Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Based on the actions of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, it is clear to me that it is time for Congress to send a message to the Administration about the importance of preserving bedrock principles of labor relations. In making my case for this amendment, I want to recount a few key points leading up to where we are today. In 2002, Congress enacted legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation provided the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with the authority to develop a separate human resources management system for the employees of the Department of Homeland Security. Subsequently, in the FY2004 Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Defense was authorized to develop and implement the National Security Personnel System. In August 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Colyer ruled that the proposed Department of Homeland Security personnel rules ``would not ensure collective bargaining, would fundamentally alter [Federal Labor Relations Authority] jurisdiction . . . and would create an appeal process at MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] that is not fair.'' This federal court ruling should have been a wakeup call to the Department of Defense to take care in pursuing changes to labor relations regulations. However, DOD chose to ignore it, proceeding with plans to implement regulations that would make substantial changes concerning collective bargaining and review of appeals of adverse actions. In February 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that specific sections of DOD's NSPS regulations were unlawful. He ruled that NSPS ``fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively,'' that the proposed National Security Labor Relations Board ``does not meet Congress's intent for independent third party review,'' and that ``the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide employees with fair treatment.'' To their credit, the labor organizations that represent many federal government workers have been vigilant in protecting the rights of their members by appealing to the courts. I believe that it is time for Congress to reinforce the ruling of the federal court to ensure that the Administration gets the message: Congress does not intend that core principles of labor relations are to be eroded by DOD, and we are prepared to make that crystal clear by prohibiting the expenditure of funds on steps that violate the intent of the law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, all of the articles in the Washington Post that talked about this said that it wasn't, in some cases. None of us get in trouble for disclosing that fact. Your amendment doesn't restrict money if it does comply with it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think President Carter had it right. He said all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States has to come under the FISA Court. That makes sense. That is, I think, the purpose of this amendment, is to make certain that the money is being expended in compliance with FISA. The gentleman is a cosponsor of this amendment. Is that your understanding?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, I agree with that. I also think that the American Bar Association looked at this. They came to the conclusion that the President had to comply with the FISA law.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to ask the author of the amendment. Both of you are the authors of this amendment. There is no restriction on the utilization of money if the President has complied with FISA; is that not correct?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DICKS. Well, you know, that would certainly clear it up without getting into any classified information if somebody here, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee or the chairman of the Full Committee or someone can say, yes, the administration is complying with FISA, and they have taken this program to the FISA court for clearance. That is what people who support this amendment are concerned about, that Congress enacted legislation here saying that if you want to go out and gather this kind of information, you have to first go to the FISA court to get approval and to show cause. I think that is what this really all gets down to.

Mr. DICKS. So that is the question we have here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. I was on the committee for 8 years and served as the ranking member.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, when President Carter signed the FISA into law, he said in his signing statement: The bill requires for the first time a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies the executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence by electronic surveillance in the United States. It will remove any doubt about the legality of those surveillances which are conducted to protect our country against espionage and international terrorism. It will assure FBI field agents and others involved in intelligence collection that their acts are authorized by statute, and, if a person's communications are concerned, by a court order, and it will protect the privacy of the American people. In my reading of FISA, and I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, 4 years as the ranking member, I do not think there is an exception here. I do not think the President of the United States has inherent authority to violate FISA. If you took Mr. Lungren's approach to this problem, he can comply with FISA when he wants to. He does not have to do it ever. That simply cannot be the reason Congress enacted this statute. I think President Carter had it right when he signed this into law. There is one way and only one way to gather foreign surveillance information domestically, and that is you go and get a warrant and go to the FISA Court first. First. And maybe you have 72 hours to do that. That is certainly understandable. But in my mind, if you want to change FISA, change FISA. But I cannot accept an interpretation that says the President can comply with FISA when he wants to, and he does not have to comply with it when he does not think it is in his best interest to do so. He is not a king. He is a President.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the major point here that the opposition to this makes is the President has inherent authority. That has not been tested at the Supreme Court because once FISA was enacted, that was enacted to limit unbridled Presidential authority. I believe FISA is the only way that you can proceed; that the President must go to FISA if he is going to conduct these kind of foreign intelligence activities.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I am also one of those who have not been briefed on this particular program. But I would like to ask the gentleman, is the gentleman suggesting that the administration is not complying with FISA?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Mr. Speaker, it has been my honor to serve as a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee for 28 years here in the House of Representatives and to often engage in debates over important issues of national defense and national security here on the floor of this Chamber. It has always been my view that partisanship should end at the water's edge, and that all of us here in this body have a solemn obligation to consider the best interests of the Nation as we debate military involvement, especially at times when U.S. troops are involved in ongoing military actions. With that said, let me make two points about this debate today over H. Res. 861. First, the House Leadership has brought this Resolution before the full membership of the House with the assertion that it will launch a full and open debate on U.S. policy in Iraq. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the process of drafting the Resolution we are to consider today was totally closed to members of the Democratic party, and that the expressed intent of the Republican Leadership, as betrayed by the memorandum that was sent to Republican members by the Majority Leader, was to demonstrate that the Democrats are interested in ``conceding defeat on the battlefield'' and that we as a party ``sheepishly dismiss the challenges that America faces in a post 9/11 world.'' Mr. Speaker, no political party has a monopoly on patriotism, and I can state with certainty that no member of either political party has any interest in conceding defeat or in ignoring real threats to our national security. This type of partisanship is unnecessary at any time, but especially in this debate today. Secondly, if we are to have a full and open debate over U.S. policy in Iraq, it should be an ongoing activity here in the House, where we legitimately share the constitutional responsibility to ``provide for the common defense'' and to provide the funds necessary to adequately defend our Nation against aggression and any threats to the security of our people. As any observer of the House of Representatives knows, since the start of the war in Iraq we have rarely debated the merits of our policy in Iraq, and we have conducted very little oversight as we have spent $318 billion, as 2,500 American soldiers have been killed, and more than 18,000 troops have been wounded in battle. On the eve of the 2002 elections we were pushed into a premature debate and vote authorizing the use of force, based on what we now know was inaccurate or overstated information about the capability and intentions of the Iraqi government. Since the start of the military action in Iraq three years ago, we have been called together in this Chamber to debate resolutions commending the abilities and the bravery of our troops, which all of us in this Chamber were united in approving. But we have not, Mr. Speaker, conducted what I believe is the proper level of oversight of the decisions that took us to war, the decisions about troop levels at the outset of the conflict, the post conflict mistakes that were made, the handling of the insurgency and the overall plan for victory and redeployment of our troops. It is not sufficient to bring these occasional resolutions to the floor, drafted by the Republican caucus, intended to express political talking points rather than stimulate genuine discussion about our policy in Iraq. So as we debate this particular Resolution today it must be said that all Members of this House support the troops who have been engaged in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that we are all encouraged when terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are brought to justice. To imply any different in today's debate would be an injustice. But that is not all that this Resolution states. Nor is it all that it implies by the words that are printed in it or, even more revealingly, by the things that are omitted from it. Again, this is why it is inappropriate to draft a Resolution of this importance without any input or consultation with Members of the Democratic Party, and why this exercise today is not, in my judgment, worthy of the trust that the American people put in their Representatives here in the House. The Resolution we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, misstates the mission of the United States actions in Iraq--implying very directly that there was a direct relationship between the 9/11 attacks and our invasion of Iraq, in addition to ignoring the use of the WMD threat in justifying the invasion to our coalition partners and to the American people. Beyond that, the only actions it says that we, as the House of Representatives, resolve to promote are actions that support the status quo, inferring that the Members of this Chamber are clearly satisfied with the status quo and believe the Administration's policy is headed in the right direction. I would contend, Mr. Speaker, that very few of the Members of this Chamber actually are satisfied with the status quo, and certainly it is clear that the American people, whom we represent individually and collectively in this House, believe we need to change course and adopt a new strategy in Iraq. That is precisely what I believe the House should be doing today, instead of debating the merits of a partisan measure that effectively congratulates Secretary Rumsfeld for pursuing a responsible course of action. We need to change direction. Our strategy in Iraq is not working. It will not produce the victory we all say we believe in. Nor will it allow us to see far enough ahead to the time when we can legitimately redeploy our troops and bring them home. What has been needed, and what is still required, is accountability, and we can only accomplish that, Mr. Speaker, by greater oversight, more thoughtful questioning of the decisions that are made at the Pentagon and in the field, and more openness in considering new directions and new strategies, even if it risks conceding that some of the actions this Administration has taken have been wrong. The Resolution we are addressing today, Mr. Chairman, allows for no such questioning and it only assumes that we are all committed to a strategy that has put us in a position from which no one can say how long it will be . . . a year, two years, five years . . . before our mission is accomplished and our troops can return home. It is not irresponsible for us to suggest that other members of our coalition in Iraq should be assuming a greater share of the burden. It is not irresponsible for us to suggest that we should be scaling back our role, accelerating the training of the Iraqi forces and encouraging the new Iraqi leaders to understand that they need to take charge of their own government, their own security and their own economy. We are helping, and should continue to help, restore the power grids, the water supplies and the oil production facilities so the Iraqi people will see signs of progress that thus far have disappointed them. We must continue to encourage the new Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and his government in its campaign for national reconciliation and in its effort to disarm the militias, reduce the sectarian violence and bring social and economic stability to the nation. I remain hopeful about the future of a Democratic Iraq, but as we work with the new government to accomplish these objectives, Mr. Speaker, I believe it may be time to take the training wheels off, and to communicate directly to the Iraqis that they are running their own nation, as unsteady as it may seem in the near future. But above all, what we should be doing today in the House of Representatives is sending a clear signal to the American people and to the international community that we are in favor of changing course . . . of moving beyond the status quo and adopting a new and more successful strategy to achieve a peaceful and stable Iraq. This Resolution, Mr. Speaker, unquestioningly endorses the status quo, and for that reason I cannot and will not support it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and pay tribute to a friend who, today, is marking his 25th anniversary with the United States Capitol Historical Society. Dr. Donald R. Kennon is the Society's Chief Historian and Vice President of Scholarship and Education. A humble man, Dr. Kennon's career has been marked by accomplishment. He is the author of two books for the Society, including The Speakers of the House of Representatives: A Bibliography (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), and The Committee on Ways and Means: A Bicentennial History, 1789-1989 (Government Printing Office, 1989), and has edited more than a dozen volumes of the Society's symposia publications. He has been Chief Historian since 1987 after joining the Society in 1981 as an Associate Historian. He holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Maryland and has taught as a visiting professor at the University of New Mexico. His doctoral dissertation focused on antebellum reform in a changing society, both legally and morally in the years surrounding the Civil War. He is treasurer of the Abraham Lincoln Institute, a scholarly organization founded in 1998 to garner public attention on writings and research regarding our nation's 16th president. Dr. Kennon has also very ably directed educational symposia, publications and outreach programs, while writing and lecturing about the history of this body, Congress, and the Capitol. An avid collector, Dr. Kennon has one of the area's largest collections of antique stereo graphic images, including many of the Capitol building and Congress. He has a keen sense of humor and loves baseball. When he's not at games, he collects antique radios and vintage slot machines. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to honor Dr. Kennon and I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in congratulating him on 25 years at the United States Capitol Historical Society and in wishing him continued success.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate an important fact that was made in the full committee. Federal offshore lands already open to exploration is 80 percent of potential gas reserves offshore. Of the most current mean estimate of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas: offshore non-moratoria reserves, 328 trillion cubic feet; offshore moratoria reserves, 77 trillion cubic feet. There is a lot of offshore drilling that can be done that is legal, as the gentlewoman said, from the Minerals Management Service's most recent report. So let us go drill there and protect our beaches. That is the best way to move forward and let the authorizers go forward and try to come up with a responsible end to this. But to precipitously move out tonight on this Peterson amendment would be a mistake, and I support strongly the Putnam-Capps amendment.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, we do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him, with the chairman, and with the authorizing committee to ensure that a new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held to account.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think you and I will be here to figure out who was right. I would rather do some serious research about it now than wake up 10 years from now and find out if we would have acted back in 2006 and done something about this, we might have been able to save all of humanity. I mean, this is real and it is an important issue, and I hate to see it be treated so frivolously by the gentleman from Alaska.