Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for overriding the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization. This bipartisan legislation would provide health coverage for 10 million of our most vulnerable children. It is supported by over 80 percent of the American public, as well as bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and 43 of our Nation's Governors.

The fact that the President and the House Republican leadership continue to oppose this critical, life-saving legislation is difficult to comprehend. All of the excuses that they have trotted out for blocking this bill--that it would cover the rich, or illegal aliens, or that it would institute ``socialized'' medicine--have been exposed as false. This bipartisan program puts poor kids first, as reflected in the fact that 90 percent of families covered by SCHIP live under 200 percent of the poverty level. It bars coverage of illegal immigrants, as is spelled out clearly in the bill's text. In fact, the bill does not even cover legal immigrants. Finally, the SCHIP reauthorization does not institute ``socialized'' medicine. Seventy-seven percent of children in the SCHIP program are covered by private insurance companies, and the American Association of Health Insurance Plans, as well as the American Medical Association and PhRMA, all support this bill. The Republicans' other excuse for opposing this bill--that we can't afford it--is disingenuous. This legislation is fully paid for with a tobacco tax. I also find it interesting that those who raise the cry of ``fiscal responsibility'' when it comes to a few billion dollars for poor children do not seem to have any objections to providing hundreds of billions for the President's disastrous war.

Having revealed that the Republicans' stated reasons for opposing this legislation are patently false, one is forced to wonder what is actually motivating them. I believe that the President and his supporters are blocking this legislation because they are afraid. They are afraid of SCHIP because it demonstrates that health care guaranteed by the government is workable, it is affordable, and it is popular. They worry that if SCHIP is expanded, even more Americans will begin to demand that the government guarantee health care to all our citizens, not just to poor children. After all, every other industrialized nation does so, while spending less than we do and while achieving better health outcomes for its citizens. The Republicans will apparently use every means at their disposal to ensure that health care in this country remains a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than a right guaranteed to all.

Madam Speaker, today's vote raises a moral question. Simply put: will we, as a nation, take responsibility for ensuring that all our children have necessary health coverage? All other issues raised in this debate are obfuscations meant to hide the fact that the party claiming the mantle of ``family values'' is in fact unwilling to back that slogan with substance. There is only one vote today that truly supports America's families. It is a vote to override this shameful veto.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the life of Kathleen McCree Lewis who recently passed away. The daughter of the late, Federal Judge, Wade McCree. ``Kathy Lewis'', as she was known, to all of us, was the lifelong partner and wife of David Baker Lewis and loving mother to Aaron and Sarah, their two children. Kathy was a dear friend and a loyal supporter of the Detroit, Michigan community. I valued her friendship and loyalty to her family and friends. She always gave her greatest effort to all that she accomplished. Kathy will always remain in our hearts and minds as a woman who dedicated her life to her family and to her community.

Kathy was a distinguished partner in the law firm of Dykema Gossett, Detroit, Michigan, where she was a specialist in appellate litigation. As an outstanding member of the State of Michigan Bar she was known for her continued involvement and support for all areas of substantive civil law, which included specialties in anti-trust, bankruptcy, environmental, banking, land use, product liability, intellectual property, and general commercial law.

Kathy was well recognized on the State and Federal level and in the U.S. Court of Appeals in more than five jurisdictions, as well as in the United States Supreme Court. Kathy achieved recognition by ``Law and Politics'' as one of the best lawyers in America and Michigan Lawyers Weekly named Kathy as one of Michigan's top ten lawyers of 2006.

Kathy was the recipient of the 1992 Wayne County neighborhood legal services award and the 1993 Dykema Gossett Pro bono award. She was named one of Detroit's most influential women. Kathy and her husband David jointly received the Learned Hand Award, from the Detroit Chapter of the American Jewish Committee Institute of Human Rights, for their civic, educational and philanthropic endeavors.

The greater Michigan community will sorely miss her generous efforts that she graciously gave on behalf of the committee on Children's Rights Litigation, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Children's Museum Friends, Grosse Pointe Academy, Detroit Chapter's of International Summer Villages, Inc., Jack and Jill of America, Inc., as well as other educational and philanthropic activities which were so much a part of her life. The world needs more individuals like Kathy, who give so much and ask for so little in return. Tonight, I and the people of the State of Michigan, will mourn the loss of Kathleen McCree Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 746, I call up the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the Record on H.R. 3773.

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

Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago the administration unilaterally chose to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens without court review. That decision created a legal and political quagmire. To fight terrorism and prevent another 9/11, we need to have an effective and legal system of intelligence gathering. That is what we are here to do today.

When that old scheme broke down, the administration then forced Congress to accept an equally flawed statute in August, the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act granted broad, new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the United States, including physical searches of our homes, computers, offices, libraries and medical records. There was a valiant fight against it, but we did not prevail.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to acknowledge the great work of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, for what he did, and on the Judiciary Committee I am quite proud of Jerry Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, and Sheila Jackson-Lee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas. Also the chairman of the Crime subcommittee, Bobby Scott of Virginia.

The PATRIOT Act granted broad new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the United States. It included, as I said, physical searches of our homes, of our computers, offices, libraries, and even medical records. The law contained no meaningful oversight whatsoever and went around the FISA Court. It should not be made permanent. That is why we are here today with the RESTORE Act, to create a framework for legal surveillance that includes the FISA Court.

Careful consideration by the Judiciary and by the Intelligence Committees addresses the need for flexibility in intelligence gathering and delivers the ability to deal with the modern communications networks. More importantly, it is consistent with the rule of law, the Constitution, and our democratic values.

Let's be clear about how the RESTORE Act's ``basket'' court orders work. These orders are not individual warrants for Osama bin Laden or other terrorists. They allow surveillance of an entire terrorist group or other foreign power through a flexible court process. This act prohibits reverse targeting to engage in warrantless spying on Americans. In approving the order, the court must also approve the guidelines and procedures that will be used to protect the rights of Americans under the Constitution and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

When the intelligence community turns its attention to Americans at home, they will have to get a warrant. That isn't just good policy; this is the critically important fourth amendment in action. So RESTORE even brings the court into the emergency provisions. NSA must notify the court when they start emergency acquisition, and they must seek a court order within seven days. This is not a secret process. The court knows when it is started and is awaiting the application.

Mr. Speaker, the phone company can't even turn on the switch unless it has a certification from the government that they are actively seeking that court order. If the application is turned down, the surveillance shuts off, unless the court specifically stays their ruling, pending appeal. That appeal must be resolved within 45 days. These emergency authorizations are not a backdoor way to avoid court review. In fact, the court will be looking at the emergency from the very first day.

The bill also provides other critical safeguards: periodic audits by the inspector general; narrow scope of authority to security threats, not just anything. It protects privacy of Americans traveling abroad and, most important, sunsets the legislation in December of the year 2009 so that we can review it one more time.

Importantly, the bill has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers whatsoever. Why? Because we have been refused the documents to determine whether retroactive immunity has any place or not. Interestingly enough, that was delivered to the Senate. They have the documents. We, begging, pleading, screaming, we don't have the documents. So no retroactive immunity. Until we receive these underlying documents, there is no way we can begin any consideration of that request. So the legislation before us today is a very, very important start-over improving the measure, the Protect America Act, that still exists.

Please join with me in a careful consideration of everything in this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott of Virginia, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) whose experience in intelligence matters and FISA in particular are well known, and I yield to her 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the rollcall votes on H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act and the Republican motion to recommit. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2095 and ``nay'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 742, I call up the bill (H.R. 2102) to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2102.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in recent years, the press has been under assault as reporters are increasingly being imprisoned, imprisoned for obstruction of justice and other charges. There are many causes of these attacks, including an increasingly consolidated media, abuse of position of power to intimidate members of the press, and a co-opting of the media as an investigative arm of the government.

Today, we are here in an attempt to reclaim one of the most fundamental principles enshrined by the Founding Fathers in the first amendment to the Constitution. Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our democracy. Without it, we cannot have a well-informed electorate and a government that truly represents the will of the people.

This measure before us, H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, helps restore the independence of the press so that it can perform its essential duty of getting information to the public. The bill will ensure that members of the press are free to utilize confidential sources without causing harm to themselves or their sources by providing a qualified privilege that prevents a reporter's source material from being revealed except under certain narrow circumstances. This measure balances the public's right to know against the legitimate and important interests that society has in maintaining public safety.

After the hearing and markup of this legislation, the sponsors of the bill worked hard to accommodate the concerns of all that were raised. While several good changes were made, I want to focus my comments today on the issue of national security and why I believe concerns about national security have been very effectively addressed in the bill and in the proposed manager's amendment.

The bill provides that disclosure of a source can be compelled where necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or significant specified harm to national security. The manager's amendment that will be offered by our colleagues, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence, specifically addresses the Department of Justice and DNI's primary concern, which is that the bill's exception for national security concerns would hinder efforts to investigate and prosecute leakers of classified information.

In response to this concern, the manager's amendment provides that disclosure of a source can be compelled in a criminal investigation or prosecution of an unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information when such disclosure will cause significant harm to national security.

The bill defines a covered person to exclude foreign powers or agents of foreign powers, so that, for example, a government-controlled newspaper of a foreign nation does not receive the protections of the act. This provision insures that our national security and law enforcement efforts will not be flouted by foreign governments that try to hold themselves out as covered journalists and claim entitlement to the act's protections.

The bill makes it clear that any foreign terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State is excluded from the protections of the act.

In addition, the manager's amendment adds three more exceptions to the definition of ``covered person,'' so the privilege does not apply to any person designated as a specially designated global terrorist by the Treasury Department, any person who is specially designated a terrorist under FISA, and any terrorist organization as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Each of these exceptions were proposed by the Department of Justice and accepted by us. So, as you can see, the bill provides broad protection for national security.

If the exceptions were any broader, it would swallow up the rule itself. And for those who claim that the national security exception should not also be subject to the balancing test, I have no doubt that if a court finds that the disclosure of the source is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or other harm to national security, it will also find that disclosure outweighs the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information.

So it is our responsibility, Congress's responsibility, to ensure the press is able to perform its job adequately. The Free Flow of Information Act is an important part of fostering the continued growth of a free and independent press in the United States. It will encourage increased dialogue on the issues that face this country; and, in doing so, it will strengthen the foundation of our democracy.

This legislation receives wide support. Over 100 editorial boards, a diverse group of over 50 media companies and organizations, including the Newspaper Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Associated Press, News Corp, the Newspaper Guild, ABC, NBC, and journalist organizations like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Please join with us on both sides of the aisle so that we can support and pass this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before turning to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

I want to just take this time to say to the distinguished ranking member of Judiciary, Lamar Smith, how much we appreciate his constructive work with the working group that has been trying to come together to reach an agreement on this bill. At all times he has been straightforward, candid; and we think that the work that we are doing should go on, even though we are bringing the bill up today and it is moving forward. And I invite his continued working with us so that we can reach as much conclusion as we can on the several points that are outstanding.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman who has put so much work into this matter, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Rick Boucher, the author of this bill.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to Ms. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the gentleman from Kentucky working with us (Mr. Yarmuth) and I yield to him 2 minutes in support of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting Mike Pence of Indiana, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee who has been working on this bill before the 110th Congress. He was a leader in supporting this legislation in the 109th Congress and may have been working on it even before then. So when I listened to my other colleagues on the other side who have been working on and continue to support this legislation, I think it is very easy to perceive that with the working group, with the leaders on both sides of the aisle working with Rick Boucher on this for so long, we have now come to a point where most of the concerns have been addressed; and I deeply thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for the constructive role they played not only in their independent capacity, but in the working group that has been working behind the scenes on this, as well.

Now, Members of the House, there has been something said about the importance of national security information. Sometimes it is just as important that the press report on information that the government has tried to hide in the name of national security. Because the problem frequently is that if we keep going after journalists trying to shut them up, trying to put them in jail, or threatening to prosecute them, they will be afraid to report some of the important stories that I am going to relate to you that up until now journalists have had to take it on their own risk to decide what to do. I don't think that is appropriate, nor is it necessary, nor is it contrary to any of our concerns about national security.

The history of the American press provides ample evidence of certain stories that would have never been known to the general public without the news media's use of confidential sources. Oftentimes these stories shed light on government misconduct, on corporate waste, fraud and abuse, and other matters of concern. The free flow of information to the public is vitally important to the operation of our democracy and to oversight our most powerful public and private institutions.

Now, here are a few examples of issues that were made known to the public through news reports based on confidential source information. Reporters decided that they would honor the confidence of their resources no matter what happened to them. These are courageous people of the media that had to take this on themselves. So this shield law is to take people out of this bind, out of this fear of having to be coerced because we don't know what is going to happen. This draws a very bright line for everybody to understand how we should proceed in the future.

Here is a matter that is important: the unsafe and deteriorating conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Here is another public interest matter: the exposure of fertility fraud in Southern California based upon clinical records provided by anonymous sources, reporting more than 250 accounts of fertility fraud and revealed coverups, intimidation of clinical employees and bribery. Because of this reporting, the American Medical Association issued new guidelines for fertility clinics.

Here is another story that was of some consequence: a hospital scandal of patient dumping by a Los Angeles County emergency aid program. Reporting that article prompted a government investigation that brought it to an end. Rampant steroid use in Major League Baseball by world-class athletes which, in part, led Major League Baseball and its players union to open up its labor contract and adopt a steroid testing policy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, during our negotiations led by the Boucher-Pence team, I would like to bring to the attention of the ranking member and manager of this bill before us an important change that was made in the manager's amendment which may or may not have come to his attention because it was made so late in the day. We now have a manager's amendment that would allow the government to pierce the journalistic shield to prevent a terrorist attack, but also to identify any perpetrators of a terrorist attack. I wanted to make sure that my friend and colleague was aware of this very important change because it was made at the very last minute.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit a number of articles from newspapers, mostly editorials, that deal with the support of the shield law that is before the Congress at this time.

We have a contribution from the Post-Standard in Syracuse, New York, entitled, ``The Shield Law Moves Closer to Reality,'' dated 14 October of this year.

In the Baltimore Sun, we had an opinion written yesterday in that newspaper, ``In Search of Shield,'' in support of the legislation.

We have heard from the Detroit Free Press from today's paper, ``Vote to Pass Law to Shield Reporters,'' in support of this legislation.

The Los Angeles Times earlier in May wrote an article: ``Shielding Journalists: Reporters, and the Country, Would Benefit from a Proposed Federal Law to Protect Confidential Sources.''

The Detroit News in May of this year wrote, ``Why a Federal Shield Law is Necessary,'' authored by Christine Tatum.

The New York Times in two different instances in September and October of this year, ``A Shield for the Public,'' was the editorial page comment, and in October, ``The Public's Right to Know,'' another important article in support of this legislation.

Here's one that the ranking member would be interested in. The San Antonio Express-News: ``Smith's Decision on Shield Law Critical.'' We hope that had come to his attention before today.

The Washington Post, in September: ``Protecting Sources.''

Another important contribution: ``A Much-Needed Shield for Reporters,'' written by Theodore B. Olson in The Washington Post in June of this year.

Finally, from USA Today: ``Our Views on Prosecutors and the Press: Jailing of Reporters Chills Free Flow of Information.''

These are only a few of a notebook full of materials that we wouldn't dare introduce this many pieces of material into the Congressional Record. I will include for the Record the items that I cited.

Submissions to Record on H.R. 2102

``Shield Law Moves Closer to Reality.'' The Post-Standard.

Syracuse, NY: Opinion Section. 14 October 2007.

``In Search of Shield.'' The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD:

Opinion Section. 15 October 2007.

``Vote to Pass Law to Shield Reporters.'' Detroit Free

Press. Detroit, MI: Opinion Section. 16 October 2007.

Shielding Journalists: Reporters, and the Country, Would

Benefit from a Proposed Federal Law to Protect Confidential

Sources.'' The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA: Editorial

Page. 27 May 2007.

Tatum, Christine. ``Why a Federal Shield Law Is

Necessary.'' The Detroit News. Detroit, MI. 23 May 2007.

``A Shield for the Public.'' The New York Times. New York,

NY: Editorial Page. 20 September 2007.

``The Public's Right to Know.'' The New York Times. New

York, NY: Editorial Page. 9 October 2007.

``Smith's Decision on Shield Law Critical.'' San Antonio

Express-News. San Antonio, TX: Editorial Page. 28 July 2007.

``Protecting Sources.'' The Washington Post. Washington,

DC: A-18. 21 September 2007.

``Olson, Theodore B. ``A Much-Needed Shield for

Reporters.'' The Washington Post. Washington, DC: A-27. 29

June 2007.

``Our Views on Prosecutors and the Press: Jailing of

Reporters Chills Free Flow of Information.'' USA Today.

McLean, VA: Editorial page. 14 May 2007.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to recognize the Speaker of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.

I have none.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and just want to say that we have not given up on the possibility of winning some modest support from the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. He has negotiated with us in good faith. We continue to work on any improvements. I am very proud of the work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) have put forward, and I want to thank Members of the House on both sides. There is apparently a large number of bipartisan supporters for this measure. I want to assure the House that we are moving forward with deliberate speed, and it is in that sense that I continue to urge support for the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and I congratulate the ranking member for joining us in supporting the Boucher-Pence manager's amendment. We think that we can move even further. Here is an amendment that alters the standard for piercing the shield where national security is involved. Also, it enables law enforcement to obtain an order compelling disclosure of the identity of a source in the course of a leak investigation.

So I am very happy about this. I think that it portends that there may be other areas of agreement that we will be able to reach. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and note his surprise, and I want everyone to know that this motion is one that we on this side can concur with. We think it's thoughtful and appropriate and indicates the kind of rapprochement that we are trying to reach on any other matters of difference that might be outstanding.

Allowing a court to take into account national security when considering the balancing test and allowing the court to retain full discretion on whether to consider this information, and it may consider this along with any other information it deems relevant, means that the ranking member's continued commitment to work on this issue is going on even now, and I thank him for his constructive efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of the manager's amendment, Mr. Boucher of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2102, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud, to join with Intelligence Committee Chairman Reyes today in introducing legislation that will give our intelligence community needed tools to combat foreign threats while preserving civil liberties. Making sure that surveillance activities protect freedom as well as security is critical to waging an effective fight against terrorism.

The RESTORE Act extends the ability of the Government to acquire communications of persons abroad for the purpose of terrorism and other national security threats. Earlier this year, in the Protect America Act, PAA, amendments were made to the long-standing consensus approach set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. Responding to what the administration characterized as pressing concerns, the PAA gave the Government enhanced flexibility to collect foreign intelligence information. But the broad scope of the authority and procedures that allowed the Government to collect this information without up-front court approval raised grave concerns about the need for more safeguards of innocent Americans' communications. The RESTORE Act improves upon the PAA by providing a series of checks and balances while still allowing maximum flexibility. It limits the Government's authority to what the Director of National Intelligence told us he needed--a means to acquire information from telecommunications companies about physical threats to the Nation in which the target is overseas. The RESTORE Act does not require individual warrants when persons reasonably believed to be abroad, but it is firm that a FISA warrant is required to obtain communications of people in the United States. The RESTORE Act settles that FISA is the exclusive means of electronic surveillance, and that no modifications can be made without express statutory authorization. The RESTORE Act will also provide additional resources for the National Security Agency and Department of Justice to ensure that there are no backlogs of critical intelligence gathering.

Congressional oversight and full knowledge about surveillance activities is critical in ensuring the Nation's safety. Both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees need access to court orders, Presidential authorizations, and details of and legal justifications for past wiretapping efforts. The RESTORE Act provides for audits and congressional reports of surveillance programs past, present, and future. Through these reports and audits, with nonclassified aspects where appropriate, Members of Congress and the public will have the opportunity to assess whether the program works as designed. Chairman Reyes and I are committed to vigorous oversight, constant dialogue, and statutory improvements as needed to meet our duty to ensure safety and liberty for all.

The administration has continued to deny us the information that Congress is entitled to and which is necessary for a full understanding of the issues at stake. Nevertheless, I believe this legislation will allow us to move forward and respond to the concerns of the administration. This bill will require that information be made available to us and give the Congress the opportunity to assess these procedures and the program on the basis of a complete record. The RESTORE Act's important audit and reporting provisions are essential for when the program will sunset in 2009. At that time, with a new Congress, a new President, and the results of these provisions, we will again strive to provide additional protections for the rights of Americans. For this is an ongoing responsibility that all of us in Congress are working toward--a foreign intelligence gathering system that is effective and flexible, yet bound by procedure and law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to accept the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Randy Forbes, because we are willing on this side to accept the motion to recommit, with the understanding that we will work to clarify its scope, as has been indicated in the discussion, and that we do understand that this would not in any way weaken the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act or invalidate current law which is now in place.

Mr. Speaker, with that agreement on the part of the ranking member, this side accepts the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2740, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I urge support for my amendment to provide the Inspector General of the Department of Justice the power to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by attorneys in that department.

And so I put forward to the committee a commonsense proposal that merely gives the Inspector General the tools that he or she may need to root out and report on waste, fraud and abuse. Whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, I believe we should have strong and vigorous oversight of the Department of Justice. At present, however, the Department of Justice Inspector General is limited in his ability to investigate allegations of misconduct.

Instead, present law, to the surprise of many, requires that all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys be investigated not by the Inspector General but by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The department's Inspector General should have the same power Inspectors General have throughout the government to investigate without limitation any and all allegations of wrongdoing that arise in that department.

The Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General. It is absolutely contrary to human experience to believe that the counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility can aggressively investigate them. It is vital that investigations of these officials, and other high-level officials in the department, be conducted by the statutorily independent Inspector General who is required to be confirmed by the United States Senate. That is the thrust of the idea I propose in this first amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, could you advise us how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I would begin first by yielding 1 minute to the subcommittee Chair, Edolphus Towns of New York.

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

I want all the Members to make sure they understand that the Office of Professional Responsibility is accountable to the Attorney General, and when we are investigating the U.S. assistant attorneys or attorneys in the Department of Justice, he is investigating his own shop.

The second point is that their inspection, their investigations, are confidential. The Inspector General, the IG, requires a public disclosure of what he found. So this isn't a matter of trying to justify anything about the U.S. Attorneys action.

I would like my good friend from Ohio to know that this is something that has been discussed. The Inspector General for DOJ, Glenn Fine, has testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and made it very clear that these matters of public interest that require reports that are institutional should by all means go through this route rather than be shunted off to a private investigatory committee inside the Department of Justice.

It is an anomaly that we hope to correct. It doesn't reflect poorly on anybody. As a matter of fact, this will be for future Departments of Justice. We are not going to go back over anything that we have covered before.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the membership support this very modest amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have never fought a war in which private contractors not only outnumber United States troops, as they do in Iraq, but perform many tasks that are very similar to those historically performed by our troops. A critical difference, however, is that these contractors, unlike our troops, are not subject to the requirements of military discipline and United States law governing the conduct of warfare. Further, they are also immune from Iraqi law.

As we know, last month contractors working for Blackwater allegedly opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood, killing at least 11 Iraqi civilians. A witness told a CNN reporter, ``Each of their four vehicles opened heavy fire in all directions. They shot and killed everyone in cars facing them and people standing on the street.'' Another witness, whose youngest son was killed during the attack, likened the event to ``hell, like a scene from a movie.''

This latest incident unfortunately evidences the fact that some of these contractors are abusing their power with impunity, subject to no law whatsoever, domestic or foreign. H.R. 2740 corrects this serious gap in current law.

Specifically, it amends the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, known as MEJA, in three critical respects: First, it closes the legal gap in current law by making all contractors accountable for their actions. MEJA currently only extends U.S. Federal criminal jurisdiction to felony crimes committed overseas by contractors working on behalf of the Defense Department.

This measure specifies that the act would apply to all contractors, regardless of the agency for which they provide services.

Second, this measure requires that the Inspector General of the Justice Department examine and report on the Department's efforts to investigate and prosecute allegations of misconduct committed by contractors overseas.

Since the Iraq war started, the Department has failed to commence a single prosecution against a contractor under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Sadly, last month's Blackwater incident was not the first time contractors have acted abusively without any accountability.

On Monday, we learned that Blackwater was involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since the year 2005. And Blackwater isn't the only culpable company. In 2005, armed contractors from the Zapata contracting firm allegedly fired indiscriminately not only at Iraqi civilians, but also at United States Marines. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a trophy video on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians. And employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in a ``joyride shooting'' of Iraqi civilians. These cases, and all like them, should be appropriately investigated and prosecuted, if warranted.

Third, H.R. 2740 establishes ground units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate allegations of

criminal misconduct by contractors. Notwithstanding the fact that more than 180,000 contractors are currently operating in Iraq, there is not a single investigative unit located in that country.

Pursuant to a directive of the administration, FBI agents are belatedly being sent to investigate the Blackwater crime scene in many instances where the evidence has long disappeared. Without a mandated investigating unit, the Justice Department lacks the ability or the incentive to respond effectively. And so, to our colleague from North Carolina, David Price, the author of H.R. 2740, we fixed that shortcoming. And I acknowledge the sponsor for his sustained leadership on this important issue of ensuring that those acting in our name will be held legally accountable for their conduct.

This legislation is widely supported, including the Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the International Peace Operations Association, and Amnesty International.

The need for us remedying the problem described is extremely urgent. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of its swift passage.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, whose interest in this subject matter began 3 years before he became chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, and I am happy to recognize him for as much time as he may consume.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to yield to the chairman of the Crime Committee in the Judiciary, Bobby Scott of Virginia, who has held hearings extensively on this matter and has worked closely with the gentleman from North Carolina. I am very pleased to yield him 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, James Moran, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), cochair of the Progressive Caucus.

I only have one Member to speak, Mr. Ranking Member. Are you prepared to close?

I thank the ranking member of the Crime Committee for his insightful remarks, and I now ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) to conclude and close out the discussion. I remind our friends that he was a vice admiral in his former career, and we welcome him to close the debate.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise to make three commonsense changes to clarify and improve the bill that has been under discussion, and I hope that it addresses my friend from Virginia's comments about tightening the bill and making it more clear and more specific.

First of all, we clarify that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to investigate those fatalities resulting from the potentially unlawful use of force by contractors in war zones. This will help make it easier for an initial examination to confirm claims of self-defense by contractors without the need for a protracted and costly investigation when it may, in fact, not be warranted.

Secondly, in response to a suggestion from the minority and the administration, the amendment clarifies that the Attorney General is authorized to request assistance from other Federal agencies when assigning personnel and resources to the FBI investigative units on the ground. This would enable the Attorney General to draw on the expertise of the Department of Defense, among others, when appropriate in undertaking and moving forward with investigations and prosecutions.

And finally, we require that the FBI look only to the Secretary of Defense for any additional security assistance that the FBI investigative units may

need in a war zone. We would not want to have the FBI relying on private contractors for security while investigating their conduct.

And so I thank the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott; the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Randy Forbes; along with the bill's creator, David Price; and finally, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) for working with me to craft this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott be allowed to control the time on the manager's amendment.

Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence on October 1, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today.

``Yea.'' H. Con. Res. 185--Commending the 1st Brigade Combat Team/ 34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard upon its completion of the longest continuous deployment of any United States military unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom (Rep. Walz--Armed Services)

``Yea.'' H.R. 2276--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building'' (Rep. Kildee--Oversight and Government Reform)

``Yea.'' H.R. 3325--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 235 Mountain Road in Suffield, Connecticut, as the ``Corporal Stephen R. Bixler Post Office'' (Rep. Courtney-- Oversight and Government Reform)

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This legislation will ensure that video competition remains robust, states retain the ability to raise revenue through sales taxes, and, most importantly, consumers are not harmed.

Discriminatory sales taxes harm consumers. It is well-established that robust competition for substitutable products generally benefits consumers by yielding lower prices and greater quality.

A number of states, however, have enacted what may be deemed to be discriminatory sales taxes on DBS service, with no burden or a lesser burden placed on cable subscribers, and more states are threatening to do so. These states impose a higher sales tax on nationally distributed DBS subscribers than they do on cable or other types of video providers.

The legislation that I am introducing today will ensure fair taxation to all consumers, and I hope to conduct hearings and request a GAO study of this issue.

The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007 would prohibit discriminatory taxes against any pay-TV service and apply the non- discrimination principle to taxes on both services and equipment.

State revenues would not be impacted. The Act would allow states to tax pay-TV providers or their subscribers, provided that such taxes are applied equally to all such services, including cable and DBS.

Consumers Union and Media Access Project, in separate letters submitted to this record, point out that artificial cost increases to the consumer imposed on one category of service provider can undermine the consumer benefits of competition. A discriminatory sales tax placed on one type of provider but not another is such an artificial cost.

National Taxpayers Union, in a letter submitted to this record, points out that, at the very least state and local governments should not discriminate among products or services by disadvantaging one with heavier taxes. Discriminatory sales taxes against DBS subscribers set a dangerous precedent for picking and choosing winners and losers in a marketplace based on who receives the most favorable sales tax treatment, rather than who provides the best value to consumers.

I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation will amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) to extend the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce and to address growing concerns as innovation occurs.

I am pleased to say that working together, we have come to an agreement on a definition of Internet access that is clear, precise, and on target. It says that Internet access is a service that enables a user to connect to the Internet. This definition would include incidental services like e-mail and would maintain a lot of the telecommunications language--even going so far as to clarify it--from the last extension of the moratorium in 2004. This definition would further make it explicit that just because a service uses the Internet does not mean that that service had become part of the moratorium.

length of the extension

This Act would extend the moratorium for 4 years, to run until November 1, 2011. The 4-year extension will allow Congress to make any adjustments to the moratorium if necessary. It will also allow companies a sufficient amount of time to plan their investments, while also giving consumers tax free access to the Internet. Congress has made important adjustments on each previous occasion that we extended the moratorium, in 2001, and again in 2004.

grandfathering

This Act would extend for 4 years, the grandfather provisions which have preserved those Internet access taxes that were imposed prior to 1998. This is consistent with past extensions.

This Act also phases out those states that claim to be grandfathered as a result of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2004. The 2004 Act provided for an amended definition of Internet access and resulted in assertions and public rulings made by many states requiring the collection of tax on sales of telecommunications to an Internet service provider to provide Internet access. This is because those states have interpreted the 2004 definition of ``Internet access'' to broaden the scope of the 1998 grandfather clause to permit taxation on the sales of telecommunications to an Internet service provider to provide Internet access. This Act resolves this problem by allowing those states that have issued public rulings before July 1, 2007 that are inconsistent with the foregoing rules to be held harmless until November 1, 2007.

gross receipts tax issues in certain states

A small group of states have recently enacted taxes that apply to almost all large businesses in the state--including Internet access providers. The new gross receipts taxes in these states serve as general business taxes and either substitute for or supplement the corporate income tax currently in place in those states, whereas in all other states, corporate income taxes serve as the general business tax.

The problem is that the originally enacted and further amended Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) contains an explicit protection for corporate income taxes imposed on Internet access providers, but not for gross receipts taxes. Thus, these select states would suffer a disproportionate loss because while the other states with corporate profits taxes are explicitly allowed to impose them on profits that they gain by providing Internet access services, there is no similar protection in ITFA for the type of general business taxes that are levied by the select states, because they are being levied on gross revenues or receipts, and are not covered in ITFA.

The result is that an Internet access provider could potentially decide not to pay the tax on its receipts attributable to providing Internet access service in those select states. Thus, if the provider companies decided to stop paying on its access service, the wording of ITFA suggests that a court would likely support their position that these gross receipts are not taxable--and the states would lose out on millions in revenues.

This Act resolves this dilemma by creating an exemption for states that have enacted laws that would structure their gross receipts taxes in such a way as to be a substitute for state corporate income taxes that are not taxes on Internet access. To be exempt the state law must have been enacted between June 30, 2005 and November 1, 2007, and must impose such taxes on at least 80 percent of business enterprises engaged in business in the state without regard to (a) the form of organization; (b) business activity in which such enterprise is engaged; (c) minimum filing thresholds; or (d) whether such business actually incurs a filing and payment obligation.

definition of ``internet access''

After close examination of the many concerns with the definition of ``Internet access'' in current law, we have agreed on a precise definition of ``Internet access''. The proposed definition will accomplish the following:

1. Prevent all tax-exempt content bundling by redefining Internet access as the service of providing a connection to the Internet, with closely-related Internet communications services such as e-mail and instant messaging;

2. Amend the definition of ``telecommunications'' to include unregulated/non-utility telecommunications (such as cable service); and

3. Remove the current exception for taxing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), so that states and localities will be free to tax these services.

I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Madam Speaker, the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act of 2007,'' addresses the vast inequities in current bankruptcy law with respect to how American workers and retirees are treated, an area long-neglected by Congress.

The rights of workers and retirees have greatly eroded over the past two decades, particularly in the context of Chapter 11. Let me just cite three reasons.

First, it is no secret that certain districts in our Nation interpret the law to favor the reorganization of a business over all other priorities, including job preservation, salary protections, and other benefits. Part of the problem is that the law is simply not clear, leading to a split of authority among the circuits.

This is particularly true with respect to the standards by which collective bargaining agreements can be rejected and retiree benefits can be modified in Chapter 11. Businesses, as a result, take advantage of these venue options and file their Chapter 11 cases in employer- friendly districts. This was one of the main reasons that Delphi, a Michigan-headquartered company, filed for bankruptcy in New York.

Second, it is clear that at least some businesses use Chapter 11 to bust unions or to at least give themselves unfair leverage in its negotiations with unions. According to a recently released GAO analysis that I requested nearly 2 years ago, 30 percent of companies in the study sought to reject their collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy. Nearly as many companies took advantage of special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code by employers that can modify retiree benefits.

Let me be specific here. What we are talking about is terminating retiree health care benefits, medical benefits, prescription drug benefits, disability benefits, and death benefits, among other protections.

And, remember that these benefits were bargained for in good faith by hardworking Americans who gave their all to their employers and now are in retirement. This is a travesty.

Third, as a result of Chapter 11's inequitable playing field, employers are able to extract major concessions from workers and retirees, while lining their own pockets. As we learned at a hearing held earlier this year by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, executives of Chapter 11 debtors often receive extravagant multi-million dollar bonuses and stock options, while regular workers are forced to accept drastic pay cuts or even job losses and while retirees lose hard-won pensions and health benefits.

As many of you know, the Ford Motor Company reported a record $12.7 billion loss for last year. But what many of you may not know is that Ford paid $28 million to its new CEO, Alan Mulally, in his first 4 months on the job. This disclosure comes as companies like Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler are in the midst of negotiations with unions to obtain concessions and labor cost savings when their current contracts end in this month.

A factor that will likely be present at the bargaining table is the threat of a potential Chapter 11 filing. As many of you know, the United Auto Workers yesterday announced a strike at General Motors principally because GM wants to shed more than $50 billion in future health care benefits for retirees.

We need to restore the level playing field that the drafters of Chapter 11 originally envisioned and to ensure that workers and retirees receive fair treatment when their company is in bankruptcy. It is time that we include the interests of working families in the bankruptcy law and consider how we can add a measure of fairness to a playing field that is overwhelmingly tilted against workers.

My bill addresses these problems by:

Increasing the amount by which unpaid wage and employee benefit claims would be entitled to payment priority;

Creating a more level playing field for employees in Chapter 11 cases where employers want to terminate jobs, reduce wages, reject collective bargaining agreements, and terminate medical benefits for retirees;

Prohibiting companies in bankruptcy from paying lavish performance bonuses and incentive compensation to key management; and

Ensuring that the bankruptcy judges have clear statutory guidance that the purpose of Chapter 11 is--to the greatest extent possible-- maximize assets so as to preserve jobs.

I will urge prompt consideration of this legislation by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and further proceedings by the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and Chairman of the 23rd Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference Jazz Forum and Concert, I rise to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished jazz artists in American music history, Roy Haynes.

One of the most recorded drummers in the history of jazz, Haynes has played in a wide range of styles ranging from swing and bebop to jazz fusion and avant-garde jazz in his 60-year career. He has a highly expressive, personal style (``Snap Crackle'' was a nickname given him in the 1950s) and is known to foster a deep engagement with his band mates.

Roy Haynes was born in Boston on March 13, 1925, and, like so many of his contemporaries became keenly interested in music, and in particular, jazz, at an early age. Primarily self-taught, he began to work in Boston in 1942 with musicians like Charlie Christian, Tom Brown, Sabby Lewis, and Pete Brown. In the summer of 1945, he got a call to join legendary bandleader Luis Russell (responsible for much of Louis Armstrong's musical backing from 1929 to 1933) to play for the dancers at New York's legendary Savoy Ballroom. When not traveling with Russell, the young drummer spent much time on Manhattan's 52nd Street and uptown at Minton's, the legendary incubator of bebop, soaking up the scene.

Over the next 30 years, Haynes would go on to play with virtually every jazz musician of note. He was Lester Young's drummer from 1947 to 1949, worked with Bud Powell and Miles Davis in 1949, and became Charlie Parker's drummer of choice from 1949 to 1953. He toured the world with Sarah Vaughan from 1954 to 1959, did numerous extended gigs with Thelonious Monk in 1959-60, and made eight recordings with Eric Dolphy in 1960-61. Haynes worked extensively with Stan Getz from 1961 to 1965, played and recorded with the John Coltrane Quartet from 1963 to 1965, has collaborated with Chick Corea since 1968, and with Pat Metheny during the '90s. Metheny was featured on Haynes' previous Dreyfus release Te Vou! (voted by NAIRD as Best Contemporary Jazz Record of 1996). He's been an active bandleader from the late '50s to the present, featuring artists in performance and on recordings like Phineas Newborn, Booker Ervin, Roland Kirk, George Adams, Hannibal Marvin Peterson, Ralph Moore and Donald Harrison. A perpetual top three drummer in the Downbeat Readers Poll Awards, he won the Best Drummer honors in 1996 (and many years since), and in that year received the prestigious French Chevalier des l'Ordres Artes et des Lettres. In 2002, Roy Haynes' album Birds of a Feather, his tribute to the immortal Charlie ``Bird'' Parker, was nominated for a Best Jazz Instrumental Album Grammy.

Of his style and music Haynes' says: ``I structure pieces like riding a horse . . . you pull a rein here, you tighten it up here, you loosen it there. I'm still sitting in the driver's seat, so to speak. I let it loose, I let it go, I see where it's going and what it feels like. Sometimes I take it out, sometimes I'll be polite, nice and let it move and breathe--always in the pocket and with feeling. So the music is tight but loose.''

Haynes continued, ``I am constantly practicing in my head. In fact, a teacher in school once sent me to the principal, because I was drumming with my hands on the desk in class. My father used to say I was just nervous. I'm always thinking rhythms, drums. When I was very young I used to practice a lot; not any special thing, but just practice playing. Now I'm like a doctor. When he's operating on you, he's practicing. When I go to my gigs, that's my practice. I may play something that I never heard before or maybe that you never heard before. It's all a challenge.''

``I deal with sounds. I'm full of rhythm, man. I feel it. I think summer, winter, fall, spring,

hot, cold, fast and slow--colors. But I don't analyze it. I've been playing professionally over 50 years, and that's the way I do it. I always surprise myself. The worst surprise is when I can't get it to happen. But it usually comes out. I don't play for a long period, and then I'm like an animal, a lion or tiger locked in its cage, and when I get out I try to restrain myself. I don't want to overplay. I like the guys to trade, and I just keep it moving, and spread the rhythm, as Coltrane said. Keep it moving, keep it crisp.''

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to offer this salute to Roy Haynes as a true Modern Jazz Giant and a living national treasure and the embodiment of the values and principles set forth in H. Con. Res. 57, the joint resolution passed on John Coltrane's birthday 20 years ago, which has become the gold standard rubric for the proper recognition of jazz and its practitioners.