Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that the Republican baseball team once again was victorious in the annual congressional game by a 12-1 score on June 29.

I particularly want to thank our sponsors. We were able to raise over $100,000 for charities. Once again, the charities were the big winners, the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Washington area as well as the Adult Literacy Council.

I want to also congratulate my counterpart, Mike Doyle, the manager of the Democrat team, Joe Baca, the pitcher and the most valuable player on the part of the Democrats, with Kenny Hulshof the MVP on the Republican side, and John Shimkus, our extraordinary pitcher, who came back from heart surgery this year to pitch a complete game.

So congratulations to everybody for a wonderful evening of camaraderie and a good time and a nice victory as well. This is my last opportunity to do a little bit of bragging here as the manager.

Also, I want to congratulate the long-time manager of the Democrats, Martin Olav Sabo, who is retiring this year. He turned over the reins to Mike Doyle, but he was inducted into the Roll Call Hall of Fame, well deserved for a great sportsman and a great individual, Martin Olav Sabo.

Again, thank you, everybody. It was a great victory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on H.R. 2990, the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act of 2006.

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

Mr. Chairman, in response to the largest corporate scandals in U.S. history, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act strengthening the role of gatekeepers such as auditors, boards of directors, audit committees, and equity analysts. We now turn our attention to another gatekeeper, the credit rating agency, and Congressman Fitzpatrick's H.R. 2990, the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act.

Credit ratings serve a vital function in our capital market system, providing investors with an understanding of the creditworthiness of corporations and municipalities with respect to debt and other securities. As evidenced by the failures in the rating of Enron and WorldCom, who were given investment grade ratings by Moody's and Standard & Poor's just days before declaring bankruptcy, the credit rating industry is in drastic need of increased competition and improved transparency.

Currently, the SEC designates ratings agencies as nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations, or NRSROs, through an opaque process that provides applicants little guidance on the substance and procedure by which they will be evaluated. Currently, only five rating agencies are designated as NRSROs by the SEC. Understandably, many more aspire to attain that designation, as NRSRO status confers a significant competitive advantage. However, new applications often languish for years without an up or down vote on admission into this elite club. In fact, the Department of Justice commented upon the SEC designation process in 1998, calling it a ``nearly insurmountable barrier to entry.''

The SEC's opaque designation process has created an artificial government-sponsored barrier to entry that has stifled competition and helped the two top rating agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, garner some 80 percent of the market share. Without true competition of this industry, fees have skyrocketed and ratings quality has deteriorated. To put it mildly, this is not a transparent and efficient mark with robust competition.

Wanting to understand an industry with such a significant impact on the markets, Congress directed the SEC to examine credit rating agencies as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Since the release of the SEC's report on rating agencies in January 2003, the Committee on Financial Services and its Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises through its chairman, Richard Baker, have held five hearings on this subject, two of those hearings focused on H.R. 2990. Witnesses from the SEC, industry, academia, think tanks, and the rating agencies themselves echoed the problem areas highlighted by the SEC; namely, barriers to entry leading to a lack of competition, conflicts of interest, poor transparency of agencies' rating methodologies, and a lack of accountability. Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill is the product of this comprehensive examination.

In his testimony of this past May before the Committee on Financial Services, our former colleague, SEC Chairman Cox, expressed support for the goals of H.R. 2990, and requested enhanced authority in this area. In a June 2006 letter to Ranking Member Kanjorski, Mr. Cox stated, ``You also asked whether the quality of credit ratings concerns me. My answer is most assuredly yes. In fact, transparency, competition, and greater oversight, the principles I mentioned during my testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on May 3, 2006, are, in my view, important means to achieve the end of ensuring the high quality of credit ratings.'' The principles cited by Mr. Cox are the very principles of Mr. Fitzpatrick's legislation before us.

In addition, SEC Commissioners Paul Atkins and Cynthia Glassman have expressed their disapproval with the current designation system, and Mr. Atkins has expressed support for a registration approach like the one embodied in this bill. SEC Commissioner Roel Campos has also expressed a need for legislation that deals with conflicts, increased transparency, and provides for SEC examination.

Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill follows the regulatory regimes applied to broker-dealers and investment advisors. In doing so, it rejects regulation controlled by the SEC in favor of the market-based approach that has driven our securities laws since the 1930s.

H.R. 2990 removes the SEC's designation process, and in its place gives rating agencies who have issued ratings for 3 years the option of registering as NRSROs. A voluntary registration system will level the playing field for all rating agencies and inject much needed competition into this industry. As we have seen time and time again in other markets, true competition begets lower prices and better performance. When dealing with investor protection, it is all the more critical to ensure that healthy competition exists, yielding more accurate and reliable ratings.

In addition, H.R. 2990 promotes transparency and empowers investors by requiring registrants to disclose the methodologies by which they generate ratings. It requires rating agencies to provide short, medium, and long-term performance statistics, and to make all information and documents submitted to the SEC publicly available. This will give the market a clearer understanding of the agencies that are rating debt. The bill also requires that rating agencies maintain a chief compliance officer to oversee compliance with the securities laws and protects market stability, providing that the voluntary regime will not go into effect until January 2008.

To insulate the rating agencies from overreaching legislation, H.R. 2990 affirms that the Federal Government may not intrude into rating agencies' methodologies or the ratings process.

Finally, I have concerns about the conflicts of interest which plague this industry. Ratings firms have expanded into new areas which, many commentators have suggested, further compromise their objectivity.

In addition, it has been alleged that leading rating agencies engage in certain abusive practices to the detriment of smaller market players. H.R. 2990 requires disclosure of conflicts of interest and prohibits such anti-competitive practices.

The many hours that the Committee on Financial Services and Mr. Fitzpatrick have spent on this issue have shown the problems cited by the SEC report are best rectified through a system of voluntary registration open to all eligible rating agencies. This will eliminate barriers to entry, promote competition, and do so using the least restrictive means of regulation.

I urge all Members to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a valuable member of the committee.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the author of the legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me first of all recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick. He has been a real bulldog on this issue. The committee has worked its will passing this bill on a voice vote in the committee. His leadership has been extraordinary. The committee has had numerous hearings. We have had input from all of the usual sources, and then some, to craft this legislation.

If somebody were to tell you or anybody in this body that there was an industry out there where 80 percent of that business was controlled by two companies, whether it was in the steel industry or the auto industry, the health care field, I would suggest that particularly my friends on the other side of the aisle would be particularly upset and call it restraint of trade and ask for all kinds of investigations and to try to induce more competition and new entries into that marketplace. And that is exactly what we have got here. We have got credit rating agencies that for the last 35 years have basically had a duopoly on this very lucrative business. And as in the case with any other kind of business, when you have a duopoly or an oligopoly, you have lack of competition. You have a situation where you have conflicts of interest almost guaranteed, and you have a lack of transparency at the same time. That is what we attack in the Fitzpatrick legislation.

Now, I have been chairman of this committee for 6 years. Even before I was chairman of this committee this was an issue. The SEC would always come up before the committee, testify, well, we are working on it. We are trying to open this up. And yet, a frustrated member of the committee said, when are you ever going to get around to it?

This legislation is a wakeup call to the SEC, to the industry that, at least from our perspective, we are tired of waiting for this to happen. Everybody likes competition, but nobody likes competitors. Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

It is time that we provide the kind of competitive structure in this critical area that is long due coming.

There is a reason why, Mr. Chairman, in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that we requested this study, because we knew that part of the problem going forward with Enron and WorldCom and the like was lack of competition and the abysmal ratings effect that two members of the duopoly created right before Enron and WorldCom collapsed. Just think about the credit rating that they gave to Enron and WorldCom just weeks before they collapsed, and it tells you a lot about the lack of competition, the lack of transparency and a potential conflict of interest in the existing status quo.

This bill is anti-status quo. It is far reaching. It is visionary, and Mike Fitzpatrick's leadership on this cannot be overestimated. And so I think that every Member should take a look at this. This is part of the ongoing process to make our markets more competitive, more transparent, and this bill is a natural follow-up on what this Congress and what this committee has done over the years to create better confidence in the markets by investors to provide more competition therein. This legislation gets the job done, and all Members should support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2990, the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act. This amendment makes certain clarifying and technical changes to Mr. Fitzpatrick's rating agency reform legislation.

Specifically, the amendment clarifies that there is no private right of action for rating agencies registered as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, or NRSROs, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Neither is there an express or an implied private right of action with respect to rating agencies registered as NRSROs under the Securities Exchange Act. The Securities and Exchange Commission will retain its enforcement authority over registered rating agencies.

In addition, the amendment allots to the Securities and Exchange Commission an additional 6 months, for a total of 1 year, to review and, if necessary, revise its regulations that use the term ``NRSRO.'' The additional time will allow the SEC and industry participants more time to properly assess regulations using the NRSRO technology.

This amendment also makes a number of technical amendments, clarifying definitions, findings and disclosure requirements.

I urge all Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2990, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4411.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 907, I call up the bill (H.R. 4411) to prevent the use of certain payment instruments, credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. This bill represents the combined efforts of my esteemed colleagues, Chairmen Bob Goodlatte and Jim Leach, who have crafted an effective piece of legislation to finally stop the illegal Internet gambling we have worked against for so many years.

The Goodlatte-Leach bill combines two complementary approaches. First, it cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling Web sites. These Web sites, almost always located on some far-flung Caribbean island, will no longer be allowed to accept bettors' credit cards, fund transfers, or checks drawn on American banks.

Secondly, H.R. 4411 clarifies that the 45-year-old Wire Act covers illegal Internet gambling. As a former FBI agent, I can attest to the fact that the Wire Act is an effective tool in stopping crime, and this bill will help us make better use of it.

Illegal Internet gambling is bad for a number of important reasons. Experts at the FBI and Justice Department have warned that these sites are often fronts for money laundering, drug trafficking and terrorist financing. Internet gambling sites evade U.S.-based regulations that ensure the integrity of casino games, prevent minors from gambling, and puts in safeguards for problem gamblers.

Because these businesses are located overseas, they provide no tax revenues, provide no U.S. jobs, all the while evading Federal and State law enforcement. Unlike legal gambling here in the United States, no enforcement mechanism exists to ensure that individuals are protected against these overseas Internet gambling sites. And with no age verification, savvy online gambling sites are preying on minors and young adults.

This Internet gambling bill is a culmination of a decade of hard work by Chairmen Goodlatte and Leach. I would also like to commend the efforts of Mr. Bachus, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Pitts, Ms. Hooley, and Mrs. Kelly, just to name a few. With their help, we have passed several versions of this legislation in the House. I remain hopeful that the Senate will be able to do the same and we can once and for all give the banking regulators and the Justice Department the tools they need to stop illegal Internet gambling.

In the meantime, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Goodlatte-Leach bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. And let me say at the outset I appreciate his good work on the Rules Committee and affording us the opportunity to testify last evening on this legislation.

I did not introduce this bill, or this resolution, for political purposes. I have a deep respect for our process and our institution here. I introduced that resolution to send a signal that a lot of people in this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty sick and tired of people leaking classified information, secret classified information, and having the media report it with no responsibility, no accountability whatsoever.

They are endangering our fighting men and women in Iraq and all over the world. They endanger the very freedoms that we enjoy. And it has been a continual frustration, whether it was the NSA revelations or the wire-tapping of al Qaeda suspects who are talking to people or emailing people in the United States.

This is the third time in a relatively short period of time that this country has been witness to essentially treasonous behavior on the part of individuals who leak classified information, clearly against the law, clearly against the law, and then brazenly reported in the front pages of major newspapers, aiding and abetting the enemy.

We are at war, ladies and gentlemen. Now, some of you folks find that an inconvenient fact, but we are at war. And when the Congress responded with the PATRIOT Act shortly after 9/11, that was supported by a broad array of Members on both sides of the aisle and with editorials in the New York Times and other newspapers telling the administration they better get on the case and set up ways that we can intercept terrorist financing.

Part of that legislation came out of my committee. We are pretty proud of what we did in that antimoney laundering, antiterrorist funding legislation that we made part of the PATRIOT Act. And guess what? It has worked. Now, that may drive some of these people crazy in certain editorial boards. But the fact is this program has worked effectively and efficiently since it was set up for the first time.

Even the New York Times in their editorial, the editorial board of the New York Times specifically called on Congress and the administration to set up programs to intercept and monitor financial reporting internationally. And this program has worked effectively well.

The President of the United States was not dumb enough to go out there and talk about methods and ways that this program worked, as the gentleman from Texas said. He talked about the program existing. But he did not say how it worked on a day-to-day basis. And now we have it spread all over the news media about how this program works. What is the average terrorist to think?

He is going to find a different way to move his money around, that is what he is going to do. He is going to change his behavior. So this resolution was set up to first of all say this is a very effective program. Let me just go over the four basic points of this resolution.

One, it supports the government's efforts to identify, track, and pursue terrorists and their financial supporters. Now, if you are against that, then vote ``no.''

Two, finds that the Treasury Department's Terrorist Financing Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with law, with appropriate safeguards and reviews to protect individual civil liberties, and in consultation with and oversight by the Congress. If you don't like that, then vote against it.

Three, condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Who among us is not going to agree with that?

Four, calls on the news media organizations to stop disclosing classified intelligence programs that protect the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists.

That is what this resolution says. So read the resolution and then tell me what part of that resolution you don't agree with. And if you don't agree with it, then by all means vote ``no.''

I would like to close by quoting Mort Kondracke in a recent edition of Roll Call in his column. He says this: ``Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. has broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications, or reveal how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated?''

Mr. Kondracke goes on to say: ``Nowadays newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures.'' And then he goes on to say: ``The situation is very serious; in fact it is dire.'' It is dire. Now, I don't consider Mort Kondracke to be from the far right. But he has nailed this basic question that this resolution addresses.

We all, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to protect this Nation and its people. And one of the ways we do it is making sure that we can track terrorist financing and do it and protect civil liberties, and we are doing just that.

And this resolution confirms that. I ask all of the Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution because this is really at the heart of a gut-check in this country, whether we are going to allow for this kind of behavior to take place, leaking classified information and then having newspapers win a Pulitzer Prize as a result.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 895 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 896, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present to the House for our consideration H. Res. 895, a resolution that expresses the sense of the House supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and terrorist financing. Additionally, the resolution finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was conducted lawfully and with all due protections of civil liberties. The resolution condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and states that the House expects the cooperation of news media organizations in these matters.

Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that every Member can and should support. We are at war. Thanks to the great job being done by our members of the U.S. military and law enforcement, Americans feel safe to go about their daily lives, but we are still in fact at war. We depend on classified programs and classified information in order to successfully prosecute that war.

While there is the physical war that is being fought, of course another critical front in this war is terrorist financing, and that is where we focus our debate today. It is critical, because where terrorists place and spend their money is one of the best indicators about where the terrorists are located, who they are, and where they may strike again.

The editors at the New York Times would do well to reread the editorial they published on September 24 about 2 weeks after September 11, 2001. In part, it reads: ``The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators, and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities.'' The editorial concludes, ``If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.''

All of that activity that was recommended by the New York Times so soon after 9/11 was taking place and was being done with an extraordinary amount of international financial cooperation by the U.S. Treasury and its Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The program was being conducted in accordance with current U.S. and international law, with executive orders, with outside audits, and with all proper care being given to individual liberty. I need to add that it was also being conducted with significant success.

And part of that success was because this Congress passed the PATRIOT Act and our committee stepped forward with antimoney-laundering provisions that became a part of that PATRIOT Act, so important on the war against terror.

However, the recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program. Now the terrorists are well informed of the details of our methods and will find other ways to move money outside of the formal financial system. Now the terrorists will be driven further underground, and we will have to invest further years of work to uncover these new methods.

Unfortunately, a one-day story in the New York Times can ruin years of careful work by those who work to map terrorist networks and the flow of terrorist money. Obviously, the editors of the New York Times are more concerned about their sagging circulation rates and about damaging the Bush administration than they are about disrupting terrorist financing.

For those who may think we are overreacting, all you have to do is go back just a few days to the arrest of the seven terrorist suspects in Miami. That cell was looking to gain funding from al Qaeda to attack American targets. While law enforcement successfully broke that cell in plenty of time, we need to know about financial transactions like those while the attacks are in the planning stage.

In a recent column, Morton Kondracke asked the question: ``Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or would they have revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures.''

In the same column, Kondracke says: ``But the fundamental problem infecting much of Congress, the media, and the political class, especially those left of center, is that they are consumed with loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe.''

Continuing to quote Kondracke: ``Everyone in Congress and the CIA should see the movie `United 93' as a reminder of what we are up against. Muslim fanatics will not only try to destroy the Capitol, but also explode a nuclear bomb, if they can.''

Kondracke goes on: ``And people should heed the warning delivered by Princeton University Professor Bernard Lewis. Lewis cast the struggle with Islamic extremism in World War II terms. `It is 1937,' he said, `and we seem to be more in the mode of Chamberlain at Munich rather than Churchill.'''

Kondracke, again quoting Lewis: ``Osama bin Laden and other would-be Hitlers,'' he said, ``consider the United States an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance. It's part of the pattern that we fight among ourselves as much as against our enemies. This is more than serious. It's dire.''

These are the words of a well-respected journalist. A profound statement from Kondracke, but right on point.

Another respected voice on the issue is Michael Barone. On USNews.com, Michael Barone recently said: ``Why do they hate us? Why does the New York Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but

theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt, while confident of remaining safe under their roof.''

Nobody could have said it better than Michael Barone and Morton Kondracke.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. That is why the Congress is debating this resolution. I ask this resolution be supported strongly on a bipartisan basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on passage of H.R. 4761.

I object, and I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, Mr. King of New York, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take a second to correct the gentleman from Alabama. There is not one word in this resolution that calls for prosecution of anything other than leakers. Not the media.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the only member of the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a lively debate. I just want to state some facts. We are at war. All of the decisions, virtually all of the decisions that have been made since 9/11 have been made in this Congress, the administration, with the express purpose of protecting the American people.

The PATRIOT Act, actions that were urged by the New York Times and other media, were undertaken expressly to protect the American people. And the fact that we have not had a major attack in this country is I think fairly good news and indicates to everybody that the system and what we have done is working.

We all served with Lee Hamilton. He was a great Member, well respected on both sides of the aisle. Lee Hamilton was the co-chairman, along with Governor Kean, of the 9/11 Commission. They testified before numerous committees. They wrote an excellent report.

And that report was critical looking backward on things that we had not done to better protect ourselves. We did not connect the dots. We had a wall between the CIA and the FBI. There were things that could have been done better.

And this was all constructive criticism. And then those gentlemen went out, not only did they testify, but they spoke in public. And they are still very active in that operation.

Why do you think, why do you think that Lee Hamilton asked the New York Times to resist publishing that information? Do you not think that he thought that our Nation was at risk and that that kind of information out in the public would notify al Qaeda and our enemies that we were in grave danger?

Why would somebody with the reputation of a Lee Hamilton or a Governor Kean make that extraordinary effort to try to keep a news organization from publishing that information? That is what this argument is all about. That is what this resolution is all about. This is serious business. This is not politics. This is about the safety of our children and our country.

And we talk about politics all of the time. I am frankly disappointed. Vote for this resolution and let us get on with the business at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2006, or the FIRM Act. This legislation will significantly reform the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure its continued viability. After all the rain we have seen in our Nation's capital these past few days, now is an especially good time to take a close look at this program that millions of Americans count on to protect the investment they have made in their homes from flood damages.

The Financial Services Committee has a history of reforming the NFIP and with conducting oversight over the program. Spearheaded by the efforts of our former colleague, Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, this committee took significant steps toward reform with passage of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Act in 2004. That bill helped ensure that those people whose homes flooded on a frequent basis will not continue to soak the American taxpayers by filing flood loss claims time and time again.

Under the leadership of my friend Bob Ney, chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the committee continued to oversee the NFIP last year with a field hearing in his district and with hearings on the status of flood map modernization and the program in general. These hearings exposed a number of deficiencies in the NFIP, including the fact that FEMA was not moving quickly enough to reform the program and that the Nation's flood maps are often outdated and inaccurate.

Then came Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita. These storms placed an unprecedented strain on the NFIP that continues to this day. We had to raise the borrowing authority of the flood program first to $3.5 billion, then to $18.5 billion, then to $20.8 billion. FEMA tells us that it is still not enough to cover all the claims from last year. When all is said and done, the NFIP will need $25 billion to pay all of those claims, and that does not take into account any storms we have before hurricane season ends this year.

We have an obligation to these estimated 225,000 policyholders who have already filed a claim resulting from the events of 2005. These homeowners who have a binding contract with the NFIP to cover flood events could initiate legal action against FEMA and the U.S. Government if the flood insurance program does not make good on this contract.

At the same time, we also have an obligation to reform and modernize the NFIP so that homeowners will continue to have access to flood insurance. According to recent estimates, more than half the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the sea. While senseless coastal development should not be subsidized or encouraged, these homeowners who play by the rules and live in homes that take proper flood mitigation steps should also not be penalized.

The FIRM Act is a bipartisan bill. Chairman Baker and I have worked closely with Ranking Member Frank to put together numerous reforms that will serve to increase FEMA's accountability and address the weaknesses exposed by last year's flooding.

In an effort to make the NFIP more actuarially sound, the FIRM Act phases out the subsidized rates currently enjoyed by the owners of hundreds of thousands of vacation homes and second homes. If you can afford one of those homes, you can afford to pay your freight. In addition, the bill introduces new lines of coverage at actuarial prices and increases the program's coverage limits to reflect inflation. These are common-sense reforms that, again, will be actuarially priced.

The FIRM Act requires FEMA to administer the program more responsibly. Flood maps will be improved and updated, and FEMA will have to certify to Congress that they have done so. The NFIP's borrowing authority will be temporarily increased to ensure that all outstanding claims will be paid.

The FIRM Act increases the amount that FEMA can raise policy rates in any given year from 10 percent to 15 percent; and for those lending institutions that drop the ball on enforcing mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, fines will be tripled from where they are now.

I remain committed to the reform of the National Flood Insurance Program that we in the Financial Services Committee started with passage of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Act in 2004. H.R. 4973 is the logical next step on the road to fiscal soundness for NFIP.

I commend Mr. Baker for his work and strongly urge a vote for final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand that this is an issue in many States around the country but especially in those States hit by hurricanes in the last 2 years. I would welcome the opportunity to explore this issue further with the gentleman and my good friend from Florida, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 4973. In addition to making technical changes necessary for the bill, the manager's amendment will clarify the drafter's intent in a handful of areas.

This amendment establishes that the phasing in of actuarial rates for second homes and nonresidential properties will begin once FEMA has certified completion of their map modernization efforts. This is necessary to ensure that subsidies are eliminated fairly and without inaccurate information about which homeowners should be purchasing flood insurance in the first place.

In addition, the amendment provides that the $1 million cap on penalties for nonenforcement of NFIP requirements not apply to regulated entities that have been assessed a penalty of $1 million in any 3 of the past 5 calendar years. This will help ensure that bad actors not get away with ignoring the need for adequate enforcement or mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements.

This amendment more clearly defines FEMA participation in State disaster claims mediation programs and ensures the confidentiality of documents and conversations during the mediation process.

In addition, it clarifies that mediation participation does not interfere with the exclusive Federal jurisdiction enjoyed by the Federal courts over the NFIP and provides that FEMA will not incur any additional fees as a result of mediation participation.

The manager's amendment also more clearly sets out the timeline for FEMA's inclusion of certain features on updated floodplain maps and clarifies the FEMA Director's authority regarding the ability to issue interim postdisaster flood elevation building requirements.

This amendment is a bipartisan effort that makes this bill better and more technically sound. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and also say to my friend from Mississippi, congratulations on a well-thought- out amendment. I know the gentleman has had personal issues with this, as well as our good friend, former House Member Senator Lott; and we have had a number of discussions about the frustration that you and many of your constituents feel.

We think that it is appropriate that the IG conduct that investigation and report back within 6 months, and therefore we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept the amendment. I congratulate the gentleman on his foresight. We are prepared to vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the Chair is prepared to accept the amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her foresight and also for merging this new technology with the ability of FEMA to make better and more accurate mapping.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment and are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.

I am not going to claim opposition because we support the amendment. I would just say to the gentlewoman, we are pleased to accept her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman on her foresight and her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, once again, I am prepared to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during rollcall votes 316, 317, and 318 taken on June 22.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on No. 316 (the motion to recommit H.R. 4890), ``aye'' on No. 317 (final passage of H.R. 4890), and ``aye'' on No. 318 (final passage of H. Res. 323).

Mr. Speaker, I bring to my colleagues' attention the following column written by Michael Barone. As Mr. Barone shows, the joint efforts of the so-called mainstream media and the political Left to examine current events through the prism of Vietnam and Watergate are--once again--sadly off base.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2006]

Vietnam, Watergate and Rove

(By Michael Barone)

It has been a tough 10 days for those who see current

events through the prisms of Vietnam and Watergate. First,

the Democrats failed to win a breakthrough victory in the

California 50th District special election--breakthrough that

would have summoned up memories of Democrats winning Gerald

Ford's old congressional district in a special election in

1974. Instead the Democratic nominee got 45% of the vote,

just 1% more than John Kerry did in the district in 2004.

Second, U.S. forces with a precision air strike killed Abu

Musab al-Zarqawi, on the same day that Iraqis finished

forming a government. Zarqawi will not be available to gloat

over American setbacks or our allies' defeat, as the leaders

of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam did.

Third, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced that

he would not seek an indictment of Karl Rove. The leftward

blogosphere had Mr. Rove pegged for the role of Bob Haldeman

and John Ehrlichman. Theories were spun about plea bargains

that would implicate Vice President Dick Cheney. Talk of

impeachment was in the air. But it turns out that history

doesn't repeat itself. George W. Bush, whether you like it or

not, is not a second Richard Nixon.

It is hard in retrospect to understand why the left put so

much psychic energy into the notion that Mr. Rove would be

indicted. He certainly was an important target. No one in

American history has been as powerful an aide to a president,

both on politics and on public policy, as Karl Rove. Only

Robert Kennedy in his brother's administration and Hamilton

Jordan in Jimmy Carter's come close, and neither was as

involved in electoral politics as Mr. Rove has been.

Still, it was clear early on that the likelihood that Mr.

Rove violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was

near zero. Under the law, the agent whose name was disclosed

would have had to have served overseas within the preceding

five years (Valerie Plame, according to her husband's book,

had been stationed in the U.S. since 1997), and Mr. Rove

would have had to know that she was undercover (not very

likely). The left enjoyed raising an issue on which, for

once, it could charge that a Republican administration had

undermined national security. But that rang hollow when the

left gleefully seized on the New York Times' disclosure of

NSA surveillance of phone calls from suspected al Qaeda

operatives abroad to persons in the U.S.

In all this a key role was played by the press. Cries went

up early for the appointment of a special prosecutor: Patrick

Fitzgerald would be another Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski.

Eager to bring down another Republican administration, the

editorialists of the New York Times evidently failed to

realize that the case could not be pursued without asking

reporters to reveal the names of sources who had been

promised confidentiality. America's newsrooms are populated

largely by liberals who regard the Vietnam and Watergate

stories as the great achievements of their profession. The

peak of their ambition is to achieve the fame and wealth of

great reporters like David Halberstam and Bob Woodward. But

this time it was not Republican administration officials who

went to prison. It was Judith Miller, then of the New York

Times itself.

Interestingly, Bob Woodward himself contradicted Mr.

Fitzgerald's statement, made the day that he announced the

one indictment he has obtained, of former vice presidential

chief of staff Scooter Libby, that Mr. Libby was the first to

disclose Ms. Plame's name to a reporter. The press reaction

was to turn on Mr. Woodward, who has been covering this

administration as a new story rather than as a reprise of

Vietnam and Watergate.

Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left

and the press have been so determined to fit current events

into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years

ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by

Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they

insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or

Korea and that Watergate was something different from the

operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt

or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early

'60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans'

faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists

since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they

have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the

wrong party is in office.

That belief has its perils for journalism, as the

Fitzgerald investigation has shown. The peril that the press

may find itself in the hot seat, but even more the peril that

it will get the story wrong. The visible slavering over the

prospect of a Rove indictment is just another item in the

list of reasons why the credibility of the ``mainstream

media'' has been plunging. There's also a peril for the

political left. Vietnam and Watergate were arguably triumphs

for honest reporting. But they were also defeats for

America--and for millions of freedom-loving people in the

world. They ushered in an era when the political opposition

and much of the press have sought not just to defeat

administrations but to delegitimize them. The pursuit of Karl

Rove by the left and the press has been just the latest

episode in the attempted criminalization of political

differences. Is there any hope that it might turn out to be

the last?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 861, expressing our continued dedication to the global war on terror and the brave men and women serving on the front lines in that war. Alongside their counterparts from across the world, they have worked on our behalf to confront terrorist elements and foster freedom in the name of peace and stability.

I want to focus my remarks on the extraordinary efforts of the Bush administration to improve our Nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities and prevent future terrorist attacks. Armed with the new tools Congress provided in the Use of Force Resolution, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other intelligence laws, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities have scored many successes in the last 4 years. Their efforts to track terrorist networks and decipher their plans have broken up sinister plots here at home and around

the world. An FBI supervisor has confirmed that the PATRIOT Act led to the breakup of an al Qaeda cell in suburban Buffalo, NY. And just a few days ago, months of painstaking information gathering by U.S., Iraqi, Jordanian, and other sources resulted in the killing of the terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

For all the well-earned kudos that have been heaped upon the military and intelligence communities for their successful mission against Zarqawi, most of their successes aren't widely known and can't be publicly broadcast. The intelligence community can't take credit for them for fear of giving away secrets about their modes and methods of gathering this valuable information.

Which is why the revelation in the media last year of the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program was an outrageous breach of national security.

This leak--timed to coincide with Congress's debate on reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act--let al Qaeda and other terrorist groups know that the NSA had been intercepting the international communications of individuals with links to their groups.

Then-CIA Director Porter Goss confirmed before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the damage caused by the leak has been ``very severe,'' leading to the loss or disruption of some sources and methods--not to mention the damage caused to our relationships with our intelligence counterparts in other countries.

This program has provided valuable intelligence on terrorist activities. CIA Director Michael Hayden, who oversaw this program at the NSA, stated ``unequivocally'' that we have obtained information through the terrorist surveillance program that would not otherwise have been available.

It's also consistent with Congress's direction that the President use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against nations, groups, and individuals found to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We have tracked and intercepted calls in cases where we have reason to believe that at least one party in the conversation is a member of al Qaeda.

The program is also fully compliant with existing law, and has been reviewed by the Justice Department and White House counsel roughly every 45 days. Congress has been briefed regularly on its provisions, consistent with the National Security Act of 1947. Chairman Pete Hoekstra has confirmed that congressional leadership, along with the leaders of the two intelligence committees, had numerous opportunities to express concerns about the program.

Sadly, rather than giving the administration credit for working to gather intelligence and ``connect the dots,'' the outrage of some in this Congress has been directed not at those who leaked information about the program, but at the NSA and the White House. Unbelievably, four of our colleagues in the other body even introduced a resolution to censure the President over this program--a program that, had it been in place before 9/11, could have led the NSA to locate and identify two of the 9/11 hijackers who settled in San Diego in 2000.

It's simply irresponsible to claim that this program is outside the administration's authority, since leaders of both parties have had every opportunity to express misgivings over the last 4\1/2\ years. Frankly, it smacks of political grandstanding that criticisms were raised only after the program's existence was leaked to the New York Times.

Some have tried to minimize the significance of this leak, saying that terrorists obviously know that we're spying on them. But the truth is that terrorist cells need to communicate, and they'll keep using methods of communication that they know to work--and stop using methods that have been compromised. You can guarantee they'll move on to other modes of communication, now that details of the terrorist surveillance program have been publicized.

It also defies logic to suggest that the privacy of communications with known terrorists is constitutionally protected. Just like in every military conflict our Nation has fought, the interception of enemy communications has been a fundamental part of the war on terror. The day after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications into and out of the United States. That act was necessary and lawful--as is this more focused interception of al Qaeda communications, given the nature of the enemy we face.

Future al Qaeda attacks on our homeland are likely to be conducted by operatives who are already here. Identifying and tracking them is a sizable challenge, and it's preposterous to suggest that our intelligence professionals will cast such a wide net that they threaten the privacy of ordinary American citizens in doing this work. They don't want useless information that takes them off the trail of criminals and terrorists; they have neither the time nor the resources to waste. They're constantly working against the clock to counter terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who are preparing to attack when and where they can.

As a special agent of the FBI, I conducted wiretaps. They're wrapped in layers of legal protections and never done without probable cause. The NSA's actions simply give intelligence services the same wiretap authorities that have been available to those fighting organized crime and drug lords. Americans not in contact with al Qaeda can be assured that their rights have not been violated.

Even as we debate this legislation, terrorist groups are plotting to kill Americans. If the NSA tracks a call from a known terrorist in Afghanistan to a phone number somewhere in the U.S., it's in our best interest to know who's on the other end of that call and what they're talking about.

This is no time to let our guard down or publicize details of our clandestine intelligence work. The fact that we have not had a major terrorist attack in this Nation since 9/11 is no accident. The focused efforts of our intelligence officials have helped detect and prevent attacks, and we as a nation are safer as a result. They deserve our gratitude, as do all of our service men and women serving on our behalf on all fronts in the global war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during yesterday's rollcall votes on final passage of H. Res. 794, H. Res. 804, H. Res. 608, and H. Con. Res. 338; and on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 857.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.