Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, if tonight the National Security Adviser walked in the Oval Office and said, ``Mr. President, we believe there is an imminent attack about to occur in the United States, and we want to listen in on a phone call,'' we think there should be no doubt that the President has the authority to say, ``Yes, listen in on that phone call,'' to protect the United States.

But at some point the emergency power ends, and the normal rules of law must obtain. Certainly that point comes sooner than 90 days after the request is made, which can be renewed and renewed and renewed without a decision of an independent Federal judge.

We have a law in place that says that within 72 hours of that emergency our President must go before independent Federal judges in a private, secret proceeding and justify the decision to listen to the calls of Americans or read their e-mails. 99.9 percent of the time since 1978 that has worked. There is simply no record, there is simply no justification to overturn that decision.

This is the most expansive, frightening, and unreasonable expansion of government power since Japanese Americans were unlawfully interred during the Second World War.

One of our friends from the other side of the aisle said that he was offended that liberals had somehow subjected the country to danger. Well, America's first liberal, Thomas Jefferson, would be offended by this piece of legislation, because it sets the outer balance of Presidential power wherever the President chooses to set those outer bounds. This violates Marbury v. Madison, it violates a fundamental tenant of American law, and, for these reasons, this bill should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), my very thoughtful friend.

Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken in this debate on both sides I think shares a deeply held conviction that they want terrorists who would threaten this country prosecuted, convicted and punished.

Because I believe the commencement of those prosecutions is imperative for the future of the country, I will support this bill. I will do so, however, with two severe reservations which I would hope would be dealt with by the other body and in conference.

The first has to do with the issue of habeas corpus, which is a complicated word, but in this context, here is what it means: As I read this bill there is a risk that a suspected terrorist could be held for an indefinite period of time without recourse to any decisionmaker outside of the executive branch.

The constitutionally of this is ambiguous. But the wisdom of it I think is clear. It is not very wise. I think revisiting this provision as the bill goes forward would assure the constitutionality of the bill and its compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that there has been an insufficient procedure for us to consider this bill. There have been many good ideas dealing with habeas corpus, dealing with issues of retroactive immunity that I think deserve a full and fair airing and hearing on this floor. This is an unfortunate procedure in which we find ourselves.

My concern is it will be our sole opportunity, given the way things go around here, to voice our opinions on this. I do think that the underlying provisions of this bill are consistent with the spirit and letter of our obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

I have concluded that compliance with these conventions is essential so we can go forward in prosecuting and trying those who threaten our country. I believe this process needs great improvement. I think this bill needs one very specific improvement. But to move it forward, I will vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on September 25, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 5059--to designate the Wild River Wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, ``no'' on H.R. 5062--to designate as wilderness certain National Forest System land in the State of New Hampshire, and ``yes'' on H.R. 6102--to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, VA, as the ``Captain Christopher Petty Post Office Building.''

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on September 25, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted no on H.R. 5059, to designate the Wild River Wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, no on H.R. 5062, to designate as wilderness certain National Forest System land in the State of New Hampshire, and yes on H.R. 6102, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, Virginia, as the ``Captain Christopher Petty Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Honorable Joel B. Rosen, United States Magistrate Judge of the New Jersey District, for his exceptional service to his community. I consider Joel a close friend, and commend him for his continuing commitment to the practice of law.

After graduating from Rutgers School of Law at Camden, with honors, Judge Rosen served as an Assistant United States Attorney. For a time, he was the attorney-in-charge of the United States Attorney's Office in Camden where he received several commendations from the Department of Justice for prosecuting organized crime and political corruption. He also served as the Chief of the Special Prosecutions Section as a Deputy Attorney General in the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. In 1987, Judge Rosen was sworn in as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey.

Judge Rosen was awarded the Rutgers School of Law Honorable Joseph M. Nardi Jr. Distinguished Service award in 2004. In 1999, he received the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. ``Champions for Social Justice and Equality Award'' from the Black Law Students Association at Rutgers School of Law. He was the recipient of the Special Achievement Award from the Department of Justice in 1976 and received Special Commendation of Outstanding Service in the District of New Jersey, Department of Justice in 1975. Judge Rosen is a Former Member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction and the Federal Judicial Center, Magistrate Judge Education Committee. He was also the Former President of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association.

I have known Joel both personally and professionally for over a decade and have found him to be a man of outstanding moral character. His compassion and integrity are only matched by his keen mind and superior knowledge of the law. I am proud to call Joel a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that, because I was taking my children to their first day of school, I missed one vote on September 7, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 981 (Providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 503 to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Channel Logistics, LLC for their recent achievement in maritime domain and seaport security.

On April 1, 2006, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers presented their Annual Corporate Innovation Award to Channel Logistics, LLC during the Institute's annual awards dinner in Philadelphia. The award recognizes the company's development of the Computer Assisted Threat Evaluation System. This system evaluates potential maritime and port security threats among ships, crew and cargo entering our ports. It is able to evaluate threats by analyzing information contained within maritime databases through the processes of data fusion, pattern and choke point mapping.

This technology plays an important role in uncovering possible terrorist threats to our vulnerable maritime and port infrastructures. I am proud that Camden, NJ-based Channel Logistics, LLC is a leader in developing innovative technologies designed to secure our country and ports, and I congratulate them on receiving the IEEE's distinguished Annual Corporate Innovation Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Doug Dash, a man who has served his community and his country for nearly 30 years.

Doug is a graduate of West Chester State College. He was a teacher in Pennsauken, NJ and is the proud grandfather of a beautiful four and a half year old girl. During his time serving his community as a letter carrier, Doug has also been the Congressional Liaison for the Cherry Hill Postal Service. Mr. Dash began serving his community as a postal employee after he had already served his country in the armed forces for two years, receiving a Purple Heart after one year in Vietnam. Doug has been serving Cherry Hill and the First Congressional District of New Jersey since 1979.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Doug Dash today for all that he has done for The First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country. Doug's life of service is worthy of admiration, and in addition to being a constituent and colleague, I am proud to call Doug Dash a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Cadet Andrew W. Doyle for his promotion to Chief Petty Officer of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. On May 14th, 2006, family and friends of CPO Doyle gathered on the Battleship New Jersey in Camden to celebrate this outstanding achievement.

During his more than three years of service, Andrew Doyle has exemplified what it is to be a leader. He has also demonstrated a deep patriotism that has propelled him to this elite rank. Because of his dedication, ability, and significant contribution to the community, Andrew Doyle is truly an inspiration to U.S. Naval Sea Cadets everywhere, and to all citizens of this nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor CPO Andrew W. Doyle for his remarkable record of service and accomplishments. There is no doubt that CPO Doyle will be successful in whatever challenges he undertakes and will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all. I extend to him my heartfelt congratulations and I wish Chief Petty Officer Andrew W. Doyle the best of luck in his future.

Mr. Speaker, this bill offers much to recommend in improving pension law. In particular, I applaud the inclusion of relief for multi-employer plans and the clearing up of some of the contradictions and ambiguities around hybrid defined benefit plans. But I must rise in opposition to this bill for two reasons.

The first is that the bill makes a mistake that the majority said from the very outset it did not want to make, which was to favor one industry over another in affording relief for single-employer plans. Not only does this bill afford more protection for some industries over others, but within an industry, within the airline industry, it exhibits I believe unwise favoritism for some airlines over others. The majority started this process by saying it did not want to choose winners and losers among industries. What in fact I believe it has done is to choose winners and losers within an industry, which I think is unwise and a bad precedent to set.

Secondly, I must rise in opposition to this bill because of its procedural irregularity. There is a conference which was seated several months ago that is dealing with these issues. What is before us tonight is a brand-new bill, not a conference report. This does not recognize months of negotiation between the two Houses and between the two parties. It is a brand-new bill that starts without anyone I think truly vetting or understanding.

And I must say that my Democratic colleagues who are conferees on this bill, Mr. Miller, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Payne, among the three of them they have 90 years of experience in this House, and they were afforded no opportunity to attend a meeting of the conference, to ask a question at the conference, to express their views at the conference. This is not disrespect to them; it is disrespect to their constituents and to the millions of people whose views are represented by Mr. Miller and Mr. Rangel and Mr. Payne and others.

This is an awfully important area of legislation. To rush head on with a bill that no one has read, ignoring a conference that has never met, that ignores 90 years of experience from Members on this side I think is a mistake. So despite the good that I know is in this bill, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

No bill more clearly captures the distorted values of the majority of the House than the bill before us right now. People who earn the minimum wage and work full time mostly live below the poverty level, and they have been waiting for a very long time for a raise in their pay.

This bill says to those who wash dishes and launder laundry and clean houses, you got to wait just a little bit longer for that raise. You have to wait until the wealthiest people in the country are able to see their heirs pay little or no tax on the wealth that is passed to the next generation.

Now, the idea of reducing or eliminating the estate tax may or may not have merit, and that idea deserves a free and separate debate on this floor, but so does the idea of raising the minimum wage for those at the bottom of the ladder in this country. This shows us who comes first. This bill says those that launder laundry and clean rooms and work in car washes will wait their turn until the wealthiest people in the country can pass off wealth to their heirs. They come first.

This is a shameful distortion of the country's values. We should vote now and we should vote ``yes'' for an increase in the minimum wage, free and clear of this distortion of values for the estate tax. Vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that, due to my attendance at the swearing in ceremony of New Jersey Commissioner of Labor David Socolow, I missed three votes on July 24, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1496 (Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005), ``yea'' on S. 203 (National Heritage Areas Act of 2005) and ``yea'' on H.R. 5534 (To establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in support of his motion.

I want to try to explain, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues what one of the issues in Mr. Miller's motion has to do with.

Let's assume that we have a pension plan that is only 75 percent funded; that is to say, it has $75 for every $100 that it needs to meet its pension obligations. Under the bill that passed the House, the people that run that plan could say the following: The CEO of the company could continue to get 100 percent of the benefits that he was entitled to under the plan, the wealthiest person in the company. But the person who cleans his office at night could have her pension cut.

Let me say this again. If the plan had $75 for every $100 that it needs, under the provision the House passed, the CEO of the company gets every nickel that he is entitled to. No cut at all. But the custodian who cleans his office at night, or the clerk who types his letters, or the person who delivers his documents, could have their pension cut considerably.

Now, this is not right. This is not right. If some employees are going to take a cut in their pension, then it seems fair that everyone should share equally in that punishment.

One of the great principles of the American economy is that a rising tide lifts all boats. When a company prospers, so does everyone in the rank and file, so does every shareholder, so does every investor, one would hope. And lots of decisions are predicated upon that principle.

We want the executives to flourish and prosper, because if they do, they will make better decisions for the people who clean the offices and type the letters and deliver the documents.

But the corollary to that principle is, if the boat is sinking, then some people can't jump off the boat into a life boat while everybody else stands there as the ship goes down. That seems rather fair.

One might call this the Titanic principle, you know, where the people who were in the luxury compartments got to the life boats first, but the people locked in steerage sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

The Senate has a very different provision. Ninety-seven senators voted in favor of this provision; and it said, very simply, the same rule that applies to the lady who cleans the office at night should apply to the CEO who sits in the office all day long. Ninety-Seven senators voted in favor of that provision. Two voted against it.

Mr. Miller's motion wisely says that this House should go on record as saying that is the provision we ought to adopt. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Tim Friedman on his retirement from the House of Representatives and the House Democratic Cloakroom.

Mr. Friedman, a native of Lackawanna, NY, arrived in Washington, DC, in 1976 and started his career in the House of Representatives on July 19, 1976 under the patronage of Hon. Dan Rostenkowski. He worked as a Doorkeeper under Hon. James T. Molley from 1976 to 1982 then transferred to the office of the House Sergeant at Arms and worked as an assistant to the Hon. Jack Russ. In 1985, Mr. Friedman became the Assistant Manager of the House Democratic cloakroom. His contributions are immeasurable.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere congratulations to Tim Friedman. I wish Mr. Friedman and his wife, Colleen, a relaxing retirement filled with many rounds of golf. Thank you for your service to the House of Representatives, and to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct; and I hear my friend's comments about process and responsibility. This has been the most irresponsible pension conference process one could imagine.

Mr. Speaker, I was sent here, as were my colleagues, duly elected by my constituents to speak for them. I was appointed by the leadership of my party to participate in this conference to speak for all of our constituents. There have been many meetings; we have been invited to none. There have been many discussions; we have participated in none.

So if you want to talk about a responsible process, let's talk about one where every person duly elected to represent his or her constituents has a chance to do so. This process is a travesty.

Now, on to the substance.

The words ``cash balance plans'' are a little hard to understand. They are theoretical, they are abstract; but they are very easy to understand if you are 50 years old and you have been working somewhere for 25 years and you are planning your retirement assuming you are going to get a certain amount every month in the mail as a check that you have earned.

And then, one, the HR department comes in and says we have changed our mind. Instead of getting a check for a certain amount every month that you have earned, we are going to give you a lump sum instead, and assume that when you invest it, you will get about the same amount.

Mr. Miller's motion says two things: It says that the version of this idea that passed the Senate 97-2 should be the version that applies; that maybe we should give some workers the chance to choose whether to go into this system or not, to put more power into the hands of the worker and the retiree to choose what happens to them, rather than have the employer make that decision. That sounds reasonable to me.

And the second thing that Mr. Miller does is to say let's take the assumptions that are most protective to

the retiree. Let's err on the side of giving the retiree too much, not too little. I don't think that is too much to ask.

I think the House should join with 97 Senators from both parties and adopt the version of this idea that is in the Senate bill. Vote ``yes'' on Mr. Miller's motion to instruct.