Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. It is an unprecedented intrusion of government into one of the most personal areas of our lives.

It is unprecedented procedures to force through a bill of this significance with two hours of debate and no amendments or alternatives even considered.

It is unprecedented to pass a measure of this magnitude against the strong, clear opinion of a majority of the American people.

I believe we need to reform health care, particularly the way that it is paid for in this country. We can do that without upending the whole system. Real health care reform would protect the nearly 85 percent of Americans who currently have health insurance and want to keep it. It would protect Medicare for those seniors currently enrolled in the program and for those who will be enrolled in the future. It would make health insurance more affordable for everyone, including those who do not have coverage today. And it would keep government from interfering in the doctor-patient decision relationship.

The bill before us does none of these things. It cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare and increases taxes over $550 billion dollars. It fines individuals and businesses that do not sign up for the government-approved insurance. It multiplies government bureaucracy by adding a mind-boggling number of new commissions, commissioners, committees, centers, and administrations. It empowers the IRS to determine whether or not your personal health insurance is adequate in the eyes of Washington bureaucrats. And it is filled with special deals to attract support it could not get on its own merit.

I believe that this bill will not only fail to stem the growing cost of health insurance; it will actually make it cost more. How could the combination of increased taxes, expensive mandates, and new federal regulations not increase the cost of health care for most Americans?

Mr. Speaker, common sense tells us that when the government spends more money, it does not usually cost taxpayers less. Yet, the Majority claims that this bill, which spends at least $1 trillion, will somehow reduce our deficit. It cannot be true.

The vast majority of citizens in the 13th district of Texas who have contacted me have been clear and consistent in their opposition to reform that leads to more government, less choice, cuts in Medicare, and increased taxes. The same sentiments have been echoed across the country.

Unfortunately, the version the Democratic majority is trying to pass includes new restrictions and more government intrusion. It is over 2,700 pages of big government that we don't need or want.

Mr. Speaker, President John Adams once said, ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.'' The facts here are plain and simple: this bill includes massive government involvement in health care, higher taxes, and hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts. I know it, most people who serve in this House know it, and the American people know it. It is wrong for our country and for its future.

Madam Speaker, the Founding Fathers established this Congress so that individuals would be elected from all over the country, come here with different points of view, discuss those views, yes, but ultimately

take a vote on the issues of the day. And then the people who sent them here--the voters--could hold them accountable for the votes they cast here in this Chamber and in the other body across the way.

It would be inconceivable to them that this House would deem a bill passed without taking a direct vote up-or-down on the substance of the matter so that the voters back home could hold them accountable, and yet that is exactly the direction that this leadership tries to take the House today.

The American people already do not trust this institution. They do not believe that we are in touch with them and listening to them. The intentions of the leadership of this House will only carry those suspicions further and further betray the trust that American people should have in their elected representatives.

We should start over and do it again.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Seaman Garlen Eslick and his service to our nation.

Mr. Eslick lived in Amarillo, Texas. As an 18 year old farm boy, he joined the Navy. Just months later, on December 7, 1941, Seaman Eslick was aboard the USS Oklahoma as it was attacked in Pearl Harbor. In the galley at the time of the attack, he was a powder handler for the ship's 14-inch guns. Making his way to his battle station four decks below, Seaman Eslick and a few others helped a wounded soldier through a hatch. After the Oklahoma took heavy machine-gun fire and five torpedoes, the ship rolled; knocking Seaman Eslick unconscious in his compartment. He awoke in total darkness to rising water as the only survivor in that compartment. Hours later another sailor carrying a light told him of other survivors several compartments over. The two dove from compartment to compartment, searching for a way out for themselves and the 12 others they found. After 28 hours in the oil- soaked compartment, Seaman Eslick was one of the 31 sailors rescued and returned to active duty after a four-day stay on a hospital ship.

While assigned to the USS Saratoga, he survived a torpedo attack from a submarine. Later, on the USS John Hancock he saw action in Leyte and Manila in the Philippine Islands, even weathering a typhoon and surviving a kamikaze attack, and taking part in operations at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Seaman Eslick was awarded a Purple Heart for his heroic actions and the injuries he sustained on December 7, 1941 and the Honorable Service Lapel Pin for his four years of service.

Seaman Garlen Eslick never expected special attention for his service during WWII. At the unveiling of the USS Oklahoma Memorial in 2002, Seaman Eslick said ``it's always important to remember the ones we've lost and those who are still with us.''

On Monday, February 8, Garlen passed away, leaving his wife Betty of 65 years, their four children, 12 grandchildren, and 25 great- grandchildren. It is with gratitude for his service and admiration of his heroism that I hope we all will remember Seaman Garlen Eslick, his comrades, and their service to protect our freedom.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, since a number of our colleagues were watching the events or participating in the events at the White House yesterday, like the gentleman from California, I think it's important to review briefly the history of this legislation.

The Intelligence Committee referred or reported out H.R. 2701 out of committee on June 26, 2009, by a party line vote of 12-9. The Rules Committee first reported a rule out for its consideration on July 8, 2009, and from July 8, 2009, until February 24, 2010, it just sat there, no action.

Meanwhile, there were at least eight attempted terrorist attacks or plots for which arrests were made against our homeland. Meanwhile, events changed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran. All around the world things were changing, but we couldn't find time on the floor to deal with the Intelligence authorization bill. We had important things to do. We had post offices to name.

But then on February 24, 2010, the Rules Committee reported the second rule out, which included the McDermott language as part of a manager's amendment that was 31 total amendments combined into one. That McDermott language would create a new crime and penalties only for our intelligence professionals if they did things like deny terrorists a proper amount of sleep or if they did something that would violate a terrorist's religious beliefs however the terrorist chose to define those religious beliefs. There was no standard of reasonableness there at all.

So throughout the day yesterday, as most people were watching events in the White House, we argued against that provision; yet it was defended on the other side of the aisle throughout

the day. Some people said, Oh, it just restates current law. Mr. McDermott answered that himself in a 1-minute last night. He said, My amendment would have expanded on the President's Executive order to define what constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation, and it will create criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations.

People over there who said that it just restates current law were just mistaken. Somebody else said it reflects American values. I don't know when it became American value to treat terrorists better than we treat Americans in the criminal justice system. When it came time to vote, the majority found that they didn't have enough votes to pass the bill, and so they went back to Rules a third time on this bill. Now this rule strips out that provision that the majority spent the whole day yesterday defending.

Now, I heard what the gentleman from California said. I am not quite clear that I have understood why we have had this amazing turn of events, why the Rules Committee on Wednesday night would say this provision is so important it must be in the manager's amendment, but on Thursday night they say, no, we are going to have a rule that does nothing but strip it out. Maybe they didn't really know what the McDermott language did. Maybe they just voted the way the Speaker's office told them to vote.

As a matter of fact, there is a report in the Washington Times today that says a House Democratic aid told the Washington Times leadership supported the amendment and told the House Rules Committee to put it in the provisions. Maybe they were just persuaded by our eloquence on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and decided that it needed to be removed. I don't know, but this provision is deplorable; it needs to be scrapped. But it's a symptom, I would suggest, of a deeper sickness that, in fact, some in this body, some in the administration, of how they view our intelligence professionals. Their reflex action is to blame the intelligence community first. We see it when special prosecutors are appointed to go after our intelligence professionals. We see it when classified interrogation memos are released, despite the protestations of five former CIA directors.

We also see that ``blame the intelligence professionals first'' mentality when someone as distinguished as the Speaker of the House, under political pressure, just accuses them of lying all the time. That's the sort of mentality that gets a provision made in order that mixes up the good guys and the bad guys and goes after the good guys and puts a higher standard on them than any county sheriff or State trooper in the country would have.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. Terrorists are plotting and planning to attack us every single day. It doesn't do our intelligence professionals much good if we give them nice words and then enact new crimes against them. What counts is our actions, standing up for them and what they do to protect us, and I would suggest this bill needs to go a long way further in doing that. But that strain that goes through this House and some in the administration to attack them first must be stopped at all costs.

I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding to me.

I think it is important to step back and put this bill in a bit of context. The Intelligence Committee reported H.R. 2701 out of committee on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 12-9 and the Rules Committee first reported a rule for its consideration here on the floor on July 8, 2009. And yet, from July 8, 2009, until today there has not been time found on the floor to consider this measure. Now, we did find time to consider the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, we did find time to consider the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act, we found time to consider the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act for St. Croix, all under a rule--none of these even included suspensions--but we couldn't find time to have the Intelligence authorization bill in support of the very people that the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from California are talking about who keep us safe.

What has happened over the past 7 months since this bill was reported out, as the gentleman from California mentioned, is that we have had a number of arrests and attempted attacks against our homeland; I count eight that have made the papers. Some of them we have stopped by the diligent work of our intelligence professionals. One of them at least was stopped by just pure luck. One of them was not stopped at all, and that was at Fort Hood, where a number of people tragically lost their lives.

In addition, in the last several months, the situation in Afghanistan has changed tremendously. We have had increased terrorist threats emanating from Yemen and Somalia and other places around the world. And yet for some reason intelligence was not a high enough priority, with the leadership of this House at least, to bring this Intelligence authorization bill to the floor.

In addition to that, I would say that a number of issues have been much discussed in the press and around the country that are very central to the efforts of those intelligence professionals to keep us safe. For example, the President said he was going to close Guantanamo Bay within 1 year; it hasn't happened. What's going to happen with those prisoners now? What happens if an American somehow joins a terrorist organization overseas? What are his rights and what are our responsibilities when we get into that situation?

Should there be a complete record of the briefings that were made to Congress about various antiterrorism matters or should those just be selectively leaked out as is happening now?

Another question: Should we automatically give the Miranda warning that says you have the right to remain silent when a non-U.S. person is obtained here in the United States?

Now, amendments on every one of these issues I've just mentioned were filed before the Rules Committee, and yet none of those amendments was made in order.

Why? We have these issues that are central to safeguarding the country. Yet the majority does not make those in order. What does it make in order? A number of reports, as we have discussed.

In addition, in the manager's amendment, there is a section that, I am afraid, illuminates for us all the approach that at least some people in this House are taking in this fight against terrorism. I do not believe it represents a number of the members of the Intelligence Committee, who see this every day; but in the manager's amendment are provisions that apply only to intelligence community professionals. The provisions say that they will go to jail for forcing one to do

something that is against one's individual religious beliefs.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Now, remember, we can't have debates on serious issues regarding Guantanamo, Miranda rights and other things. What is hitting in this blizzard of reports are several pages which say, if our intelligence professionals try to get information from a terrorist in order to prevent future terrorist attacks and if they don't give him the proper amount of sleep, our intelligence professionals will go to jail.

If they do anything that violates how the terrorist sees his religious rights, without any standard of reasonableness, without any standard to judge it by--it's like, if the terrorist says, My religion requires me to have a Big Mac every day. If we don't give him that Big Mac, we are violating this provision, and our intelligence professionals will go to jail.

There are provisions which say subjecting a terrorist to prolonged isolation will cause our intelligence professionals to go to jail. How many county jails and State prisons in the country could operate under this standard? I would say none. This provision will treat terrorists more gingerly than those in our criminal defense system.

So, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what this rule does is it avoids the debates on the substantive issues. Yet there is this thread, which I don't believe the President seems to share--perhaps some in his administration do, and perhaps a few people in this Congress do--a thread of antagonism against our intelligence professionals which says we are going to prosecute them, as the Justice Department is investigating, and that we are going to send them to jail if they don't coddle these terrorists in the appropriate way.

I think that reflects a lack of seriousness with this measure, and that is sufficient reason to reject this rule.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let's start with a bit of context. Remember, the Army field manual has been published so that terrorists all around the world know what we will and will not do to them. This will take it another step forward and actually give terrorists more rights, more consideration than ordinary criminals in our criminal justice system.

For example, it is not unusual, I suspect, for the FBI to interrogate someone accused of a crime, perhaps involving murder, to say you'd better cooperate with us or you may get the death penalty. That would be illegal under this amendment. As a matter of fact, the intelligence professional who says that under this amendment would go to jail for 15 years because you cannot threaten the use of force.

The gentleman's correct; there is no standard of reasonableness for what

they would classify as your religious practice, so I can classify as my religious practice anything I say. And the intelligence professionals have to coddle to that or they could go to jail. It is an outrageous inversion of our priorities, I think, Mr. Speaker, where we care more about coddling the terrorists than we do about protecting the American people.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member yielding to me.

In many ways, this bill is a tale of two bills. Part of this bill is the classified annex where specific dollar amounts are allocated to various programs. And the classified annex, I'm happy to report, is a bipartisan product. And I appreciate the chairman of this committee, Subcommittee Chairman Ruppersberger, and others working with Republicans compromising from both sides, but having a bipartisan product that has the support, I believe, of the full Intelligence Committee and should have the support of the full House. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the other provisions of this bill, the policy provisions of this bill, which are deeply disturbing.

As the ranking member has indicated, a number of key issues, whether it's Guantanamo, to reading Miranda Rights, have not even been allowed to be debated and voted on on the floor of the House. Those issues have been shoved aside.

Instead, what we have in the underlying bill are 41 new reports, plus an additional 17 more reports that would be required of the intelligence community in the manager's amendment. But deeply buried within the blizzard of all those reporting requirements is something that is deeply disturbing, and that is a new criminal part of the statute that would apply only to the intelligence community when they try to elicit information from a terrorist that can prevent future terrorist attacks.

And I think it would be helpful for all our Members to just remember a bit of the history here. Last year the Obama administration released a number of classified memos detailing interrogation techniques, despite the appeal of five former CIA directors not to do it, because doing so would harm our efforts against a terrorist. They did it anyway.

Then, secondly, last year, the administration decided that they would re-investigate CIA personnel who were involved in interrogations, even though it had been thoroughly investigated and there was no basis found for any sort of prosecution. Instead, the Obama administration decided they wanted to appoint a special prosecutor to go after those people again.

Third, there's an effort to bring lawyers up on ethics charges because some people disagree with the legal opinion that they reached. And, of course, just recently we found that that effort has failed.

Fourth, last year, the Speaker, under pressure from questions about what she knew about these interrogations, alleged that the CIA lies all the time, despite the considerable evidence that she had been fully briefed about the interrogations. And the Speaker's charge was so indefensible that this bill got postponed for 7 months and couldn't even come to the floor, in order to protect her.

So you see that string of going after the intelligence community of making accusations against them. And then what we find in the manager's amendment is this provision that creates new crimes only for the intelligence community when they try to illicit information. It is rather remarkable.

Anywhere in America, if a prison guard tries to wake a prisoner up, it's okay; it's part of the prison routine. Under this provision, if a terrorist does not get a proper amount of sleep, the intelligence community can be prosecuted and sent to jail for 15 years.

Anywhere in America there is a criminal investigation, it might be pointed out to a criminal suspect that it would be better to cooperate or the death penalty could be a potential punishment for his crime. It is against the law under this McDermott provision for an intelligence professional to in any way threaten physical harm or coercion against a terrorist in order to get information. In other words, what goes on every day all across America in the criminal justice system would be prohibited in this provision in the manager's amendment.

It is in many ways unthinkable. In many ways, it's topsy-turvy land where we forget who the good guys are, who the guys trying to keep us safe are, and who the bad guys are. It's all turned upside down.

We all remember the photos of abuses from Abu Ghraib in Iraq. They were deplorable. The people responsible were prosecuted under the criminal law, as they should have been. But to extrapolate from that, the source of restrictions here starting on page 33 of the manager's amendment is, I think, indefensible.

Intelligence is a serious business. The people who are involved in it risk their lives to keep us safe. And to threaten, as this law would, to put them in jail for 15 years if they don't give somebody, whatever the terrorist says is part of their individual religious beliefs, I think, is dangerous, irresponsible. And it tells the intelligence community that we talk so much but we're not going to back up our words; in fact, we're going to prosecute you. That's a mistake.

I am deeply disturbed by some of the trends in this bill, and I hope that the manager's amendment will not be adopted, and if it is, this bill should certainly be rejected.

Madam Chair, I agree with much of what has been said on the other side of the aisle about the good provisions in this bill. I am also disappointed, as the ranking member talked about, that a number of substantive issues were not even allowed to be discussed and voted on.

But in my mind all of that is dwarfed by the provisions in the last section of the manager's amendment beginning on page 32, and I would recommend every Republican and Democrat in this House read for him- or herself this language, because it is a devastating blow to the professionals in our intelligence community who we ask to keep us safe. This language delineates a number of specific acts that it says by law are cruel and degrading treatment. One of those acts is prolonged isolation.

As I mentioned earlier, any prison or county jail anywhere around the country sometimes has to put a prisoner into solitary confinement. But under this law, if an intelligence community professional does that, he is liable for up to 15 or more years in jail for prolonged isolation.

If he does anything that would blaspheme a terrorist's religious beliefs, or cause him to participate in action intended to violate his individual religious beliefs, he is guilty of violating a criminal statute and that intelligence professional whom we count on to keep us safe goes to jail--not the terrorists, but the guy or lady that we are counting on to keep us safe.

There is provision after provision, whether it's deprivation of sleep, even threatening to use force, the religious provisions, as I mentioned, or any act that is the equivalent of this laundry list-- sensory deprivation--the terrorists who would be captured would be treated more gingerly than any criminal in any county jail or any prison across the country. This is wrong, and it's reason enough to reject the bill.

Madam Chair, our colleague on the Intelligence Committee from New Jersey talked about the importance of interrogations. It is absolutely true that much of the information that the United States has received since 9/11 which has prevented further successful terrorist attacks on our homeland has come from interrogations. That is why it is so important that we maintain that tool done by professionals in the right way, absolutely. But to tie their hands and allow those professionals conducting interrogations of terrorists even less latitude than the county sheriff or the FBI investigating a bank robbery have just seems to me to be madness. And yet the manager's amendment, which has traditionally been used for technical-type corrections, less controversial sorts of issues, the manager's amendment on this bill includes an amazing expansion of criminal liability only for those in the intelligence community.

It seems to me that before we start prosecuting members of the intelligence community for not giving terrorists the amount of sleep they ask for or for doing something that may violate whatever they describe as their religious beliefs, we ought to think twice about it.

It is important to say there is no reasonableness standard to say what is reasonably your intelligence belief or a reasonable amount of sleep; this is all at the discretion of the terrorist. We are jumping to their tune under this language. It is dangerous, and it should be rejected.

Madam Chair, a few moments ago, a Member stated that the McDermott language only restates what's in current law. I would be very interested for any Member who can come to the floor and tell me where in current law it says any officer or employee of the intelligence community who forces an individual to be naked goes to jail for 15 years. Sometimes there's a good reason to ask someone to take their clothes off--to make sure they don't have bombs strapped around their waist. And yet an intelligence officer who does that under the McDermott language is liable for 15 years in jail.

The McDermott language says an officer or employee in the intelligence community who deprives an individual of necessary sleep goes to jail for 15 years.

Now, I cannot believe the many good Members on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about prosecuting terrorists, about keeping the country safe, have thought through the implications of this language. And to have it included in a manager's amendment along with 20 other amendments is just amazing to me.

I strongly encourage every Member of the House to read this language and be careful before you vote on it.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has been a forceful and eloquent advocate for greater diversity in the intelligence community. And he's exactly right: we will be more effective when we have greater diversity in the intelligence community. We're more effective human collectors when we look like those from whom we are collecting. We will be more effective when we have a greater range of language talents including dialects. All of that is absolutely true.

My point, in addition, however, is that it's not just getting them into the intelligence community. It's how we treat them once they're hired. And some of the recent actions over the last year, whether it's a special prosecutor to go after, again, interrogators after they have already been investigated, or whether it's releasing classified

memos, even though five CIA directors recommend not having it done, that cuts against the ability to keep these qualified people in government service after we have them hired. And I can think of nothing worse than to threaten these people with 15 years of prison if they stray across the line in an interrogation as far as encouraging our intelligence professionals to stay with the government.

I seek to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I don't think anyone in this House can deny the importance of cybersecurity. Certainly the Intelligence Committee is devoting a great deal of time and effort to understanding the threat to our potential responses and how we go about it. I am perhaps, however, a lonely voice expressing caution about the number of reports that accumulate on top of one another year after year after year and weigh down our intelligence community.

I mentioned earlier that there are 41 new reports of one kind or another that are in the underlying bill. The manager's amendment, which we've debated, has at least 17 more reports on top of that. And I believe, if you look at all of the 20, 21 provisions of the manager's amendment, there are at least two reports on cybersecurity plus a task force.

Now, the issue is important, but surely the goodness--we have some responsibility in Congress to pay attention to the cost in terms of dollars, the cost in terms of manpower to do all of these reports that get added on top of the intelligence community but often never go away, that just stack on top of each other year after year.

So I appreciate the gentleman's interest in cybersecurity. I share that, by the way. I think the gentleman's right on the importance of it. But I would just encourage him and all Members, before you come demanding another report of one sort or another, maybe it would be good to inquire as to what it would take to actually complete that report, how much money that costs the taxpayers. If we do, I think we are going to be a little more hesitant to stack report upon report upon report.

With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that we ensure that our intelligence professionals and our law enforcement professionals have the tools and the support they need to do their job. And we should never forget that their job is to protect us and prevent further terrorist attacks from killing Americans.

Now, over the course of the day today, as we consider the Intelligence authorization bill, there have been a lot of words spoken in support of those intelligence and law enforcement professionals. But I would suggest that actions matter more than words. One of the actions we can take is to ensure that they have the tools they need to gather the information to stop terrorist plots. And these three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are being renewed for a year under this bill are some of the critical tools they need to gather that information and to protect us.

Mr. Speaker, I count about eight plots or attempted terrorist attacks since last summer that have made the press, that have been stopped or thwarted in some way or another. One of them, unfortunately, was successful, and that was the attack at Fort Hood. One of them was stopped out of sheer luck and the awareness of passengers on the Christmas Day bombing attack over Detroit. But a number of the other attempted attacks or plots over the past few months and years have been stopped, I believe, because of the tools included in the PATRIOT Act that have helped prevent American casualties. And I would suggest we cannot afford a single day without those tools, including the three that are extended over the course of this bill.

I would prefer, as others have said, that it were longer than a year. But it is absolutely critical that we not allow them to expire and that we put them at least on somewhat of a longer term basis so that these professionals can actually do their job.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to the tools, legal authorities, financial resources that are necessary for them to do their job to protect us, we also must provide these professionals in the intelligence community and the law enforcement community the support they need to do their job. And it is not supporting them, for example, to have a special prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department of this administration to re-investigate interrogators that have already been investigated. And it would not be supportive if we adopt the provision we've talked about earlier today, to establish new crimes against interrogators. They deserve the tools and support. Both can come today with the right votes.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's introducing this resolution and bringing it to the floor. It has been cosponsored by all Republican and Democrat members on the Intelligence Committee, and I think it is an appropriate way to honor the sacrifice of those who were killed or wounded in this tragic accident.

Madam Speaker, those in the intelligence community work, serve our Nation, indeed, in dangerous places and in dangerous circumstances. I will never forget an incident shortly after I first joined the Intelligence Committee in this House. I had been on a trip to Iraq where I had gotten to see firsthand more of what our intelligence community members as well as our members of the military do in that conflict, and on my way back home to Texas, I was on a commercial flight where there was a soldier who was on leave going back home. When the plane landed in Amarillo, all of the passengers stayed seated, let the soldier get off first, and applauded him. There were some tears around the plane, all of which was very, very appropriate. But in the back of my mind, I was always thinking about those people who serve our Nation who do not wear a uniform, whose brave acts will never be known and will never get the public recognition that our military sometimes get. It is, in fact, tragic that it is only in death that these individuals are honored in this more public way, but they clearly do a job that is essential to our country's security, and especially to the fight against terrorists to prevent further terrorist acts here.

I think it is also important, Madam Speaker, to point out that these individuals gave their lives doing exactly the kind of intelligence gathering that is absolutely essential to stopping terrorists. They were trying to gather human intelligence, information from human sources. And to gather that kind of information, you often have to deal with some rather unsavory-type characters in dangerous places. But the fact of the matter is that we will not be successful in stopping terrorists unless we gather that sort of information. And so these Americans who were willing to put themselves into dangerous places, dangerous circumstances, were gathering exactly the kind of information we have to have to secure our country.

There has been a lot of talk since the Fort Hood shooting and the attempt at bombing an airliner in Detroit about connecting the dots. Well, the truth of the matter is the more information we can gather closer to the front lines, closer to the center of where terrorists operate, the easier it is to connect those dots. And gathering that information out on the front lines at the tip of the sword, as it is sometimes said, that is exactly what these officers were doing.

So I think it is important for us all to resolve to support them in that effort. Certainly to try to find ways to encourage and support their efforts, not to appoint special prosecutors to go after people who are getting that kind of information, but to support their efforts.

The other point I would like to make is I think in this situation there is an extra burden placed on families. Because these officers were undercover, there is a lot of media interest and so forth, the families cannot go through the traditional kind of grieving process like other families can. As the chairman mentioned, I hope they know that they are certainly in our prayers even as we honor their loved ones who served our Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a member of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) a member of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just to emphasize the point made earlier by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), as we come today to honor those who sacrifice their lives and their families for their sacrifice, as we come today to honor and express our appreciation for those who are wounded and wish them a speedy recovery, it is also important that we reaffirm our support to those who are all over the world also in dangerous places, in dangerous circumstances, carrying out the Nation's business in the intelligence community. I think we are uniquely situated in Congress, not only to oversee their activities, but to support and encourage the work that they do that can never be shared with the outside world. So I think it's appropriate to have this resolution, but I think it's also important for all Members of this body to reaffirm our support for those who serve our Nation in this way.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr Speaker, most of us agree that improvements are needed in our health care system, especially in the way we pay for health care. Health insurance costs have been increasing faster than many people can pay, and too many of us do not have health insurance.

At the same time, many aspects of our health care system are the best in the world. We need to work step-by-step to make needed improvements while we protect those parts that are improving the quality and length of our lives.

The bill before us, H.R. 3962, takes a very different course. It cuts over $400 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, increases various taxes, and fines individuals and businesses that do not sign up for the government-approved insurance, all to pay for massive new programs, including a government-run health insurance plan.

I believe that this bill will not only fail to stem the growing cost of health insurance; it will make health insurance significantly more expensive for the 85 percent of Americans who are currently insured. And it will severely affect those on Medicare and Medicaid. It will also present the largest, most intrusive growth of government into our lives in many years.

The alternative bill is a better approach. It focuses on lowering health insurance costs, and CBO agrees that it will do so by up to 10 percent. At the same time, it makes it easier for those with pre- existing conditions to obtain coverage. CBO judges that the alternative would reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion over the next ten years.

Unfortunately, other ideas have never been allowed to be considered. This bill has been railroaded through this House from the beginning. That is not the way to deal with an issue as important as health care. H.R. 3962 must be stopped so common sense health insurance reform can begin.

Mr. Speaker, there are people all across this country who are very worried that Congress is about to do something that will do great harm to the quality of their lives and will change America forever. They want us to do something to bring down the cost of health insurance. They want us to do something to make it easier for the uninsured and the hard to insure to get coverage. But, they want no part of a 1,990-page bill with 111 new Federal programs and offices, with new taxes, with Medicare cuts, all at a cost of more than $1 trillion.

The Democratic majority may be able to twist enough arms to ram this monstrosity through the House, I don't know. But they are leaving the American people behind. This is no way to deal with an issue as important as health care. This bill must be stopped so real, commonsense reform can begin.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day--a day in which a domestic social agenda has hijacked the Defense Authorization bill. The men and women in our armed services should be the first and foremost priority of this bill. Instead, this domestic social agenda is being strapped on the backs of our troops. We should not do it.

Creating new ``hate crimes'' is controversial. A stand-alone bill has passed the House, but apparently its advocates do not believe they can get it through the Senate. So they have attached it to the Defense Authorization Bill.

However one feels about hate crimes, it is wrong to include that provision in this bill. The hate crimes provisions have nothing to do with the Defense Authorization Bill, and it should not be here.

There are a number of good things in this bill--provisions I support and issues I have worked on. But I cannot condone forcing a domestic political issue into a national security bill.

And I worry that doing this makes it less likely than ever that national security will stay above domestic politics.

We are faced with a serious situation in Afghanistan which requires our best efforts and our concentrated focus. Mr. Speaker, our troops and our nation expect better of us than this.

Mr. Speaker, one of the key lessons from the release of legal memos analyzing interrogation techniques is the importance of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. One may agree or disagree with the analysis used in the past, but they were quite clear and quite specific on what was allowed and what was not, down to the number of seconds that each technique could be used.

The lawyer's opinions were binding. If they had prohibited a technique, for example, that lowered a terrorist suspect's self-esteem, then that opinion would be binding too.

The importance of this position in our government is highlighted by the controversial nomination that President Obama has made for this position. The opinions of Professor Dawn Johnsen that she has expressed in the past, and her reluctance to provide clear answers today, call into question her opinions and whether they could be the basis upon which our national security professionals could do their job.

Our colleagues in the other body should be very cautious when considering this nomination when so much is at stake.

Madam Speaker, our guest chaplain today represents a convergence of two Washingtons. Rev. Earl Palmer is from Washington State and recently retired as the senior pastor at University Presbyterian Church in Seattle. Currently, he is the Preaching Pastor in Residence at the National Presbyterian Church here in Washington, D.C., as he also preaches around the country under the nonprofit Earl Palmer Ministries organization.

With degrees from UC-Berkeley and Princeton Theological Seminary, he is the author of 18 books. Rev. Palmer is also one of the leading scholars on the life and works of C.S. Lewis.

Citizens from both Washingtons and many others in the country and in between have benefited from the work of this remarkable man. His love of the Gospel and his enthusiasm for sharing the Gospel are evident in all of his preachings and teachings, as is his basic human kindness.

Shirley, Earl's wife of 50 years, has a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. They have three children and seven grandchildren, some of whom are with us today.

Many lives have been blessed by the life and ministry of Earl Palmer, and it is my honor to help welcome him here today to the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, none of us support payments of these bonuses to AIG employees or employees of other companies that the government has had to bail out. Unfortunately, we are only presented with one alternative to correct the situation. Interestingly enough, it is a tax bill.

But the more important point is: How did we get here? We got here because the Democratic majority insisted on passing a 1000 page bill which nobody read and which was not exposed to the light of day, and in the hundreds of provisions in that bill was one that allowed bonuses to be paid. That bill passed without a single Republican in the House voting for it.

And now that the provision tucked away in that 1000 page bill has come to light and proven embarrassing, how does the majority deal with it? They tax it--at a 90% tax rate.

Now if this sounds familiar, it should. Hidden spending provisions, high taxes, spending, taxes, taxes, spending. It's a pattern.

The majority wants to make sure that the government decides who gets what and then is able to take it away. And they want to deflect attention away from their missteps.

The better approach would have been for the Obama Administration not to allow these bonuses to begin with. They can put the necessary conditions on the money. It would have better to have that 1000 page bill open for viewing and for amendment. Instead we are left with a crass attempt at political cover. There has to be a better way.

Madam Speaker, deciding how to vote on this issue has been among the most difficult votes I have cast in Congress. The economic condition and well-being of every American will be affected.

I continue to be uncomfortable with the degree of government intrusion into our economy that this bill would authorize. I also continue to be concerned about the economic consequences to all Americans if some sort of action is not taken. It is balancing those two positions that make this vote an extremely difficult one.

The bill is better now than it was earlier. The increase in the amount of deposits that can be insured by the FDIC will help bring significantly more capital into all banks--those that are troubled and those who have not made the risky loans that precipitated this crisis. The SEC announcement ``clarifying'' the mark-to-market accounting rules could help unleash billions of dollars that were sidelined. Both of these changes will help bring more private capital into the system so that the entire burden of stabilizing troubled institutions does not fall on the taxpayers.

If the asset purchase program is managed competently, the cost to the taxpayers should be far less than the $700 billion authorized, as both the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, have said.

The other major consideration for me is that if this bill does not pass, a far worse bill probably will. I would like to write this bill differently and to have other options considered. I have little doubt, however, that if this improved bill does not pass today, the next bill will veer to the left in an attempt to attract more Democratic votes and will result in more government intrusion and a higher cost to the taxpayers.

As I weigh my concerns about the level of government intervention with my concerns for the economic consequences of inaction or of a far worse bill, I have decided that it is in the best interests of the Nation for this bill to pass so that hopefully the economic recovery can begin.

There is a crisis of confidence in our credit system, and there is a real danger that if it spreads, Americans all across the country will not be able to get car loans, home mortgages, or loans to operate their businesses. There is even a danger that some may not be able to withdraw their money from various retirement accounts. The result could be a severe recession, greater unemployment, and consequences that all Americans will feel.

It is likely that the United States will face more economic problems in the days ahead even with this bill. We will never know what bigger problems might be averted. But, in my view, the potential consequences of not acting outweigh the deep reservations I have about this proposal.

I understand that any measure will be somewhat unfair in that those who took the excessive risks and made unwise decisions will be protected from the full consequences of their decisions. Unfortunately, some degree of unfairness is inevitable, but calculations of fairness must also consider what is best for the whole country.

Finally, a tax bill was added to this measure. It would have been better to have kept the two bills separate. I strongly support extending current tax law so that Americans will not face a tax increase, which would be a huge blow to economic growth. However, I am not pleased with the numerous special interest tax provisions that are included and are exactly the kind of thing that understandably frustrates the American people about their government.

A former minister in my home church used to say that ``Sometimes you have to put aside

your principles and do what's right.'' I believe at this extraordinary time passing this flawed bill is the right thing to do.