Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the Missile Defense Agency has before it really an impossible task. Our current missile system programs have not worked, and wishing will not help it to overcome the physics. The tests have failed repeatedly. It has been confused by decoys, faced numerous testing troubles, and despite spending over $100 billion over the years, we have failed to develop a working system.

Mr. Tierney referred to the seven separate reports that are critical of various aspects of this program. Our amendment is not just pulled out of a hat, it focuses this program down to allow the Missile Defense Agency to work in those areas where it can make progress. The programs have gotten so far out in front of the basic facts that it is time to focus this down.

You know, our colleagues say they do not want to shortchange our national defense, but I can assure you that cutting wasteful programs does not shortchange our national defense. Seven separate reports by independent agencies here say that aspects of this program are wasteful. They simply are not working. It is time to focus it down.

You know, one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard is that we should deploy this missile defense system as a way to test it. I cannot think of any aspect of your life, any aspect of military preparedness, any aspect of business or industry where you work that way. It should be thoroughly tested before it is deployed. And to deploy something like this is worse than a waste.

To deploy a flawed system, well, simple strategic analysis tells us that a provocative yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens the security of all Americans.

The idea that we have sunk lots of cost is the argument that keeps coming back. That is one of the worst fallacies in human reasoning. We need to stop throwing good money after bad and focus this program down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tax reconciliation bill. Today's tax budget reconciliation bill will give the average American family an average of $10 per year from the extension of this tax benefit, or about enough to cover 3 gallons of gas. They will receive no benefit from the extension until 2009. Despite the popular GOP rhetoric about the large percentage of Americans that benefit from the rate reduction, the average American family's share of the total tax cut is approximately 2 percent.

Taxpayers with annual incomes greater than $10 million will receive approximately $500,000 in tax reductions per year.

While I do believe we need to create a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax problem, today's bill just pushes off the problem by another year. I have voted numerous times in favor of AMT relief far larger than the provisions included in the conference report. The conference report has limited relief that only applies in 2006, but protects dividend and capital gains benefits through the close of 2010.

We are paying for this $70 billion tax cut by deep cuts of $39 billion over 5 years in programs like Medicaid and child support enforcement. The other $31 billion will be added to the debt.

Medicare funding was cut by $6.4 billion; the social security index by $732 million. In New Jersey alone three thousand mothers will be dropped from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which helps mothers care for their babies before and after birth. Four hundred children in New Jersey currently attending Head Start will be cut out of this important childhood education and development program. More than 3,200 low-income and disabled people will be cut from Section 8 housing vouchers, all in New Jersey alone.

They have also made a college education more expensive. Cuts--more than $12.76 billion--to federal student financial aid were made by increasing rates that students pay, charging students more fees on their loans, and reductions in subsidies to lenders. This is the largest cut in history in student loans. The result will be nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise the cost of college loans-- through new fees and higher interest--for millions of American students and families who borrow to pay for college. For the typical student borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, these new fees and higher interest charges could cost up to $5,800. Once again, New Jersey families were hit--over 125,000 college students in New Jersey will be affected.

Today's tax bill cuts $70 billion in taxes and the reconciliation bill cut $39 billion in spending, so how will the other $31 billion be made up? By adding to our national debt, putting the burden on our children and grandchildren. According to the Treasury Department, major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities total $2.18 trillion. Currently, China is the world's second-largest buyer, exceeded only by Japan. Furthermore, China's purchases of U.S. government securities have exploded by more than 211 percent since the beginning of 2001 and now total $311 billion.

This situation is dangerous because it is a major way that we are funding the federal government--by selling our debt to the Chinese. In 1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly. During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and governments.

The high level of foreign holdings of U.S. securities could have a debilitating impact on our economy and foreign policy. If China threatened to sell large volumes of U.S. Treasury securities, it could easily fuel higher inflation and put pressure on the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates, putting our economy at risk for a large-scale recession.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this tax reconciliation bill, because we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Miller's motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2830, the so-called Pension Security and Transparency Act.

I opposed the Republican pension legislation that passed this body late last year because it will erode an employer's willingness to provide defined benefit plans and will close the loopholes that allow companies to dump their pension obligations onto taxpayers.

In addition to these effects, it offers insufficient protections to loyal workers and gives special treatment to executives for their compensation and pension packages. It is this specific problem that we are addressing today.

ExxonMobil's outgoing CEO, R. Lee Raymond recently secured a total retirement package valued at $400 million, including a $98 million windfall in the form of a lump sum pension payment. This is just one more example of huge executive compensation at the same time that workers are losing their retirement security and earned and needed benefits.

Under the House Republican pension legislation passed last year, if an employer allows a pension plan to become less than 80 percent funded, the covered workers cannot receive benefit increases, cost of living adjustments, or lump sum pension payments. The legislation holds executives to a different, and much cushier, standard. Executives can continue to pad their own compensation packages with corporate assets until plan funding drops below 60 percent.

We must establish fairness in the pension process and level the playing field so that CEOs and workers are subject to the same benefit rules. This motion would accomplish that goal, instructing conferees to apply the same benefit restrictions for workers and retirees, and CEOs. This is a vital step that we can take to restore a vital sense of fairness to the compensation and pension process.

I encourage my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Mrs. Bonnie Scott Gendaszek, an eighth grade mathematics teacher at John Witherspoon Middle School in Princeton, New Jersey and Ms. Lois Elizabeth Lyons, a high school science teacher at High Technology High School in Lincroft, New Jersey. Mrs. Gendaszek and Ms. Lyons are the two New Jersey recipients of the 2005 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching.

The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching program is administered by the National Science Foundation to recognize and reward outstanding mathematics and science teachers who serve as role models for their colleagues, and to encourage these talented individuals to remain in the teaching field. We must, as Members of Congress, celebrate these fine individuals.

Each of us is in Congress today because we had along the journey of our education, teachers who inspired us to achieve, to inquire, to excel, and to dream.

Teaching today is different than when we were in eighth grade or high school. It is not just the content of mathematics and science courses that is different. Additionally, there is more valid scientific research in the area of how students learn and how to integrate mathematics and science knowledge into their intellect, and into their lives. We know that students must be engaged in the learning process, actively involved in the lesson, not just listening to the teacher.

Mrs. Gendaszek's classroom is one of questioning for deeper understanding. She has created a learning community of inquisitive middle-schoolers who seek to understand mathematics in their everyday lives. This is no small accomplishment, Mr. Speaker. To create such an environment requires daily dedication to her students.

Ms. Lyons' classroom is also one of questions and exploration. She has learned how to make chemistry less intimidating to her student by connecting the concepts to her students' lives first, thus engaging their curiosity. Research into student motivation tells us that relevance is key to facilitating intrinsic motivation in students and creating life-long learners.

Teachers in our Nation do not receive enough respect or recognition for the work that they do each day of the school year for

our youth and for our Nation. As I work to pass the Congressional Teacher Award Act, I am happy to celebrate these mathematics and science teachers through the Presidential awards. As the United States seeks to find its place in the emerging global knowledge economy, our attention has turned to those who educate our youth, for teachers truly can change the future. I look forward to the leadership in the classroom, in New Jersey, and in the United States of Mrs. Gendaszek and Ms. Lyons to help maintain the leadership of the United States in the global economy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act, H.R. 4954. In the wake of the Dubai Ports World controversy, it is long past time to seriously address the issue of port security.

The ports of the United States are an economic gateway to the rest of the globe. They are vital to our economy and to our national security. Today, seaports handle 95 percent of our nation's foreign trade valued at over $1 trillion. This is an issue that is important to my constituents and to all citizens of New Jersey. The security of Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which is the 15th busiest port in the world, is something we need to address.

Yet, five years after the terrible attacks of September 11th, our nation's seaports remain remarkably vulnerable and real security concerns persist. Only 5 percent of the cargo containers that enter the United States are inspected despite the potential presence of dangerous cargo, including nuclear weapons. This national security risk is a result of the failure of the current Administration to seriously address this essential issue. This bill takes important steps necessary to help secure out nation's ports and prevent dangerous materials from entering our country.

However, the bill is far from perfect. The Republican Majority wants to play word games with port security rather than provide real security to all Americans. Today they will try to convince Americans that 100 percent of all cargo containers are screened. But, it is important to notice that they are only talking about screening, meaning a review of the paper manifest of the cargo container--not a physical inspection. I support the inspection of 100 percent of all containers, and tragically we only inspect 5 percent of all cargo containers entering the United States today. That means that 95 percent of the cargo containers entering our country could contain nuclear, biological or chemical weapons but because we have not inspected them we would never know. This needs to change.

Hong Kong has successfully implemented a 100 percent inspection program at its ports. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues denied Democrats the opportunity to offer an amendment that would require the United States to implement a similar program with 100 percent inspection of containers coming in to our country. Americans want real security, not word games.

The 9/11 Commission recently gave the Administration and Republican- controlled Congress a ``D'' for cargo screening. Still, the Congress has only appropriated a total of $883 million for port security despite the Coast Guard's stated need of $5.4 billion over 10 years to adequately secure our seaports. Last year, I voted for the Democratic Homeland Security substitute that would have appropriated an additional $400 million for port security funding for Fiscal Year 2006, but it was rejected by the Republican Majority, who is more interested in giving tax breaks the wealthiest Americans. We can and must do better for the security of the American people.

That is why I am glad that the SAFE Port Act would authorize $400 million annually for port security grant programs to be distributed based on risk. This money is desperately needed by our nation's ports to ensure that terrorist do not smuggle dangerous materials in to our country. Further, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to hire an additional 200 port-of-entry inspectors every year for the next six years. These additional employees will help ensure that high risk containers are actually inspected.

The SAFE Port Act represents a bipartisan and thoughtful effort to address the important issue of port security. I am pleased that this bill authorizes approximately $5 billion over six years to improve port and cargo security programs. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to finally develop a plan to deploy radiation detection systems at all American ports. It also strengthens the Container Security Initiative. Further, it authorizes almost $2 billion for the Coast Guard to upgrade and replace its deteriorating equipment and ships.

The SAFE Port Act is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. But we need more work remains to be done. We need to require 100 percent inspection of all cargo coming in to the United States. Anything less jeopardizes the security of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the students of East Brunswick High School for winning the national finals of the 2006 We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. Their unwavering commitment to mastering of our nation's most sacred document is truly laudable.

The students from East Brunswick traveled a long road before claiming national victory. They developed their knowledge of a wide range of topics, from the philosophical origins of the Constitution to its modern-day interpretations. They spent long hours studying primary and secondary sources. On April 29 through May 1, they appeared on Capitol Hill before simulated Congressional committees made up of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders, who tested their knowledge of both historical and contemporary constitutional issues.

As the foundation upon which our great democracy rests, the Constitution is a document that all Americans should understand, appreciate, and defend. I applaud the students from East Brunswick High School for acting on these values. They are indeed our future leaders, and have proven that they are able to defend and nurture our democracy and our Constitution. While I certainly admire their wealth of knowledge, I admire even more their passionate dedication to our American ideals.

The participating students competed against more than 1,500 students from 49 other high schools. Since its founding by the Center for Civic Education in 1987, over 28 million students have participated in this program, whose goal is to educate high school students on the importance of continued civic involvement. East Brunswick High School won last year's competition, and it is a great achievement to have defended their title.

I would like to congratulate each of the students of East Brunswick High School: Brian Boyarksy, David Chu, Nelson Chu, Dana Covit, Megan DeMarco, Ben DeMarzo, Craig Distal, Deborah Elson, Dana Feuchtbaum, Munira Gunja, Melinda Guo, Shelby Highstein, Evan Hoffman, Jayasree Iyer, Ryan Korn, Michael Martelo, Carol Ann Moccio, Jeffrey Myers, Ari Ne'eman, Daniel Nowicki, Aditya Panda, Sherwin Salar, Gil Shefer, Aaron Sin, Lauren Slater, Eric Smith, Merichelle Villapando, Amy Wang, and Jason Yang. Congratulations also go to their teacher, Alan Brodman, for inspiring his students to excel in their study of the Constitution.

I am proud to have such fine Constitutional scholars in my district, and I am myself inspired by their dedication our nation's most sacred ideals. I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). This bill is based on a false premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity. As many of my colleagues have expressed, oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation faces with energy. Instead of investing our efforts in sustainable energy sources to meet our growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways.

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery.

I recently joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey state legislators for the signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011. Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in Central New Jersey. This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a military base. This is about allowing the federal government to overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their communities.

We owe it to our constituents to debate meaningful energy legislation that reaches the root of our growing energy problems, not something that tries to fix a problem that does not exist.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local communities.

Mr. Chairman, it is an honor and a privilege to serve in the U.S. Congress. Having been entrusted by our constituents with the responsibility to serve their interests in this body, we hold a sacred trust to represent them openly, honestly, and selflessly.

Serving as a public official necessarily and rightly subjects an individual to heightened scrutiny of behavior. It is tragic that scurrilous actions perpetrated by Members of this body have further eroded the trust that Americans place in their electoral and representative system. Congress must act expeditiously and strongly to restore this trust.

Unfortunately, the legislation that we have before us today is nothing more than a sham. It is a feeble attempt to fool the public--a package of half-hearted cosmetic changes that merely nibble at the edges of a fundamentally flawed governing ethos.

H.R. 4975 falls far short of its two goals--fixing the systemic problems that have led to abuses of power, and restoring the faith of American citizens in the integrity of this institution.

Recent scandals prove that we need to do something to ensure that Congressional travel is legitimate. Domestic and international travel is an important way to inform our representation and see the effects of our decisions in different communities and countries. For example, Members of Congress should have the opportunity to travel to Israel, Burma, Greece, Brazil, or other destinations where the votes cast in this chamber have a real impact. Such trips are entirely different from golf junkets to Scotland. Nonprofits and educational agencies should continue providing this important service because it informs Members in a setting free of special interest lobbyists. However, H.R. 4975 does nothing to stop lobbyists from funding and arranging Congressional travel. Such travel should be permanently banned altogether. H.R. 4975 also fails because it imposes no restrictions on the use of corporate jets by Members, and does not require reimbursement of the flight's actual value.

Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant, and H.R. 4975 does not do nearly enough to allow the public to know the interaction between elected officials and lobbyists. H.R. 4975 contains no meaningful disclosure requirements on lobbyist campaign finance activities on behalf of Members of Congress. We must let the public know about fundraisers, events ``honoring'' Members, or outright contributions that special interest lobbyists are lavishing upon elected officials. The bill has been stripped of any such requirements.

It is clear that the practice of ``earmarking'' is not the ideal way to fund the needs of the nation. Basing funding decisions not on merit, but on the influence and seniority of a Member of Congress inherently does a disservice to the nation. Earmarking needs to be severely restricted. At a minimum, each Member should be willing to fully disclose the requesting organization or person and explaining the purpose of the project publicly. Unfortunately, H.R. 4975 fails to achieve this goal. Its disclosure requirements apply only to appropriations bills--not to authorization or tax bills. It's a half- measure, at best, that would do nothing to stop wasteful and unnecessary projects like the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''

Sadly, the process by which this legislation comes before us has been fundamentally undemocratic. The Rules Committee disallowed the large majority of amendments that would improve this weak bill. It disallowed an amendment that would have required registered lobbyists to disclose lobbying contacts with Members of Congress and senior executive branch officials. It disallowed an amendment to increase the waiting period for Members and senior staff to lobby Congress. And it disallowed an amendment to require full payment and disclosure of charter flights.

The Democratic alternative is a better way. The Honest Leadership Open Government Act would address these shortcomings and more. It would prohibit special interest provisions from being inserted in legislation in the dead of night, before they can be adequately reviewed and debated. It would restore democracy in the House by prohibiting votes from being held open to twist arms and lobby Members on the floor, and would prohibit cronyism in key government appointments and government contracting. We would also permanently ban gifts and travel arranged or funded by lobbyists, mandate disclosure of lobbyist fundraising activities on behalf of Members, and close the revolving door between the public and private sector.

The Washington Post calls this bill, ``a watered-down sham.'' USA Today calls it an ``outrageous substitute for needed reform.'' Third party interest groups like Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. P.I.R.G. have all condemned this weak and inadequate effort to kick the can down the road. We have an historic opportunity to reform the way business is conducted in Washington, D.C., and we are poised to miss that opportunity.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4975 and support real reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Amtrak on its 35th Anniversary. Yesterday, Amtrak celebrated 35 years of committed service to America by providing reliable and safe transportation.

Rail service has integrated small communities with large cities across the country providing opportunity for economic expansion, increased mobility, and environmentally sound transit. With the creation of Amtrak in 1971, our country has benefited from organized, reliable and safe service to individuals commuting to and from work and individuals using rail service for extended travel. With the rising cost of airline flights, exceptionally high gas prices and bus stations being closed across the country, individuals are relying more and more on rail service.

In New Jersey, employers rely on an integrated rail operation to enable many of their employees to get to and from work. As a regular Amtrak rider, I appreciate the professionalism and service that customers enjoy every day. The continued operation of Amtrak is an essential component of easing traffic congestion, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting our environment and preserving open space in New Jersey and across the country.

Amtrak needs the support of Congress. Funding cuts for Amtrak would have crippling effects on transit in New Jersey and many other states along the Northeast Corridor. In 2005, ridership reached a record level of more than 25 million riders, a 29 percent increase since 1996. We must meet the needs of millions of Amtrak riders through continued funding for this essential American service. We must help Amtrak maintain key infrastructure on the 650 route miles that Amtrak owns (out of 22,000 miles on which Amtrak operates), repair or replace old equipment, and encourage local and state investment.

I have always been a strong advocate for increased Amtrak funding and greater federal support for passenger rail service in New Jersey and throughout the country. I am a cosponsor of the Amtrak Reauthorization Act, which would authorize funding through Fiscal Year 2008 for Amtrak operations and capital investment. We must show our commitment to Amtrak by reauthorizing funding instead of fighting every year to keep funding at a steady level.

Again, I congratulate Amtrak for its 35 years of service to our nation. Rail service is a fundamental component of our nation's continually growing transportation system, and Amtrak has demonstrated the capacity of integrated rail service to expand economic opportunity, commuter options, and make vital contributions to the fabric of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 392, which celebrates the 58th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel. Today, we remember and pay tribute to the creation of the democratic State of Israel. It took the United States only eleven minutes after Israel had been declared a state to officially welcome her into the community of nations. For the last 58 years the United States and Israel have built a unique special relationship.

The creation of the State of Israel was a bold step in May of 1948. The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once said that, ``courage is a special kind of knowledge: the knowledge of how to fear what ought to be feared and how not to fear what ought not to be feared.'' It is from such courage that the State of Israel was formed and from which Israel continues to maintain its vibrant and strong democracy today. We can all learn examples from the struggles that the citizens have endured and the grief they have overcome to remain a democratic outpost in the Middle East.

I am proud to join my colleagues today to reiterate our continued strong support of Israel and her right to defend herself and her people from terrorism, and to focus on the special relationship that exists between our two nations. I have had the pleasure of traveling to Israel on a number of occasions, and these visits have only reinforced my strong conviction that the United States must remain actively engaged in ensuring a peaceful and equitable agreement between the two parties to the current conflict.

Yet, much work remains unfinished. We are all troubled by the recent Palestinian elections that put Hamsa in control of the Palestinian Authority and by the hateful, threatening comments that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made about Israel. This year also brought a transition from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert, and my thoughts and prayers remain with the Sharon family. This has been a unique year for Israel, full of challenges that were admirably met. As Ben-Gurion used to say, ``in Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.'' I still strongly believe in the dream that has become the wonderful reality of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution celebrating the 58 years of Israel's existence as a beacon of democracy and hope in the Middle East. I also celebrate today the daily courage exhibited by the citizens of Israel and express my personal commitment to Israel at this milestone in its history. I look forward to future anniversaries, and to the day when Israel and her citizens can live in peace without the need for courage against fear.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282. I am a cosponsor of this important legislation because I remain deeply troubled by the current regime and situation in Iran.

It is long past time for the House to address the security challenge posed to the world community and our allies in the Middle East by the current regime in Iran. The hateful and threatening comments made by the President of Iran against Israel cannot be tolerated. Further, the provocative actions taken by Iran to

further their nuclear weapons program must be stopped. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our allies. We must use every tool at our disposal today to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran must change its way.

This important legislation would codify bilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran and strengthens third-party sanctions through amendments to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. H.R. 282 would make the removal of these sanctions contingent upon a Presidential certification that Iran no longer poses a threat to the national security of the United States, its interests, or allies. It would also require the Administration to report to Congress on countries cooperating (or not) with U.S. efforts to forge a multilateral Iran sanctions regime. The bill would also provide U.S. assistance to pro-democracy groups in Iran and to independent broadcasts into Iran from abroad.

I was troubled when I read the recent reports about the Administration seriously considering a nuclear attack on Iran. While I strongly oppose Iran's efforts to create a nuclear weapons program, it would be unconscionable to use nuclear weapons in an attempt to eliminate their program. The President must reassure the world that America remains a responsible world power. He must state unambiguously that the United States will never use nuclear weapons in a first strike against Iran or any other sovereign nation.

H.R. 282 is in keeping with United States priorities to address the multiple threats posed by the Iranian regime, as well as with our goal to bring peace and stability the people of the Middle East. I support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to this rule. A number of amendments were denied to some very responsible Members of this body. One amendment would have required the President or the Vice President, if they intend to declassify intelligence documents, to inform the congressional Intelligence Committees and the originating agencies ahead of time.

As we have learned in the last month through court filings, the President, without informing, much less consulting our committee, elected to secretly and selectively declassify portions of the 2002 national intelligence assessment about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, by sworn statement, we know that this was done to rebut critics of the administration who questioned the rationale for the war.

The American people deserve to have the full facts. This amendment that I offered but we were denied the opportunity to debate on the floor would have ensured that any future classification efforts would have been disclosed. It would have exposed what the ranking member of our committee called the double standard of leaks.

Another amendment that I would have offered would have required any inquiries about intelligence employees or contractors made by nonintelligence community government officials, such as the President, the Vice President, the White House staff, would be reported to the congressional Intelligence Committees together, so that the propriety of such an inquiry could be considered. Had my amendment passed, it would have given Congress the opportunity to say clearly whether outing a career intelligence officer for gratuitous reasons would be tolerated.

Now, the gentleman from Florida said with regard to this bill before us, all Members will have the opportunity to review the material before us. No, not so. Even the cost of the unwarranted surveillance program will be provided only to a few Members.

The gentlewoman from New Mexico said that she has been informed, but I can tell you 425 other Members of this body have not been informed even about the cost of this program. And they cannot and they will not be informed, yet they are asked to vote on what is one of the most significant changes in intelligence collection in American history.

The checks and balances spelled out in this document, which I refer to my friend from Florida, known as the Constitution of these United States, this hallowed document, those checks and balances, are eroded. The debate here, allowed by the Rules Committee, or the lack of it, makes a mockery of this hallowed document.

Amendments by Representatives Boswell, Reyes, Eshoo, Harman, Flake, Frank, Kucinich, Maloney, Schiff, Shays and others have been denied. We have been denied the opportunity to debate significant issues on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think it certainly would not be asking too much that every member of the Intelligence Committee had access to this and far from it, if I may complete the answer, just as the President has decided he can pick and choose which laws apply to him.

These are significant issues that need to be debated here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, the gentleman says unprecedented number. Yes, an unprecedentedly small number.

We on the Intelligence Committee have a responsibility to review these issues on behalf of all 435 Members of the House of Representatives. I am not for a moment suggesting that all things need to be discussed here on the floor or in open. Of course, it is necessary so that we preserve national secrets.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California, for affording me a few minutes to comment on this bill.

I agree with many of my colleagues that there are some very important and positive features of this bill. The dedicated and often brave members of the intelligence agencies have earned and deserve our support, but this bill weakens our freedoms.

There are a number of points, and I hardly know where to begin, but the basic point is that the bill fails to address what I believe are some of the core oversight challenges facing our committee and this body. There are under way some of the greatest changes in intelligence collection in American history, and it deserves our careful oversight.

This bill turns a blind eye, really, to misuses of executive power that threaten our liberties and the constitutional balance of powers which we are sworn to protect. And I say this advisedly. I don't mean to overstate the matter.

The bill does not provide funding for privacy and civil liberties oversight. There has been some mention of that. The bill also does not address this really important issue of domestic spying. Make no mistake, all of us in Congress support intercepting communications of terrorists set on doing us harm, doing Americans harm anywhere in the world, but there are multiple examples of how innocent people are ensnared.

The Muslim American lawyer Brandon Mayfield, we have spoken about him on the floor; Christian peace activists; others who have been falsely labeled as terrorist coconspirators and domestic security threats based on their political beliefs or simple mistaken erroneous information. This is what happens when there are no checks and balances.

To date, there has been no independent audit of the NSA program, the domestic spying surveillance program, to determine whether similar abuses have occurred. That is our role, but we have been stonewalled in our efforts. Eavesdropping on Americans must comply with FISA, that is what I maintain. If the other side disagrees, let us have it out here on the floor. At least let us have it out in committee.

The President says FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, doesn't apply to him. However, the President doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he will follow and which ones he won't.

The administration still refuses to brief all members of the Intelligence Committee on this program. The National Security Act requires him to do that. The failure to brief the full committee compromises our oversight responsibility, violates the law, I think, and makes a mockery of the checks and balances that we are sworn to protect.

In another case, the Iraq NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, the information that was leaked, we now know for purely political purposes to try to discredit a public servant. We are talking about the protection of intelligence for its proper use. Classified information should never be misused as a political weapon through selective declassification and leaking to attack opponents a particular point of view. No, I am not flogging a dead horse, I am talking about the principles that we are supposed to protect.

Mr. Chairman, the bill also provides no meaningful protections for national security whistleblowers. Members of the national intelligence community can sometimes be discouraged or even intimidated from raising concerns within their agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and honor Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, and Theodor Hansch for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2005, and Drs. Yves Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs, and Richard R. Schrock for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2005.

The 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics encompasses the field of optics and its applications. The three gentlemen celebrated today are laser pioneers. Lasers have numerous practical applications, including in products such as CD players and grocery store scanners, for computer manufacturing, and in surgery.

Roy Glauber gave a detailed, quantum mechanical description of the interaction of light and matter, thus creating the foundation for the field of quantum optics. Glauber's work also created the groundwork on the quantum theory of lasers.

In addition, John Hall and Theodor Hansch received the prize for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy. This technique allows scientists to probe the atom with ever-increasing accuracy, explore the subtle intricacies of gravity, and lead to a better understanding of the pressing question of imbalance between the amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe.

The work of the three in concert will lead, for instance, to the next generation satellite navigation systems, improving on GPS, which is widely used in both military and civilian transportation systems. Another major potential application of this research, quantum cryptography, which could impenetrably secure data transmission, is of interest to financial institutions and governments as the emerging

knowledge economy requires the protection of information and ideas.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Yves Chauvin, Professor Robert H. Grubbs, and Professor Richard R. Schrock who were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis. From the Greek words meaning to change position, metathesis methodology, and its variety of enabling catalysts, have become invaluable in the development and industrial scale production of polymers, fuel additives, biologically active compounds, and drugs.

The formation and reorganization of carbon-carbon bonds is the heart of synthetic organic chemistry. Developing new techniques and methods for controlling carbon connectivity is critical to advancing an enormous range of scientific advancement and technological development.

Methods like metathesis represent the very tools used by chemists around the world to build better drugs, better fuels, and better materials in ways that are cheaper, faster, and cleaner. Chemists around the world have incorporated metathesis reactions into production schemes for novel medicines and even materials used in bullet-proof vests; and the increased efficiency realized by metathesis reactions leads to less waste generated in the process.

The work of these Noble laureates reverberates through technological developments and innovative engineering, resulting in the strengthening of our economy. The basic research which brought about the Nobel Prizes in 2005 was funded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which are funded by the Federal Government.

While much of the fundamental research performed or funded through these agencies may not immediately appear to have practical applications, we must recognize that today's chemical oddity or strange physical principle could be tomorrow's Nobel Prize. Yet, the total Federal research and development portfolio is taking a cut for the first time since 1996 in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request.

Mr. Speaker, the world is in transition right now. We, and the other industrialized nations of the world, are accelerating into a knowledge- based global economy. We can make no assumptions that the United States will remain the dominant factor in this economy. Complacency will be our downfall.

As we celebrate Nobel Prize winners and honor their work, we are slipping behind in the scramble for the top of the globalization mountain. Other nations are acting as we sit thinking of actions to take. The cultural shift required for our Nation to move forward and maintain a competitive edge over other nations begins with how the Federal Government spends its money. We must increase the funding for research and development to maintain our competitiveness.

We must come together as one Congress, united across party lines, choosing to act for our future.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the National Science Foundation Scholars Program Act to support students who wish to be scientists, technicians, engineers, and mathematicians.

Although not every student in America needs to become a scientist, technician, engineer, or a mathematician, those who are headed that way need our support for what they contribute to the long term economic health of our nation. This merit-based financial support gives consideration to financial need and to the goal of supporting underrepresented groups as defined in the Equality in Science and Engineering Act.

The United States needs to improve our technical and scientific workforce for the success of our nation in the unfolding global knowledge economy. Although we still educate many foreign students in our graduate science, technology, and engineering, and mathematics departments across the nation, we no longer keep these talented, well- trained individuals here; they want to return to their home.

We must create and retain our highly-skilled, well-trained scientific and technical work force here rather than be dependent on work abroad.

Increases in tuition at colleges and universities in the United States have outpaced inflation for the past two decades. The increases are especially large at public 4-year colleges. The NSF Scholars program would serve as a real inducement to students who would augment our highly-skilled, highly technical work force.

As we move to a global knowledge economy, Juan Enriquez gives us warning for the future of our nation: ``In a borderless world . . . those who do not educate . . . and keep their citizens . . . will lose most intellectual wars.''

I hope we choose instead to educate our citizens and maintain our strength and competitiveness through the NSF Scholars Program Act.