Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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!

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.''

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

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

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

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

Ms. LOFGREN. I am.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.)

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

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.