Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a worthy amendment. We need information of this nature. In hearings that I conducted last year as the Chair of the relevant subcommittee and in hearings we have had this year, we have had conflicting bits of information from those in management and those representing labor as to the length and breadth of the training programs that are available and that have been actually implemented. We never got a definitive answer in that regard, even though we requested it from both sides. Therefore, this amendment I think will be of benefit not only to the Department, but to those of us in this body such that we might be able to make a determination as to the extent and effectiveness, as well as adequacy, of the security training programs that we have been told are already in effect, but now that are specifically required under section 109 of this bill. Under this amendment, the Secretary would submit to us a report on the results of the survey and the progress of the providers of the covered transportation, and that is something that we have been lacking in the past. So I thank the gentleman for this amendment. This bill requires mandatory security training programs for all rail, mass transit and over-the-road bus employees and requires that the employers provide such training within 1 year of the issuance of regulations. In order for us to exercise our proper oversight, this information is necessary. In order for us to put forth appropriate prodding with respect to both the employers and the employees in this regard, I think this survey will be very, very beneficial. Having said that with reference to the specifics of this, let me just remark on some things that have been said on this floor about where we have been previous to this bill. The fact of the matter is that those of us on this committee, on a bipartisan basis, for at least the last 3 years I have been here, and I have been assured before that with the select committee, we have worked to try and respond in an appropriate way to the threats coming from 9/ 11 and the things that we have learned subsequent to 9/11. It is true that in the immediate response to 9/11 the administration and the Congress worked together and in some ways pushed money out the door without a risk-based analysis. That has changed over the last number of years. There has been a commitment on a bipartisan basis in this committee and on this floor and in the Senate and in the conference in all the bills that we have passed that a risk-based assessment is necessary for a strategy for our tactics and our grants. Now, I will say I think we are more enlightened on this side of the Capitol than maybe some of our friends over in the other body in terms of how we make sure that we are dedicated to a risk-based analysis, but we have been going forward with that. Also I would like to say with respect to the administration, Secretary Chertoff, his number two, his number three and the head of TSA, have all committed themselves publicly and privately and I think in their actions to a risk-based analysis. We are all in this together. I don't think there is any disagreement on the risk-based analysis being absolutely essential to tactics, to strategy, and to grants. It is in this bill, as it should be; it was in the bills that we passed over the last 2 years, as it should have been; and it is in the actions of the current administration. So I just wanted to make that clear. I believe the gentleman's amendment will be helpful in gauging the progress made in terms of training in this very serious area and giving us the kind of information necessary so that we can make informed judgments in the years ahead. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, once again on this floor we have heard an argument stated much like was stated in the argument on the bill immediately preceding. Here we are dealing with a rule on a spending bill, and we are told by a number of speakers on the other side of the aisle that they would prefer that we do the constitutional thing, that is, that we exercise the power of the purse in the way we are allowed to; that is, to cut off funding for our troops to immediately get them home. But we have heard the reason why they don't bring that to the floor: they don't have the votes. And they use that as a reason why they bring, therefore, unconstitutional restrictions on the power of the President as Commander in Chief. Much like we heard on the bill before this, because it is the right thing to do with respect to the District of Columbia, we should ignore the words of the Constitution. The problem is, once again, we are being told by those on the other side of the aisle that the Constitution, the Constitution, is an inconvenient truth. The fact of the matter is the Founding Fathers tried to create a delicate balance between the war powers in the House and the war powers in the executive branch. And they said the President is Commander in Chief and once we go to war, he makes those decisions. We have the power of the purse. We have the power of the purse. If you truly believe that we are in the wrong position in Iraq, have the courage to present to this floor that question which we are given the power to consider under the Constitution. But don't come to the floor and use as your excuse for bringing something which is unconstitutional that you don't have the votes to do the right thing. This goes beyond this question of the war, as important as it is. It is whether or not we as Members of the Congress who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution can on a daily basis ignore that Constitution.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, after listening to several Members on the other side of the aisle, I can only come to one conclusion; and that is, the U.S. Constitution is an inconvenient thing. We have heard that it may take too long to do it the constitutional way. We have even heard suggested here that, if you oppose this, you are against voting rights. Well, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you I am absolutely, morally convinced of certain people who are not convicted of crimes they committed because of constitutional protections given them during trial; the Constitution was inconvenient, the Constitution did not allow us to do justice. But the Constitution prevailed, because if we ignore the Constitution, we ignore the very compact which is the basis of our relationship with our government. The vote today is more about the representational status of the District of Columbia in this body. It goes to the heart of constitutional governance. Some in this House would have us believe that the Constitution is so sophisticated, so foreign, so strange that the words used, that only a few people can define its meaning, that the people of America are not capable of understanding the words of the Constitution, and, therefore, we should genuflect at the altar of the elite. Well, let's look at the words. Article I, section 2 states very simply: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States. By the people of the several States. It says in Article I, section 2: No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25, been 7 years a citizens of the United States, and who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen. Madam Speaker, those words are so simple, and yet we try to make them so complicated. Let's at least uphold the Constitution in this debate.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, at first I would like to congratulate both the chairwoman and the ranking member of this committee for the bipartisan way in which they have acted in bringing this bill to the floor, this funding resolution, which is part of the regular business of this House, making sure that we can do the people's business here in an organized fashion. We listened to all of the presentations made by the various committee chairs and ranking members. I was very pleased to see the agreement on the one-third/two-thirds funding rule. As one who served here in a prior life, I can recall when it wasn't so. I can recall at one point in time on one of the committees that I won't mention where I believe the difference in staff ratio at the time I served was something like 7-to-1. I can recall when we got something like 11 percent of the total funding. That made it difficult. We used to encourage our people by saying you have to be that much better than the others. We have to be seven times better. You have to work seven times harder. You can only say that for so long, and you can only do so much with limited resources. So the rule that has been established over the last number of years that the minority receives one-third of the funding, approximately, is one that works well for both the majority and the minority. It is good for the minority to have sufficient resources so they not only can present their point of view, but also it keeps the majority on its toes. The direct result of that is better legislative product. So I am pleased that that came through. However, I must once again register my objection to our inability to give appropriate funding to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As the chairwoman of that committee said when she appeared before our committee, ``Ethics is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue.'' It is an issue that is essential to the proper functioning of this House, and it is something for which we have received black eyes of recent vintage and for which we deserve those black eyes because of the conduct of errant Members in this House. And to provide against that from happening again, to encourage that that does not happen again, we have adopted more stringent rules than we have had in this House, in recent memory at least. In order to assure that Members are able to follow the details of the rules that have been established, the Ethics Committee, or the committee properly understood as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has been given additional responsibilities so that Members can rely on their advice in a timely fashion. They do great work. We have dedicated people there, but they will not be able to do the job we give them without additional resources. This should not be a partisan issue. I for the life of me do not understand the decision made not to give this money. I would have thought the leadership could have put a spotlight on this, given additional money to the Ethics Committee and issued a press release about how they were ensuring that we were going to actually put our money where our mouth was and we were going to have the adequate resources in order to make real the promise that we have given the American people on ethics. For the life of me, I don't understand why we couldn't find another $1 million for the Ethics Committee. I don't serve on the Ethics Committee, but I don't want to see a Member caught in technical violation of the rules we have adopted for lack of adequate information or available or timely information. I don't want to see a Member who has technically violated our rules because that Member couldn't get a timely response from the committee. Not because the committee doesn't wish to give them that, but because the committee essentially doesn't have the personnel to be able to do that. We may very well tie ourselves up in knots. Now, the American people probably aren't concerned about whether we tie ourselves up in knots, but they are concerned about whether our actions reflect the best standards of ethics that we can have. So it is a question of maintaining the confidence of the American people in this institution. Mr. Speaker, I come here not to talk about a partisan issue and not to talk about an issue that just affects Members of Congress, but an institutional issue. If, in fact, we have created a bond with the American people, and part of that bond is a contract where we hold ourselves out to perform our duties at the highest level of ethical conduct, then in fact we should ensure that that is not difficult to do, but that is expected and easy to do because we have established the strictures in this House and we have established the resources to allow Members to perform within those ethical strictures. That is why I would stand on this floor today and say that the request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for $6.1 million, which would be an increase of $1.35 million, is absolutely necessary. I had every intention of supporting the committee's work on this and being able to recommend this to my fellow Members. I cannot do this. We have the argument about the other committee that came in with the funding that was put in by a self-executing aspect of the rule just adopted. But that is not what I am arguing about. I am arguing about the absolutely essential need for us to give sufficient resources for the Committee on Ethics to do its work. As the chairwoman of the committee said in testimony to us directly, these positions that are requested by the Ethics Committee for which they sought the funding that was denied them, these positions are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House ethics rule. She did not say it would be nice to have them. These are additional. These are surplus, to make sure we can do our job. The words were carefully chosen: These positions are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House Ethics Committee. We need to continue talking about this. We need to work as a committee. If we can do anything about this, I would implore the leadership to take another look at this because it doesn't hurt a Democrat or Republican; it doesn't hurt one individual Member or another. It hurts us all collectively if we fail to give ourselves the best opportunity to show the American people not only are we doing the American people's work, we are doing it based on merit. We are doing it based on a system that is fully ethical, and we don't take this as a burden. We take it as a necessary responsibility, and we understand that not only are we doing the people's business, but we are in a real sense on a stage which requires us to be teachers for many people. Many young people look at this place and many young people have the opportunity to visit here, and many young people have the opportunity to see our workings here by way of C-SPAN, and I don't want them to be watching in the well of the House as we condemn a Member, as we expel a Member, or we reprimand a Member for inappropriate conduct, and have that Member stand here and say: if only you had given me the resources so I would have known what the rules really were. I don't want that to be the excuse. I want us to say that we stand here as an ethical, collective body, and that we will put our money where our mouth is. I would just end by saying this: we would not allow a corporation to say they couldn't comply with Sarbanes-Oxley and the new responsibilities under ethics and reporting because they couldn't afford to hire the lawyers and the accountants to do it. We would say that was your obligation. If we believe that is the obligation in the private sector, we ought to do the very same for ourselves as we stand here in the largest corporation in the world. As the members of the board of directors of the largest corporation in the world that spends more money in the world, we stand here saying we will be as serious about our responsibilities as we expect you to be about yours.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, at the time that the Ethics Committee came before our committee for their funding, I inquired as to what they needed, because I was concerned about the insufficiency of funds for that committee per the directions we had received from the leadership as to what we could actually give them. So during that presentation before our committee, the distinguished chairwoman of the committee said these words regarding her request: ``These positions,'' that is the positions that will be funded by their additional money request, ``are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House Ethics Committee.'' She continued: ``Importantly, the figures presented today represent the collaborative efforts of my ranking member, Representative Doc Hastings, and I to advance,'' again, quoting her, ``the past needs of the committee and the current mandates of the House ethics rules.'' That's the nub of this whole debate. That is why we ask that this rule be voted down and that we will be allowed to have an amendment dealing specifically with funding for the Ethics Committee. We have to understand, ``additional mandates,'' those are the words from the chairperson of the committee, current mandates of the House ethics rules. I am just asking Members on both sides of the aisle to think about this. We have said that we are going to be the most ethical Congress in history. We have adopted new rules that mandate new concerns with specificity as to conduct by Members and their staff. One of the enforcing mechanisms is guidance to be given to us by that very Ethics Committee. Therefore, we have imposed additional obligations, additional work on that committee; and yet we are not giving them the additional resources. Now, if I were a corporation having received the new mandate under Sarbanes-Oxley, and the first thing I told my employees and my shareholders is, I am not going to beef up our lawyers, I am not going to beef up our accountants to give us advice as to what we should do under the law, the shareholders would probably throw me out of my position because I would not be doing the job that is necessary. We on this floor in these committees have two shareholders. We have our peers, that is the other Members to whom we owe a responsibilities to give them that which they need to ensure that they follow those rules, and we have an obligation to our ultimate shareholders, the taxpayers of America, our constituents, who expect us to put our money where our mouth is to expect us to live up to our promises. May I just say, I thank the committee for the work they did. I had to make a specific request of the committee about a particular trip I was going on to visit a friend that I have known for 40-some years, before our last break, and I received oral assurance from the committee that it was appropriate. But, technically, I was supposed to receive written assurance, and I received that a week after the visit. Now, it turned out my wife slipped on the ice and we were not able to go on the visit, so I have to write a letter to the committee to make it clear I didn't do that, and that is why it will not be in my report at the end of the year. But the fact of the matter is, those technical violations that could occur because we don't give them enough in the way of personnel can come back to haunt us as individual Members, but, more importantly, to undercut, undercut the confidence the American people have in this place that we are ethical. All I am saying is, we can save money in a number of different places; but we ought not to skimp on this particular issue, this particular committee. Therefore, I would ask Members to vote down this rule so we can have this simple amendment brought forward.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the ceremony honoring the Tuskegee Airmen with the Congressional Gold Medal. I am pleased that S. Con. Res. 15 is currently under consideration. As we all know, the Tuskegee Airmen were young men who enlisted to become America's first black military airmen at a time where, sadly in this country, there were many people who argued that black men lacked the necessary skills or ability to be part of an effective military force. Well, the Tuskegee Airmen effectively dispelled that notion that in any way African Americans were second-class citizens. Mr. Speaker, although the term ``hero'' is perhaps overused in today's discourse, there is no better description of the Tuskegee Airmen. Not only were they the first black airmen to perform as they did, but they put their lives on the line for all Americans, regardless of color. For that, we are all eternally grateful and eternally in their debt; and it is not only appropriate, but fitting, for us to take this step today. As one in his younger years who had an opportunity to meet some of these Tuskegee Airmen, I can tell you that they carried themselves with a great deal of pride in the contribution they had made to this Nation, and any conversations I had with such airmen, that is what they stressed, their contribution to this Nation. So it is fitting that we take the time, as a thankful Nation, to give them this respect and honor them in this singular way with a Congressional Gold Medal and to have this done here at the center, at the heart of our democracy, the rotunda of the United States Capitol.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the manner of our withdrawal from Iraq will dramatically affect the credibility of American foreign policy. Our actions must not lead to anti-Semites masquerading as the President of Iran with the misimpression that his thirst for nuclear weapons can ever end with the realization of his dream of nuclear holocaust, this time engulfing the Jewish national homeland. In the larger geopolitical context, like it or not, credibility is the currency of a global Superpower. The argument has been made on this floor that our engagement in Iraq has had the effect of diverting our attention from other threats to our security interests such as a nuclear North Korea or the military buildup of China or even a resurgent Russia. The recent glimmer of hope from the multiparty talks with the hermit kingdom demonstrates that it is possible for our Nation to, yes, walk and chew gum at the same time. The war in Iraq has not come at the cost of disengagement. However, perhaps more importantly, we cannot avoid the fact that the manner in which we turn control over their country to the Iraqis will send a message across the globe to friend and foe alike of whether we are a reliable ally and a predictable adversary. It is simply not possible for us to divorce our role in the world from our credibility as a Nation. The stakes are great for Iraq, but they are just as great, if not greater, for those of us in the United States, for those of us presently in the United States and for our children and our grandchildren. Although everyone including the President has acknowledged the fact that things have not gone as planned in Iraq, this should not lead us to overlook the fact that the Iraqi people have chosen their Nation's leadership in democratic elections, three in a row, with more and more people participating, larger percentages of the population participating, in numbers and percentages that frankly would embarrass our country when you look at the turnout we have for elections. Sometimes we explain the low turnout in our elections because of bad weather. Their bad weather was not the question. It was the threat of death if they participated in elections, and yet they went forward to do so. They ratified a Constitution that represents a dramatic departure from the rule of one of the most repressive regimes of the globe, and we sort of slide by that and say, well, we got rid of Saddam Hussein, but look at the mess those people are in over there. It is a difficult proposition. This President warned us after 9/11 it would be a difficult proposition; it would take fortitude; it would take persistence; it would take resolve. At the same time, however, it is this very hope of democracy that has led those extremists who fear such a prospect to lash out in a wave of violence. In this regard, we must not fall prey to the error of failing to hold those responsible for violence accountable for their murderous actions. The idea that we are somehow responsible for violence in Iraq is both preposterous and the crassest form of moral ignorance. Those who commit the murders, those who drill holes in people's brains, screw fellow human beings to walls and consider decapitation a form of religious expression, they are the ones who are responsible for the atrocities and massive human rights violations concerning the people of Iraq. Charles Krauthammer aptly captures such moral illogic with the query of whether the police in America are somehow responsible and have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year. The tragic irony of such logic is that it suggests that those who murder in order to manipulate the Western media and public opinion by the spectacle of mangled bodies and blood-stained streets should be able to realize their aim of driving us away from the scene of their crime. We must not reward these thugs by giving them what they want. We are in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people, and the blame for the violence should be placed where it belongs. As Prime Minister Blair so eloquently stated the proposition: ``Here is where we have to change radically our mindset. At present, when we are shown pictures of carnage in Iraq, much of our own opinion sees that as a failure, as a reason for leaving. Surely,'' Prime Minister Blair says, ``it is a reason for persevering and succeeding. What is the purpose of the terrorism in Iraq? It is to destroy the prospect of democratic progress. In doing so, they hope to deal us a mortal blow. They know victory for them in Iraq is defeat not just for Iraqi democracy but for democratic values everywhere.'' The challenges before us relate to the formulation of policy, but this should not be considered in a vacuum. The most important asset of the United States in Iraq is the quality of the men and women of our Armed Forces. It is in this regard that the person in charge of the responsibility of implementing our new policy, General David Petraeus, is well-suited to perform such a task. In addition to his experience in the area around Mosul, he is the coauthor of the recently released Military Field Manual on Counterinsurgency Doctrine. History provides us with examples where military commanders have been brought into a theater of operations in order to turn around what seemed at the time less than promising, as illustrated by the appointments of General Grant, or even General Patton, to name just two examples. If there ever was a need for such leadership in Iraq it is now. General Petraeus is a critical component to our prospects for progress. And I know everybody says they support General Petraeus, they support our troops. But it does seem odd that when the other body confirmed General Petraeus unanimously, they followed it up by suggesting what he was going about was a fool's errand. And I know everybody here supports our troops, but listen to what you are saying. On the one hand you say, ``Godspeed, General Petraeus,'' and on the other hand you say, ``You are doomed to failure.'' The need to meet the challenge of stabilizing Iraq, primarily in Baghdad and Anbar Province, is essential to the orderly withdrawal of American forces. Any precipitous action which fails to accommodate this concern would likely have untold consequences for innocents within Iraq, the broader Middle East, and ultimately the security of the American people. Again, however, it must be emphasized that the long-term success or failure of democracy in Iraq rests with the Iraqis themselves. As Faoud Ajami of Johns Hopkins University has pointed out, we have given the gift of freedom to the Iraqi people, which, by nature, entails the conclusion that their future is in their own hands. This new strategy, and I stress it is a new strategy, recognizes that our remaining days in Iraq must be dedicated to making this transition to a new political order possible, not just getting out, but getting out as we succeed in our effort to establish a stable democracy in Iraq.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just like to say, it was interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about the principles articulated some years ago. They are reminiscent of the arguments I heard on this floor some 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan made the courageous decision to put medium range nuclear weapons into Europe, despite the protest of Europe, despite the protest of many on the other side, despite the fact we were told we were taking a unilateral step. Sometimes it is difficult to make these decisions, and you can't always guarantee success. And if we always went by that argument, frankly, America would not be where it is today. Let me begin with a note of bipartisanship, however. It goes without saying that we can all agree that things have not progressed as we wished they would in Iraq. Perhaps we could all agree with the characterization of the Iraq Study Group that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. I think we can all agree that there was therefore a need for a change in the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq. Not only has this happened, but we have a new Secretary of Defense and, as was stated on the floor just a moment ago, we have a new commander on the ground in Iraq. It is at this point, however, that I am somewhat mystified by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Since the resolution of disapproval concerning this change in the direction of U.S. policy contains absolutely no alternative, it follows that its adoption represents a tacit endorsement for the policies which we all agree are not working. It is a simple, logical entailment that criticism of a change in policy without any concrete alternative is tantamount to the endorsement of the status quo. Thus, we find ourselves in the ironic situation that to support this resolution is to condone a policy that virtually everyone agrees has not been working. We are telling our troops that we are sending a new commander. We are telling them by this resolution that we don't support what the new commander is doing. We are saying by this resolution we don't believe that the new plan will work. We are saying, Godspeed, we support you. But we are sending you on a fool's errand. If you truly believe that, stand up here and have the guts to stop the program by cutting off the money. Take responsibility for your actions, which the Constitution allows you to do. Let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the absence of any comprehensible policy objective leaves only one element of the resolution intact: Disapproval of the President. And this, in my estimation, is most unfortunate, for there was one thing on which I wish we could all agree. This should not be about George Bush. It is far more important than that. Our response to the current state of affairs in Iraq will have dramatic consequences not only for the people in Iraq but for the security of the American people as well. I believe we must resist the temptation to fight over matters which have long ceased to be of any relevance. The question of whether we should have initially gone into Iraq is simply not the issue. The fact is that we are there, and that is the unpleasant but essential reality to which we must respond. It is not possible to pretend otherwise or to keep looking backward or to keep quoting things that were said in the past or to suggest that we shouldn't be where we are. We are there. It is of little solace to our troops to say, gee, we made a mistake in putting you there, and therefore we are going to pass a resolution of disapproval of what we are asking you to do now. What sense does that make? What sense at all does that make? It should be acknowledged that findings concerning the absence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are not dispositive of the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. As Peter Berger, the only Westerner to conduct an interview on television with Osama bin Laden puts it, there is one thing that bin Laden and Bush agree on, says Peter Berger: that Iraq has become a central front in the war on terror. Berger, who did not support the decision to invade Iraq, warns of a potential repercussion at war's end that could make the blowback from the Afghan war against the Soviets look like high tea at the Four Seasons. This, in my estimation, is why it is so important that the impression not be given that our hand has been forced by Iraqi insurgents, notably al Qaeda of Mesopotamia. If we have learned anything from the tragic events of the Khobar Towers, the Embassy bombings in East Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole, it is that the fanatics' perception of success only serves to embolden those who seek to kill us. The extreme nature of this murderous mens rea is illustrated in an article in the London Telegraph which reports, ``A husband and wife arrested in the British terror raids allegedly planned to take their 6- month-old baby on a mid-air suicide mission, using the baby's milk bottle to hide a liquid bomb.'' The story is shocking on many levels, but perhaps so disturbing is that it shatters the belief that mothers and fathers share a common commitment to the future of their children. We face an enemy which subscribes to an ideology rooted in a nihilistic culture of death. This contemporary version of the ``will to power'' seeks justification for a totalist world view through the abuse of a religion to camouflage its deeper roots. As Paul Berman has chronicled in ``Terrorism and Liberalism,'' this fascist-like ideology arising out of the revisionism of Sayyid al Qutb taught that there was no middle ground and no possibility of compromise. Bin Laden became interested in a radical distortion of Islam from the fiery taped sermons of Abdullah Azzam, a disciple of al Qutb, and came to share Qutb's grim view of the world and used it to justify mass murder. By the late 1980s, following the crackdown by the Egyptian Government on the extreme Islamist groups in response to the assassination of Sadat in 1981, many of the Islamic militants went into exile. It was through the presence of Egyptian Islamist teachers in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members were influenced; most notably, Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader in the Egypt Islamic jihad. Another avenue by which this totalist ideology was introduced to the Middle East via the Vichy Government of France during World War II, which despite its short shelf-life, infected the French mandated territory of Syria-Lebanon. It was during this time that the ideological foundations of the Baathist Party were laid and a Nazi regime headed by Rahid Ali was set up in Iraq. During this same period, the mufti of Jerusalem was wined and dined by none other than Hitler himself. The point is that there were some very dark influences on this region of the world which are still playing themselves out today. We cannot believe that our absence from this area will solve problems and allow us to retreat. We must make no mistake about their intentions: They seek to kill us. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, has left us with no ambiguity on the matter when he states that they have the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. No, we must not give such people a misapprehension about any misguided notions they may have about their providential place in history. Although our ultimate objective in Iraq is to hand over power in an orderly fashion to a duly constituted government, the manner in which we do so is of the highest order of importance. That is what I don't hear from the other side. It is not just the question of peace being the absence of war, it is what we will have in the aftermath. What kind of a world will we have in the Middle East? Will it be safer for our children and our grandchildren? Will the implications of our decisions be heard in history as something of which we will be proud, or will it be just that we got tired of the effort? And if we believe that by absenting ourselves from the area, that solves problems, it has never been the case. It wasn't the case when we got out of Lebanon following the attack on our marines; it was not the case when we basically got out of the area after the USS Cole. Again, independent of the origins of al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, the relevant point is how al Qaeda itself perceives the war there. It is their potential reaction to our Iraqi policy which has most relevance. In this regard, the intercepted letter sent by al-Zawahiri to al- Zarqawi is most important and has been mentioned on this floor many times. He said, We must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq and Sunni areas in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries of neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: Go after Israel. It is, therefore, clear that regardless of how we might wish the situation to be, wishful thinking, as described in this resolution, is not a basis for policy. Al Qaeda is present in Iraq, and they perceive it to be a central front in the war. It is simply not possible for us to pretend otherwise, as much as we would like it. This resolution does nothing to help us in this war against Islamic fascism. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the words of those who have spoken the words about the job that Jay Eagen and Karen Haas have done. They have served this body well. They have done us honor by their service. I am sure they will continue with honorable service in the future. When I returned to the House of Representatives after being away for 16 years, I observed that there were some things that were better about this House and some things that were worse about this House. I noted that there was always a partisanship in this House, but there appeared to be a harder edge to that partisanship. And one of the things that struck me was that we needed to be around here more often. That is why I, frankly, am one of those on this side of the aisle that believes that attempting to go to a 5-day workweek not only is good in terms of the product that we will put out eventually, when we actually do go to 5-day workweeks, but the interchange and the interplay and the opportunity for Members to deal with one another and get to know one another I think may very well take the hard edge off the partisanship that is always going to be a part of the House when you have strong feelings argued by Members on both sides. At the same time, I must say it is a disappointment, as a Member of the House Administration Committee, to see the manner in which the decision was made to choose a Chief Administrative Officer. When I served here before, there is no doubt that the administration of this place was in a mess. You could ask questions and get no answers. You could attempt to try and decipher how this place was organized, and you could not find out. You would ask questions, and you would get a wink and a nod and a sense of don't ask, don't tell. You would try and find, for legitimate reasons, information; and you would find that either that was not made available to you or that it could not be made available to you. And since that time, primarily I believe because of the institution of the position of Chief Administrative Officer and the organization that flow from that, it has changed. So I was trying to look back at the experience of the House to see how this was made and how the decision was made to fill that position. When I discovered that both the Republican and the Democratic sides had come together stressing bipartisanship, making a national search, attempting to try and find the best possible person for the job but, above that, requiring unanimous support from both sides of the aisle, it seemed to me that that was an encouraging step towards righting a wrong that existed in this House. And that is why, even though I do not know Mr. Beard, and I will take on its face the recommendations that have been made on the other side about Mr. Beard, it is a missed opportunity we had in this House to manifest an effort in one of the legitimate areas where bipartisanship should reign, that is, in filling the position of someone who is to be the chief administrator of this body. It is a sorely missed opportunity. I know that we should not be complaining about process, and people are tired about complaining about process, and I am tired about hearing the complaints about process. But this was a unique opportunity for us to work together, not as Democrats or Republicans but Members of the House of Representatives who have respect for this institution, who understand the necessity of having this place run at that level on a businesslike basis so that every Member can feel that the person who filled that job was chosen by the entire membership and that no one has to feel that they have allegiance only to one side. It is very difficult in this place, because of the way it is organized, for us to find that sort of sweet spot, if you will, in the activities in which we are involved. This was one of those chances, and I am very sorry that we rejected the experience and the precedent of the recent past in making this selection. I join the gentleman from Maryland and others in hoping that Mr. Beard will do an excellent job. It is in the interests of all of us that he does an excellent job. My only point is this was a tremendous opportunity for us to remove partisanship, to work together, as the gentleman suggested a number of years ago when the selection of Mr. Eagen was made. My only hope is that this does not suggest how things will be done in the future when there is abundant reason for us to work together as Members of the House rather than as Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, with that, I congratulate Mr. Beard on his selection. I hope he will do the best for us, as Mr. Eagen has done. I only lament the fact that we had an opportunity that we missed.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and in support of the honoring of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I can recall, two decades ago, being on this floor with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and fighting to make sure that we established this holiday. Some may have forgotten that it took more than one time for this to occur. The resolution was defeated on two previous occasions. And I recall that some of us on our side of the aisle voted against it for fiscal reasons at that time. And I also recall, after having that vote, going home and talking with my wife and saying, you know, I think I did the wrong thing; and her giving me the great advice that she gave me, she said, well, if you did, you'd better do something about it. And at that time I had the opportunity to approach Congressman Jack Kemp, who had voted against it as well for ``fiscal reasons,'' and working with Ed Bethune and Newt Gingrich and others, attempting to garner enough support from some on our side of the aisle to ensure that the vote would go forward and that we would honor Dr. Martin Luther King. And the argument that was made at that time that I think was successful was that we have many different points of view, as we do today on the war, as we did at that time in how we appropriately deal with the then existing threat of the Soviet Union, many different issues that divided us in terms of our approach. But it seemed important for us to come together from all these different points of view to recognize Dr. Martin Luther King's contribution to this country where he brought people who had differences of opinion together in a united effort that reminded us very vividly that we are one people dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. And it was cutting through the differences that we had at that time on a number of different issues that allowed us to come together. And I can recall going to visit Mr. Conyers in his office and asking him whether it would be of any benefit for those of us who had initially opposed the resolution to come forward in support of it. And I can recall the gentleman from Michigan's statement at that time, suggesting that we all ought to come together. So today, as we are again in a period of time in which there are sincere, passionate differences of opinion on issues such as the war and how we approach it, when we have some differences on how we deal with certain economic matters, when we have differences of opinion with respect to the extent and the definition of certain applications of affirmative action, isn't it good for us to at least step back and recognize that there is a commonality of purpose, a commonality of dedication, a commonality of the essence of America; that we recognize that we will never be perfect, but as we are moving to make real the promise of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, that we actually have more that joins us together than breaks us apart. Because had we not had that belief, and had we not had that as our base decision some two decades ago, we would not now have, as a recognition of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, the national holiday. It is not an African American holiday. It is not a Hispanic holiday, it is not an Irish American holiday. It is an American holiday that recognizes that Dr. King spoke to the essence of America. There could be nothing greater in the annals of American history, in my judgment, than his magnificent statement contained in the letter from the Birmingham jail, where he said that we, as the people, understand the difference between a just and an unjust law. He didn't say let us look at this legal book and tell us where it is. He said an unjust law is a law which violates God's law; an unjust law is that which we know is wrong. I can also remember his great words in there when people said, Well, aren't you a radical? He said, What was Jesus but a radical for love. He asked that we come together and look in our hearts, as much as our heads, and remember that as imperfect as we are, we do all share in this tremendous legacy of America, and we honor America by trying to be more true to that promise. I thank the gentleman for this resolution. I thank the manager of this bill for his work today and other days, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for giving me this time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, a couple of numbers, there has been a suggestion an overwhelming number of the American people support the approach contained in this bill. In fact, the latest poll that was taken just last spring shows that only 39 percent support Federal funding of the approach found in this bill when they are informed that it requires the destruction of embryos. The CBS poll taken a year ago shows that only 37 percent of the American people support more Federal funds for more stem cell lines. Another number that is important is 70-0. That is the score of the diseases that have been successfully treated by the use of stem cells from adult and blood cord stem cells, zero of the number that have been treated successfully by embryonic stem cells. But more importantly, it seems to me as we deal with this issue, we should recall the words of Dr. Nigel Cameron, the founder of the journal called ``Ethics and Medicine,'' when he said in his testimony: ``Our membership in the human species is enough to distinguish the human embryo from all other laboratory artifacts.'' It is important for us to understand that human dignity is not reserved for adult human beings. And for us to say here at this time that human dignity is contingent upon arbitrary criteria such as size or location is a profound judgment that we make. It is for that reason that President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission decided not to permit stem cell research using IVF embryos after finding that ``the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following fertility treatments is justifiable, only,'' it said, ``only if no less problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.'' We have seen the evidence compounding, even since we were here on this floor, just last year, that there are morally appropriate alternatives. Let us not follow in this direction.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That is, on the night that Members found out that they were defeated, their staffs knew they were out of a job. It is my information that a number of Republican staffers on some of the committees were not informed until just yesterday that they were out of a job because we didn't know what the staff ratios were going to be, we didn't know which people were going to have to be selected, and so just in that particular regard, they got far less notice. I understand what the gentleman is doing here. I happen to be one of those who has been accused about not being concerned enough about staff, but the fact of the matter is, if we want small government to work well, we need to have good people to work here. I don't know why we are taking the time tonight to berate, in essence, our people, to suggest that somehow they knew this was coming.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The only thing I would suggest is please at this late hour, don't make some of our employees punching bags. I mean, the fact of the matter is some of these people just learned this week that they are not going to have employment. If you think it is an easy thing to try and find a job over the holidays, if you say come back in January, sure, let's give them more uncertainty. Let's give their families more uncertainty. Let's have them bear the burden of this. And frankly at times we ought to be thinking of those people. I would just ask you to vote ``yes'' for this. Not for us, not for them, not for anybody in this House, but for the individuals who have served us well and their families.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. A partial answer to the question.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a privilege and a distinct pleasure to be able to say a few words about Henry Hyde, someone I consider to be a friend but also who I consider to be part of the institution of the House of Representatives and in many ways a true hero. We count probably on one hand the number of inspirational people that we either have read about in history or have met in person. I count my father as one of my heroes. I count Abraham Lincoln as one of my heroes. I count Ronald Reagan as one of my heroes, and I count Henry Hyde as one of my heroes. Of that group, there is only one with whom I was able to serve in the House of Representatives on the Judiciary Committee for 10 consecutive years, a number of those years sitting directly beside Henry Hyde. He was not only an excellent practitioner of the art of politics, but he was a true scholar. If you have ever had the opportunity to sit with Henry Hyde as he thinks about a response to a question, thinks about a response to an argument that has been made on the floor or the committee, you see a man in real thought, in deep thought. If you have ever had the opportunity to be there when he then began his response, you were educated, you were edified, you were inspired by what he had to say. And you knew he took it seriously, but he never took himself too seriously. We could do no better in this House of Representatives as we embark on a new Congress in which the majority has shifted, and as we attempt to try and figure out how we treat one another, to think of the example of Henry Hyde. I can recall in the years when we were in the minority, Henry Hyde oftentimes arguing in the well of the House with passion and compassion, with intellect, sometimes with a slight bit of humor, sometimes even sarcasm, but it was good-natured sarcasm. And as he ended, he would go to the other side of the well and seek out his opponent and oftentimes give him or her a playful punch in the arm and tell them a joke to alleviate the pressure. And that was Henry Hyde, fighting for his principles, but always attempting to have a level of civility in this House that we desperately need. Henry Hyde was here a couple of years before I first came in 1979, and he was sitting on the floor of the House with another Member when a certain appropriation bill came through, and they thought, you know, we have been talking about doing something on the issue of the unborn, and maybe we ought to put pen to paper and write out an amendment. That was the birth of the Hyde amendment, not something that had been done by staff, as good as they are, and worked on for months or for years, but sitting here on the floor of the House, inspired by the debate that had gone on and thinking, you know, maybe I can make a difference by just writing out an amendment and sending it up to the Clerk and having it read, having it introduced and having it become an issue of prime importance on which Members can disagree here; but there is no doubt that it, in many ways, focused that debate in a very serious way, and it continues to this day. I was with Henry Hyde when he thought about the speech given by the Governor of New York, Mr. Cuomo, at my alma mater, Notre Dame, about the proper role of someone who has faith and seeks to be a politician and elected official. And Mario Cuomo's speech at Notre Dame was lauded by many across the Nation as the best exposition of one in public life attempting to try and make that proper balance between their private views and their public views. But Henry was troubled by the overall approach that was utilized by Governor Cuomo, and he had the opportunity to respond about 2 months later when he spoke to the law school at the University of Notre Dame. He later put that speech in a small book and it was called ``For Every Idle Silence.'' And it is a phrase that suggests that we will be held responsible, not only for every act that we do, but for every idle silence we do in the face of a moral dispute. If anybody has the occasion to go back and look at that speech, it is one of the most profound statements on how one can resolve in his or her own mind how you can be faithfully an American and faithful to your faith, all at the same time. Henry Hyde had that unique ability to bring the force of intellect, the power of faith, and unquenchable desire to make sure America stood tall, and a profound understanding of the Constitution that you rarely see combined in one individual. This place has been ennobled by the participation in the debate by Henry Hyde. This place has been honored by Henry Hyde's presence here. And while he leaves us as he retires, his spirit will not leave. His example will not be in vain. And those of us, as we look through troubled times, as we attempt to try and come up with a public policy to respond to the threat that some call the war on terror and I call the war on Islamofascism, as we attempt to try and figure out how do we garner the power of this Nation to respond to that threat and at the same time guarantee the protections of civil liberties that are enshrined in our Constitution, we could do no better than look to Henry Hyde for inspiration. And I know that as long as I serve in this body, my model for a Member of the House of Representatives will always be Henry Hyde.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in support the passage of House Resolution 993 to support the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. This year, that month was in October, and while it is now November, I believe it is important to recognize the need for cyber security awareness not just in one month but throughout the entire year. The Internet and the computers we use on a daily basis have become commonplace in our lives. Over 205 million Americans use the Internet on a regular basis, and that number is growing. Companies, both large and small, increasingly rely on the Internet and information technology systems to manage their business, expand their customer reach and enhance their connection with their supply chain. With computers becoming less expensive and access to the Internet easier to accomplish, many dangers associated with on-line behavior are becoming more and more common. These threats range from spam, viruses and identity theft to complex computer attacks created by organized crime and terrorist organizations designed to steal personal financial information and create general havoc. The Internet has become an invaluable tool in educating our children. Almost 90 percent of all youth use the Internet, and the vast majority of those say they use the Internet at school. As more and more children use the Internet, it is important that they are taught to use this tool in a safe, secure and ethical way. This will not only protect their own systems from attack, but will protect their physical safety and help them become good cyber citizens. Cyber security is also a critical part of our Nation's overall homeland security. In particular, the control systems that control and monitor our drinking water, our dams and other water management systems, our electrical grids, oil and gas supplies, our transportation systems and other critical manufacturing processes are connected to the Internet. It is possible for terrorist organizations to disrupt a number of our critical infrastructure systems and do serious damage to our economy without even entering our country. Clearly, with much of the Nation's critical infrastructure connected to the Internet, appropriate cyber security practices are essential to our overall security. It is not just terrorists that seek to do harm via computers and the Internet. More and more criminal activity is occurring in borderless cyber space. Through the Internet, international criminals can attack our computers through virus, worms and unwanted programs such as spyware and password stealers that can cause significant financial and personal privacy losses due to identity theft and fraud. Organizations such as the National Cyber Security Alliance are making it their mission to increase awareness of cyber security practices and technologies to home users, students, teachers and small businesses. These organizations deserve to be recognized for their good work and supported as much as possible to spread the awareness of good cyber security. This organization's work is paying off. Cyber security awareness is growing. The Department of Homeland Security has recognized its importance by naming finally an Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Telecommunications, but there is much more work to be done. More government agencies, private sector companies, academic institutions, consumers and the media have to recognize the importance in establishing appropriate cyber security in their computers and information systems. We, as a Congress, have a large role to play in encouraging the use of proper cyber security practices and technologies throughout our country. National Cyber Security Awareness Month provides a solid platform from which to improve cyber security awareness in this country, and I am pleased that this Congress is supporting its goals and ideals. As I have said, we have much work to do, but being aware of the need for cyber security is a necessary, essential first step. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear, first of all, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee referred to the first page of the bill, but he needs to go on further, to section 948b subsection (a), which defines the purpose of the military tribunals, where it says: ``This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.'' So where initially he referred to the definition of unlawful enemy combatants, this bill refers to ``alien'' unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the U.S. So you can't pick up just anybody in the United States. Section 948a(3) defines an alien as a person who is not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, the language of the bill before us precludes the use of military commissions to try citizens of the U.S. Second, the limitations on habeas corpus also only apply to alien enemy combatants. By its very terms, section 7 says that ``no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained . . . '' Therefore, under the expressed terms of the bill, an American citizen will have the unencumbered ability to challenge his or her detention as they have under the Constitution. So let's not confuse it. Let's read all sections of the bill. We are dealing with, as the bill says, ``alien unlawful enemy combatants,'' those people who are not in uniform, those people who are not following the rules of international law with respect to war, those people who hide behind women and children, those people who use the very fact that they are not identified as ``legal combatants'' to try to kill and maim Americans around the world. That is what this tribunal is set up for, and to give them more rights than they would have virtually anywhere else and in any other system, as articulated by the chairman of the full committee. So let's not confuse the facts.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman King for his leadership, Ranking Member Thompson, the ranking member of my subcommittee, Ms. Sanchez, and Congresswoman Harman for all of the hard work in passing this important bill to protect our ports. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I guess I must have gotten very tired tonight, because I think I misheard my good friend, Mr. Thompson, in his description of this bill and about some play we are at. I remember act one, act two, act three being consultation with the other side. I remember working very closely with Members of the other side of the aisle and their staffs. I recall us spending months working this out. I recall early morning meetings with Ms. Harman, joining Congresswoman Harman to go across the Rotunda to the other side, to try and see if we could begin our journey together, that is, to see that our bill would be close in terms of its tone, in terms of its breadth, in terms of its direction with that of our colleagues on the other side. I can recall the next act when we brought it to the subcommittee, and I can recall getting a unanimous vote out of the subcommittee. I can recall the next act, which was the full committee. We had a 29-0 vote; and where I come from, that is pretty doggone close to unanimous. We then had the further act which was acting on the floor of the House, and we got a 421-2 vote. It was totally bipartisan. Even the two who voted against it split one Republican and one Democrat. You cannot get much more bipartisan than that. We have worked together to preserve the essence or the guts of the bill that we have crafted through our committee structure and which we passed on the floor. I am proud to stand here and say that we have accomplished something that many people thought could not be accomplished. The Senate began their journey several months before we did in terms of a formed bill. Yet we leapfrogged over them in the work that was done in our subcommittee and committee. And I do believe that the actions of this House nudged, if I might use that term, our colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda such that we are able to bring this bill to the floor for completed action tonight on this side of the Rotunda and the other side of the Rotunda. Rather than create an act of political statement, we have created an act of law. That is, this will go to the President, and the President will sign this. So I hope that all who are here in this Chamber will think of the spirit of bipartisanship with which we started this journey that will be part of the end of this journey. Today, we have taken a solid step forward in securing our Nation. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. This is not a half measure. This is a major measure. The sums of money authorized in here are significant. The grant program is a stream of $400 million a year for 5 years. That is a $2 billion grant program for our ports across this Nation. That is something we have been looking for for some time. We now authorize it. We authorize other programs that Members on both sides of this aisle have spoken for for a long period of time, all to secure this Nation and particularly to secure our ports. Our enemies have stated that they want to disrupt our economy, murder our citizens, and destroy our way of life. By passing this bill, we do not make a statement, we actually begin to protect our Nation's ports, safeguard the American people, and increase the confidence in our international trade routes. The American people expect us to take action to protect our ports, and with this bill we have done precisely that. We have addressed the possibility of our enemies using our open society and free economy against us. We have taken away a potential weapon, one capable of causing major disruption to our economy. In passing this bill tonight, we are taking rational action to harden our domestic critical infrastructure, ensuring that those who wish to harm us are unable to have access to those critical facilities. But this bill is more than just protecting our local facilities. Securing international maritime trade is incredibly complex. At any one time there are hundreds of vessels and literally hundreds of thousands of containers crossing the oceans on the way to our ports. With this bill, we have developed a strategy to implement a system to scan each container before it enters our domestic stream of commerce. We will be able to identify and track containers destined for our shores, using training and technology to identify any that may pose a risk. We are pushing out our borders beyond our geographical limits to make a rational approach to stopping the opportunity that those who would kill us and maim us and destroy our economy would otherwise have. We have reached out in this way to our trading partners to include them in this strategy to keep international trade flowing with minimal disruption. This strategy allows us to integrate security into international commerce, allowing us to facilitate trade rather than hinder it, so that we do not allow the terrorists to succeed. We have given the Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs to protect against the potential of weapons of mass destruction being delivered to our shores. We have created a program for our best minds to develop even more effective and less intrusive scanning technology to make security completely transparent, seamless and even more effective. Recognizing that technology is only as good as the people who use it, we provided a multitude of grants available to our local port facilities so that they can train their employees in emergency procedure and response. That is something that we very much wanted to emphasize, and I would like to give Congressman Reichert credit for pursuing that in such a strong way. The bill also provides for more Customs and border protection agents, which should enable the Department to continue its mission of both building security and facilitating legitimate trade that is critical to the Nation. We provided for the Coast Guard to create joint port security operational centers in our Nation's major ports to coordinate effective response to any incident that threatens the security of these ports. Some may wish to focus on what the bill does not do, when we should appreciate it for what it does. It strengthens our port facilities, it enhances the security of the international supply chain, increases the resiliency and confidence in our economy. By doing all of this, the significant piece of legislation and all of those that worked so hard to bring it to passage, including Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, Congresswoman Harman, Ranking Member Sanchez and our colleagues in the Senate all have joined together to increase the security of our Nation; and I, for one, am proud to have been involved.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I note the gentleman from Florida's fondness for quoting Benjamin Franklin. It is interesting the debate we are engaged in today is not a new debate, because there has always been debate about the tension that has been developed or actually written into the Constitution among the three branches of government dealing with difficult issues like this. And while the gentleman from Florida commended us to a conversation by the esteemed Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, I would give him another one. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and the other four members of the Committee on Secret Correspondence explained their unanimous decision not to tell their colleagues in the Continental Congress about a sensitive U.S.-French covert operation by writing: ``We find, by fatal experience, that Congress consists of too many Members to keep secrets.'' There was a tension that they understood at that time, and there is a tension that naturally resides in this because of the unique character of the President as Commander in Chief and his ability to ferret out foreign intelligence. So the question is how do we try and deal with that tension? I would suggest to my colleagues that the fact that we have not had an attack since 2001 on U.S. soil is something for which we can all be thankful, but safer does not mean there is any room for complacency. As the events in Bali, Madrid, and London on 7-7 indicate, we are still at war with an enemy that is fully devoted to one thing: the murder of innocent people, specifically Americans, men, women, and children. And in this effort to protect our citizens, the daunting task before us is to thwart the efforts of an enemy who operates underground by stealth and deception and at the same time not rip up our Constitution. This is made all the more difficult, in that, unlike traditional criminal cases, our success will be measured by the ability to prevent a future terrorist attack. This requires an ongoing assessment of how best to equip law enforcement and the intelligence community with the tools to respond to an enemy who is constantly morphing. In meeting this challenge, intelligence is the necessary bridge to successful homeland security protection. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is, therefore, an essential and critical tool in our efforts to protect the American people. But one aspect of this challenge requires us to try and ensure that any gaps between the state of law and technology are closed to prevent their exploitation by a lethal enemy. In this regard, this bill before us, H.R. 5825, seeks a technology-neutral approach, which places greater emphasis on the nature of those surveilled and their location. For example, an international call by a non-U.S. citizen to a terrorist organization would be treated the same under the law regardless of whether the non-U.S. person uses wire or radio technology. When FISA was enacted, domestic communications were transmitted via wire, while international communications were transmitted via radio. In recent years, international communications are increasingly transmitted through undersea cables, which are considered wire. This bill recognizes that international communications should be treated the same regardless of the specific technology at issue. At the same time, this bill enables us to focus on protecting the reasonable privacy expectation of U.S. persons. Those with legitimate concerns over the scope of electronic surveillance should join us in supporting this legislation and supporting this rule to allow consideration of the legislation. In fact, the bill provides greater clarity in circumscribing the permissible limits of such surveillance. Remember what the 9/11 Commission said: ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice. As nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home.'' Support this rule and support this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what bill I just heard referred to. As I read this bill, as one of those who helped to write this bill, we have time limits in this bill. We have notices in this bill. We have requirements in this bill. This bill attempts to do what we should want to do, that is, base it on the expectation of privacy of the individual involved. This bill attempts to try and bring up to date the FISA law, a law that was established at a time when technology was far different than it is today. This is an attempt to try and bridge that gap that was created as a result of technology changing. We set into motion by the law when FISA was first established and in accordance with those technologies which were then available. This is an attempt to allow us to still secure that kind of information that was always allowed under the FISA law, always anticipated to be under the FISA law, but which might be brought into question by the change in technology which has taken place. It also attempts to try and deal with that tension I mentioned before that exists as a result of the constitutional powers that the President has, that we have, and that the judicial branch has and in an area of law where for many years, since the beginning of this Republic, the Supreme Court has found that the President has not exclusive, but preeminent, power or preeminent authority. And there is a reason for this. It is the reason Benjamin Franklin talked about in the quote I gave earlier this evening. It is the reason for the kind of functions that take place in a war-time scenario. It is a recognition that you can have one Commander in Chief and that one Commander in Chief has, as part of his responsibility, the requirement to be able to obtain intelligence about the enemy, intelligence about the foreign power. So the question is, How do you construct a law which allows the President to exercise that responsibility and at the same time allows us to exercise our responsibility? There seems to be this idea where we say that there is an inherent power in the President, but then we don't recognize it at all. Or if he acts, and acts pursuant to that constitutional provision, what he has done is unconstitutional and illegal. And we therefore say, when we try to construct a law which we hope will cover most of the areas of activity by the President, where it will engender a greater spirit of cooperation, we say that what he did or if he asserts that authority, somehow that is unlawful or unconstitutional. We have prerogatives in the House of Representatives. There are areas of cooperation. There are areas where we have preeminent power, such as the House of Representatives is given the responsibility and the authority to begin any law which would take money from the pockets of our constituents. The President of the United States cannot do that under the Constitution, yet he does work with us in that regard, in many different ways even before he gets the final bill. What we have done here is to try to set up a structure which calls for the kind of activity that will be reported to us on a regular basis, with time requirements that don't exist in current law today. It circumscribes some of the activities that otherwise are questionable right now, and it sets up a framework for cooperation, it seems to me. So I hear a lot of, and I have used this word before, but hyperbole here on the floor. We have men and women of good will on both sides of the aisle that have differences of opinion on this. But to condemn this as somehow an effort for us to give away our power; that somehow this allows the President to continue to act in an illegal way or to cover up previous illegal activity betrays a lack of understanding of the Constitution, of the structure of this House, and of activity of prior administrations, both Democrat and Republican. I would ask us all to support this well-crafted bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, not because I disagree with the intent of the gentleman from Mississippi nor the other speakers on the other side, but rather, let's not screw up a good deal. We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to bring forth a major piece of legislation dealing with an area of the country that needs to be addressed, and that is port security. The name of the bill is the Safe Ports Bill. The Senate retained our number, retained the name; the guts of our bill is in this conference report that I believe we will complete before the end of today. And if we instruct conferees in this regard, frankly, we complicate the effort to reach a final conclusion. I am concerned about the area of rail and mass transit security. As a matter of fact, I held a hearing in our subcommittee today at the request of the ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. I thought it was a good bipartisan examination of a number of issues that are out there. Some have suggested that the very fact that we had that hearing may have prompted some action on the part of DHS to put further attention to these areas. I was very proud of the fact that on a bipartisan basis we approached that issue, and we will continue to approach that issue, and I hope that we will continue in a bipartisan spirit to complete this action. As the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the full committee, has said, we are close to the goal line right now. It has been a lot of hard work by a lot of people on a bipartisan basis, starting with our staffs about a year ago. We reached across the aisle, and when we reached across the aisle we were met with open hands by the other side. We have worked together to complete a comprehensive response to the threat that exists or the vulnerability that exists at our ports. It is natural that, when you are attacked by air, that you initially respond to the area of attack. But we are 5 years after 9/11. We are 5 years past the time when we can say that we don't know or didn't know or don't know now of the vulnerabilities that exist with respect to our ports. This is a major piece of legislation. This will be, when completed, a major achievement; and all I would say to my friends on the other side is, please join us ultimately in supporting this overall bill, as you have to this point. We will ask for a defeat of this motion to instruct not because of the spirit in which it is offered but because of the complications that it will create and the difficulties that will ensue. If you want to have a viable response to the concerns that have been raised about port security, vote against this motion to instruct so that we can get to the business of completing our action during our conference later today, so we can bring to the floor of this House within the next 24 hours a completed bill, a bill that started in the House of Representatives, a bill that remains in the contours of what will be presented to the conference today, the guts of the bill that passed this House 421-2. When you have something that passes the House 421-2 you ought to learn to accept ``yes'' for an answer. This is a great piece of work that is going to be presented. It doesn't answer all the questions, but moves us in the proper direction. It puts into law or will put into law many of the things that were first started with this administration but which are not in law, which are not mandatory, which are not permanent, and it extends those. And ideas from both sides of the aisle were put into this bill and will come out of this conference when we complete action. So while I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to instruct, I do so in the spirit of cooperation that, once we get past this and once we get to the conference and once we come back with our completed conference report, we can all join together with another near unanimous vote for a safe ports piece of legislation.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion by some on the other side to suggest that somehow this bill that we bring before us is unconstitutional, that it grants powers to the President that are somehow unconstitutional. Let me just read from the concurring opinion of Justice Breyer in the Hamdan case when he basically said that their decision rested upon a single ground, that Congress had not issued the executive a blank check, that the President had to go back to us to get authority for this. Then they go ahead and say nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. The President believes this authority is necessary. We have worked with him in both the House and the Senate, two different committees on the House side, to try and give him the authority he believes necessary, in the words of Justice Breyer. We need to be clear on some things concerning the language of section 7 of this bill. This action is necessary because, in Rasul, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Federal habeas corpus statutory scheme as allowing those detained in Guantanamo Federal petitions for relief in the Federal courts. The decision was, to say at the least, a major departure from historical precedent. However, this is important. Since the decision was based solely on an interpretation of a statute, 28 U.S.C. 2241, it was easily correctable by congressional action. That is exactly what we did with the Senate with the enactment last year of the Detainee Treatment Act. This statute replaced statutory habeas review with a process of administrative review in which it ultimately would be subject to review by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. So we are not changing the scheme, the statutory scheme of habeas corpus. This Congress already did it a year ago. What we are dealing with is the Hamdan case, another case of statutory interpretation in which the court failed to apply the Detainee Treatment Act to cases which were then pending as of the date of the enactment. Thus, we are here once again to clarify what we have already determined to be the law. In short, section 7 of our bill informs the court that this time we really mean it. For us to do anything other than to affirm the Detainee Treatment Act would indeed be a dramatic departure from what has been deeply rooted in our Nation's legal tradition. Contrary to what has been said on the other side, the United States Supreme Court recognized the 1950 case of Johnson v. Eisenstrager that there is, and this is the Supreme Court speaking, ``no instance where a court in this or any other country where the writ is known issued it on behalf of an alien enemy.'' So we are not changing the law, we are not being inconsistent with the court, we are not being unconstitutional. What we are doing is precisely in the mainstream of what the Court has said. Furthermore, this raises an additional question which must be clarified. The debate today relates to the interpretation of a statute and has absolutely nothing to do with what is referred to as the other writ. The other side keeps talking about this has been in our existence for hundreds of years. They speak of it as being part of the Constitution. Folks, that is the great writ, capital G, capital W. This is the statutory writ. Two different things. Two different things. We have to understand that. In both the Rasul and Hamdan, the question relating to the Detainee Treatment Act was one of statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court did not refer to the great writ; they referred to the statutes. The statutory habeas framework found in title 28 is a creature of Congress. In fact, in Ex Parte McCardle, the United States Supreme Court upheld congressional limitations on the scope of judicial review concerning the habeas statute. What Congress creates, it can also limit. Even professor Erwin Chemerinsky, with whom I seldom agree, points out in his treatise on Federal Jurisdiction that, following the Civil War, congressional statutes rather than the constitutional provision are the source of rights relating to habeas corpus. At the same time, as has been pointed out but needs to be pointed out again, this bill goes to great lengths to ensure detainees will receive full and fair consideration of their claims. The bill allows the respected article 3 court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to review two key government decisions: one, a combatant status review tribunal's determination that a detainee is an enemy combatant; and, two, any final decisions by the military commissions authorized by this bill. This is ample protection when compared with the requirement of a review of status by a competent tribunal under article 5 of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, this legislation before us would expand the eligibility of judicial review over that provided in current law. It would expand it, not contract it, not remain the same. It would actually expand it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Listening to the debate, it is very interesting. The gentlewoman from New York's description of our treatment of captured alleged terrorists was astonishing. As a matter of fact, after listening to her litany of complaints, President Chavez's comments at the United Nations appear mild. We have not violated the rights of individuals. This bill creates a fair and orderly process to detain and prosecute al Qaeda members and others captured during the war on terror. We extend more rights to these individuals than our POWs would ever expect under the Geneva Accords. And the suggestion raised by another Member on the other side, that somehow we are violating hundreds of years of precedent, is absolutely wrong. We are not talking about the great writ that is found in the Constitution, the great writ of habeas corpus. We are talking about a statutory writ, which the Supreme Court has said time and time again Congress has the right to create, Congress has the right to constrict, Congress has the right to eliminate. We do not just leave these people devoid of an opportunity for appeal. Rather, we set up a mechanism where an appeal can go to a single court, the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, so that we can avoid the violations of justice that take place by the abuse of habeas corpus by some already involved. Besides, we already made this decision in this Congress a year ago. What this does is say to the Supreme Court, we meant what we said when we passed the law a year ago which said this should apply to people already in Guantanamo. That was our intent. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believed it not to be found in the language. This makes it clear that what we said a year ago we say again, only we say to the Supreme Court, ``This time we really mean it. Please follow it.'' It is not a violation of any rights. It extends more rights to these people than they are allowed under any other regime of law in the world, and any nonsense spoken on this floor to suggest otherwise ought to be rejected in whole and in part. We ought to support this rule and support this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, just in reference to comments that were made several times by people on the other side of the aisle that this would cover a cab driver or bus driver, I would hope that they would look at the language of the bill. It says whoever knowingly transports a minor across State line with the intent that the minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent. So that is not just someone who gives them transportation, someone who intentionally brings them across a State line with the intent that they obtain an abortion. Mr. Speaker, since merely identical legislation passed the House in April 2005 by a vote of 270-157, there have been several developments that make it clearer of the need to pass this bill. First, a Pew Research Center poll found that large majorities in all religious groups and about two-thirds of nonchurchgoers believe girls under 18 should receive parental consent before an abortion. According to the Pew Research Center poll, as has been the case for more than a decade, most of the public favors requiring women under age 18 to obtain the consent of at least one parent before being allowed to get an abortion. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support such a requirement, while just 22 are opposed. The point I make on this is that this bill is not out of the mainstream. This bill is right in the mainstream. This bill is to allow the enforcement of State laws that are constitutional with respect to parental notification. To evade parental notification laws by means of taking a young girl across a State line is what this bill is aimed at. Nothing more, nothing less than that. It is appropriate. It is consistent with the vast majority of people in the United States. It is consistent with the 33 States in the Union that have enacted such legislation. What it does is it requires intent on the part of the actor, that is, they must intentionally act to evade the law in order to assist in procuring an abortion for a young person in a State where notification is required. Nothing more, nothing less.