Jews, people like Malcolm Hoenlein who is now executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations but who pioneered much of the work in the Soviet Jewish movement.

I am pleased today to join with my colleagues to mark the accomplishments of the Soviet Jewry movement and to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Freedom Sunday Rally for Soviet Jews and the 40th anniversary of the founding of the movement to free Soviet Jews. I am proud to have been part of this movement beginning in the late 1960s in many marches and demonstrations and picketings of the Soviet embassy. I was here on the Mall 20 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.