Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we know the leaders of this effort. They have been mentioned with great gratitude, the chairman of the committee and ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and others.

But I would like to talk about really the extraordinary experience I have had in the last several weeks with members not on the Committee on International Relations, but who came together to say we need to do something about this disaster in the Sudan.

We have a very partisan situation here in the House of Representatives, but participating in these meetings were the most conservative and the least conservative Members, and everybody in between. And although we do not agree on a lot, we agree on this: the world cannot stand by while genocide is committed in the Sudan.

We need to lead an international effort to stop the violence. We need to make sure that we participate in the humanitarian aid that is necessary. We worked together to make sure that this resolution could be supported, could be heard today, and that we take this first step. We agree we need to call it for what it is: genocide.

I am proud to be a Member of this House this evening and to be a part of the great American tradition of all Members of the House of Representatives working together for the good of the world and for what is good and just and right with our conscience.

Mr. Chairman, the illusion that stock options only benefit fat-cat corporate executives is just that, an illusion. Fifty- three percent of companies that offer stock option plans offer them to all employees. Within the tech sector, 88 percent offer them to all employees. With start-ups it is even more important. According to the National Venture Capital Association, more than 70 percent of venture- backed companies award stock options to all employees.

As my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), has noted, this is an essential component to the innovation economy that really is pulling the entire American economy forward, but that does not seem to matter to FASB.

When stock options that have a strike price of $40 are being traded at $18 and the FASB accounting system accounts for that as a valuable option, there is something wrong with the standards that they are using. We need to study this matter and to make sure that in our efforts to be clear, we do not destroy the tech economy.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act to send a message to Vietnam's Communist government. Vietnam cannot continue to violate human rights and expect further normalization of the relationship between Vietnam and the United States.

Just 2 months ago, on Easter week, Human Rights Watch reported that peaceful protests by indigenous minority Christian Montagnards turned violent when police used tear gas, electric truncheons, and water cannons on protestors. Reports indicate that police arrested several individuals, many of whose whereabouts are still unknown. Worse yet, there are reports of torture, police beatings, and deaths associated with this crackdown on the Montagnards.

In recent weeks, reports indicate that the Vietnamese government has taken the vice president and the secretary general of the Vietnam Mennonite Church into custody for simply conducting a peaceful criticism. We know that they have also harassed and detained leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Catholic Church.

Religious leaders and followers are not alone. The Vietnamese Communists have come down on the press and have censored 2,000 of Vietnam's 5,000 Web sites; and worse yet, they arrested a Vietnamese writer and journalist just because he submitted written testimony to the United States Congress. How about that?

We have repeatedly passed resolutions addressing the violations on Vietnam Human Rights Day. We introduced a resolution recognizing those in Vietnam who have been tortured and imprisoned; and last November, we passed a resolution calling for religious freedom and protection of human rights. We have introduced a resolution objecting to the treatment of Father Ly. Now it is time to pass a bill, not just a resolution, that will give us the tools we need to not only send a message to Vietnam but to take action against Vietnam for their continuous human rights violations.

We need to pass this bill. Vietnam cannot expect a friendship with us until they finally respect the rights of their citizens.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, the CALFED process is an unprecedented undertaking and one that is crucial to the water security of all people in California, both northern and southern, urban and rural. That is why we need a balanced reauthorization bill that respects the hard work done over the past years by all CALFED stakeholders in the blueprint record of decision agreed upon in 2000.

I fear that H.R. 2828 does not achieve the delicate balance necessary because of the preauthorization of the dam projects that are controversial in their communities and among the stakeholders. So I would urge that H.R. 2828 be opposed and that the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that would correct the preauthorization provision be supported.

However, I do want to give credit to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and to all who have worked on this, because I am confident that once we get through this process in working with our Senators who have

a parallel effort that avoids the flaw in this bill, that we will end up with a bill that all of us support. It is important that the CALFED process move forward.

Mr. Speaker, the sad tale of our energy rip-off in the western United States is really before us today. We started out reacting in a bipartisan way, but, in reviewing the history, I note that after House Republicans met with the Vice President on May 1, 2001, that bipartisan effort did stall.

We have tried for 4 years to get results. In June, 2001, the California delegation asked for amendments to H.R. 2246; and the Committee on Rules refused to allow those amendments which would provide a refund for unjust and unreasonable rates.

In July, 2001, amendments were offered in the markup in the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and Republicans refused to allow the requirement of refunds in overcharges.

In August of 2001, the Committee on Rules refused to make in order an amendment to require refunds of overcharges.

In June of 2002, the GAO report indicated that the FERC was really not doing the job, but Congress and the administration did nothing about it.

In April, 2003, the effort was made again through H.R. 6 to refund all unjust and unreasonable charges, but, again, we were blocked in that effort.

Finally, in May, 2004, Californians, including the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California, filed a lawsuit to try and get the law followed.

Now, what is the problem here? We had energy manipulation. We had a theft. California was a crime victim. When there was a fire, they were quoted as saying, ``burn, baby, burn, that is a beautiful thing,'' the trader said about the massive fire; and they also said he is just F-ing California, meaning he steals money from California to the tune of about a million.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do something about this. Yesterday, we asked that the Eshoo amendment be made in order so we could get the refunds and relief that citizens in the West are due.

It was mentioned at the time that because this litigation has been filed that somehow it would be improper to proceed with Congress' action. That is simply not the case.

Earlier this week, I was in the Committee on the Judiciary. I have been a member of the Committee on the Judiciary for 9\1/2\ years. We were marking up enhanced penalties for terrorism crimes, and the issue was raised, these new penalties are going to be imposed on individuals whose prosecutions are under way. We got a lengthy letter from the Justice Department pointing out that there was no problem in terms of ex post facto issues and that we could proceed.

I am mindful, when the World War II Memorial was threatened because of its time frame because of a lawsuit filed by NEPA, the House of Representatives acted and simply removed the World War II Memorial from NEPA coverage. I voted for that because I wanted to get the memorial approved.

Earlier this year, there was an arcane issue between interns and residents employed by medical schools and hospitals on whether or not that was an employment or an educational issue, and it was in court over an antitrust case. We voted actually to define that relationship as an educational relationship, ending the litigation. I voted for that because I thought it was appropriate for Congress to step in and protect medical education in America.

It can never be correct that Congress is excused from doing its job because someone filed a lawsuit. If that were the case, all we would need to do to paralyze the House of Representatives and the Senate would be to have people file lawsuits.

I would like to say this, that for those who are refusing to act still, now in our fourth year who are through their actions, whether intended or not, covering up and protecting the wrong-doers at Enron and others, I feel a kinship with that story told to me in law school: It is like the guy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

Let us act on the Eshoo amendment and get relief for California.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I was privileged to attend the graduation of my daughter from Stanford University. There is an interesting tradition at Stanford. Each year the graduating students vote to select a professor to give one last lecture to them at lunch the day before graduation. This year, that honor went to Professor Terry Karl.

Professor Karl has a long history as a human rights advocate. Among other things, she has monitored elections for the United Nations and served as an advisor to U.N. peace negotiators.

During the ``final lecture'', Professor Karl challenged the graduates to assume responsibility for the long-term prospects of our country, especially in the wake of the recent prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. She discussed the doctrine of ``command responsibility,'' which says that leaders cannot turn a blind eye to abuse.

As she poignantly stated, ``no amount of military power will make up for what we lose if the world at large believes that, despite our years of rhetorical support for rights and democracy, we are prepared to compromise them the moment our own lives become threatened.''

I believe that Professor Karl has raised very important issues in this lecture, and I ask that her entire lecture be made a part of the Record so that all the American people, not just the Stanford class of 2004, may have the benefit of her scholarship and insights.

[Speech to the Graduating Class of 2004 Stanford University, June 12,

2004]

Fly Like an Eagle (Even if You Feel Like a Chicken)

(By Terry Karl)

Gildred Professor of Latin American Studies and Professor of Political

Science

President Hennessey, Provost Etchemendy, Trustees, parents,

and most especially graduates, thank you for the honor of

inviting me to speak to you. In the midst of your

celebration, I ask you to pause--for these are serious times.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, anti-apartheid hero and head of

South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, tells a

story (which inspired this talk) about a farmer who raised

chickens in his backyard. Amongst this farmer's chickens,

there was one that looked a little odd. It behaved like a

chicken. It walked like a chicken. It pecked away like a

chicken. One day a wise woman came along and said to the

farmer: ``You know, that isn't a chicken. It is an eagle.''

The farmer said: ``No way. That is a chicken.'' And he looked

at the odd bird and said: ``Don't get any fancy ideas. You

are a chicken.''

``I don't think so,'' said the wise woman. She picked up

the strange looking chicken, climbed up the nearest mountain,

stood at the edge of a precipice, and waited until sunrise.

Then she turned the bird towards the sun and said: ``You are

an eagle. You can soar. You can change your world. Go fly.''

The strange looking chicken shook itself and tentatively

spread its wings. It looked up at the sky. It looked down--

way down--to the bottom of the precipice. It took a few steps

back in the direction of the other chickens, where it had

been so comfortable, where it had a daily routine and food to

eat. ``Sorry,'' it said to the wise woman: ``I don't feel

like an eagle. I feel like a chicken. And I don't think I can

fly.''

``That's your choice,'' the wise woman said softly. ``But

remember, you are responsible for the decisions you make. If

you don't dare to fly, you will never be fully alive. You

will never reach the sky. Even if you feel like a chicken,

fly like an eagle.''

That ``strange chicken'' comes to mind every time there is

a choice between taking an easy path or making a trail where

there is no road. After completing my doctorate at Stanford,

I conducted research in El Salvador's civil war in the 1980s.

Military leaders repeatedly assured me that their army did

not commit human rights abuses. But the testimony of

countless others told a different story. Salvadorans

described how they had been hooded or blindfolded for days;

deprived of sleep, food, and water; beaten and shocked; raped

and forced to watch the torture and murder of others.

At El Mozote, a massacre site where a forensic team would

later dig up the bodies of over 100 children under the age of

12, a peasant woman approached me. ``You are American. You

are powerful. You will find out who is responsible for

this.'' That night, flying back to the United States, I

railed against that woman. ``Powerful? A general is powerful.

A president is powerful. I am five feet tall. I am a woman

from Missouri. I don't have tenure. I am not powerful.''

Now, fast forward two decades to a South Florida courtroom,

in June 2002, where two Salvadoran generals living in the

U.S., Generals Jose Guillermo Garcia and Eugenio Vides

Casanova, stood on trial, charged with responsibility as

their country's top commanders for the abuse of Salvadoran

civilians. Three survivors of torture brought the

courtroom to tears as they testified about what had

happened to them. One of them, Carlos Mauricio, honors us

with his presence today.

As the expert witness in this trial--a trial that few

believed would ever take place and even fewer believed could

be won--I documented how the actions these generals had taken

(and the actions that they had failed to take) were

interpreted down the chain of command as a ``green light'' to

commit torture. Thus these men should be held responsible for

crimes committed against Salvadoran civilians.

In their defense, the generals denied their responsibility.

They were fighting terrorism. They could not be expected to

control the actions of all their soldiers. They were not

present when prisoners were humiliated, abused and murdered,

and they were not the actual torturers. So why, they asked

the jury, were they on trial for what a few ``bad apples''

had done?

Because the law demands it.

The doctrine of ``command responsibility,'' the product of

an American initiative enshrined in law since the Nuremberg

Statutes after World War II, affirms that civilian and

military leaders may be held legally accountable for abuses

committed by their subordinates--even when these commanders

did not personally order abuses, witness such abuses, have

direct knowledge about them or conspire to commit them. This

law recognizes the tremendous danger of abuse inherent in war

and, in tribute to the awful sacrifices of the Holocaust and

those who died in two world wars, it places the moral worth

of each and every person at the center of our international

order. Rather than permit leaders to turn a blind eye to

abuse, it contends that those leaders who ``knew or should

have known'' about abuse and ``failed to prevent or punish

it'' are criminally accountable for this abuse. It charges

both military and civilian authorities with an affirmative

duty to prevent crimes, to control their troops, to act

when a crime is discovered, and to punish those found

guilty of committing the actual crime--no matter how high

responsibility may reach in the chain of command.

Thus, a Florida jury found these once powerful Salvadoran

generals responsible for gross human rights abuses. In an

historic and precedent-setting ruling, a jury of ordinary

people reaffirmed the doctrine of command responsibility in

an American court. Their verdict, covered in every major

newspaper and widely televised around the world, sent a

powerful signal. It warned murderers, torturers and dictators

to think twice before retiring to the United States. And it

demonstrated that, at our best, America's freedoms and the

energies of people like our lawyers, researchers,

translators--people just like you--can be harnessed to

transcend national borders and to hold even the most powerful

to account for their actions against the vulnerable.

Which brings me back to the precipice where we left the

strange chicken.

Our country is at the edge of a precipice. Regardless of

how the situation in Iraq finally plays itself out, we are in

the midst of one of the greatest and most intractable global

crises of modern times. 9/11 was an earthquake in the psyche

of America, and flying airplanes into buildings where people

work is a crime against humanity. But the behavior depicted

in the terrible photos of the hooded Iraqi led around on a

leash and the 37 homicides of prisoners in U.S. detention now

under investigation are also criminal acts. While the numbers

may not be the same and the circumstances are different,

U.S. law and international law are clear: both are crimes

against humanity.

The simple truth, whether we like to hear it or not, is

that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials of

the United States, from Afghanistan to Guantanamo to

Iraq, have been torturing prisoners. They have done this with

the institutional approval of the U.S. government advised by

memoranda from the President's own counsel, with official

declarations aimed at side-stepping the historic safeguards

of the Geneva Conventions, and with actual written policies

permitting the use of ``moderate physical force'' (from Mark

Danner in his excellent articles on torture in the New York

Review of Books)--policies that violate rulings by our

courts, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-

American Court, and the Supreme Court of Israel. By the

military's own calculation, an estimated 80 percent of

prisoners subjected to this treatment are innocent of any

wrongdoing.

No amount of military power will make up for what we lose

if the world at large believes that, despite our years of

rhetorical support for rights and democracy, we are prepared

to compromise them the moment our own lives become

threatened. The dreadful story told by these photographs (and

we have not seen the worst of them) has done enormous damage

to our moral standing, our strategic power, and our spirit.

Today much of the world believes that there is a difference

between what Americans claim to stand for and what we

actually do in the world. According to a 19 nation poll

released last week, a majority now thinks that the United

States is having a negative influence on the world; only 37

percent judge our country as having a ``positive influence.''

Listen to the countries polled: Canada, Chile, China, France,

Germany, Great Britain, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico,

Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Uruguay and

Italy--and yes, the United States itself. This is an

enormous change from the days after September 11 when a

French newspaper proclaimed: ``We are all Americans.''

Today, we stand more alone in the world than we ever have.

This decline in our reputation is a decline in our

security. We live ``unavoidably side by side, Kant said two

hundred years ago. But even this great philosopher could not

have imagined how enmeshed nations and peoples have become

today. Thus what happens in one part of the world--the

dramatic increase in poverty and inequality, the failure to

address the terrible consequences of global warming, the

catastrophe of AIDS, the nineteen civil wars currently

active, the persistence of oil-related crises mixed to

dangerous combustion with religious or ethnic conflict in

Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Chad and Indonesia--this will blow

back on us. Global problems, no matter how remote they

appear, will increasingly affect everything in our daily

lives--from the imperative transition from a fossil fuel

energy system (which will happen in our lifetime), to the air

we breathe, to the diseases we face, to the safety of the

cities we inhabit.

These problems cannot be solved with military might alone.

They cannot be solved within our borders. And they cannot be

solved without friends.

Thus we must address the damage that has been done in our

name--no matter how far up the chain of command this

requires. For our spirit and our security, we must

demonstrate that we are a nation of law, democracy, and

decency. We must show the world that we will apply, at the

very least, the same standards to our own leaders as we have

to Salvadoran generals.

Which brings me to you--the ``strange birds'' of 2004.

This is your precipice. What will you do about it? What

will you do to awaken in yourselves and others a new sense of

responsibility for our country and for this world? How will

you fight to make your leaders conduct themselves ``as if

they were going to live on this earth forever and be held

accountable for its condition?''

The question is not whether you will be chickens or eagles.

You have no choice. You are living in the most powerful

country in the world. You are graduating from one of the best

universities in the world. Tomorrow you will hold a

certificate that does much to ensure your place among the

most fortunate of this world. But just as that Salvadoran

woman in El Mozote once put it to me, I shall put it to you:

You are eagles. The choice you face is whether you will dare

to fly.

Survey data on your generation as a whole is not very

promising. It says that you are primarily interested in

acquisition, that you define yourself in terms of possessions

rather than ``goods of the soul.'' You are self-interested

and care little for developing a moral code, much less for

assuming some type of global political responsibility. You do

not want to be eagles at all, we are told, but rather

successful chickens in a very well ordered barnyard.

At Stanford our experience is different. Here students work

on women's health in Afghanistan and Chiapas, democracy in

China and Kyrgyzstan, and war crimes in Rwanda and the Hague.

Students build schools in Central America, assist AIDS

orphans in South Africa, develop medicines for low income

countries, test development strategies, provide education

programs for inner-city kids, create a journal to promote

human rights, and volunteer in virtually every community

service organization imaginable. Yet some of these very same

students are reluctant to show that they are not simply hard-

nosed realists or self-interested balancers of costs and

benefits. It is almost as if they hear whispering in their

ears the German poet Holderlin, who wrote around 1800 an

essay entitled Good Advice. Listen to his advice: ``If you

have brains and a heart, show only one or the other. You

will not get credit for either should you show both at

once.''

This isn't good advice at all.

Your university years have been defined by two distinct

crimes against humanity--September 11 and torture in Iraq.

Whatever their differences (and they are different), the

lesson from these two crimes is the same: our own security is

intimately bound up with our ability to use both our hearts

and our brains, to empathize as well as analyze. Crimes like

9/11 or the torture of Iraqi prisoners can only occur when

the victims are defined as something less than human; they

can only be portrayed as permissible when all lives are not

valued equally. Their prevention rests on our capacity to

affirm the principles of equal respect, and to expand, not

contract, human rights protections both at home and abroad.

Being an eagle means becoming citizens who are not simply

Americans but who are citizens of this earth. It means

raising, not lowering, the bar.

We are at a turning point. For all of you who feel

helpless, who despair, who are cynical and who do not feel

like eagles, remember this. ``There are only two kinds of

people who tell you that you cannot change the world: those

who are afraid to try themselves, and more importantly, those

who are afraid that you may succeed.''

Instead, think of Margaret Mead's well-known phrase:

``Never say that the actions of one, two or three ordinary

people cannot change the world. It is the only thing that

does.'' Think of Carlos Mauricio, who faced down an abuser.

Think of all those people who give a piece of themselves

every day, who speak out against the brutality they see, who

try to stop impoverishment and the despoiling of our

environment, and who understand that ultimately the world

cannot be peaceful if some have far too much and others far

too little.

Take inspiration from these eagles.

Shake yourselves, spread your wings and lift off. Whether

you run a business or a community organization, a clinic or a

school, assume responsibility for the long-range prospects of

our country and our troubled earth. Aim high for a world

without war and without genocide, a world of respect for all,

a world that is far greater than the one we are handing to

you. Because, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, ``The future belongs

to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.''

Congratulations, and may you fly!

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize and congratulate one of my hometown companies for achieving a milestone this month--the celebration of their 20th Anniversary. An energy industry entrepreneur, Pete Cartwright, along with four associates, founded Calpine Corporation, headquartered in San Jose, CA, 20 years ago. They began their business of building power plants and producing electricity by buying one megawatt of power in a geothermal power plant in Northern California. Today, Calpine has 30,000 megawatts of power plants in operation and construction (enough to power approximately 30 million homes), they operate the largest fleet of modern, environmentally sensitive gas-fired power plants in North America, and they oversee significant natural gas production, and are the world's largest producer of renewable geothermal energy.

While this is a remarkable achievement in an industry that has seen more than its share of turmoil and change over the last 20 years, Calpine has created a successful business while, at the same time, serving as the leading industry steward of the environment, acting as a good corporate citizen, and maintaining a rewarding workplace for its employees.

Let me give you some recent examples of the recognition Calpine has received for these achievements:

Fortune Magazine named Calpine ``America's Most Respected

Energy Company'' in 2004.

The American Lung Associations of the Bay Area selected

Calpine to receive its 2004 Clean Air Award for Technology

Development at its Geysers geothermal operation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.

Department of Energy awarded Calpine a 2003 ENERGY STAR

Combined Heat and Power Award recognizing its Deer Park

Energy Center for ``leadership in energy supply'' for

using 30 percent less fuel than onsite thermal generation

and purchased electricity.

The California Department of Conservation recognized

Calpine's Geysers geothermal operations with an award for

environmental stewardship, safety, infrastructure maintenance

and resource conservation for the last two years.

The New York League of Conservation Voters just presented

Calpine and its Chairman, Pete Cartwright, with its Clean Air

Champion's Award for their outstanding leadership on behalf

of New York's environment.

The University of Colorado's Tim Wirth Chair on

Environmental and Community Development selected Calpine to

receive its Award for Sustainable Business for their

leadership in producing electricity in an environmentally

responsible manner.

Calpine Corporation has exhibited leadership in California on corporate responsibility by taking decisive action during the state's energy crisis to keep their power plants operating even in the face of financial loss due to the high cost of fuel. Despite the uncertainty about California's future design of its energy markets, Calpine has continued to invest in the state. Calpine has already invested $5 billion and employs over 1000 workers to operate 39 power plants in California and is committed to investing another $3 billion to meet the growing demand for power in the state.

Calpine has exhibited environmental leadership by adopting a unanimous board resolution committing the company to a low carbon future, by joining the California Climate Registry and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's Voluntary Global Warming Initiative, by building only low-emitting gas-fired power plants using state-of-the- art pollution control equipment, and by being the world's leading producer of renewable geothermal energy and the country's largest producer of cogenerated power.

Finally, Calpine is a leader in community service with a long history of partnering with community organizations, as well as funding community and educational programs that seek to change lives and strengthen the fabric of our society. Calpine also supports the generous volunteerism of its employees and encourages them to take active roles in their communities making them even better places to live and work.

I want to congratulate Calpine Corporation and its Chairman, Pete Cartwright, for the wisdom of choosing California as its major place of business, for continuing to invest in California, for showing leadership in the areas of the environment, corporate responsibility, and community service and for successfully reaching this milestone anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great work done by Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton on this legislation, but I must reluctantly rise to highlight a major problem that I hope will be fixed before this bill reaches the President's desk.

There is an obscure provision of the bill that I want to make sure Members know about, and that is Section 1404, which would require U.S. companies to get a license before they export any goods listed on the Military Critical Technologies List. According to a copy of that list I found on the Defense Technical Information Center Web site, computers that exceed 1500 MTOPS are considered to be military critical.

So under this bill, exports of desktop computers, laptops and Sony PlayStations would require a license. Making matters worse, the license requirement would apply to all exports, even those headed to our allies. If you want to sell a Sony PlayStation to England, you would need a license. I think that is a major problem.

Our current laws allow exports up to 190,000 MTOPS to Tier III countries like China and Russia. I personally think that 190,000 MTOPS is an outdated metric. But to go down to a 1500 MTOPS metric is literally the stone age of computing.

If there are specific military critical technologies that are not sufficiently controlled under existing export regulations, like night vision or surveillance devices, then let us draft something that controls those technologies. But to say that we cannot freely sell a laptop to someone in London, that the Sony PlayStations cannot be exported to Canada, I think is wrong.

I know that this is about war, but it shouldn't be about war on the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, many American families bring new children into their lives through foreign adoption. Some do so to help orphans in countries unable to meet the needs of abandoned children while others adopt for more personal reasons.

Families spend years of effort, thousands of dollars, and more importantly, become emotionally attached to the child they adopt. Unfortunately, because of odd provisions in the immigration code, in rare cases adoptive parents find there is no way to gain legal immigration status for the child they have adopted from overseas.

Current law allows foreign children adopted by American citizens to attain legal immigration status and citizenship through their adoptive parents. To do so, the adoptions must be finalized by the age of 16 for immigration purposes. However, some adoptions can be very long and difficult processes, especially international adoptions. An adoption initiated at age 14 or even earlier can sometimes only be finalized after age 16. In that case, the child who has been adopted will be denied legal immigration status to stay with their adoptive family, unlike children whose adoptions were finalized sooner.

Often, American parents seek help by approaching their Member of Congress to seek a private relief bill so their child can stay with the family. But there is a better way than dealing with these tragic cases on such a haphazard basis.

Today I am introducing a bill to straighten out this problem. By simply changing the current requirement that adoptions be finalized before the adoptee's 16th birthday, to requiring that adoptions by initiated before the 16th birthday, these terrible cases will be avoided. In this way, children whose adoptions have been time-consuming may still obtain U.S. immigration status through their adoptive parents like other adoptees. Bureaucratic delay should not be the reason parents are separated from their adopted children.

Congress has considered and granted private relief for some children in these difficult situations whose parents are lucky enough to get a private relief bill introduced and passed in Congress. Rather than approach this problem in a piecemeal fashion through private relief bills, I hope this Congress will work together to quickly pass this important bill and provide relief to many American families who only want the chance to begin their new life with an adopted child.

Mr. Speaker, that old question remains relevant: Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

Under this Republican Congress and the Bush administration, there is no doubt that people in Silicone Valley are not better off. At home, one in three households has had a layoff since Bush took office. In January, 2001, the unemployment rate in San Jose was 1.6 percent. In April of this year, it was 6.2 percent.

Across the country, the average length of unemployment is the highest in 20 years. The overall job picture is the worst in nearly 40 years.

The truth is, House Republicans do not have a real plan. Instead, they are launching a public relations offensive ironically titled Hire Our Workers, HOW.

Yes, Americans want to know ``how'' Republicans can explain the loss of 2.2 million American jobs. ``How'' can Republicans think today's sham job training bill will help the 443,000 Californians who were laid off just last month?

Democrats have a proven track record of creating 22 million jobs in the nineties. Now Americans want a change in direction, not more votes on the same tired, gimmick proposals.

Mr. Speaker, William A. Whitlow is a retired major general in the Marine Corps. During his service to our nation, he served as director of the expeditionary warfare division in the office of the deputy chief of naval operations. He wrote a compelling and informative opinion piece, which appeared in last Sunday's Washington Post. In the piece, Mr. Whitlow discusses the dismal situation in Iraq, and the poor counsel the president received from his advisors leading up to the conflict.

I ask unanimous consent that this piece appear in the Congressional Record and I encourage all of my colleagues to read it.

[From the Washington Post, May 30, 2004]

The Price Of Giving Bad Advice

(By William A. Whitlow)

As the war in Iraq drags on, conservative citizens, mostly

Republican, face a growing dilemma in the November election.

In the face of growing evidence that the president was

deceived and misguided about the cause and urgency for waging

war on Saddam Hussein, it is time for those responsible to

stand forth and accept accountability. True, the president is

ultimately responsible for the actions of his vice president,

his Cabinet and the executive departments. But it has become

clear that the counsel the president received from the vice

president, secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense

and senior uniformed leadership was severely flawed and

uncorroborated. Whether the president was intentionally

misled by neoconservatives or whether their advice was a

result of pure incompetence remains to be seen. The fact is

that he was misled sufficiently to require him to take bold

action to restore his diminished credibility.

The supposedly urgent need to attack Iraq was based partly

on inflated, creative intelligence information, some of which

originated with Ahmed Chalabi, an associate of the vice

president and deputy secretary of defense. The information

from Chalabi led the vice president and defense secretary to

believe that war with Iraq would be a ``cakewalk'' and U.S.

forces would be received with open arms. This belief resulted

in a fatal flaw in developing a complete war strategy. A

principal tenet of forming a strategy--have a ``war

termination'' phase--was neglected. Although the tactical and

operational phases of the war were conducted flawlessly by

superior field commanders, the absence of a complete strategy

has needlessly cost lives.

Our service members are the ultimate victims of this

incomplete strategy, misguided policy and false intelligence.

It is inconceivable and derelict not to have a viable war

termination strategy for an operation as complex as a major

theater war. America's citizens and our service members

deserve far better for their sacrifices. This combination of

things--misleading the president with false intelligence and

omitting a principal element from our war strategy--is reason

enough to seek change in the vice presidency and senior

defense leadership, civilian and military.

It is our patriotic duty to speak out when egregiously

flawed policies and strategies needlessly cost American

lives. It is time for the president to ask those responsible

for the flawed Iraqi policy--civilian and military--to resign

from public service. Absent such a change in the current

administration, many of us will be forced to choose a

presidential candidate whose domestic policies we may not

like but who understands firsthand the effects of flawed

policies and incompetent military strategies and who fully

comprehends the price.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

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

Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks ago the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act of 2003, which was written and offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This bill provides for the expedited special election of new Members of Congress to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances.

Under this bill, when such extraordinary circumstances occur, a special election must be called within 45 days. This bill was an important first step in addressing how the House continues to function in the event of a catastrophe, and that is why I voted in support of the bill.

I would note that outside scholars have questioned whether or not the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to impose this scheme on the States. I do not argue that today, but I think to some extent there is an open question as to that. There is also a more fundamental issue which may be partially addressed today, and that is what happens in the 45 days between a disaster that could eliminate the House of Representatives and the holding of these special elections.

In the 45 days following September 11, the House of Representatives cast 69 votes. Some of them were very important measures that helped us respond to the terrorism event. If there is no House of Representatives, there can be no Congress, and if there is no Congress to play its role in the constitutional scheme, the only thing that could happen in such a circumstance would be for the President to assume dictatorial powers and to end our system of constitutional government, an outcome that no one in this House or in this country wishes.

Under H.R. 2844, the House of Representatives would have no way to function for a month and a half; and without the House, there is no Congress. Several Members have introduced constitutional amendments that would address this problem. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has offered an amendment which we are just about to vote on today. I have also introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 96, which takes a different approach from the Baird proposal; and our colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), have done similar things.

This whole issue is very complex, and it may be that none of the amendments are quite ready for our approval, but they certainly do command our attention. All deserve to be debated by Members of Congress, yet I believe that the House would be best served if the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, were to have hearings to sort through the complexities of this issue and then be able to present our findings to the full House for consideration.

However, during the 108th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary has not had a hearing on this issue to compare the various proposals and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages

of each. In fact, I have requested a hearing. I did so during the markup of the Baird amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary, but none have been held.

Today, some may point out that there was a hearing on the constitutional amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) in the 107th Congress. That is true, but the amendment on today's agenda is significantly different from the Baird amendment considered 2 years ago. This is a new amendment that was first introduced last December.

A distinguished commission that included former Speakers Foley and Gingrich, as well as Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan Simpson, studied this matter at some length and reached the conclusion that we need a constitutional amendment. I am not suggesting that we should simply accept their recommendations, but at the very least we should consider and evaluate their findings before we cast a vote that will define the stability or instability of the country in the event of a national crisis. Unfortunately, the Committee on the Judiciary has not had a single hearing on any of these amendments, so we will not have the benefit today of hearing from the scholars, former speakers and other distinguished leaders on this complex issue.

And now the leaders of the whole House are making the same error as the Committee on the Judiciary. They have scheduled a vote on an amendment that will decide the fate of our Congress during a catastrophe without first holding hearings to address the merits of the Baird approach and all of the others proposed by various leaders on the continuity of Congress.

Let me repeat. Today we are being asked to vote on an amendment to the United States Constitution, but we have not had even one hearing on the amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary in this Congress. It is not often that the Committee on the Judiciary marks up a constitutional amendment to the full House before holding a hearing.

Consider, for example, the constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims. That particular amendment was introduced in the 108th, 107th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress, and on each occasion prior to markup there were Judiciary Committee hearings.

Also, consider the committee's treatment of a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. A proposal on this issue was introduced in the 108th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress, and each time the Committee on the Judiciary undertook hearings.

Finally, in the 105th and 104th Congress, a constitutional amendment was introduced to limit the Federal Government's ability to raise taxes, and hearings were permitted on each occasion.

The majority has already seen fit to schedule a series of five judiciary hearings over the course of several months to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage and a potential constitutional amendment. It only makes sense that this House should not vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution before the Committee on the Judiciary holds at least one hearing.

This issue of the continuity of Congress should not be an exception. It is vitally important to our democracy and requires more deliberation.

Today, like I did in the Committee on the Judiciary 1 month ago, I will not vote to support the Baird amendment; but I will vote on a motion to recommit so that the Committee on the Judiciary will have a chance to appropriately hold hearings and review various approaches to this vital issue to our democracy. Some will reach a reasoned, but different, conclusion relative to the Baird amendment itself; but I think all will agree this body would be better served with extensive hearings on this complicated and enormously important subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 13 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that when the Founding Fathers spoke at that time, they were contrasting with a Senate that was appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the author of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to make a correction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Certainly.

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

I think it is important that we have hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary to examine this subject matter. Several speakers have suggested that to have a constitutional amendment to provide for the temporary replacement of Members of the House so that we could have a Congress that acts before elections can be held would be the end of democracy. I think that we need to come to grips with the fact that if they kill us all, we have some bad choices. Here they are.

We can have an appointed government, because there is a line of succession to the Presidency, in the Senate there is a provision in the Constitution for their appointment, and no House of Representatives, which means that the appointed President would assume dictatorial powers. Or we could have a constitutional amendment that allows for the temporary appointment of Members of the House until special elections can be held so that the House is made up of elected representatives. I think those are the choices that face us.

Now, the American Enterprise Institute did a good thing. They put together a commission that looked at this whole issue, and here is what they said in their report: ``While some protections,'' they say, ``exist for reconstituting the Presidency, Congress would have a far more difficult time. It might not function well or at all. Ensuring the continuity of Congress is now a more pressing need than at any previous time in our history. According to two of the 9/11 plotters, the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed for the Capitol, and it is entirely conceivable the Congress will again be a target.''

It is interesting that although we have proceeded on pretty much a party-line basis in the discussion of this matter, not completely but almost completely, and it was certainly a party-line vote in the House Committee on the Judiciary, the commission itself was very bipartisan. The honorary cochairmen were President Jimmy Carter and President Gerald Ford. The cochairmen were Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan Simpson.

Tom Foley, the former Speaker, and Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker, who did not agree on a lot, agreed on this. Further, Bob Michel, who was the minority leader for so many years and is so well regarded, served on this commission with Leon Panetta, and they agreed as well that what we need is a constitutional amendment.

The alternatives to a constitutional amendment do not solve the problems of mass vacancy. They have a chapter indicating why special elections are helpful but not sufficient, and here is what they say: ``The President would act without a check, extra constitutionally in some cases, until Congress reconstituted itself. In addition, there is a possibility that a Congress of greatly reduced size would act, and that the vast majority of Americans could view this Congress as illegitimate. Shorter election cycles would not eliminate any of these problems but only slightly shorten their duration.''

They point out that ``clarifying the quorum requirement is not a solution.'' And they say, ``While the commission sees the value of clarifying the interpretation of the quorum requirement, it does not believe that making the requirement more lenient will ensure the constitutional continuity of Congress. Quite the opposite. A lenient quorum requirement might result in a small number of Members acting as the whole Congress and calling into question the legitimacy of congressional actions. The commission does favor a clarification of the quorum requirement, but not as a substitute for the constitutional amendment.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, in the 45 days after September 11, this House first met to show the American people that their Congress was still intact, and then we went to work.

On September 13, we provided for the expedited payment for public safety officers who were killed or suffered catastrophic injury; we passed on September 13 the Victims of Terrorism Relief Act, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act; on September 14 we authorized the United States Armed Forces to take action against those responsible for the attacks; we adopted the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act; we made appropriations; we adopted bills to combat terrorism and adopted the Financial Anti-terrorism Act, the Bioterrorism Enforcement Act, and the list goes on and on.

Those were important activities. And if there were no Congress, those either could not have occurred or the executive would have had to assume the legislative authority that is by Constitution vested with the Congress. And as has been stated before, the Congress cannot exist unless the House of Representatives exists.

Now, we know that the temporary appointments can only be made if we are to change the Constitution. And although some think this is a bad idea, what we are asking is that we have a thorough study of this whole subject in the committee of jurisdiction in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

There are many issues that we need to discuss. There are, as the commission pointed out, several approaches that can be made, a broad approach that delegates to the Congress the ability to provide for replacements by statute, or a prescriptive approach similar to the one promoted by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

What is incapacitated? How do we define that? If there is an appointment, is that person eligible to run for reelection? And if they are serving because of incapacity, will they be replaced when the incapacitated Member resumes their abilities? Who would do the appointments: the courts? the Member?

the governor? the legislature of each State? These are many questions that need to be answered, and all of them should be studied.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the author of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask only that we approach this on a bipartisan basis in the committee. We should hold hands and work on this as a team, not fighting each other on party-line votes.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work done by the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Missouri on this legislation. There are some important pieces to this bill, equipment for our troops and the like. There are matters of concern, for example, the new nuclear program that I have opposition to. But there is an obscure provision of the bill that I want to make sure Members know about and that is section 1404 which would require U.S. companies to get a license before they export any goods listed on the military critical technologies list. According to a copy of the list I found on the Department of Defense Technical Information Center Web site, that includes computers that exceed 1,500 MTOPS. That would be considered military critical. So under this bill, computers, laptops, Sony PlayStations that exceed 1,500 MTOPS would require an export license. That would be to export it anywhere. If you want to sell a Sony PlayStation to Europe, to England, you would need a Defense Department export license. I think that that is a problem.

The outdated metric of 190,000 MTOPS needs to be changed, but to go down to 1,500 MTOPS as a metric is literally the stone age of computing. I believe that if there are specific military critical technologies that are not sufficiently controlled under existing export regulations, say, night vision or surveillance devices, then let us draft something that controls those technologies. But to say that we cannot sell a laptop to somebody in London, that the Ipods cannot be exported to France, that the Sony PlayStations

cannot be sold to Japan, I think is a mistake. I know that this is about war. I did not know it was about war on the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the effect of this bill, if it were to become law, would be to stall enforcement of workplace safety measures. It is a back-handed attempt

to weaken OSHA's enforcement and standards-setting efforts. It would require the American taxpayer to pick up the entire tab if a company successfully challenged even one of the citations that OSHA gave, regardless of whether OSHA's actions were substantially justified.

It is important to note that current law already allows companies to receive payment if the government's position had no substantial justification. Think of it this way: If you had 50 citations and one of the 50 was found wanting, the costs would be shifted over to OSHA, and so we would be punishing the government every time it loses even a small part of an overall enforcement effort. This will deter the agency from enforcing the law.

What is next? Are we going to pay a criminal defendant's legal costs every time there is an acquittal? I know of no other agency that is punished for failing to guarantee the outcome of its good-faith attempts to enforce the law.

OSHA's mission is to protect the safety and health of American workers. We should not tie its hands and drain its resources as H.R. 2731 does.

I recall several years ago there was a ballot measure in California to severely impair the ability of California OSHA to enforce California OSHA regulations. After a very short while, do my colleagues know who the biggest opponent was of that measure to hurt Cal/OSHA? It was the Chamber of Commerce in California because they figured out we will pay more in insurance costs than we will save on compliance costs. It is a mistake for workers and it is a mistake for business to impair OSHA enforcement of safety acts.

I urge colleagues to think carefully about this ill-advised scheme and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2731.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anthony C. Bennetti is retiring from the Santa Clara Valley Water District as General Counsel to the Board of Directors. During his service, he played an important role in resolving legal issues with the California State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. During his tenure, he helped to secure needed financing for the capital expansion of water utility infrastructure for Santa Clara County.

Prior to his service with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Mr. Bennetti served as Acting City Attorney and Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Palo Alto, California, and Senior Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Jose, California. In all, he has contributed over 24 years of public service to the State of California. The community thanks him for his years of service and congratulates him and the Water District upon his retirement.