Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As a member of the committee now for 6 years, I want to say a special word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). This will be the last bill that he will present to the House of Representatives, as he is retiring from the House at the end of this year. It is a great, great loss for the House of Representatives. I know it is a great loss for the people of Florida, who he represents, and it truly is a great loss for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the intelligence community. As someone who served in the CIA prior to coming to the House of Representatives, he has done as good a job as anyone on the committee, and certainly been an exemplary Chair of the committee. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude for the time and energy and devotion that he has given to the intelligence community, to the CIA, to people, men and women, all over the world who work so hard to collect the information and do the good professional work. He has been dedicated to them, he has been dedicated for them. And so I say congratulations to Porter Goss, and I think all House Members should do that for the work that he has done for the House and for the intelligence community. As we debate the bill, I will obviously be speaking out on a number of things that I think are important, but let me just say this: I think it is unfortunate that bipartisanship has deteriorated. It no longer exists with this committee. Maybe our committee was the last bastion of bipartisanship, but apparently it is gone. And I think it really began a year ago when we considered our authorization bill. I introduced into the record and put into the record a memo that came over from the other body that talked about a game plan on the part of the Democrats to politicize the intelligence process, not only in this body but also in the other body. And I am going to put that memo in the record again this year, because I think it was the beginning of the deterioration of bipartisanship for intelligence. That is unfortunate and sends the wrong message. Congratulations Porter Goss, we have a good bill, and I hope all Members will support it.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me add to what I said in the rule about the chairman. No one in this House, for the last 10 years, has done more for the intelligence community, for the people who work in the intelligence community than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). No one has. As a former CIA agent, he came to the House with the kind of experience that I think most of us would relish, and he took it to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has done an extraordinary job. Now, does anybody believe that somebody like Porter Goss is going to sell short the intelligence community; is going to sell short the men and women who work in dark places in the world? It is not even believable. He has been working at it for 10 years as a member of the committee, 8 years as the chairman, and he served as an officer of the CIA. This is nonsense for you to be coming to the floor trying to persuade people, the American people or Members of the House, that the chairman of the committee is going to sell short the CIA. Baloney. Do not believe it. If you are watching this on C-SPAN, do not believe it. This guy has been committed to this stuff his whole life. You think he is going to take the committee down this primrose path? Of course, he is not. So do not come here with your charts and do not come here with your staged speeches and try and diminish the work this fellow has been doing on behalf of people all over this world to collect intelligence and do a good job. No better person here in this House to talk about intelligence and funding it and making sure that we have the money to do it than Porter Goss. And we thank him for his service. Thank God he was the Chair of the committee when 9/11 happened. And for people who come to the floor and have voted against opportunities to fund defense and to fund counterintelligence, really, to me, you have no standing here when you come down here and say we are selling it short. You know it is baloney. You know it is not factual. And you know that the American people are not going to buy it. This guy is not going to sell the intelligence community short. Bipartisanship ended this year, but it started last year with a document in the other body, where a whole game plan was laid out where the Democrats were going to try to diminish this administration and use the intelligence community to do it. That is not right. It is not fair to people who work hard in this business, who spend their careers trying to find people who want to do harm to America. But that is the way it is. That is what happens around here. And you have fallen into this trap where your leadership has decided they are going to use the intelligence community to try to diminish the work of people who work hard, for no good reason except for political gain. You know what? People in the House are not going to buy it. I say support the bill. It is a good bill. It is a bill that was drafted in a way that will help the intelligence community do the hard work that needs to be done. It will provide the funding that needs to be provided, and it is a tribute to the chairman of the committee. This is his last bill. And for those of my colleagues to stand on the floor and diminish that, I think is wrong.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a point about the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) had invited several of us on the committee to go to Guantanamo on two different occasions. We spent 2 full days on two separate occasions touring and observing and paying attention. And there is absolutely no question the work that goes on there is absolutely critical to our ability to win the war on terror. And it is absolutely critical to our work and the work of law enforcement people in this country to find those people that are still here in America, trying to hurt our country and trying to hurt our system. And that is why the amendment of the gentleman from Texas is so important because it does point up the importance of the work that goes on. And the work that goes on in the Guantanamo is very professional work. It is done by the book. It is done in a way that, I think, has elicited the kind of information that has really helped those in this country and around the world get the information they need. And so I support the amendment and I support those that are doing the hard work in Guantanamo because it will make a difference in our ability to win the war on terror.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, well, I know that we like to have it both ways around here, all of us do; but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot come to the floor tonight and say that we are not doing enough and then vote against this amendment. This amendment says that in the 1990s we did not put enough money in. You all know that. The cash cow when Clinton came into office was Defense and Intelligence, and what he did was he took the cash cow and he used the money for a lot of other things as all of you supported over there. So the idea that we are not doing enough but they did enough sort of belies belief here, and what the gentleman's amendment talks about is the fact that in the 1990s they took the cash cow, which was Intelligence and Defense, emasculated it, drew it down as far as they could and used it on a lot of other things. These charts prove that. Then the idea that the former head of the CIA, President Herbert Walker Bush, did not do that, that is fiction, too. You all know that. So you cannot come here and have it both ways. You cannot say you are saying that the chairman did not put a good mark up here because he did not fund fully the things that you want and yet during the 1990s they did. You know what, it does not work that way, but I guess it does work that way because you can come here and say anything you want; but the facts are the facts. The gentleman has a good amendment, and you all ought to be supporting that.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, based in Peoria, Illinois, for the 20th Anniversary of their Life Flight program. The OSF Life Flight program is the largest of its kind in Illinois. Due to the central location of Peoria, the Life Flight helicopter travels great distances to ensure my constituents, and others in surrounding areas, access to lifesaving medical technology at their innovative medical center. In 1984, OSF Saint Francis initiated the Life Flight air transport service to serve 18 Central Illinois counties and 26 area hospitals. Since its inception, 20,000 critically-ill patients have been successfully transported by Life Flight, making it the busiest such service in Illinois. The flawless safety record and level of medical care maintained by Life Flight is a testament to the professionalism of the pilots, mechanics, nurses, communication specialists, and physicians involved in every voyage. With the addition of a second helicopter in 2002, OSF St. Francis now has the unique honor of being the only hospital-based, two helicopter program in Illinois. It is with great pride that I recognize OSF Saint Francis on the 20th Anniversary of their Life Flight program and thank them for the past two decades of outstanding service to Central Illinois.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think people watching this would find it kind of odd that I would have to step down off the podium in order to speak, but Charlie would never allow me to speak from up there because it is not according to the rules of the House. And I think people would find it odd that Charlie cannot speak today. Charlie has spoken many, many times on this floor through those of us who have had the great opportunity and privilege to serve as Speaker pro tempore. But it is not according to the rules. And if it is not according to the rules, it does not happen. And if it is not according to the rules by Charlie Johnson, it does not happen. I was quoted in CQ as saying that Charlie runs the House, and I hope our leadership does not take offense at that; but Charlie really has run the House for many years, and thank goodness for that. I think many people do not realize that in 1994 not one of us in the majority presided. When we were sworn in in 1995, not one of us in the majority had ever presided over the House. And if it were not for the magnificent work of Charlie and his entire staff, think of the chaos that could be created when we turn over an entire House to a new majority of people who obviously maybe know a little bit about the rules but not much. And if it were not for the great work of Charlie and all of his people, think of the kind of chaos. And we were dealing with some really important issues here. I know you do not like to hear about the Contract with America, but that was the agenda for 3 months, and that was major legislation. And we could not have done it, and those of us who had the privilege early on of presiding could have never done it. It would not have been possible for us if we had not really paid attention to Charlie Johnson and the people that work in his office, and they really are the ones that allow us to do the things that we were able to do throughout the 10 years that we have been in the majority. When people say to me, How did you get so good at presiding? It is a very simple answer. I listened to Charlie Johnson. That is the answer. And when one listens to Charlie, they get good advice. I want to say one word about these jobs that we have: we could not do without the kind of spouses that allow us to do them, and I want to say a word about Martha. Martha is here. And, Martha, I want to say to you, thank you for giving us this extraordinary human being who has given us so much. We are in your debt for the kind of, I think, tolerance that you have lent to the job that Charlie has done, the long nights, the late nights, and the good work. Charlie, job well done. God speed.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for the time. I rise in support of the bill to name the Federal building in Carbondale in honor of Paul Simon, S. 2022. On December 9, 2003, the citizens of Illinois lost one of the true giants in the storied history of politics in the State of Illinois. Paul Simon was a leader who transcended political and ideological labels. To be sure, he was a staunch liberal who fought for better housing, fair wages, a cleaner environment, and civil justice. At the same time, he also leaned conservative when it came to fiscal issues, but it was the way he carried out the job that made Paul a revered figure in a State that is accustomed to larger-than-life figures. Paul Simon represented an approach to politics that is becoming more and more rare in today's world, an approach in which he not only respected the people he represented, but he respected the people who were his peers in the institution in which he served. When I was first elected to the U.S. House, Paul was the senior Senator from Illinois, but he took the time to reach out to me so we could become better acquainted and work on issues of mutual concern to our State of Illinois. As a leading Member of the Senate, I am sure he had many better things to do than getting to know a first-term Member of the House. That is the way Paul did business. He knew that good relationships were important in politics and legislating, and I am a better Member of the House for Paul Simon's efforts to get to know me. When Paul retired from the Senate following the 1996 election, he certainly could have landed some lucrative lobbying contracts, but he chose instead to continue influencing public policy through a different arena, one that could have a lasting impression on generations of future public servants; that is, teaching. From his perch as director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, he continued to stay in the public eye, and he was able to carry on an advocacy for many of the issues he held so dear. He wrote prolifically and on many issues during his time at SIU. He continued to travel the world to talk about the issues for which he so passionately believed. I would imagine he was as busy in his role with the Institute as he was during his time in the United States Senate or in this body, and to this day I am sure Paul Simon's approval numbers in Illinois are higher than any politician in the State of Illinois. Paul Simon is someone who should be used as a benchmark not only for future generations of leaders, but for today's politicians as well. Paul Simon taught us that you really can get ahead through civility, common courtesy and a respect for opposing viewpoints. That is a far cry from what many citizens today believe about their elected representatives. All of us could do this job a little better if we follow the footsteps of our friend Paul Simon. I can think of no better tribute to Senator Simon than to name the Federal building in Carbondale, Illinois, in honor of Senator Paul Simon. I think it is a fitting tribute.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 557, recognizing American and coalition forces in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people. The American people should know and believe that the President brought the U.S. into this war to oust Saddam Hussein and bring freedom in that part of the world with 34 coalition partners, and that was a good decision. Many of us supported the President and voted to provide emergency supplemental funding for military operations in Iraq. These were the resources that financed the capture of additional Saddam regime loyalists and Saddam himself and provided funding to protect our troops. As a matter of fact, the lion's share of the money went to the troops and the other went to rebuilding the country, opening schools, opening hospitals, putting electricity on line, opening businesses. The people of Iraq love America because of their newfound freedom, their newfound hope, and their newfound opportunities. Many of us voted for the war resolution because we believed it was the right thing to do, and many of us voted for the supplemental funding because we believed it was the right thing to do. We have heard all the claims that the intelligence community's analysis was politicized and analytical judgments were made to advance the administration's policy. The same judgment and analysis was given to President Clinton who used that analysis to take limited action against Saddam. The point is that both Presidents received the same intelligence. The only difference is that President Bush took serious and meaningful action against Saddam Hussein. In my opinion, critics have not given the intelligence community a fair shake, and it is obvious from some of those who do not even serve on the committee come down here and criticize when they have not had the benefit that many of us have had of serving on the committee. That is unfortunate. They have failed to highlight those judgments on UAVs, ballistic missiles, illicit procurement networks that have been found and confirmed in Iraq. They have failed to highlight those judgments about the presence in Iraq of terrorist elements associated with al Qaeda. It is fine to highlight real problems and propose real solutions to fix them, but we have yet to hear that from the critics. Telling analysts not to make tough judgments is not a viable solution. Rebuilding our intelligence community and providing them with the resources needed to fight the global war on terrorism seems more appropriate. I support our troops and our intelligence community, people who work in dark places in the world but never get any credit for the work that they do. The credit goes in some cases to politicians and government officials, but those people in dark places who are doing the hard work deserve the credit. No politician can take credit for capturing Saddam. That credit goes to the intelligence community and the military, and those of us that have supported them with our votes on this floor to give them the money to do it. Also I think they deserve the credit, and the critics need to really, I think, examine what they are saying. Congratulations to those in the intelligence community and the military community for liberating Iraq, freeing the people and giving them hope and opportunity, and for that reason, I support I think a very well-worded and -constructed resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for yielding me this time. On December 9, 2003, the citizens of Illinois lost one of the true giants in the storied history of politics in our State. Paul Simon was a leader who transcended political or ideological labels. To be sure, he was a staunch liberal who fought for better housing, fair wages, a cleaner environment, and civil justice. At the same time, he also leaned conservative when it came to fiscal matters. But it was the way he carried out the job that made Paul a revered figure in a State that is accustomed to larger-than-life figures. Paul Simon represented an approach to politics that is becoming more and more rare in today's world, an approach in which he not only respected the people he represented but he respected the people who were his peers and the institutions in which he served, including this House and the other body. When I was first elected to the House in 1994, Paul was the senior Senator from Illinois, and he took time to reach out to me so we could become better acquainted and work on issues of mutual concern. As a leading Member of the Senate, I am sure that he had many better things to do than getting to know a first-term Member of the House, but that was the way Paul did business. He knew that good relationships were important in politics and legislating, and I am a better Member of the House for Paul Simon's efforts to get to know me. When Paul retired from the Senate following the 1996 election, he certainly could have landed some lucrative lobbying contracts, but he chose instead to continue influencing public policy through a different arena, one that could have a lasting impression on generations of future public servants, that is, teaching. From his perch as director of Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, he continued to stay in the public eye, and he was able to carry on his advocacy for many of the issues he held so dear. He wrote prolifically on many issues during his time at SIU. He continued to travel the world to talk about the issues in which he so passionately believed. I would imagine he was as busy in his role with the institute as he was during his time in the Senate. And to this day I am sure Paul Simon's approval numbers in Illinois are higher than any politician in our State. Paul is someone who should be used as a benchmark, not only for future generations of leaders but for today's politicians as well. Paul Simon taught us that one can really get ahead through civility, common courtesy, and a respect for those with opposing viewpoints. That is a far cry from what many of our citizens believe today about their elected representatives. All of us could do this job a little better if we follow in the footsteps and examples of Paul Simon. I might say that when I first got to the House, Paul recommended that I get involved in a program called Everybody Wins, which is a reading program where some of us branch out around the Capital and read as mentors to students; and if it were not for Paul's initiative for me to get involved in that program, which I have been involved with, and it is a great program here in Washington, D.C., I would not have been involved. But that is the way Paul Simon was. He was an example of not only a mentor for children but to all of us who have come to know and love him. And he will be missed in Illinois and certainly missed at Southern Illinois University. And I thank the committee for recognizing him and adopting the Senate resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3633.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 and thank our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me this time. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his extraordinary leadership and the outstanding job that he does and also compliment our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for the good work that she does and the way in which both the chairman and the ranking member are able to work together. I too want to compliment our staff. I think they do a terrific job and work long hours on behalf of really tying to improve intelligence gathering and really keeping the Members posted on what is happening. Never before have we needed or have we demanded so much of crucial importance from our intelligence community. The intelligence community provides the eyes, ears, and analytical brain power necessary to identify and prevent terrorist attacks. The cataclysmic events of September 11, 2001, provide a unique and compelling mandate for strong leadership and constructive change throughout the intelligence community. This bill adds to that impetus for change. I believe our committee has authored legislation that strives to fully invest in and engage those economic, military, foreign policy, and law enforcement elements of our intelligence community in the war on terrorism. It strives to employ, integrate, and enhance the capability of the intelligence community to track down and destroy terrorist organizations both overseas and within the United States. For instance, this legislation supports the attack on international financial support for terrorism, supports the unique analytical capabilities of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department and further develops these capabilities by establishing the Office of Intelligence Analysis within the Treasury Department. The last measure will streamline and centralize the U.S. Government's capability to track terrorist financial networks around the globe. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I am acutely aware of the vital need for our intelligence resources to be marshaled not only on the international front but also in our homeland. In order to defeat terrorism threats to our Nation, all elements of government must communicate and coordinate more effectively among themselves. The conference report supports efforts to encourage the flow of information, measures including FBI efforts to make internal, structural, and technological changes to improve and expand the use of data mining and other cutting-edge analytical tools; authority for the FBI director to enter into contracts for needed services like language skills, intelligence analysis, and other high-value requirements relate to the flow of information not already available; the creation and nurturing of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center as a central office to monitor threats to the Nation; the inauguration of the Department of Homeland Security's office of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to facilitate timely sharing of relevant information with all appropriate Federal and State and, very importantly, local first responder authorities. Our committees will continue to encourage the intelligence community development of clear policies and guidelines by which no resource is wasted, no credible terrorist threat left undetected, and threats to our homeland continue to diminish. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is very proud of the men and women that serve in the war on terrorism. I am convinced that the bill will make them more effective in their efforts to defend our country. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation. I would be remiss, though, if I did not say something about what has taken place in what I would characterize as the politicizing of the intelligence gathering in the other body. Specifically, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has, I believe, tried to use intelligence gathering as a political vehicle for nothing other than political gain against the President and his team. This is wrong and I decry those who want to use the intelligence efforts of this country for political gain. These political efforts are unprecedented and I hope the embarrassment brought to bear on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will put an end to the charade that has taken place. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will enter into the Record the memo that has been made public that came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows: (1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by Administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the Chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz) as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the Chairman supports our investigations into these offices, and cosigns our requests for information, is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the Majority. (Note: We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing). (2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views'' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior Administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment). (3) Prepare to launch an Independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the Majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the Administration's use of intelligence at any time--but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either: (A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report--thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: (1) Additional views on the interim report; (2) announcement of our independent investigation; and (3) additional views on the final investigation; or (B) Once we identify solid leads the Majority does not want to pursue. We would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the ``use'' of intelligence. In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the Majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the Vice Chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information. Summary Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading--if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of the senior Administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the Administration's dubious motives and motives. Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the words about bipartisan. I wish that the bipartisanship that has been talked about would have been manifested in the vote that we all cast around here to send our troops the money that they need to do the job that they are doing. It is great to talk about bipartisanship, and it is great to say that we all have it, but the truth is when it came time to give the resources that are needed in Iraq, some people were not there. Some people in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were not there. So I think we need to examine the idea of bipartisan and what it really means. The other comment I want to make is this: I think the instruction is fine. We all know it is probably a little bit meaningless because most instructions are, but the kind of words that have been used around here in a way, the way that I see it, in a way to degrade people who work in the intelligence community, I think is a little bit despicable. And I want to say a word about people who work in the intelligence community, people who work in dark places in this world, people who collect information, people who we do not know, who most of us do not know, who do the hard work, we get paid for our jobs and they get paid too, but we do not get paid to put our life on the line in the way that they do. We have a wonderful group of people who work very, very hard and are very experienced and do a great job collecting information in dark places in the world, and they deserve a lot of credit. They do not need to have people come on the floor and tell them they are not doing their job the right way. What they need to do is have the kind of encouragement that those of us who have the oversight responsibility and work with people who have the oversight responsibility to say to them thank you for a job well done, and thank you for putting your lives on the line. And this idea that we are not getting right information or it is not perfect or it is not what we want or it is not being used the right way, in my opinion, is nonsense. And, hopefully, that is what the report will bring out a year from now. But we ought to be paying kudos and compliments to people in the intelligence community, including, in my opinion, from the Director George Tenet all the way up and down the line, people who work in places that none of us have ever been. They deserve our compliments, our credit, our applause, and anything else we can give them. They do a great job.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and our Senate colleagues, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Leahy, for their many, many hours of work. I rise today as a supporter of the death penalty and an original cosponsor of the bill. In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I sponsored the Innocent Protection Act with my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), whom I have great admiration for. This bill, which is now included as section 3, includes the Innocence Protection Act. I am a proponent of the death penalty, as a deterrent to violent crime, and this bill provides materials necessary to repair a flawed system, and we do have a flawed system. I believe those of us that support the death penalty have a responsibility to ensure it is applied fairly. As a just society, we must condemn the guilty, exonerate the innocent, and protect all Americans' fundamental right to truth. It is my belief that this legislation allows us to save the death penalty, to know that we are utilizing it in instances where we are confident of wrongdoing. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford one more innocent life to be lost due to inexperienced counsel or unprocessed DNA kits. We must permit inmates access to postconviction DNA testing to establish innocence and compensate those who have served time for crimes they did not commit. In order to continue rightful punishment of the guilty, we must establish minimum standards for competency of counsel in capital cases. As long as innocent Americans are on death row, the guilty remain on our streets. This legislation would increase public confidence in our Nation's judicial system as it relates to the death penalty. Individuals have spent years on death row for crimes they did not commit, some within hours of execution. A death sentence is the ultimate punishment, and there must be 100 percent certainty of guilt. In protecting the innocent, we also make sure the guilty do not go free. I applaud the chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and our Senate colleagues, and I ask Members to support this legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 342, legislation supporting the National Railroad Hall of Fame, Inc.'s endeavor to erect a monument supporting the Hall of Fame in Galesburg, Illinois. The National Railroad Hall of Fame, Inc. is a not for profit organization dedicated to preserving the legacy of the railroad industry and educating the public regarding its role in American history. Galesburg has been intricately linked with railroading since 1849, when the organization of the Peoria and Oquawka Railroads began an era of massive expansions of railroads across North America. Too often we forget one of the most important aspects of American history--the development and expansion of our transportation system. Modern and efficient transportation links, whether by road, air, or rail, have, and will continue to be, integral to sustaining and expanding our economic development. Railroads were one of the first modes of transportation to efficiently move goods and people across North America. They have helped expand our economy and played an important role in social and cultural life during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I applaud the National Railroad Hall of Fame, Inc. for their dedication to preserving this history and for their work to educate the public about the important contributions railroads have made to our society. I would like to thank Congressman Lane Evans for offering H. Res. 342, and I urge my colleagues to pass this historic legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution and congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who could not be here this afternoon for consideration of the resolution. I know it was his idea to have this resolution offered. As someone who represents a district with a large Arab American population, I can tell my colleagues that they contribute mightily to our community in so many different ways. My grandparents came to Peoria, Illinois, in 1895 from a region of Lebanon and settled in Peoria; and as a result of their being the first Lebanese Americans to settle in our neck of the woods, they were able to persuade others to come over. In those days, I am sure they were not known as Arab Americans. They were known as immigrants who came to America seeking the American Dream, and I think that has been true for decades of Arab Americans who have come to this country and contributed an awful lot to our society and contributed a lot to the growth of our country and the stability of our country. It was not till 9/11, I think, until maybe people had a different point of view about Arab Americans and also perhaps Muslims; but these people have contributed so much, and I think it is important for Congress to speak out in a way that says that these folks are good Americans, they are good citizens. They contribute a great deal to our country. I might make note, too, of the fact that there are Arab Americans serving in this body, including the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), John Sununu who once served in the House and now is in the other body, and of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), and also in the administration Spencer Abraham who was also a member of the other body. So not only have Arab Americans contributed a great deal to the country and to the greatness of this country but have contributed also to the great body that we call the House of Representatives and to the other body. So I think it is worth noting the contribution of Arab Americans and the fact that 9/11 has made a little different way of life for them and that Congress recognizes their contribution; and I appreciate the fact that this resolution recognizes that and appreciate the fact that the chairman has allowed me to recognize their contributions. I thank the chairman for his indulgence.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say a special thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Legislative, for the first time in really trying to exert a tremendous amount of leadership in getting his arms around the Capitol visitors center. I think for the first time, the Subcommittee on Legislative has taken some jurisdiction over this very, very significant expenditure and maybe the biggest construction project to go on since the constructing of the Capitol itself. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) deserves a lot of credit for really trying to make sure that the money that is needed is there, but also to make sure that we are not really overspending, and really trying to get his arms around a very important project that I think people on this subcommittee have paid little attention to. And I think a pretty loud message has been sent that the Subcommittee on Legislative is going to take a great deal of interest in this issue, watch it very carefully, and work closely with the Architect and others in leadership to make sure it is done correctly. So I applaud the gentleman from Georgia for his efforts. This bill is probably not the most dramatic appropriations bill that we will pass of the 13, but I would urge every Member to vote for it, because it is the bill that keeps this beautiful Capitol running. It is the bill that pays for all of the staff people, all of the people who get little or no thanks for keeping this beautiful Capitol open, for making sure that visitors are warmly welcomed, to making sure that visitors are safe when they come to the Capitol complex, to making sure that Members' words are taken down correctly and printed the next day; to all of the things that go on under this dome, both in the House and in the other body. And we give little credit and should give a lot more credit to the people who make this institution run. Frankly, it is not the Members; we do not deserve that much credit. It is the people that are here 24/7 in many instances that keep this great institution running. That is what this bill is about. It is about making sure that these people who do the hard work to make us look good and keep this facility running, they are the ones who really deserve the credit; and we pay them a certain amount of credit by passing this bill today and making sure that they have the money that is needed to keep this great institution running. Not only this House, but the other body. So I congratulate all of the people who work in the House and the other body, all of the law enforcement people who secure this facility whom we take so much for granted. The other thing I want to say is this bill includes a pet project of mine that I hope some day will be a reality, and that is some kind of a health fitness center for our employees. Those of us who are Members of this body benefit from an ability to have a health fitness center. Those who work in this body and in the other body do not have that same kind of health fitness opportunity, and we should create it for them. We should give our staff who work long hours the opportunity to remain healthy, to stay healthy, and to have the opportunity to do it right here on this campus. This bill continues to include our opportunity to do that for all of the employees who work in the House and in the other body. We talk a lot around here about obesity and fitness. Well, what we are trying to do in the legislative branch bill is to make sure that there is a plan somewhere on this campus to take care of all of the people who work on this campus; and I am pleased that there is language to continue that process, as I see the Parliamentarian and others buttoning up their coats. They are the ones that need this opportunity, and we want to make sure we provide it. So in any event, I thank the chairman for his leadership. This is a good bill. Every Member should vote for it. Even if the motion to recommit does not pass, the ranking member should have the leadership to persuade his Members to vote for this so we can keep the lights on.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I think I am one of two members on our side who voted to support this effort to restore this program the way that it has existed for several years. I know it is probably not fashionable for me to be up here talking in favor of this amendment, but I feel strongly about it. I am a jogger. I have been a jogger for almost 30 years. I have taken full advantage of the Rails to Trails Program that exists in my congressional district and other parts of Illinois. I think it is a marvelous program. We have promoted around here a new caucus that has been formed by the Members to get Members to exercise more, to get Members to stay in shape. Part of the way that some of us do it is disembark from the Rayburn Building and jog down the Mall. It is not really a Rails to Trails, but it is a marvelous place to jog. You see people jogging all over this part of the country. You see people jogging along the parkway from Old Town all the way down to where George Washington once lived. These are Rails to Trails. These are opportunities for people that would not have existed without this program. The last thing I want to do is to turn this program over to the Governor of my State. Every State in the country has a deficit. I guarantee you what these Governors will do is not turn this money into Rails to Trails or other amenities or other enhancements. They will use it to fund other things. We have got a $5 billion debt in Illinois. We have got a Governor who has been in office now 6 months, a new Governor, who has not been able to figure out how to do that. But I guarantee you that if you hand him a bag of money from the enhancements, from the Rails to Trails, he will find other uses for it. As we are encouraging people all over the country to exercise, to be fit, to eat right, to exercise and to do things that will continue to make people healthy, there is no better way to do it than to have this program. I am encouraging Members to support this amendment. This is a good program. It is a program that works. It is not broke. I want to, too, mention what the gentleman from Oregon talked about, the whole issue of obesity. There has been more written about obesity in the last 6 months or so or last year. If we really want Americans to be fit and healthy and get in good shape, the way to do it is to allow for the enhancement program that has worked so well, that allows people to get outdoors, to ride their bikes, to jog, to walk. What better way to bring people in a community together. This program has been a marvelous program. We should not change it. It is a program that works. It is not broke. I encourage Members to support the amendment and continue the fine program we have had.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) amendment. I also opposed the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment. I want to cite two examples of companies that I think have been very good companies, good corporate citizens, companies that have done a good job in their communities. I know that those of us in politics, and I am sure every Member, all 435, have a gripe about a television station. I do, too. Probably about a radio station. Probably a gripe with a newspaper. We all do. But the idea that we are going to offer an amendment to somehow corral a decision or overturn a decision that was made by the FCC, I think is not right. I represent Adams County in Illinois where Quincy, Illinois, is the largest community and there is a family-owned newspaper there. The Oakley family owns the newspaper, and they own at least one television station in that town and several other television stations around the country; and they are a good corporate citizen, and they do not dictate policy from one station to another. They do not dictate policy from their newspaper to their television stations. So I guess they are the exception to the rule that one can own a newspaper and own a television station, several television stations, and not dictate policy and still be a good corporate citizen. The classic example, though, is the Tribune Company. The Tribune Company has been in operation for 150 years. It operates in 12 markets, and it owns the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Tribune, Newsday. It owns Channel 9 and many other television stations, and the notion that they try and dictate policy or dictate opinion I think is not accurate. I know that they have established themselves as one of the best corporate citizens, certainly in Chicago and in many other communities. So the idea that we are going to have an amendment to overturn a decision that was made by the FCC because somebody does not like it or that television stations are too big or might dictate policy, I think, is not a true reflection of at least two I know, one in Quincy, Illinois, and one in Chicago, that has many outlets in many different places. For that reason, I wish we could have defeated the Obey amendment, which we did not; but I hope we can defeat the Hinchey amendment which is even worse.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the City of Lincoln, in the 18th District of Illinois, for their one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. Whereas the city of Lincoln, Illinois, is celebrating its sesquicentennial; Whereas such an occasion commemorates the life and times lived by those citizens who influenced or nurtured the development of the nation, state, county, and individual communities in which they lived; Whereas the city of Lincoln, Illinois, has planned sesquicentennial activities to commemorate its founding; Whereas an official celebration will occur August 21 through August 31, 2003 in downtown Lincoln, Postville, and Lincoln College, and will include commemorative displays as well as the Annual Art and Balloon Festival; Whereas the history of the settlement of the original thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard was one of people seeking a promised land--a land with freedom and opportunity; Whereas Logan County, Illinois, was established as a result of the American westward movement across the Appalachian Mountains, through the Ohio River Valley, and onto the broad expanse of the Illinois prairies; Whereas founded in 1853 as a result of that American westward movement, Lincoln, Illinois has had an illustrious history which has strongly influenced the city's citizens' way of life; Whereas since its founding, the citizens of Lincoln, Illinois, have come from all walks of life and have represented all races, creeds, and nationalities; Whereas, from the time of the original settlers of Lincoln, Illinois, and through the passage of time, the citizens of Lincoln have shared a common dream that their children would enjoy a better life than they themselves had; Whereas that dream became the legacy, which remained throughout the economic, political, and social development of Lincoln, Illinois; Whereas Abraham Lincoln was the embodiment of that dream whereby a person can transcend from a ``dirt floor cabin'' background and become a symbol of hope to the citizens of Lincoln, Illinois, the United States, and throughout the world; Whereas Lincoln, Illinois, was the only town or city named for Abraham Lincoln before he ever achieved any prominence or fame; Whereas Lincoln College was the only educational institution in the world named for Abraham Lincoln during his Presidency from 1861 to 1865; Whereas the founders of Lincoln, Illinois--Robert B. Latham, John D. Gillett, Virgil Hickox--were close friends of the 16th President of the United States and named the city after him; Whereas Abraham Lincoln spent many hours in both Postville, which is now a part of Lincoln, and in Lincoln, Illinois, when handling his legal cases while riding the Eighth Judicial Circuit from 1839 to 1861; Whereas Abraham Lincoln served as Presiding Judge while hearing several legal cases in Lincoln, Illinois, and was also a landowner in his namesake city; Whereas, like Abraham Lincoln, there have been many citizens of Lincoln, Illinois, who have endeavored to pursue the causes of humanitarianism, justice, freedom, and true democracy; Whereas the cornerstone of the heritage of Lincoln, Illinois, might be described by the words said by Abraham Lincoln during a time of great personal tragedy, ``faith- love-hope''; and Whereas such ``faith-love-hope'', along with determination and hard work have become the qualities which have enabled the citizens of Lincoln, Illinois, to develop the city into an entity in which each person can be proud. Therefore, I ask that Lincoln, Illinois, and its residents be commended for their contributions and investment in the Nation's future and for the opportunities that the city and residents have to continue to reaffirm those principles which have served them well during the past 150 years.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is the most boring bill in the House; but it is certainly one of the most boring, there is no doubt about it. Maybe that is why it is going to get almost a unanimous vote, but I really came to the well of the House today to say thank you to so many people who work in this institution who we all take for granted. We show up here every day. We have these folks taking down all of our words, and we can pick up the Congressional Record and read it. We have all of these folks that are behind me who show up every day and do all the work and we take all the credit. And there are many, many thousands of people like that in this House who do a great job for the Members and do a great job for the public, and that is what this bill is all about. It is taking care of the 10 major offices and funding the 10 major offices that make all of us look good as Members of Congress: The staff in the Architect's office; and when we need legal advice, there are people here who give us legal advice; when we need medical attention, there are people who can give us medical attention, and the list goes on and on. As a former staffer, I want to say thank you to all of the staff who work hard in this institution to make the 435 Members and the 100 Members in the other body look good. They do not get the appreciation, they do not get the thanks that is so well deserved. And they do work hard, and they make this place tick. They make it operate. When we are gone, they are still here. And when we are gone, they really continue to keep the Capitol open. I know that it is fashionable to take our hats off to the Capitol Hill Police, and I certainly want to do that. They work really hard, and they provide the protection. But there are lots of other people, hundreds of other people in this Capitol who do such great work for so many of us and for the public who come here. We owe them a big debt of gratitude for what they do, and that is what this bill is about, to say to them we want to continue to fund the work that you do to give you a little bit of an increase and to say thank you for what you do. I also want to make mention of two other items. One is the Capitol Visitors Center. I know that we are going to have some additional hearings on that. I know we are going to have some additional meetings on it. I know that there is a big hole in front of the Capitol, and a lot of people wonder what it is all about. It is the responsibility of this subcommittee to take charge of that and to really have responsibility for it. I know it has been sort of a leadership-driven project, but it is up to the Congress to come up with the money to fund this, and we do have the responsibility for it. I think we take that responsibility seriously, and we want to make sure it is done correctly and done right, and that it turns out to be a state-of-the-art visitors center, but done in a way that comports with the fiscal concerns that I think many of us have about what it will cost when it is complete. The other issue I want to raise is one that is near and dear to my heart, and I am someone who has been pushing for this. Again, as a former staffer, I think it is important, and that is the idea that in this bill there is language and there is money to continue to study what it would take to put a footprint for a staff gym. Again, many of the people who work in this building and work long hours do not have access to the kind of facility that would allow them to get the kind of exercise that is necessary to stay healthy. As an interim step, we were able to develop an agreement with Gold's Gym where any staffer can go to any Gold's Gym in the metropolitan area and have access to those facilities at a very, very reasonable cost. And I want to thank the staff who have made those arrangements possible. But in the end, my goal is to make sure that right here on the Capitol campus there is a facility for our staff so that they have a facility available so they can stay healthy and stay in good shape, just as the Members have available to them a very nice state-of-the-art facility for themselves both on the House and the Senate side. I really want to make sure that goal is achieved. We are making progress on it, and I think we will continue to make progress as we move ahead. I know a lot has been said about the Capitol Hill Police, and I certainly support them. I want to say a word about the Chief of the Capitol Hill Police because he is from Illinois. I think Terry Gainer is doing a great job. I think we are fortunate to have such an outstanding law enforcement person in charge of the Capitol Hill Police. I have known Terry since he was the director of the State police in Illinois, where he did a great job. He then came to the city of Washington and worked with the chief of police and did a great job there, and now he is right here in our midst, and I think doing a good job, and I want to compliment him. And even though he was not allowed everything he wanted in this bill, I think people want to continue to work with Chief Gainer and continue his efforts to make sure that our facilities are secure. So I compliment the chairman and the staff and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for the work in our subcommittee, and I think we have done good work, and I encourage all Members to support the bill.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the way I would characterize this amendment is as the cheap shot amendment. This is a totally political amendment. It is a totally cheap shot at the Vice President. It is an extension of a campaign being waged by the gentleman from Ohio who has made a number of speeches on this floor and around the country. I believe it is an extension of his presidential campaign to try and besmirch the record of this administration, to besmirch the good name of the Vice President, and I think when people have an opportunity to really look at the amendment, they can see that it is so shallow in its wording and in its nature, that it is what it is. It is a political amendment. It is only brought here to the floor to continue an opportunity for the gentleman from Ohio to try and find something that simply cannot be found. It also, I think, degrades the work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This gentleman who is offering this amendment has been a Member of this House. He knows of the work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He knows that if he had some kind of a complaint about the kind of activity that he is trying to allege the Vice President has engaged in that he could come to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He could petition the chairman, he could petition the ranking member. He could ask the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I guess we are not good enough to do our work that you have to seek some kind of an outside counsel or outside organization to try and look into it. This is unprecedented what this amendment asks for. It is unprecedented in its nature to think that this body, under this amendment, is going to go after the phone records of the Vice President. Now, anybody who does not see the politicizing of what is going on here cannot see the nature of it. You can see it in the words, because they are very shallow.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman by saying this. If this is the authorization for the intelligence bill, and the gentleman is offering this amendment under our authorization, why does the gentleman not give some direction to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to look into the matter? Why does the gentleman have to find somebody else to do it? And the gentleman may respond, if he would like.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the gentleman is apparently the gentleman does not think the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is doing their job. Apparently, the gentleman does not think we have the capability to carry this out, and so he has crafted an amendment to go to some outside group, some outside organization because the gentleman does not have trust and faith in what we have been doing and the work that we have been doing.