Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, next Monday, 5 days from now, it will be 5 years since we experienced the attack of September 11, 2001. That was one of the most tragic circumstances ever to confront this country. More than 3,000 Americans lost their lives.

But it has developed into an additionally tragic circumstance for our Nation as a whole, because the administration and the Congress, the entire government of our country, the legislative and executive branches, failed to address the issue properly.

The administration called upon the Congress to give it the authority to conduct itself in a way that was entirely inappropriate, and on October 16, the majority of the Members of this Congress voted to give the President that authority. As a result of that, we have now been bogged down as a result of the attack in Iraq and the subsequent occupation for more than 3 years, and the administration and this Congress have no plan for relieving ourselves of that obligation and responsibility.

One of the tragic aspects of that, of course, is the fact that more than 2,600 American servicemen and women have now lost their lives. That number now is approaching the number of Americans who lost their lives as a result of the attack of September 11th by the al Qaeda network.

There are a great many issues that this Congress has failed to address. Let me begin by talking just for a minute or two about the circumstances that existed prior to that attack of September 11, 2001.

The intelligence agencies of our country had informed the administration beginning with the first meeting of the National Security Council of this administration in January of 2001 that the al Qaeda network offered the greatest threat to the safety and security of America and that it was likely that they were going to advance some form of attack against our country.

Now, we know that they had done other things in the past. They organized the initial attack against the World Trade Center in 1993. They organized the attack against the two United States embassies in East Africa. They organized the attack against the USS Cole. The President of the United States was informed from the first day this administration came into office and virtually every single day thereafter up to September 11, 2001, that there was a great danger from the al Qaeda network.

On August 6, 2001, the President's daily briefing said that al Qaeda was determined to attack the United States, and there were other instances where the intelligence community told the administration that al Qaeda was determined to attack the United States. Yet nothing was done about it. No action was taken. The President was on a very extended vacation in Crawford, Texas.

One of the things that this Congress has failed to do is to investigate the intelligence that was available prior to the attack of September 11th and why that intelligence was not used appropriately by this administration to prevent the attack of September 11th.

Why has this Congress failed to carry out its obligations and responsibilities under the Constitution to oversee actions of the administration in that regard? The Senate Select Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation, but they have failed to release the information with regard to the intelligence that the administration had available to it prior to the attack. We need to ask ourselves why that is the case.

And why is it that the House Intelligence Committee has not carried out its obligations and responsibilities to conduct an investigation as to the quality and caliber of the intelligence information available to the administration prior to the attack of September 11th and why that information, which seems to have been so clear and so focused, was not used appropriately? Let's focus our attention on that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to my friend and colleague, Mr. Davis, for providing me with this time. I also want to express my appreciation to my friends on both sides of the aisle for managing this resolution and allowing it the opportunity to come here to the floor this afternoon.

Cornell University is one of the most important and one of the most significant colleges and universities in America. It is an outstanding source of education, as well as a place of great scientific and other intellectual research. A great many events have taken place at Cornell University, located in Ithaca, New York, over the many years that it has been in existence.

Among those significant events was the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, founded on December 4 of 1906. This first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity, which was established for African Americans, was founded at Cornell University, New York, which is located in the congressional district that I am honored to represent, and it was done so by seven college men at that time, Henry Arthur Callis, Charles Henry Chapman, Eugene Kinckle Jones, George Biddle Kelley, Nathaniel Allison Murray, Robert Harold Ogle, and Vertner Woodson Tandy.

It is important that this resolution is passed today because obviously, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of this fraternity. In fact, it happens not coincidentally this week the Alphas are holding a centennial convention right here in the Nation's capital of Washington, D.C.

Since its inception, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity has played a very crucial role in the educational and character development of more than 175,000 men. Now this fraternity has 350 college campus chapters and 350 alumni chapters that are located in 44 of our States as well as the District of Columbia. It also has additional chapters in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Europe. It has become in fact one of the most significant fraternities in the world.

Alpha Phi Alpha alumni include noteworthy leaders who serve in the areas of science, politics, the military, education, and social justice, and there are a large number of members of this fraternity who have served this country and then passed on. I will mention just a few of those outstanding Americans. They include Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., W.E.B. DuBois, Justice Thurgood Marshall, and John H. Johnson. Alpha Phi Alpha alumni also include eight other distinguished colleagues in our House. They are Charlie Rangel, Bobby Scott, Chaka Fattah, Gregory Meeks, Danny Davis, David Scott, Al Green and Emanuel Cleaver. It gives me a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to offer this resolution to the Members of our House, and I certainly hope it passes unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the village of Endicott in Broome County, NY, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of Endicott. I am pleased to recognize the village of Endicott and the important contributions it has made to Broome County and to the State of New York on its centennial anniversary.

Located along the majestic Susquehanna River, the village of Endicott makes up one-third of the ``Triple Cities'' region of New York, along with the Village of Johnson City and the city of Binghamton. The Tuscarora tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy originally inhabited the area of present day Endicott before European settlement in 1795. Between this time and when Edicott was incorporated in 1906, the village grew steadily in the 19th century with the construction of schools and transportation systems. The first Endicott-Johnson shoe factory in Endicott was constructed on North Street in 1901 which promoted expansion of the village and growth throughout the Triple Cities region. The village was named after Henry B. Endicott who founded and owned the business that was Endicott-Johnson.

Endicott-Johnson was vital to the growth of the community and as an employer it pioneered the concept of worker's dignity. At Endicott- Johnson, labor was seen as a group of people rather than a commodity. Endicott-Johnson workers were given benefits such as profit sharing in the company, financial help when they needed it during an emergency such as an illness or a death in the family, and Endicott-Johnson was also one of the first companies who shortened the work day from 9\1/2\ to 8 hours a day with wages remaining the same. Employees were so pleased with their working conditions that they felt it was unnecessary to join a union and, while factories nationwide were experiencing violent riots Endicott-Johnson's workers and management enjoyed a respectful harmonious relationship. In addition to the fairness shown to the employees, Endicott-Johnson was also known as offering a ``Square Deal'' to its customers and Binghamton is now known as the ``Home of the Square Deal,'' a place that summarized an umritten compact that let the public know that with Endicott-Johnson products they were receiving high-quality merchandise while informing potential Endicott-Johnson employees that when working for the company, they would be working for a company that would treat them with respect.

After the incorporation of Endicott in 1906, the 20th century proved to hold more opportunities for expansion for the village with the founding of International Business Machines, IBM, the company helped create jobs in the area as well as helped expand Endcott with recreational services created for IBM employees as well as for the public.

Like the Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company, the workers were seen as people instead of labor to be exploited. IBM also took care of its employees during hard times such as the Great Depression when it provided workers with life insurance and survivors benefits. Later, during WorId War II, IBM established a fund for widows and orphans of the IBM employees that were fighting overseas.

In 1921, the village of Endicott gained size and prestige by absorbing the adjacent village of Union. The villages had grown together closely, so it became hard to determine geographically where one village started and the other ended. This unification greatly strengthened the community and positioned it for greater growth and prosperity.

Despite its classification as a village, Endicott provides many amenities of a large city such as an airport, paid fire and police protection as well as many other services. The village today also offers many forms of entertainment for its inhabitants as well as visitors such as stage performances at the Cider Mill Playhouse and the Endicott Performing Arts Center as well as golfing at the En-Joie Golf Course, which is also home to the Broome County, B.C., Open, a regular stop on the PGA Tour. There is also the Little Italy section of Endicott on the North Side which also boasts a strong culture. In addition to all of these forms of recreation, there are many parks available and carousels which are so ubiquitous to the Southern Tier that Greater Binghamton is often referred to as the carousel capital.

Endicott's vibrant history is alive and evident today. Villages like Endicott are an essential component of our Nation's past, present, and future, and deserve to be honored and recognized for their numerous contributions. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the village of Endicott, NY, as it celebrates the 100th anniversary of its founding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend warm birthday wishes and to pay tribute to a dear friend and great man, Mr. John T. Casey.

John will not turn 80 years old until August 17, but I want to take this opportunity to honor him before the House of Representatives adjourns for the month of August.

As many of his friends would tell you, John is a very civic-minded man. He was an active member of the Town of Gardiner Democratic Committee for 35 years, of which he served as its chairman for 22 years. It was in this capacity that I came to know him when I ran for a seat in the New York State Assembly in the early 1970s. I truly appreciated and valued the support and encouragement that John gave me, and am happy to say it was the start of a wonderful and long lasting friendship.

His contributions weren't limited to the Democratic Party. John was equally dedicated to improving the lives of working Americans through the labor movement. He and I share the belief that good jobs, fair wages and true economic opportunity must be realized for every single American. This is a message that must be carried to every comer of this nation, and John carried this out as a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, local #445. Not only was he a member of the Teamsters for almost 50 years, starting out as a shop steward, he also served as its president from the mid-1970's to 1980.

John proudly served his country in the U.S. Army from 1944 to 1946, serving as a master sergeant in Holland, France and Germany during World War II, and is a member and past commander of the American Legion Post 176 in New Paltz, New York. Additionally, John also served his community as chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners in Gardiner, and is a life member of its fire company. This is a man who has dedicated himself to the betterment of the community and for that we will always be grateful.

Happy birthday friend, I'm honored to share your day with you.

Mr. Chairman, before beginning, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk having to do with the medicinal use of marijuana. I understand that the first one has been allocated 10 minutes and the second one has been allocated 20 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to reallocate funding in this bill away from the prosecution of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in those 11 States where either the legislature or the people of those States by referenda have decided that they would like to have marijuana use for medicinal purposes under the supervision of a licensed physician in those 11 States, to have it moved from there to the enforcement of methamphetamine violations.

My understanding is that the chairman is going to insist on a point of order, saying that this is legislating on an appropriations bill. Am I correct about that?

Mr. Chairman, I don't know why there would be a point of order against this amendment, because it seems to me that we have the ability to make these kinds of decisions now. This is not legislating on an appropriations bill. It is simply moving one appropriation for one particular purpose to a better purpose.

Mr. Chairman, in any case, I respect the chairman's decision; and, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill and/ or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.

It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical care will be regulated in those States.

We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they be allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the Federal Government has decided that they are going to intervene and prevent those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in two cases by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by the people of those States.

We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it introduces people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This amendment has nothing to do with drug addiction. This amendment has nothing to do with the potential for drug addiction. This amendment simply has to do with the ability of States to relieve the suffering of their citizens without Federal intervention and the right of States to pass

laws regulating medical practice without Federal intervention. It is a very simple amendment, and it ought to be passed.

Those people here who believe in small government should support it. Those people here who believe in the issue of States' rights ought to support it. And those people here who believe that State governments and the people in those governments have the right to take care of their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those people in this House ought to support this amendment as well.

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

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments that have been put forth against this amendment have nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. It has to do with two simple things: being compassionate for people who are suffering and dying under the lawful provisions of laws passed in their States, the 11 States that have done so; and States' rights, the right of States to govern medical malpractice, not this Congress. This Congress should recognize States' rights and live up to the provisions of the Constitution and pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment today with my good friend and colleague, Ron Paul. It is a bipartisan amendment.

This amendment simply states that none of the funds in this Act can be used to obtain evidence in contravention of the United States Code pertaining to the knock and announce policy.

The history of the knock and announce requirement can be traced back to common law. The rule requires officers with a warrant to knock and announce their presence before entering a private residence.

Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Hudson v. Michigan that evidence can still be obtained even if the officer or officers violated the knock and announce policy.

In that case, Justice Breyer gave a passionate dissent. Among his dissenting objections were these. He said, ``As a result of this decision, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock and announce requirement, and the Court does so without significant support in precedent. At least I can find no such support in the many fourth amendment cases the Court has decided in the near century since it first set forth the exclusionary principle in Weeks v. The United States back in 1914.''

This ruling goes against the precedents set by the Supreme Court most recently in Wilson v. Arkansas, 1995. The court held that the fourth amendment's reasonable search and seizure clause requires police officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a private residence.

Just a couple of years ago, in United States v. Banks, 2003, the court held that officers must wait at least 15 to 20 seconds before breaking a door down, again reaffirming the knock and announce rule. This ruling by this activist Supreme Court will create a slippery slope unless we stop it.

Justice Breyer also mentioned in his dissenting opinion the slippery slope and in mentioning it stated that if a warrant specifies that you can search the home on Monday, can police officers arrive on Tuesday?

We have a very serious issue before us, and that is a Supreme Court which has taken it upon itself to enact new law, in contrary not just to existing law, but in contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and this particular decision against the knock and announce policy goes markedly against the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

It is something against which this Congress must stand up. We cannot have a Supreme Court which continues to infringe upon the rights and privileges of American citizens, a Supreme Court which continues to insist on violating the privacy rights of American citizens which are protected in the fourth amendment to the Constitution. That is why I am offering this amendment this evening.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear what we are doing here. The knock and announce policy is enshrined in the Constitution, in the context of the fourth amendment. It goes back at least to the 13th century. It is enshrined in common law. It is held up by numerous Supreme Court decisions over the last 100 years, going back at least to 1914, and several of them in recent years, late 1990s, one again in 2003.

Now, all of a sudden, we have this more activist Supreme Court coming to the fore and intruding itself on the law, a Supreme Court which believes it can make the law, not just interpret it. One of the most brilliant aspects of our Constitution is the separation of powers provision. Every law in this country can be made only by this Congress.

Now I know some of my friends on the other side want the President to make the law. But if they do so, they are violating the Constitution again. Every law in this country, according to the Constitution, can only be made by this Congress. Not by the President, not by the Supreme Court. The Courts can only interpret the law.

What this court has done is attempt to make the law and to intrude itself upon previous Supreme Court decisions and, by doing so, violate the fourth amendment to the Constitution and the knock and announce provision which has been in effect for many centuries.

It is up to this Congress to stop that. That is why this amendment is being offered.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Town of Spencer in Tioga County, NY, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the founding of Spencer and I am pleased to recognize the Town of Spencer and the important contributions it has made to Tioga County and to the State of New York.

Located amidst the fertile hardwood forests of south central New York, Spencer was founded in 1806 as an agrarian settlement. The town, named for New York State Supreme Court Judge Ambrose Spencer, held the county seat from 1810-1821 and included the present-day towns of Caroline, Candor, Danby, Newfield, and Cayuta. Today, the Town of Spencer is not only still a strong agricultural center, but it is also becoming home to many new residents who work in neighboring communities, and place a premium on rural small town living.

Shortly after Spencer was settled, it produced ``The Mother of Women's Suffrage.'' Born in Spencer in 1814, Esther McQuigg Morris was a proponent of civil rights for all people. On May 2, 1870, shortly after the passing of Wyoming Bill 70, Esther was elected as the Justice of the Peace of South Pass City, Wyoming. With her appointment, Esther became the first woman to hold a public office in the United States. Her motto of ``It's justice first, then after that, the law,'' allowed her position to be so highly revered that in 1967 Esther McQuigg Morris was given her own postage stamp.

Throughout its history, Spencer has been vital to the economic well- being of the county. Because of the abundance of fertile land, Spencer blossomed as an agricultural center that boasted successful dairy farms, creameries, and a milk condensory well into the 20th century. This booming agrarian community attracted many settlers, including the Finns, whose positive influence on agricultural technique and trade can still be seen throughout the community. In addition to its rich and attractive agricultural heritage, Spencer hosts several technology driven firms that provide critical information based services throughout the region.

Spencer is also home to a thriving arts scene. Historically centered around the Spencer Opera House and the theatrical works of the Spencer Players, Spencer's art scene has become a vital part of community living. Today, Spencer, which is home to many talented artists and crafts men and women, supports a flourishing music society which attracts concerts from both visiting and local performers.

When visiting Spencer, it is impossible not to notice how the hard work and generosity of its people has turned the lush green hills into a flourishing community. With this success, Spencer has become a quintessential example of how rural communities form essential, colorful threads that enrich the fabric of this great Nation. For the special role that they play,

Spencer, and rural towns like it, deserve to be honored and recognized for their numerous contributions to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Town of Spencer, NY, as it celebrates the 200th anniversary of its founding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for providing me with this opportunity.

As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, next week the Food and Drug Administration turns 100 years old, and it is unfortunate that this agency is not making laudatory headlines as it celebrates such an auspicious occasion.

Instead, the Food and Drug Administration is at the nadir of its trustworthiness with the American people. Its basic defense of the public health has simply been perverted in the name of so-called conservative interests.

As a member of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee which has oversight over the Food and Drug Administration, I have been frustrated by the agency's cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry whose products it is supposed to regulate.

In 2001, fees paid by the drug companies funded 32 percent of the FDA's budget for drugs. Today, that figure is nearly 50 percent, and it is expected to go higher. Making matters worse, the FDA must negotiate with the drug industry on how those user fees are allocated. This financial dependency, along with the FDA's constant negotiations with companies over how to spend the fees, is the foundation for the conflict of interest that exists between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry and others it is supposed to regulate.

I have been alarmed that financial conflicts of interest are waived by the FDA among its advisory committee members. The agency relies heavily on these scientists and these experts to guide policy when questions arise concerning medical treatments. When the FDA allows conflicted scientists to serve on these boards, events that have occurred over 100 times already during this fiscal year alone, the public health is obviously jeopardized at the expense of inappropriate personal interests.

I have been saddened by the stories I have heard from American families who have paid the price for mismanagement of this agency. I have met with many of these families on the efforts by the FDA to preempt their right to sue pharmaceutical companies in local and State courts. These families must be allowed to seek the understanding and justice they are owed after their loved ones are injured or killed from an adverse reaction to a product regulated by the FDA. I will meet with some of these families again later next week.

For these and many other reasons, I and many of my Democratic colleagues have introduced legislation, the FDA Improvement Act and others, to address many of the loopholes that currently exist at this agency. This legislation would sever the financial links between the FDA and the drug companies. It would restore the independence of the FDA. It would strengthen the agency's efforts to guarantee post-market drug safety. It would eradicate conflicts of interest on FDA advisory boards. It would restore the public trust in this very critically important agency.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal and Harris Interactive released a poll on public perceptions of the job that the FDA is doing on the safety of prescription drugs. Only 36 percent of the adults polled believe that the agency was doing a good job on ensuring the safety and efficacy on new prescription drugs. Eighty-two percent of the people polled believed that the FDA's decisions are influenced by politics over medical science to a great extent or at least to some extent.

According to its own Web site, the FDA is our country's oldest consumer protection agency. It should be given the authority to do its job independently, and the administration should sufficiently use that authority to protect the American people. It is a two-step process.

Yesterday, the American Association of Retired Persons reported that prices for brand-name pharmaceuticals jumped nearly 4 percent during the first 3 months of this year alone. The men and women paying for these drugs should be able to trust in the safety and the efficacy of the products for which they are paying so dearly.

The Food and Drug Administration's 100th anniversary should be a time of celebration, and if we are going to make it such, we have to bring forward legislation to the floor of this House, legislation which makes the Food and Drug Administration free and independent, legislation which reestablishes the arm's-length relationship between the regulator and the regulated. That arm's-length relationship has completely disappeared because the FDA has become financially dependent upon the agency, the entities, the corporations, the drug companies that it is supposed to regulate, and that regulation has fallen apart.

Let us bring forward legislation to the floor of this House which improves the FDA and protects the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue to the floor in the form of this amendment today. I think that they have done the country a great service. If this House had been doing its job properly, this issue would have been out here on the floor of the House of Representatives quite some time ago.

The fundamental principle that we are dealing with here is simply this: we are a Nation of law. All of our law is based upon the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President of the United States the authority to violate the law. The President of the United States has violated the law.

This is not the first administration that has sought to govern the country on the basis of the creation of a climate of fear. As one of our colleagues pointed out earlier in this debate, that can be traced all the way back to the Adams administration, the first Adams administration. But that attempt eventually was overthrown, and it didn't take a long time.

The last time we had a President of the United States who wanted to engage in illegal surveillance on the American people, the last time we had a President like this one who was engaging in that kind of activity, was the Nixon administration. President Nixon engaged in illegal surveillance on the American people. As a result of that and other things, he was forced out of office.

Subsequently the Congress developed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, in 1978. There are some of us who believe that FISA itself is a compromise of the fourth amendment of the Constitution. The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees

independence and privacy to every single American citizen, and there are some of us who believe that the FISA Act compromises that. Nevertheless, it is the law.

So what do we have now? We have a President who has gone beyond the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, who has engaged in illegal surveillance against the American citizens.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak in the way that I believe is appropriate, and I will continue to do so.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to ensure that the President did not violate the law and go beyond it. This administration has violated the law. We have not addressed that. The House of Representatives, the Senate has not addressed this issue.

Now we have an opportunity to address it by virtue of the fact that we have this amendment before us. This is an important vote today. Every Member of this House should act in accordance with the law and accordance with the Constitution and vote for this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is exactly right. That is the law currently. Whether that law violates the Constitution is an open question. Nevertheless, because it has not been contested, it is the law, and the President, the administration, all of us have to live by that law.

There is nothing that gives the President of the United States or anyone in this administration the authority to engage in surveillance of the American people, not a single American citizen, outside of the definition requirements within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the background is obvious and well known to all of us. The fact of the matter is we are now living in a moment which is among the most difficult and dangerous periods in the modern history of our country. It came about as a result of the administration sending our military to attack Iraq. There was no justification, certainly no adequate justification, for that attack. The rationale for doing so as it was presented to the Congress was falsified, unjustified. I think that we all see that today very clearly.

The consequences of that action are afflicting our country very decidedly. We have now lost 4,500 American servicemen and women killed, tens of thousands others very seriously wounded. The dollar cost to our country is now approximately $400 billion. By the end of this year it is anticipated to be $450 billion.

The costs to Iraq are even more severe. The loss of life in that country may be as many as 100,000 people. Circumstances of life in that country are worse than they were 3 years ago when the invasion occurred in March 2003. And we have now been engaged in an occupation of that country for more than 3 years.

The fact that we all have to face is that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the administration has no plan for ending that occupation, and so it will continue. The loss of life will continue, the loss of funds will continue, and the deterioration of our reputation in the world will continue to decline.

This Congress has been derelict in its duty. We have not examined the administration in its activities related to the attack on Iraq, the falsified way in which it presented the rationale to this Congress, the way in which it failed to adhere to the recommendations of the military with regard to actions taken prior to the attack and subsequent to it, right up to the present moment.

So now we are faced with another potential problem that would magnify the one that we currently confront, and that is we have come to understand that there have been serious considerations within this administration to engage in a military attack on Iran. The rationale for that attack as it has been presented to us is that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons development program. Of course, that was part of the falsified rationale that was presented for the attack on Iraq.

We also know, of course, that the President in his State of the Union Address here, the address that attempted to justify by presenting false information to the Congress, attempted to justify the attack on Iraq, associated Iraq with the phrase ``axis of evil'' with two other countries, North Korea and Iran.

We now learn that there are discussions within the administration for a potential attack on Iran. And in the context of those discussions, it has also been suggested that the administration has the authority to engage in such an attack based upon the vote that was taken here to authorize the attack on Iraq based upon falsified, misleading information, information that was presented to us intentionally falsified and misleading.

So the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that none of the funding in this defense appropriations bill is used to engage in any military operation against Iran without a full vote of the Congress of the United States in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

It is a very simple, very straightforward amendment, and I hope that this Congress will live up to its obligations and this House of Representatives in accordance with its responsibilities will pass the amendment.

While our Chamber is on track to complete another lightning round of spending bills during this appropriations cycle, we have abdicated our oversight responsibilities across the board in the process. We are writing blank checks for bankrupt foreign policies without having sufficiently robust debate on the administration's actions abroad.

Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a terrible mistake resulting in an inextricable quagmire. And regardless of what our friends across the aisle claimed during our waste of a discussion last week, we are still not on the road to success in that country.

Now that other legitimate hot spots in the world, such as Iran, are heating up, we are a passive audience sitting on the sidelines as the Bush administration uses its damaged credibility and poorly-conceived diplomacy to try to head off a nuclear crisis within the most volatile area of the world.

We should be an active participant in the formulation of our foreign policy.

The Bush administration must be held accountable by Congress for its failings on the world stage. In addition, the administration must work with Congress before it stretches our already-depleted defense capabilities to the breaking point in another ill-conceived engagement.

And while the administration's recent efforts to engage with the European community in diplomacy on this issue are a welcome change, their international dealings have not proven to be trustworthy--another cause of our diminished credibility abroad.

This administration is tone-deaf when it comes to understanding the diverse religious beliefs and cultural principles of countries in the Middle East. It does not sufficiently support the troops that are already engaged abroad, and it does not understand the damage that this engagement has done to our armed services. We must rectify these problems, and Congress must be an active participant.

Iran presents our Chamber with the opportunity to right past wrongs, and to assume the responsibility for oversight and management that we tragically abandoned in the months leading up to our invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, late last year a number of American news agencies blew the cover off a covert propaganda operation pursued by the Department of Defense in Iraq. Through this operation, members of our Armed Forces write articles and have them planted in Iraqi newspapers. They also engage with private contractors to do that as well.

DOD works with a contractor, the Lincoln Group, who actually pays off Iraqi journalists and publications to get their words printed in Iraqi newspapers and other media.

According to a November 30 Los Angeles Times report, many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.- led efforts to rebuild the country.

By December 2005, the Lincoln Group had paid to plant upwards of 1,000 of these articles in the Iraqi and Arab media. I was shocked by this revelation, which is completely antithetical to what we should really be doing in Iraq. In fact, it is completely antithetical to what other U.S. agencies are doing in Iraq.

With one hand we are trying to develop a free, fair and independent news media in that country. But with the other, we are manipulating that media and breeding distrust among Iraqis of their democratic institutions and our efforts at reconstruction. That distrust is a direct threat to our troops in Iraq and a direct impediment to efforts to end our involvement in Iraq.

This revelation shocked a lot of people across our country. Both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush were reported as being concerned about the effort. In fact, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley predicted that the program would soon end.

A USA Today-CNN Gallup poll taken immediately after the program was exposed showed that nearly 75 percent of Americans thought it was wrong for the Pentagon to pay Iraqi newspapers for made-up articles.

In early March, General Casey announced that an internal review conducted by DOD had concluded that its own activities were legitimate and would continue.

Mr. Chairman, these efforts need reconsideration and careful scrutiny.

With the Internet and the round-the-clock news reporting, as well as the unfortunate development of media consolidation, the boundaries between international and domestic news are increasingly fuzzy. There is no guarantee that articles sold by the Lincoln Group to the Iraqi press will exist alone, in a bubble, ignored by other media outlets. There is an ever-increasing likelihood that these stories will make their way into our media, which directly contradicts our own laws.

These reports are strangely similar to stories that we were seeing here in the United States last year about the administration's developing packaged news articles that they paid to have placed in our own news outlets. I want to know if the Lincoln Group effort is a continuation of that behavior, which was strongly condemned by this House.

The program appears to violate a directive that was signed by Secretary Rumsfeld on October 30, 2003, which restricts psychological operations, or PSYOPS, from targeting American audiences, military personnel, and news agencies or outlets. DOD's decision to continue this effort in one country could easily lead to a decision to expand the effort to other countries, a wholly inappropriate idea that is very plausible in the current environment. That needs to be stopped.

And DOD is conducting this program with a company called the Lincoln Group, whose beginnings, current activities, and partnerships are cloaked in confusion and deception. This amendment prevents the Department of Defense from spending any of the money it receives in this bill on contracts with the Lincoln Group, its coconspirator in this inappropriate and damaging program.

I believe this amendment will send a clear signal to the Department of Defense that Congress and the American public do not agree with this administration's continued efforts to manipulate the media, especially when those efforts jeopardize the safety of our troops and the always shaky trust that we are fighting to maintain with the Iraqi people.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues here in the House to join me in celebrating the life of an outstanding American, an American who was a boxer and the heavyweight champion of the world. His name was Floyd Patterson. He died recently, on May 11 at the age of 71.

He was a truly outstanding athlete and, I think even more importantly, an incredibly outstanding human being. All of us who had the opportunity to know him benefited from that knowledge and our association with him, and I am proud to be one of those people who knew him well.

Floyd Patterson was born in a rural cabin in Waco, North Carolina, one of 11 children. When he was still young, his family moved to Brooklyn, New York. As a young child there, he struggled in a tough urban environment and as a youngster got into a certain amount of trouble.

He was sent upstate to Wiltwyck School For Boys where, under the proper kind of supervision, he began to turn his life around. He did so in a very dramatic way. He became associated with a very important boxing trainer named Cus D'Amato, and at the age of 17 Floyd Patterson won a gold medal in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics, boxing as middleweight.

He was known as a ``gentleman boxer.'' He was known as a gentleman boxer because in the ring he knocked a number of people out and a lot of people down, but he always helped them to their feet.

He had an amazing boxing career. In 1956 he became the youngest boxer to win a world heavyweight championship, and in 1960 he became the first boxer to ever regain the world heavyweight championship.

After an outstanding career in the ring, where he set an extraordinary example for other athletes, he eventually retired to a 17-acre farm that he purchased in New Paltz, New York. While in his retirement, he served as the

chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission. He counseled troubled teens through the New York State Office of Children's Services. He welcomed dozens of young men into his home and he trained numerous boxers in the boxing ring that he built in the barn on his farm.

He gave generously of himself to the young men he trained and to the communities of the Hudson River Valley in New York, including his generous support of the athletic facilities at New Paltz High School and the State University College of New York at New Paltz.

Floyd Patterson was an extraordinary, one might say almost unique, individual. He came from a very difficult set of circumstances. As a very young child he grew up in a set of very dangerous circumstances, but he managed to move himself away from all of that and to realize the extraordinary physical potential that he possessed as a human being and became the kind of champion that I just described.

He is an American worthy of honor and tribute and worthy of the recognition of this Congress. I hope that all of the Members of this Congress will join me in a resolution honoring him, his athletic career, and the contributions that he made to countless other individuals whom he helped succeed in realizing the potential of their lives.

Floyd Patterson, an extraordinary boxer, an extraordinary American, an outstanding, extraordinary human being. I am proud to celebrate his life.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us, House Resolution 861, is an unfortunate farce. It is part of an extension of the political propaganda, which has come from the Republican Party in defense of their so-called war on terror. It is not the first example. We have had many others.

Some of the highest-ranking members of this administration have purposefully and intentionally misled this Congress and the American people by providing them with wrong information. We saw it right here in the House of Representatives when the President himself talked about how the British had learned that Iraq was importing enriched uranium from Niger.

He was told before he delivered that speech that there was no evidence that that was true. Yet he came here and said it and put the responsibility on Great Britain knowing that what he was saying was untrue. It is a criminal violation of Federal law, two criminal violations of Federal law to consciously, purposefully, intentionally, mislead the Congress, particularly when you are trying to obtain actions from the Congress which result from that purposeful and intentional misleading.

What has been the cost? So far, 2,500 American service men and women killed in Iraq. We hear today from the Republicans how they honor the servicemen, but they continue to have them killed, wounded, continue to have them suffer on the basis of false information, deceit and lies.

They claim that this is continuing the war on terror. Well, what happened to the real war on terror? We were attacked by the al Qaeda. The al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. We know that to be the case. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that to be the case.

Yet, after we went into Afghanistan, which was providing solace and security for the al Qaeda network, and chased Osama bin Laden up into the Tora Bora Mountains, the administration decided and the Defense Department decided that they were going to abandon the search. Why did they not pursue the person who was responsible for this attack?

Well, there is one logical answer to that question, and the answer is if they had found Osama bin Laden, the rationale for the attack on Iraq would disappear. That is why we need to get out. That is why we need to pass the Murtha resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, for offering this amendment which I think is very appropriate and very much to the point these days. But before I begin with that, I also want to express my deep appreciation to my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Kolbe, the gentleman from Arizona who is the chairman of the committee which is overseeing this bill.

I want to just thank him for the good sound solid work that he has done, and I want to also tell him that I have very much appreciated having the opportunity to be associated with him in his work. I think he has done an extraordinary job in chairing this subcommittee on appropriations, and I think he has set an excellent example for his successor, whoever that may be. Of course, we hope that successor will be from this side of the aisle, but we will await and see what happens. Whoever it is, the example that Mr. Kolbe has set is one that is important for all of us, and I thank him very much.

Last year, the world's five biggest oil companies recorded a staggering $111 billion in profits. And for the first quarter of this year, these same companies have racked up about $28 billion in profits which puts them right on track for even exceeding the record profits that they established last year. The contrast between Big Oil's prosperity and the economic conditions of the vast majority of Americans is very, very obvious and deeply divided. People all across this country are finding it more and more difficult to heat their homes, and they are finding it true that each week a bigger chunk out of their paycheck is going to pay for the gasoline that they need just to get back and forth to work. So Americans are getting gouged twice. They are getting gouged at the pump and they are getting gouged in their tax bills.

So what this amendment does is begin to focus attention on this situation where we are subsidizing American oil companies that are making record profits to go off and spend the taxpayers' dollar to develop energy sources in some other part of the world. It just does not make any sense. They have more cash on hand right now than they know what to do with, and now we are providing them with additional subsidies.

So I thank the gentleman from Vermont for giving us the opportunity to vote on this amendment, to establish some clarity here with regard to how we use these funds. The kind of corporate welfare that is exemplified here in this particular example of taxpayers' dollars going to the richest companies in the world making the biggest profits in the world is just another example of how we have misallocated the taxpayers' dollars in this country, denying them the things they need in order to subsidize the coffers of people who do not need it. Let's pass this amendment.

Last year, the world's five biggest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Texaco--recorded a staggering $111 billion in profits.

For the first quarter of 2006, these same companies recorded almost $28 billion in profits.

The contrast between Big Oil's prosperity and the struggles of ordinary families to pay for the high cost of energy has never been clearer.

Americans are getting gouged twice: once at the pump when they pay high prices and twice, when they pay taxes that end up in the pockets of some of the most profitable energy companies in the world.

Yet, despite these record profits, the oil industry continues to benefit from billions in giveaways--courtesy of the American taxpayer. This amendment would put an end to one such egregious subsidy.

As my good friend from Vermont has explained, since 1995, the Export- Import Bank has provided more than 7 billion US taxdollars for loans and loan guarantees for oil and gas projects all over the world--all funded by Uncle Sam, or should I say, by taxpayers?

And look where our tax dollars are going: $1.3 billion to Exxon- Mobil; $162 million to BP; $300 million to Chevron; and nearly $2 billion to Halliburton.

Can anybody tell us without laughing up their sleeve that these corporate giants need more help from the very people who are having a difficult time affording to heat or cool their homes or put gasoline in their cars?

And what's more, should we ever be subsidizing a foreign firm? As the gentleman from Vermont has already pointed out, the top recipient of this corporate welfare is Pemex, which is wholly-owned by the government of Mexico.

Since 1996, Pemex has benefited from over $4 billion in financing from the Export-Import Bank.

In fact, roughly 70 percent of total Export-Import Bank financing for oil and gas projects since 1996 has gone to Pemex.

So why can't we see the absurdity of American taxpayers who are already $8.3 trillion in debt, subsidizing the Mexican government's oil and gas operations?

American tax dollars should not be publicly financing oil and gas projects for a company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mexican government. We should be embarrassed to ask that of our constituents.

This amendment would simply provide a time-out for more of this corporate welfare benefitting the most profitable companies in

the country when they want to develop energy overseas, at the expense of ordinary Americans.

This amendment would acknowledge that we are finished with putting American taxpayers at risk when we guarantee Export Import loans for risky oil and gas ventures overseas.

It would end the bilking the public trough for private gain.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is again about fairness.

Why should the US taxpayer prop up the oil and gas industry in times like these? I can see no good reason, nor should my colleagues.

These companies can afford to do their risky business with no assist from the public.

They can get loans from banks. They are not strapped for cash to invest overseas.

They have told us loud and clear that they do not need our subsidies, so let's take them at their word.

Unfortunately, every time we do take them at their word, these same companies come back begging to Washington for more corporate welfare and taxpayer dollars. This simply has to stop.

If American companies want to invest in energy resources overseas, have at it, and good luck to you. Just don't expect hard-working, underpaid Americans to foot the bill.

Support your taxpayers. End corporate welfare. Support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, my friend and colleague, for giving me this time to discuss this rule and the bill that it controls.

I hope that the majority of the people in this House will vote against this rule. This House of Representatives is supposed to provide the American people with a free, open and fair discussion of the most critical issues that affect them and this democratic Republic.

This rule does just the opposite. This rule closes down the debate on one of the most important issues before the American public and before this Congress, and that is the free and open, fair dissemination and discussion of information.

What this legislation does is it curtails the free, open and fair discussion of information, even more so than we have currently, and the situation that we have currently is bad enough. A large part of that badness comes out of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which the Republican Party pushed through this House of Representatives back then.

Remarkably, there were 16 of us who voted against that bill. A lot more wish they had voted against it today, and those people who vote for this rule and vote for this bill, at some point in the future they will regret having done so because what this rule does is close down debate on a bill which closes down discussion of important issues before the American public.

Let me just give you a quote from the Supreme Court. Almost 60 years ago the Supreme Court declared: ``The widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public. A free press is a condition of a free society.''

What do we have today? Today we have five companies that own the broadcast networks. They own 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks. They produce three-quarters of all prime-time programming, and they control 70 percent of the prime-time television market.

These same companies that own the Nation's most popular newspapers and networks also own 85 percent of the top 20 Internet news sites, and you are going to close down the Internet even more with this legislation.

One-third of America's independent TV stations have vanished. There has been a 34 percent decline in the number of radio station owners since the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed.

I want to say this to my dear friend from Chicago for whom I have the greatest affection and affiliation: there has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations since the end of the 1990s. Minorities now own little more than 1.5 percent of U.S. television stations, and they own 4 percent of the Nation's AM and FM radio stations.

This bill now closes down the process even more. It closes down the last free, open element of communication not controlled by big corporations in America. It closes down the Internet. It is going to make the Internet less available to Americans. It is going to

make communication through the Internet less available to Americans. And it is going to further stifle debate on the most important issues confronting our country just in the same way that this Republican rule stifles debate on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of my friend and constituent, Shirley Kobran. For more than four decades, Shirley has been an active resident

of Ulster County, New York where she has dedicated much of her time to serving her community in various manners. Most notably, Shirley committed much of her energy over the years to environmental protection programs and served as the catalyst for several important local initiatives. I'm proud to join the Ulster County Jewish Federation in honoring Shirley for her lifetime achievement and service to the communities of Ulster County.

Upon her arrival to Ulster County from the Bronx, Shirley quickly became active in various community service organizations. It was in her capacity as editor of the League of Women Voters' monthly newspaper that she featured environmental articles prominently on the front page and began to organize the League around relevant environmental matters. On Earth Day in 1970, Shirley, along with her League colleagues, founded the Environmental Task Force of Ulster County. One of the most notable public policy initiatives to emerge from the Task Force was a broad-based recycling program that laid the groundwork for the county's current recycling program. Shirley later became the first chairperson of the Ulster County Environmental Council where she brought attention to the environmental concerns surrounding the generation of nuclear power and oversaw the organization of various environmental fairs.

Shirley went on to serve on the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency where she formalized a recycling program that continues to exist in the county. She oversaw significant expansion of the Resource Recovery Agency and its recycling program, including the construction of the agency's first sorting facility.

In addition to these notable endeavors, Shirley has been deeply involved with the Ulster County Jewish Federation and many of its programs that support the community. She volunteers regularly at her synagogue, Ahavath Israel, and participates in many community service programs including the Federation's Book Rescue Program and Project Hope.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Shirley Kobran for more than thirty years. She has been a friend and a valued adviser and we have worked closely on many issues of importance to the residents of Ulster County. Her work on behalf of environmental issues and her community is inspiring and commendable. It is with great pleasure that I join the Ulster County Jewish Federation in recognizing her outstanding contributions and achievements.