Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my prepared statement, I just wanted to say a word about the extraordinary leadership that we have on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from our chairman. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is an extraordinary chairman. He has done so much. He has done a great job for our committee and for America since 9-11, and he deserves an awful lot of praise for the work he has done with the administration for all the Members of this House in really just doing an extraordinary job as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 114, a bipartisan resolution that authorizes the use of our Armed Forces against Iraq. I want to take a moment to applaud the President and his team for continuing to work to garner international support to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions, for continuing to update the Congress on the situation in Iraq, and for continuing to work with Members on both sides of the aisle in formulating the resolution we are discussing today. We do not take lightly what we are voting on here today. The decision to authorize the potential use of our Nation's Armed Forces is very difficult. However, this resolution is not a rush to war. Our immediate goal is to allow weapons inspectors complete and unrestricted accesses to determine Iraq's compliance with disarmament requirements. This resolution explicitly expresses support for the President's ongoing efforts to work with the U.N. Security Council to quickly and decisively act to ensure Iraqi compliance with all Security Council resolutions. However, the resolution also provides for the authorization of the use of military force that may be needed to protect U.S. national security and enforce Security Council resolutions if diplomatic efforts alone are no longer effective. Congress will be kept informed. Saddam Hussein knew what was required to end the Persian Gulf War: destroying all existing weapons of mass destruction, discontinuing any development of these weapons, and allow United Nations' weapons inspectors unrestricted access so compliance with these demands could be ensured. Iraq has failed to comply with each and every U.N. resolution and has continued to stockpile and develop weapons that are a threat to not only its neighbors in the Middle East, but also the entire world. Iraq's history of violations, combined with its present policy of working to acquire weapons while continuing to restrict U.N. access, led to a future where the United States and the United Nations must be able to commit whatever resources are necessary to ensure Iraqi disarmament. I am proud to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and have had the opportunity to carefully study the ongoing weapons activity in Iraq. And I am convinced that this resolution is needed to allow us to use every option at our disposal to deal with Iraq. We know what Iraq is capable of, and we know that Saddam Hussein is striving to expand that capability. The people of Iraq are not safe. American military personnel who serve in the Persian Gulf are not safe. And, in fact, the world is not safe if Iraq does not begin to comply with U.S. and U.N. resolutions and disarmament demands. I believe it is important for the Iraqi people to know that the United States and the United Nations will not allow the continued development and buildup of the stockpile of weapons in their country. Saddam Hussein has turned these terrible weapons against his own people who continue to suffer repression at the hands of this dictator's persistent and willful violations of his international obligations. I am pleased that this is a bipartisan resolution. The security of the United States and the security of the world rise above partisan points of view. This resolution shows Iraq that we are united in its condemnation of its continued flagrant violation of all U.N. resolution, and in our determination to achieve Iraqi disarmament. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the President for his ongoing efforts to work with the international community and the Congress. And I want to thank my colleagues for this opportunity to use this to thoroughly discuss this resolution, which is one of the most significant pieces of legislation many of us will ever vote on during our time in Congress. Most importantly, I want to thank the men and women who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces, continually working to achieve and maintain peace, in the Persian Gulf region and around the world. And they deserve our devoted and unrestrained thanks for the wonderful, wonderful service that they provide to our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to some language that is in this conference report having to do with assistance to Lebanon. There was an attempt early on with an amendment to eliminate most of the money for Lebanon, and I guess wiser heads prevailed. I want to offer my thanks to the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations for working out an arrangement that will allow for the country of Lebanon to be authorized for $35 million. The language I object to is that they have carved out $10 million that cannot be used for the country, $10 million of the $35 million, until there is a certification from the President that a certain group that is in the country is no longer a threat. I think this is a mistake to have this kind of language in there. The country of Lebanon is 3 million people. It is a peace-loving country. It is caught in the switches between other countries who are involved in disputes. To single out this country for this kind of certification I think is without merit. I wish the language were not in there. The $35 million is walking-around change compared to the money that is authorized for a lot of other countries. Lebanon certainly does not deserve this kind of treatment from this Congress. I know there are people in the administration, particularly in the State Department, who have strong objections to the way that Lebanon is being treated. I, too, have strong objections, and I wanted to make those objections known. I intend to vote for the rule. I know that the chairman and others have worked very hard to put together a good conference report; but my objection for the country of Lebanon needs to be noted here. Again, this to me is just an opportunity to take a very unjustified criticism of a country that has tried to work with the United States, has tried to work with other countries in the region. I object to the language, and I hope at some point people will come to respect the country of Lebanon and what the leaders there are trying to do.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the intelligence authorization bill and thank our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the good work that he does and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the good work that she does and all the members of the committee and the staff. I would like to take just a couple of minutes also to praise the dedicated men and women of our intelligence agencies. America's rank and file intelligence specialists were working hard prior to September 11. Since then they have been working overtime and in overdrive, and there is no let-up in sight. Our intelligence authorization bill gives these dedicated professionals the resources they need. I strongly urge colleagues to support it. I am proud of our committee's work. It has been a strong bipartisan effort that we can all be proud of. This year's bill helps build its human intelligence capabilities. HUMINT, the information we get from individual human sources overseas, is something we need a lot more of. We need to know a lot more about the internal workings and plans of terrorist groups. Every American understands that we have enemies who are plotting future attacks. We need to maximize our ability to neutralize these plots, and this bill provides funding and resources to do just that. The bill helps address the crying need for more foreign language expertise in the intelligence agencies. Each agency has traditionally been responsible to hire and train an adequate number of linguists, but no agency has ever been able to meet its goals, and the lack of foreign language capability remains a community-wide problem. Ladies and gentlemen, it stands to reason that if America's intelligence officers cannot understand what our enemies are saying to each other, we will never be able to adequately protect our citizens and our interests. However, with our bill Congress steps into increased resources for language training and for transition efforts across the entire intelligence community. Let me just say that when the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to establish a commission comes before the floor, I will strongly oppose that amendment and speak against it as strongly as I can. I think it is an ill-timed amendment, and I hope we do not pass it. In conclusion, I repeat I am proud of America's rank-and-file intelligence professionals, and I likewise am proud of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's work to provide them the resources they need. I urge strong support of all Members for this bill.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. We have a blue ribbon commission. It has already been established. The gentleman is a member of it. We are standing around here for an hour praising each other about what great experts we are, what a great chairman we have, what a great ranking member we have. Does the gentleman know why? Because they are all experienced people. Some of the people having doing the work for years. I have only been on it for 2\1/2\ years. I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has been on it longer than that. You are an expert. In certain areas you are an expert. Yes, you are. You know you are. I certainly think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) are experts after the work they did on the anti-terrorism report that they just came out with. And no one would deny that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) are experts. We have a blue ribbon commission and it has been working. We have 25 professional staff people from both sides that are working very hard on this. And the last thing we need to do is establish another commission that would take a year to establish, to hire staff. You talk about being behind the eight ball and getting answers for people, it is not going to happen. What about the leaks? The two chairmen just sent a letter to the FBI asking for an investigation of leaks. So what are we going to do? Share information with the world? Under the Roemer amendment, they can subpoena people. They will have public hearings. They can bring in the CIA director, the FBI director, they will testify before the whole world. What purpose will that serve, particularly when we are trying to help the intelligence community become better at what they are doing? Not by sharing it with the world, not by having subpoena power, not by allowing people to hold public meetings. This is a ridiculous idea, particularly given the fact that we have a blue ribbon commission by the people that are already experts in it anyway. We had this debate a year ago in the committee. We had a real, real spirited debate and we had it here on the floor. And eventually when the bill, the conference committee from the Intelligence Committee came forward, this was not included because I think people realize what a bad idea it is. There is really a bad idea. The gentleman talked about four commissions, and he cited them very well but what did they accomplish? I guarantee that their reports are sitting on shelves somewhere around here. What the recommendations they made, nobody could probably really cite. So I do not know what purpose they really have served. This is a bad idea because it would take too long to establish, to hire the staff. This is a bad idea because they do have good people working on this. And the last thing I think we want is to really infringe on the ability of the intelligence community, to be subpoenaed, to testify in public, to reveal the secrets. If people wanted to see the bill that we are going to pass here, it is not here. Do you know why? If you want to go up to the committee you can see it, but it is not here because we do not want people to know how much money we are spending, how many more people we are going to hire because that really infringes on the ability of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to do their work. And yet the gentleman wants to have a commission established to shine light on 9- 11. We all want answers, and I think we will get answers. We have gotten some answers from the good report that was done by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss). We will get answers from our joint staff committee. We have great staff people working on that. I think the last thing we need to do is ask distinguished Americans, who would take a long time to appoint, to come forward and do this. I really ask Members to think about this. This is very bad for the intelligence community. It is very bad for our ability to keep secrets. It is very bad for the professional people who would have to come and testify and swear under oath, the CIA director, the FBI director, people who work in these agencies. This is just unworkable. We are going to get the answers we want. We are going to get the answers for the families of victims. I have no doubt of that because we have good people working on this. And I think in the end, we will come out with a report that will shed light and give answers to many of the things that we need to know. I hope Members will vote against this; and I hope when we do vote it down, this will be the end of it, and we will not have to revisit this again because this just does not make any sense for the kind of work that we do in the intelligence-gathering community. So I ask Members to vote against this very, very bad amendment. It is a lousy amendment. It is not going to serve any purpose, and it really does not make any sense in light of all the other things we are doing around here, all the activity that is going on, all the staff that are hired and collecting information and trying to figure out what is happening. All the members of the committee have been sitting through those 2- day-a-week full-day hearings that are going on by our joint committee. There is a lot of information. Members really have to pay attention, and to think that some blue ribbon group from around the country is going to get up to speed on this, it is going to take a year to appoint them, and then to get up to speed, it will be another 2 years with a recommendation. Bad idea, bad amendment. Vote it down. My colleagues will be doing a favor to the intelligence community.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the Sisters and to OSF St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Illinois, for celebrating 125 years of continuous service to the people of Central Illinois. In 1876, six German sisters were invited to come to Peoria to provide nursing care to the sick and injured. The Sisters' dedication to their mission, and to Central Illinois, led them to establish their own order on July 16, 1877, calling themselves The Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Francis. Their first hospital, today's OSF St. Francis, was also established that year. The Sisters' mission to serve with the greatest care and love led to a commitment to the poor that has never wavered. OSF St. Francis Medical Center has been in the forefront of medical innovation, technology and service for 125 years. During the time that I was growing up on the East Bluff of Peoria, I lived just a few blocks from St. Francis Hospital. As a matter of fact, my two brothers and I were born at St. Francis. During the 25 years that we lived on the East Bluff, St. Francis provided the best health care our family could have hoped for. The Sisters really took a great deal of interest in their patients. We are so fortunate to have such a long-standing tradition of outstanding health care in our community. Therefore, I extend my congratulations and sincere gratitude to the Sisters and OSF St. Francis Medical Center for their tremendous dedication and loyal service to the people of Central Illinois.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 16, 2002, a group of nineteen students and five teachers from Jacksonville High School in Jacksonville, Illinois are embarking on a journey that will follow the footsteps of Lewis & Clark. The students will be focusing on environmental ethics, ecology, geography and historical issues. Throughout their seventeen-day journey through the Dakotas and Montana, the students will meet with historians and biologists to discuss the impact of humans on this land since the early 1800's. Following their trip, the students and teachers will be presenting their historic environmental journey to schools and community groups. The group plans on presenting their findings during the following year leading up to the bicentennial commemoration. These young people are to be commended for embarking on this educational venture that will help them immeasurably in their understanding of the scientific and geographic research done by Lewis and Clark, as well as challenging them to use the skills they have acquired during their studies. I am proud to name these young adventurers among my constituents: Michael Meyer, Kelsey Mason, James Million, David Mosley, LeAnn Shearbum, Sam Dimmick, Aaron Evans, Jaclyn Verticchio, Cailean Bailey, Thomas Baulos, Toni Brooks, Jamey Davidsmeyer, Andrew Massey, Bridgett Hubbartt, Adam Phillips, James Rice, Janet Clayton, Erica Kemple, and Jonathan Fox. The teachers accompanying these fine students are as follows: Jim Herget, Jim Chelsvig, Heather Beavers, Travis Brockschmidt, and John Lawless.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3694.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. As probably the most junior member of the Committee on Appropriations, I can tell my colleagues that I sat through the debate on this provision that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is talking about; and I want all Members to know that we did have a healthy debate about it, and certainly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes his argument very, very well and makes his case very, very well; but the amendment that he offered, to add this additional money, was voted down by the committee. And I think it was voted down because there are some of us on the committee that take great stock in what the President of the United States has told us. The President has told us that he has the resources that he needs to fight this war. He has the resources that he needs to carry out the homeland security that is necessary to secure our borders and to secure our country. And the President has told us that when there are more resources that are needed, he will come forth and ask us for those resources. And I have no doubt that next year, sooner rather than later next year, we will be looking at a supplemental bill to add the resources that the President feels that he needs. Now, the President is the Commander in Chief. He is the one that is waging the war. And I think all of us are delighted that he has the strong support of the vast majority of the Members of this body, the other body, and certainly of the American people. He has that support because he is doing a good job at the job that he has been elected to do, and that is in part to wage this war. And he has a good team of people helping him, a good team in his Cabinet, and a good team of people surrounding him at the White House. They are doing a good job. And, in part, they are doing a good job because they have made good decisions, put good people in the field, and they have the resources that they need. Now, the President has also put into place the former Governor of Pennsylvania to really secure our borders, to really look at homeland security. And at this point what they are saying is the bill we passed earlier on, which was for $40 billion, $20 billion for New York and $20 billion for the President to wage this war, and the bill we passed for $15 billion to help the airlines get out of the economic doldrums they are in, those bills contain an enormous amount of money. The idea there is not enough money simply did not fly in the committee. The arguments that were made by the gentleman from Wisconsin did not have standing to the point that they were able to pass the committee. Even though he made good arguments, the committee decided otherwise. And I think they decided otherwise because they put great stock in the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief. Certainly when the minority party had their person in the White House as the Commander in Chief, they went along with many of the provisions and legislation and ideas that he had about areas that we went into, like Bosnia, like other areas of the world where we had to go in and rout out terrorists. During those debates we did support the Commander in Chief. And I think that is the point we want to make here today: The President of the United States is doing a good job, he is the Commander in Chief, and nobody knows more. I am on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; I have been on that committee for 2\1/2\ years, and we know an awful lot about terrorists and we know an awful lot about what people want to do in the United States. Nobody knows more about it than the Commander in Chief, than the President of the United States, and we have to give him his due on this. I think when the President needs the money, when his administration needs the funds, when they need the resources, they are going to come to the Congress. Are we going to step up? Of course we are, just like we stepped up with the $40 billion, $20 billion for New York and $20 billion for the Defense Department. We stepped up when it came to the airline industry. Look, Congress will respond, but we need to be responsible about these things. And I think the House should realize that this is a good rule. This is a rule that sets the right tone for the kind of defense spending. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member have done a good job on this bill. They have done a good job, they have worked hard and tried to incorporate the kind of resources that are necessary. Let me just say this. This subcommittee has done a good job, they really have, and everyone in the House knows this. I guarantee that if this rule passes, this bill is going to pass overwhelmingly because it is a good bill for the defense of our country, it is a good bill for the people that are waging the war, it is a good bill that Congress will be very proud of in passing. We do need to pass it to send a signal that the Congress is really behind having a strong defense. So I urge Members to vote for the rule. This is a good bill, it has been worked on very hard, very long by the chairman and ranking member, and it really sends a message to the Commander in Chief, to his team of people and those people that are waging the war, not only in this country but also offshore, that we are providing the resources at this time that are necessary to do what we have to do.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 981.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to explain that I will be voting in favor of the Patriot Act of 2001. Previously, I was one of three Republicans to cast a ``no'' vote on the bill, but I believe that the addition of the money laundering provisions of this bill are a great addition to the bill and certainly enhance the ability of law enforcement to do what they need to do. Also, the provision of sunset for 4 years, which the Senate includes no sunset, but the 4-year provision is a good provision. I intend to vote for the bill and I appreciate the kind of provisions that have been added to make this a much better bill. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to express my support.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in support of the chairman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do support the Goss amendment. I was one of those as a member of the Committee on Intelligence that spoke out very vehemently against this idea. I think it is a bad idea. But I have been around here long enough to know that under our process, no one of us gets their own way; and obviously, I am not going to get my way on this issue, and that is the reason I support the chairman's amendment. I think it is reasonable, I think it makes sense. I think the notion that we want to turn over the responsibility of the Select Committee on Intelligence to some outside group to take a look at what went wrong on September 11 is a very bad idea, but apparently, we are going to do that. I think the way to do it is through the amendment that is being offered by the chairman, which is reasonable, it is common sense. No one in this House knows more about intelligence-gathering, no one in this House knows more about the intelligence network; no one knows more in this House than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), about the whole network that is used to gather intelligence. He is the man when it comes to intelligence. He is a former CIA agent. So my point in saying that is, we ought to adopt his amendment. The fault that I find with the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and I know this will irritate people on the other side, but the fault I find is that it is the blame game amendment. The Pelosi amendment wants to point a finger. The Pelosi amendment wants to lay blame with someone. The gentlewoman does not like the Goss amendment, but in reality, it is a good amendment. It appoints a commission, it gets professional people, it is going to look at what happened. As I said during the markup of this bill, we do not need to lay blame. It is our responsibility as the committee to find out what happened. That is why the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader appointed a subcommittee on terrorism with the distinguished member from California and the distinguished member from Georgia chairing that, so they could look into these matters too, and some of us are members of that. That is a good subcommittee. It has standing. It is a subcommittee now of the full Select Committee on Intelligence. We are going to do good work. We have already had two public meetings. We have brought a lot of experts in. The other point I will make is this: we have had three commissions, distinguished Americans serving on those commissions. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) was a member of one of those commissions. They have made a lot of recommendations. But in the end, it is up to the Committee on Intelligence, with the intelligence community, to figure out these things. I think it is a slap in the face at the intelligence community for those people who want to get their pound of flesh against whomever, the CIA director, the FBI director, people in the defense intelligence community, to drag them before the public and require them to'fess up with whatever happened. I think many of us realize that this is a good bill that we are going to pass here on the floor. It gives the kind of resources and the kind of language and ability to really help the intelligence community. Appointing a commission is not going to do that. But I give up on the idea, I throw up the white flag and say pass the Goss amendment, defeat the Pelosi amendment; and we can move on and lay blame where we want. But this is a good bill. It will be a good bill even with the Goss amendment. I urge the House to pass it. I urge the House to defeat the Pelosi amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is easy for politicians to lay blame. We are partly responsible. We are trying to fix that in this intelligence authorization bill that we are passing today. We do not need another commission to do it. I know it sounds like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, but as I said, under our process, not one of us gets our own way. Support the Goss amendment. He is the man when it comes to intelligence. Nobody in this House knows more about it, and I think he has put in place the amendment to do what we need to do to assuage the concerns that people have and to give people their opportunity to get their pound of flesh. And if we have to do it, let us do it with his amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. First of all, I want to rise in support of the rule. I agree with the two previous speakers, that this is a good rule and generally a very good bill. I want to compliment, in particular, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for the hard work that he has been doing to really improve the intelligence-gathering capability of our country. The bill that we are going to consider today is a bill that has been fashioned by his hand and after long hours of work. I think it is an extraordinary bill that really reflects meeting the needs of the intelligence community for America. One other purpose for rising, not only to support the rule, is to alert the House to my intention to offer an amendment to strike a section of the bill, section 306, a provision that creates a ``Commission on Preparedness and Performance of the Federal Government for the September 11 Acts of Terrorism.'' America has responded to terrorism attacks of September 11 with determination, compassion, and a resounding unity of purpose: the defeat of international terrorism. To achieve this goal, Congress and the administration are working to strengthen our defense intelligence capability. Our diplomats are building an international coalition to fight al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and we are seeking ways to bolster first responders, such as our dedicated police officers, fire officials, firefighters, and paramedics, who will have to deal with the aftermath of any future attacks. These are all positive, necessary, and forward-looking actions. It is my fear, though, that investing time and effort and money on a commission designed to assign blame will be a giant step backwards. There have been at least three high-profile commissions as recently as a year ago on terrorism and homeland defense. The problems that existed prior to September 11 have been well documented, and the solutions outlined in great detail. I do not believe that any other high-profile commission would add anything new to our understanding of the problems or the solutions. We know what the problems are, and we also know the solutions. To compound the problem, the commission structure is flawed. It has an agenda based on calling high profile people from the intelligence community with great understanding before a group of people who have little understanding of the intelligence community. I believe this sets up potential conflicts that could do further damage to our ability to gather intelligence about terrorists and disrupt their activities. This is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because we have a lot of information and we do not need a new commission. I hope that the Members of the House, after they hear the debate on my amendment, will support it and strike this provision. We already possess the expertise and the authority to look at the lessons learned from September 11. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), have taken the right action when they designated the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), to coordinate congressional review of terrorist threats. The subcommittee has the expertise, the staff, and the ability to review both classified and unclassified material, and the authority through Congress to do the job. If we want to look back, if we want to really analyze and examine, that is the subcommittee, that is the jurisdiction that has the responsibility for doing this, not some kind of an ad hoc commission with little or no expertise. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I will offer. This is a good rule. I support the rule. This is a good bill. It is a bill that, again, has been fashioned by one of the most distinguished Members of the House, the chairman of our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and I applaud him for that. I hope consideration will be given to my amendment. I thank the chairman for his consideration of my remarks.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in opposition to this amendment. I have served on the Committee on Agriculture, and I am proud of my service there, for 6 years. This is my second farm bill. This is the fairest farm bill that has been put together during the time that I have been here and during the last two times that we have put together farm bills. Dozens of hearings have been held. People have been asked their opinions all over this country. What should we be doing? What should farm policy really be? There are 51 members on the Committee on Agriculture. It is a broad- based committee. It represents America. It represents the interests of America. One of the authors of this amendment is a member of that committee; and I am told that he had the opportunity to trot out this idea, to offer it in the full committee, but then he realized that it did not have standing in the committee; that he could not find anybody to support it. So what did he do? He either withdrew it or decided not to offer it. So that is why it is not a part of the bill. It is not a part of the delicate balancing act that there needs to be to put together a farm bill to serve the country, not one particular region of the country. So part of the reason that we should vote against this is because this was tried in the committee; and the committee, for whatever reason, did not want to vote on it or the gentleman did not have the votes. The gentleman knows there was a debate, he knows he did not have the support, so he decided to get some of the other groups, conservation groups, and bring it to the floor and short-circuit the system that we all have to live under when we bring a major piece of legislation like this to the floor. So that is one fault with it. I will tell my colleagues the other part. The chairman of the Committee on Science, who is also an author of this and is part of the process here, knows how difficult it is to put bills together. He knows that. He is the chairman on the Committee on Science, and he has done a lot of good work on environmental issues. But the idea that somehow the gentleman was ignored or this issue was ignored is nonsense. It is just simply not true. It was an idea that has been out there. It has been floating around. It was a part of the discussion in the Committee on Agriculture. And so, as a chairman, I would think the gentleman would think better of the fact that if it was brought before the committee, that maybe he would have thought better than to try to short-circuit what went on. The best name for this amendment is the ``land grab amendment,'' because this affects the idea that we can take a big chunk out of a farm bill that was delicately put together and turn it into something that can be called conservation or preserving the land. I have the largest CRP program in the country in central Illinois and the 14 counties. I take no back seat to anybody, make no apologies for the fact that we have a big conservation program. We are doing an awful lot with conservation, with the Nature Conservancy, with a lot of the different conservation groups; and we have done well by that. But we have done it under the programs established by the Congress, established by the 51 members of the committee who sit on the committee, who worked very hard to put this together. This is a very, very bad idea because it short-circuits the process. It goes around the process. It simply does not make sense to do this to the chairman, to the ranking member, to the members of the committee, the 51 members of the committee, who had an opportunity to talk about this. There is an increase in conservation. We all know that. That has been well stated here. It is not as if it has been short-circuited. It certainly has not. The bottom line is if Members want to save the family farm, if they really want to do something for small farmers, if they want to help agriculture, if they really want to send a message to a part of our economy that has been in a recession while the rest of the economy has been booming for the last 5 years, because agriculture has been in recession; and we have passed on this floor $30 billion of additional payments, so that has been taken care of, but if my colleagues really want to help farmers, the small family farm, if they want to save the family farm, if they want to really give opportunity to the small farmer, they will defeat this amendment which sends the message that it cannot be a part of the overall bill. It does not fit. It does not work. It is not a part of what was put together. This is an opportunity, I think, to really send a message that we believe in the family farm, we are going to help the family farmer, and we are going to do all we can to support the family farm. We are not going to have to pass additional payments year in and year out because we have put together a farm bill. The chairman and the ranking member deserve a lot of credit. They traveled the country. They went to many counties. They went to many States. They listened to people. This is a good opportunity to say to people we are with you, we are going to help you, we are going to save the family farm. Defeat the Kind amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my condolences to the family of Reverend Jim Ford. Jim was a very, very good personal friend of mine and many of us in this House. He served the House for over 20 years with great distinction; and in serving the people that work in this House, including the Members and the staff, he served his country very well. He was a very proud man. He cared very much about the House of Representatives, the Members who are sent here. His service to this House and to his country will long be remembered because it was a service of distinction and integrity, and really trying to help Members and families get through troubled times, but also bringing people together through the marriages that he performed for a number of Members. So we will long remember our friend, Jim Ford, and our condolences go out to his family for the loss that they have incurred. We wish Godspeed to Reverend Ford. He will long be remembered in the halls of the House of Representatives.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to a friend of many in central Illinois, a personal friend of mine, John J. Myers, His Eminence John J. Myers, the bishop of Peoria, who a week ago today was named the new archbishop of the diocese of Newark, New Jersey. I can tell the folks who reside in the diocese of Newark, you are in for a real treat. Bishop Myers, who has served for 11 years as the bishop of the Peoria diocese, was born on the prairie in Earlville, Illinois, a very small farming community. He comes from a very large family. He went to Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, and was trained and studied in Rome. At the point that the hierarchy of the church made the decision to send Bishop Myers to Rome for his training, I think everyone realized that he was on a glide path to become one of the real leaders of the Catholic Church not only in central Illinois but in America. He has served with great distinction in the Peoria diocese, which is made up of 26 counties in central Illinois, for the last 11 years. Bishop Myers' most notable accomplishment during the 11 years that he served as bishop of Peoria is the fact that he has ordained over 100 priests into the Peoria diocese, an extraordinary record for a bishop in the United States. He will succeed Cardinal McCarrick. Cardinal McCarrick was recently named the cardinal for the archdiocese of Washington, D.C. He has some big shoes to fill, but I know that Bishop Myers is up to the test and the task of succeeding Cardinal McCarrick in the archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. Bishop Myers is a personal friend of mine. He and I became acquainted in the late 1960s when both he and I were teachers at Holy Family School in Peoria. That was his first assignment, right out of seminary and his first assignment as a priest. I was teaching junior high social studies at Holy Family School, and he and I became very, very good friends. Our friendship has endured for these many decades, since the late 1960s. He baptized two of our four children and was present at the wedding of our daughter Amy 2 years ago. Bishop Myers is a leader in the church. That is why he has ascended to such an important position as the archdiocese of Newark. He has made many, many profound proclamations and statements and written extensively on the teachings of the church. The recent articles that have appeared in the local newspapers and in national newspapers will point out very important information, but most significantly the feelings of many of the parishioners, many of the people who live in the Peoria diocese, about their strong feelings for what a holy, religious, intelligent, smart and one of the real leaders of our church Bishop Myers is as demonstrated by the people that he has served so ably during the 11 years as bishop of Peoria. I worked with Bishop Myers on the consolidation of two very well known high schools in the Peoria area, one 125 years old and one 25 years old. It was a very controversial matter that he and I worked on. I was the president of the local Catholic school board there and he was the coadjutor bishop of Peoria. These were very, very difficult times, but we made the right decision with respect to consolidating those two schools. Like many of the decisions that Bishop Myers has made, he selected a campus that was perhaps not as appealing to some of the people of the Peoria area but it turns out that this high school, now known as Notre Dame High School, is one of the finest high schools in Illinois and certainly one of the finest Catholic high schools in central Illinois. I know that there was a significant article in the Peoria Journal Star, the local newspaper in Peoria, where the bishop lives, sort of the center and the heart of our diocese yesterday where many people were complimenting him and pointing out some of the significant decisions that he has made as the leader of our diocese. And so it is with great joy and great honor that I stand here in the House of Representatives and let all Americans know and certainly let Members of the House know, Mr. Speaker, that we are all proud of Bishop Myers, we wish him Godspeed, and look forward to his leadership of the archdiocese of Newark.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. This amendment should be better known as the ``cheap shot'' amendment. This amendment demeans the House. If you want to talk about energy policy, and I am so surprised that Members with as much seniority on the Committee on Appropriations would have the courage to stand up and speak in favor of this amendment. This amendment demeans the House. It really does, and you know it. If you want to talk about energy policy, there is going to be an energy bill on the floor next week. If you want to talk about the lousy policy that California has had, because you know they did not have a policy, talk about it next week. But it does not have anything to do with paying the utilities by the Naval Conservancy of the official Office of the Vice President. That has nothing to do with this. If you think we need an energy policy, take a look at the Bush-Cheney energy policy. They have one. And I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and his subcommittee are going to trot it out here next week. If you do not like it, bring out an amendment. If you want more LIHEAP money, bring out an amendment. If you want to talk about who should pay the utility bills, bring out an amendment. Not on this bill. This demeans the House. Do not try to discredit the Vice President. This is a shell amendment to try and demean the Vice President of the United States. I wonder if you would be doing this if your friend Senator Lieberman had been elected Vice President. I doubt if this amendment would be on the floor today if Senator Lieberman were Vice President Lieberman. It would not be, and you know that. We need an energy policy. We need to pay attention to energy. Nobody would dispute that. But you do not do it by trotting out an amendment trying to embarrass the Vice President of the United States

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Absolutely.

Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that this amendment says the Secretary of the Navy cannot pay the bill. That is not the amendment that was offered by the administration. You know that. This amendment is being offered to try and embarrass the Vice President because some people around here think the administration does not have an energy policy. Well, we do have an energy policy, and we are going to debate it next week.