Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I will address it in this way: I was here on 9/11, as the gentleman was. There is absolutely nothing for the Members of Congress to do. That is the answer to the gentleman's question. The whole thing was taken over by the administration. There is not going to be anything for any Member of Congress, any major decisions to be made during that period of time. We do not need to be around here.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, we were all meandering around here trying to figure out what to do, trying to figure out how to get our phones working. All of the major legislation that was created was created long after the period of time that the gentleman is talking about.

Mr. LaHOOD. If the gentleman will further yield, what is the time frame?

Mr. LaHOOD. I was going to respond to the gentleman's other questions.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, this is the second year that we have attempted to do this. That is pretty good time for eliminating a program. We had a big debate about this last year. We had a big debate about it this year. There is nobody who spends any time around here that does not think this place is secure. It is not going to be made any more secure by having a few people riding horses around here. Now, for the aesthetic part of it, it might be lovely; but for the security part of it, it is nonsense. It is a waste of money. They will be better used by the Park Service, certainly, than they will be around here. Vote down the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to extend thanks to the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). By this time next week, we will have completed all of the appropriation bills. This is a history-making event in the House of Representatives. I have been here for 11 years; and for the 11 years I have been here, I do not know of another time when we have completed all of our appropriation bills going right up to the July 4 recess break. That is in large part due to the cooperation that the chairman received from the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but in large part also from the leadership exhibited by the chairman of the full committee. He set a very, very high bar, a high standard, and all of the subcommittee chairs comported with that; and we will have sent to the Senate all of our appropriation bills as of a week from today or a week from tomorrow. That is an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed, and I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their leadership and also the subcommittee chairmen for that kind of goal setting and then meeting those goals. Secondly, this is an important bill. This is the legislative branch bill. This is the bill where we say to all of the people, and I personally say to all of the people around the Capitol campus, thank you for the good work you do. The clerks, the people taking down our words here, the Congressional Record that will be printed overnight, the Parliamentarians who do such good work in directing the proceedings of the House, all of the Capitol Hill police who stand guard 24-7 and protect the Capitol, the attending physician's office who keep us all healthy, the people who work in the cloakrooms, the people who help us write bills, the people at CRS who help us make sure that we get the words correct and get them done correctly in the bills that we prepare and take a lot of credit for. The folks who work at the Library of Congress. The most magnificent facility on the Capitol campus is the Library of Congress. I hate to say it, but it is even more magnificent than this building, but the Library of Congress is a magnificent facility. Members have an opportunity to take full advantage of many of the books there and research that can be done. The Botanical Gardens is also a part of our campus. This is the bill that funds all of that. This is Congress' opportunity to say thank you to all of the people who work around here. It includes the lawyers who make sure that we do things correctly, and all of the people who work hard day and night to keep this building open, keep Members on the right track, and make sure that the things we do are done by the book. So I pay my compliments to all of the people who make this magnificent facility that we call the United States Capitol the great place that it is, where we make the laws and have the debates and have the opportunity to represent the people from all over the country. We could not do it without this bill, without the funding in this bill, and we could not do it without the people who provide all of the services, and are very dedicated, many of whom work late hours to keep this place going. I want to take my hat off to those folks. I want to say a word about the visitors center. I want to say this: it is a done deal. The leadership decided several years we needed a visitors center. Has it been done all correctly? No. And the points that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes are correct points. A lot of the work that has been done has been done by direction of staff of the principals. The principals really have not been that involved. They said they wanted a visitors center, and then they allowed the staff over the last 4 or 5 years to give direction. The architects have had many masters on this visitors center, unfortunately. But it is going to be built, and it is going to be a magnificent opportunity for people to have good shelter and safety. And after 9/11, we do not want people standing outside, we do not want people standing in inclement weather, and there will be an opportunity for people to get a little bit of history before they enter the Capitol. To say we should throw the whole bill out because of the visitors center does not make sense. I also want to say something about a subject I have felt very strongly about for the last few years, thank the architect and the chief operating officer and others for helping me with this, and that is the development of a staff health fitness center. It is under way in the Rayburn garage. It is for the staff around here who work long hours. There will be a health fitness center that they will be able to take advantage of, to stay healthy and be able to exercise, to have an opportunity to do the same thing that all of the Members have the opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are finally getting that kind of opportunity for our staff to be able to make this happen. With respect to the provision that was put in the bill having to do with respect to what do we do around here if another disaster happens, if the Members are injured or killed in some kind of an attack, there has to be something that guides the direction of the House in the event that something happens. The Speaker decided in order to get this moving and in order to get the Senate to go along with something, it had to be included in a bill, and it was put in this bill. It was put in, really, to get something done, to make something happen, to have some provision in the event that something happens. It is probably not the best way to do it, but maybe it will end up to be the most efficient way to do it, to get the Senate finally to come around and sit down and talk to us about what do we do if something happens around here and how do we account for succession. The Constitution calls for elections, not appointment. When there is a vacancy, there has to be an election. That is the way we get Members to congregate in this House. That is the way it should be. My point is the idea that this was included and is some sort of nonessential thing, it is essential that we have a provision in the law that allows us to account for a situation in the event that Members need to be replaced. That is really the reason it was put in. It is a part of the process here. If we want to get things moving, this is one of the ways to do it. It is not unprecedented. We have included other provisions in bills before to try and get some compromise with the Senate. I congratulate the Speaker for trying to get something done on this. If it does not happen here, it probably will not happen. We need to have this provision in the law. I ask every Member to consider the good work that goes on around here, the fact that this is the bill that funds all of this. This is the bill that takes care of all of the work that we do around here. It is a good bill. My compliments go to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the work of the staff people that made it possible for this bill to come to the floor today.

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

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments and services of Rabbi Michael Datz of Springfield, Illinois for his thirteen years of spiritual guidance and leadership. Rabbi Datz draws on his extraordinary life experiences to provide insight to his congregation at the Temple B'rith Sholom. He has lived in South Africa, the Netherlands, and Australia, as well, his birth- state of Texas. Yet, the community of Springfield is of profound importance to him. His extensive involvement in numerous religious and civic community organizations greatly benefits his adopted home. He is a board member of the Springfield Board of Jewish Education, the Springfield Jewish Federation, the Central Illinois Food Bank, the Springfield Liturgical Arts Council, the Greater Springfield Interfaith Association, and he is Chairman of the Dept. of Community Relations of the City of Springfield. In addition to being a dedicated servant of the community, the rabbi is a lawyer, a children's author, a husband, and a father of two. Yet above and beyond these accomplishments, the people who know the rabbi best testify that his courage and his sense of humor are traits that make him an excellent community leader. The people of Springfield and the members of the Temple B'rith Sholom are pleased and honored to have Rabbi Michael Datz as a servant of their community, and I am pleased to honor him on the occasion of a special dinner in recognition of his service.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). This is a very good bill. I am privileged to be on this subcommittee and to serve with two distinguished leaders, the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Texas. They both have worked very hard together. This is a very good bill for agriculture. It is a very good bill for our farmers. I represent farmers in central Illinois who produce a lot of food and fiber for the world, particularly corn and beans. One of the things that the chairman and ranking member have done has also really put a lot of emphasis on the research title, providing the research dollars to places like the University of Illinois in Champaign and to the ag research lab. I have one of the four ag research labs in the country in my hometown of Peoria. They do great work there. They collaborate with many different people in the community to really think outside of the box about how we take the food and fiber that we produce and the commodities we produce and stretch them into many different opportunities for farmers, and also for researchers. We have some of the smartest people that work in the ag research lab in Peoria. They could not do their work without the kind of dollars that are provided through this bill. The chairman has really done an extraordinary job in working with all the members of the subcommittee and the committee, really, to reach out and try to provide the dollars that are necessary. This is a very good bill for agriculture. It is a good bill for America. I ask all Members to support the rule and ultimately to support the bill.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a small Federal program that is often overlooked as a way to provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The Javits-Wagner-O'Day program, often referred to as JWOD, provides more than 36,000 Americans, who are blind or who have other disabilities, with the job skills and training necessary to earn good wages and benefits as well as greater independence and quality of life. The JWOD program empowers people with disabilities who traditionally face an unemployment rate of 70 percent and rely heavily on social support programs, such as welfare and SSI. By employing people with disabilities, the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program is able to increase independence and self esteem by helping these individuals enjoy full participation in their community and market their JWOD skills into other public/private sector jobs. Everyday, the National Industries for the Blind and NISH are creating new employment opportunities for people with disabilities, along with local nonprofit organizations in my home district of central Illinois. Demonstrating an excellent federal-private sector partnership, NISH National Industries for the Blind and local nonprofits, such as the Community Workshop & Training Center, Inc., in my state, enhance opportunities for economic and personal independence of people with disabilities by creating, sustaining, and improving employment. This year, the Community Workshop & Training Center Inc. will be celebrating 45 years of proudly providing employment opportunities and residential support for individuals with disabilities, enriching their quality of life, promoting social change and optimizing their potential for independence. They have been proudly participating in the JWOD program since 1991 by providing the janitorial services to the U.S. Federal Courthouse, including my office in Peoria, Illinois. In that time, 49 individuals have been involved, and David Rinaldi, William Wolf, Tom Sledge, Mary Kuebler and Tom Sieks are currently benefiting from the program. On behalf of people with disabilities, I rise to salute the important contributions of JWOD and Community Workshop & Training Center, Inc. to central Illinois and its citizens. I hereby commend all persons who are committed to enhancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think this is about as dumb a thing as we can do. I think to take the money away from people who are doing the hard work, these are our people. These are people that are there because they care about our country and they care about freedom and they care about bringing hope and opportunity to the people of Iraq. And the idea that we do not want to provide safe haven to them and the idea that we want to micromanage where this place is going to be is nonsense. We cannot do that. We are asking people to go over there and bring hope and freedom and opportunity. These are Americans. These are people that we sent there. And so we are saying to them that we do not want to give them safe haven; we do not want to give them an opportunity to have a safe place to live and do their work, the work that we have asked them to do? We need an embassy there. I cannot think of a dumber thing that we could do as to take this money away and to try and micromanage the way that we are going to establish an embassy and an opportunity for people to live safely over there. Those of you that have been there know what a dangerous place it is. These are the people that are doing the hard work. I would urge every Member to vote against this amendment and to send a message to the Americans that are over there, the people that are doing the hard work to bring democracy, we care about their safety, we care about the work they are doing. Vote against the Upton amendment and say to our friends over there, we care about your safety, we care about what you are doing, and we thank you for the tough, tough job you are doing in an area that is probably as dangerous as anywhere in the world. Vote against the Upton amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I thank him for the resolution. I thank my friend from West Virginia who called me on Monday to talk with me about the terrible events that took place and the idea of quickly introducing a resolution so that we could honor the Prime Minister. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his good words. A few hours ago, the people of Lebanon laid to rest their former Prime Minister. They laid him to rest in a place in Lebanon that he rebuilt. Ten years ago I had the privilege of going to Lebanon for the first time and over the last 10 years I have been to Lebanon at least once a year. Every time I have been there I have been warmly welcomed by the Prime Minister. Ten years ago when I visited Lebanon, it was a war-torn country and Beirut was a war-torn city, a lot of burned-out buildings, a lot of areas where you could see the remnants of a war that took place. Today it is a beautiful city. Today it has been rebuilt thanks almost in large part to the efforts of former Prime Minister Hariri. It was rebuilt with his own resources, rebuilt with his own ingenuity, rebuilt by his ability to bring people together. Today he was laid to rest there in an area called Solidaire which he designed and built as the business center for Beirut, a magnificent area. The Prime Minister was able to make Beirut what it was once known as, the Paris of the Middle East. If you go there today, you will recognize that immediately. When he would come to the United States and visit with our Presidents or our Secretaries of State or the Speaker of the House or the minority leader or Members of Congress, he would always talk about how do we get more people to come to Lebanon, how do we get more people from this country to go there and understand the complexities of the country? He was a man who brought people together, whether it be in his own country or in our country. He was a uniter, not a divider. He certainly did not deserve what he got and what was delivered to him a few days ago when he was assassinated. He did not deserve that. I hope that we are able to find those that perpetrated this terrible, terrible event against him that took his life and those of others that were in his entourage. Rafik Hariri is a world leader. He was a peacemaker. He was one that was able to really bring people together. He was responsible for the Taif Agreement. He was the one that kept speaking out for people to really come together in his own country. He provided over 2,000 scholarships to students not only in Lebanon, but around the world, so they could go to school because he knew the importance of education. He contributed so much to so many ordinary Lebanese citizens, contributed so much to rebuilding the country. I considered him a very, very dear friend. I had many opportunities to visit with him when he was in this country, to get to know his family, his children, his two sons, and they hopefully will be able to continue some of the work that he began a long time ago. I am not going to take the time to try to lay blame. I think we should be here to honor this great man, this great leader, the great peacemaker, the uniter of people, the one that has brought people together around the idea that Lebanon is a country that deserves attention, a country that has not always gotten the attention that it deserved. And so in urging Members to vote for this resolution, we say, job well done, good work, we thank those who have made this resolution possible today, and God speed to Rafik Hariri for his efforts to try to unite the Middle East to bring our fellow Lebanese people together as he has visited this country and to rebuild the beautiful city of Beirut. We have lost a great leader. We will remember him. As Members vote for this resolution, I hope they will also remember him and his family in their thoughts and prayers.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer heartfelt sympathy to the people of Lebanon and to the many, many leaders of that country who have suffered a great loss yesterday with the assassination of the former Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. Over the last 10 years, I have had the opportunity to visit the small country of Lebanon. I have taken an interest in the country because of my Lebanese heritage and the fact that Lebanon needs a few advocates in the House of Representatives, and I have tried to be a strong advocate for this small country. During the 10 years that I have visited Lebanon, I had the opportunity to become well acquainted with Prime Minister Hariri. Over the 10 years that I have had a chance to visit Lebanon, I have seen the country rebuilt almost literally by the Prime Minister and his efforts and his resources in not only bringing people together but using many of his own resources, certainly, to rebuild the city of Beirut. Prior to the war, the city of Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East. Today, and what happened yesterday, will not only really hurt that opportunity for Beirut to continue to have that kind of a beauty because of what happened yesterday, it will also hurt our opportunities to bring about peace in that region of the world. Prime Minister Hariri did so much for the country and, in particular, for the city of Beirut. Ten years ago, there were many, many burnt-out buildings. Today, there are many beautiful hotels and condominiums, and the center of the city has a project known as Solidare that the Prime Minister took a great deal of interest in in really rebuilding the business center and creating a business center in downtown Beirut. He was also responsible for helping over 2,000 students a year by giving them scholarships so that they could attend universities and colleges all over the Middle East and also here in this country. His foundation in this country has been very, very generous. His presence in the country will be sorely missed. He was one who did try and bring about peace, did try and bring people together, did rebuild the country and rebuild the city of Beirut and, in that essence, tried to forge a peace among Nations in that region of the world. I know for his family this is a terrible loss, and I know for the people of Lebanon it is a terrible loss, and I know for the people of the region, it is a terrible loss. We will probably never know who those terrorists were who decided to snuff out his life. I hope that at some time we will be able to find them, but for now we say to the Prime Minister's family, to the people of Lebanon, you have suffered a great loss, we have suffered a great loss, those of us that have known the Prime Minister have suffered a great loss. The Prime Minister and his family are in our thoughts and prayers today and will be in the future.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 9/11 conference report being considered. I have had the privilege of serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence thanks to the appointment from the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for 6 years, and I want to stipulate for the record that a number of reforms have taken place long before the 9/11 Commission was appointed, long before the 9/11 Commission report was issued. Immediately following what took place in New York and Washington and the loss of 3,000 American lives, President Bush and his team and the Congress put together a homeland security agency that combined 22 agencies at a cost of $40 billion. We created a TSA agency at all major airports at a cost of $5.2 billion. Every airport is now secure, and people do feel safe flying. We gave the airline industry $15 billion to secure airplanes and cockpits, and now airplanes are safe to fly. We enacted the PATRIOT Act, which now allows law enforcement agencies all over the country to communicate with one another and has allowed law enforcement officials to arrest people in this country who are terrorists in Buffalo, New York, and Portland, Oregon, who were here for no other purpose than to hurt Americans. We contributed between $20 billion and $40 billion to the City of New York to clean up what took place there after the 9/11 bombings and also to compensate families for the loss of their loved ones. We created the TTIC agency within the CIA and the FBI, and we created JTTFs, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, in every major city so that there is communication. Under Director Mueller, the FBI has been organized and is doing a marvelous job. We invaded Afghanistan, brought down al Qaeda at a cost of $18 billion, and a new president has been sworn in as of today. We invaded Iraq, brought down Saddam Hussein; and the people there, for the first time, have an opportunity and a chance to vote for their own leadership in January. The bottom line is this: the last 3 years, since America has been attacked, have been years when the country has not been attacked. The President deserves credit. We deserve credit here in Congress for the work we have done to create these opportunities to fight terrorism. We have not neglected our responsibilities, and we have not been sitting around on our hands waiting for some recommendation from some commission. A thousand new FBI agents have been authorized and a thousand new CIA agents have been authorized, and many of them are being hired. There is a lot better communication between the CIA and the FBI today and the executive branch of government. I believe creating a National Intelligence Directorate is a huge mistake. It is another bureaucracy. It is another layer of government. It would not have prevented 9/11, and it will not prevent another 9/11. We are fooling ourselves by creating this kind of public policy and trying to lead people to believe that when we pass this bill today America will be safer or America would have been safe prior to 9/11. It will not happen. We are going to create a monster that will not really inhibit the ability of terrorists. We are going to have another terrorist attack. This will not prevent it, and I urge my colleagues to read the bill and look at the bill and think long and hard about the idea of creating some sort of other bureaucracy on top of everything else, because I just think it will not work. We have done good work in the House, in the Senate, and with the President's leadership have really done a good job in combating terrorism. This bill is not good public policy. I hope Members will look at it. I think it is the wrong approach, and that is why I oppose it.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 110, legislation that commemorates the upcoming 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. As we all know, our Allied forces fought against great odds, outnumbered and outgunned, to hold back German forces from December, 1944 to January, 1945. Victory over Germany was secured 4 months later. This year has given us many opportunities to thank the members of the World War II generation for all that they have achieved. The 60th anniversary of D-Day, the opening of the long-awaited National World War II Memorial on the Mall here in Washington, and the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge are reminders that these men and women fought to save the world from tyranny. The passage of time should not diminish their sacrifices. I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, my friend and colleague from Illinois, for sponsoring this resolution. It honors the 600,000 U.S. troops who fought in this battle 60 years ago. One of those troops is another friend and former colleague, Bob Michel. The former Minority Leader of the House, Bob Michel was wounded by machine gun fire at the Battle of the Bulge, for which he earned two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. I know he has never forgotten that more than 81,000 of his fellow American soldiers were also injured in Belgium 60 years ago, and, through this resolution, we show these veterans that we do not forget, either. I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 110, and urge its swift passage.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for time under the rule is because I do not think there will be enough time during consideration under general debate and there are a number of points that I wanted to make. I have been a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 6 years, and I am very proud and privileged to serve on that committee and have served on the committee when 9/11 occurred and obviously since that time. I want to just state for the record the things that we have done as a Congress and also what the administration has done long before a 9/11 Commission was ever created and long before a 9/11 Commission put out a report. We created a homeland security agency that put together 22 agencies at a cost of $40 billion. These agencies are now working together, communicating and cooperating together. We created a TSA agency for every major airport in this country to screen passengers and screen bags at a cost of about $5.2 billion. We gave the airline industry $4.6 billion to secure cockpits and to make sure that the airline industry was able to survive after 9/11. We passed here on this floor in this Congress the PATRIOT Act which allows law enforcement people to communicate with each other, allows law enforcement people to arrest people in Buffalo, New York and Portland, Oregon trained by al Qaeda with no other purpose in mind but to hurt Americans. The PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement people to surveil people and surveil people's cell phones and look into people's bank accounts, all provisions that did not exist before 9/11. We created that opportunity. We gave to New York between $20 billion and $40 billion to compensate the families and to compensate New York for the work that was done to clean up the Twin Towers area. We authorized and now there are being recruited 1,000 new CIA agents, and we authorized and there are now being recruited 1,000 new FBI agents. We created TTIC, which is a terrorism task force within the CIA that works very closely and now is analyzing information, and there is a great deal of coordination and cooperation going on. We created the JTTFs in every major city where all law enforcement and prosecutors are sitting together every day talking to one another and doing good work. The FBI has been reorganized under Director Mueller, and he deserves a great deal of credit for reorganizing the FBI with one goal in mind: to go after the terrorists and to really make an effort in every office in the FBI to communicate directly with local law enforcement people. We invaded Afghanistan. We dismantled al Qaeda at a cost of about $18 billion, an enormous cost, but we have dismantled al Qaeda. We have invaded Iraq. We have brought down Saddam Hussein's regime. But the bottom line in all of this is we have not been attacked for 3 years, and we have not been attacked because we have done a lot of good in this Congress. And the lion's share of the credit goes to this administration, to President Bush and his team, and this Congress for the work we have done to secure America, to go after the terrorists, to dismantle al Qaeda. And it has cost us enormous amounts of money, but we have not been attacked for 3 years. All of this was done prior to the 9/11 Commission and prior to any kind of report being put out. Now to the bill. This bill was cobbled together by a small group of people with little or no real help from those of us on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or any other committee. It creates a so-called intelligence czar, and it creates what people have been criticizing around here for a long time, another bureaucracy. It not only creates another national intelligence czar, but it also creates eight or nine additional people. It creates a whole new bureaucracy. The criticism has been that there was too much bureaucracy. There were too many stovepipes. There were too many people who were not communicating or cooperating with one another. My point is this: We do not need another bureaucracy. We do not need another person. There are plenty of people that are communicating and cooperating, and the proof of that is all of the things that we have put in place and that the Bush administration has done. They deserve the credit, and we deserve the credit. And we should be talking around here about the things that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other committees have done and that we as a Congress have done to secure America, to go after al Qaeda, to take the war on terror to the terrorists. We have done a lot of good work around here. Now this idea that the report comes out and it is sacrosanct and it is the end all and be all, I think, is not accurate. And to put another layer of bureaucracy without consulting the communities, without consulting the CIA, without consulting those people that are involved in this on a day-to-day basis I think is wrong. I will vote against the bill, and I hope Members will look carefully at it. I appreciate very much the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for giving me the chance to have an opportunity to sound off on these things.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I tried to focus earlier on, under consideration of the rule, my many long list of things that those of us on this committee have been doing since 9/11, and that the Bush administration has been doing. We have done a lot. We have really tried to do an awful lot to dismantle al Qaeda, to secure America, to secure our airports, and all of it long before there was ever a 9/11 Commission and long before there was a 9/ 11 Commission report. This Congress, President Bush and his team, have done an extraordinary job, and the proof of it is that America has not been attacked for 3 years. We deserve this credit for that. We ought to take the credit for it. This was before there was any kind of a report printed. Now, all of a sudden, there is this report that comes out that says we need another level of bureaucracy. I do not think we need another level of bureaucracy. We do not need anybody else on top. There has been a lot of coordination and a lot of communication that has taken place since 9/11. The FBI has been reorganized under Director Mueller and he is doing a good job, and we have a new CIA director and he is doing a good job. He has a new team in place. The CIA has embedded agents in the FBI and the FBI has agents embedded in the CIA who have created JTTFs all over the country. We have the TTIC that is operating very well. These acronyms maybe do not mean much to anybody, but there is a lot of activity that has taken place in this government under the leadership of President Bush and under the leadership of Congress, and to put another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of people, I think, makes no sense at all. One of the criticisms prior to 9/11 is that this kind of bureaucracy, there was too much bureaucracy; we do not need any more bureaucracy, we do not need any other layers of government. This position would not have prevented 9/11. Had this position been in place prior to 9/11, it would not have prohibited 9/11. I urge Members to look carefully at this bill. I plan to vote against it.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Menendez amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the floor almost all day speaking on the rule, and speaking during consideration of the bill during general debate. This amendment seeks to create an information technology network of immense proportions but without significant resources and no logical or direct correlation to what actually would be needed to share information properly. The amendment overregulates the design of the network, it creates excessive reporting requirements and truly unrealistic implementation deadlines. The amendment would also create several layers of new bureaucracy, which is something that I have been speaking out about all day. No more bureaucracy. No more red tape. No more stovepipes. And that is what this creates. It would create a new bureaucratic advisory and executive board, which will prevent the rapid creation of a true information-sharing environment. The information-sharing provisions of the Menendez amendment will not achieve the intent of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, they will serve to confuse and prevent the needed changes. We do not need any more bureaucracy. We do not need any more stovepipes. In fairness to the people who work 24-7, in dark places in the world, this amendment had no consultation with the community, with those that are charged with the responsibility of collecting and analyzing information. This amendment is terribly flawed and would create the kind of stovepipe and bureaucracy the 9/11 Commission railed against. It would do no good in terms of our ability to really create the kind of opportunity that is needed to win the war on terror.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been a part of a group of people that have worked on this bill. Primarily my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I some 5 years ago started working on this bill. This is a very good bill. I urge Members to support the rule and to support the bill. We have been down this path a few times before in the House, and we are trying to find a way to get our friends in the other body to come along with us. But I got involved in this as a proponent of the death penalty and somebody who supports the death penalty, but also as a result of a group of students at Northwestern University several years ago, who did a study of those sitting on death row and found that of those who were on death row that had been given the death sentence, 12 of them were actually innocent and were released by the governor of the State of Illinois because they were innocent, which means that there were 12 people out on the street who had actually committed the crimes. This bill allows for the ability of people who have the responsibility for prosecuting these cases to have 100 percent certainty, through the use of DNA testing, through the use of providing that competent counsel is provided to defendants, people that really know how to deal with capital cases. And it is a very important way to really fix a flawed criminal justice system, a system that has allowed for innocent people to sit on death row and guilty people to be out on the street. It is a very good bill, and I want to really congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his willingness to look at this bill and to do some things that he felt were important; and also the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for hanging in there with us on this. I think we have a chance to pass this this year. And it would be a very good fix, to fix a flawed system in our country and really give a sense of opportunity to people that innocent people are not going to be convicted, and guilty people are going to be found and tracked down and locked up and, in some instances, be given the death penalty for serious crimes. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I look forward to the House passing this bill today.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I offer my thanks to the chairman of the committee for hanging in there with us and being so persistent about this important piece of legislation. My thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for also hanging in there with us 5 years ago when he and I collaborated on this and introduced this bill. I think we had an idea it would take this long, but I think we are getting close. And if we can persuade the other body that this is the right approach and a good bill, I think we will have come a long way over the last 5 years to perfect a bill. I really thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). He really has helped us perfect this idea that there has to be 100 percent certainty in capital cases and in death penalty cases. As a proponent of capital punishment, I believe very strongly that it can be a deterrent, but there has to be 100 percent certainty; and that is really what one of the titles the Innocents Protection Act's title of this bill really allows for and provides for. We could not be here today without really the leadership of the chairman. So I am grateful to him. When we look in the eyes of people like Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie Smith and to be able to tell them that we are getting close to solving some very serious problems and really trying to get to perfection in a flawed system. I am very proud of the students at the Northwestern University in Chicago for the work that they did that really highlighted the flaw in this system after a study where they looked at all death penalty cases in Illinois. And as a result of their study, 12 people were released from death row because it was found that they were innocent. And at that point I think we all realized that there were 12 people on the street that were guilty of the crimes that were free people. And that kind of initiative and that kind of study really emboldened us to move ahead with this legislation. We could not have done it without them. We could not have done it without the determination of people like Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie Smith and the chairman and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). Mr. Speaker, I have prepared remarks that really go into more detail, but I just wanted to be here today to say thanks to all those who have had the determination to make this happen. I ask all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of the death penalty, and supporter of this bill. In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I sponsored the Innocence Protection Act with Mr. Delahunt, which is now included as section 3 in the Justice For All Act. I am a proponent of the death penalty, as a deterrent to violent crime, and this bill provides the materials necessary to repair our flawed system. I believe that 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 post-conviction DNA testing to establish innocence and compensate those who have served time for crimes they did not commit. In order to continue to rightfully punish our guilty, we must establish minimum standards of competency for 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. A death sentence is the ultimate punishment. Its absolute finality commands that we be 100 percent certain of an individual's guilt. In protecting the innocent, we also make sure the guilty do not go free. I applaud the chairman for his determination in crafting this bipartisan piece of legislation that assures fundamental accuracy and fairness in our judicial system.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Judge Michael M. Mihm on receiving the USAID Outstanding Citizen Achievement Award. The award recognizes volunteerism in overseas development context. In January 1994, Judge Mihm was appointed the first chairperson of the Committee on International Judicial Relations by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In 2000, he was approached by the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, to help design an expanded rule of law component for the Library of Congress' Open World Leadership Center. Judge Mihm has hosted three Open World delegations at his home. He continues to serve as the Russian liaison for the Committee on International Judicial Relations to the Open World Partnership. Judge Mihm also provides voluntary counsel to Open World and USAID's Russian American Judicial Partnership. Judge Mihm has dedicated several years of his time to the Committee on International Judicial Relations and the Open World program. I am happy to recognize him for his work and dedication to these programs.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the work of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in expediting this and also the majority leader's office. Madam Speaker, I am honored to rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 4608, legislation that would name the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Peoria, Illinois, after Bob Michel, the former Republican leader of the House of Representatives. This year, as we mark the 60th anniversary of D-Day, we as a Nation are taking the time to reflect on those members of the greatest generation who served our country during World War II. Bob Michel is one of those heroes. As a member of the 39th Infantry, he served in England, France, Belgium and Germany. He fought from the beaches of Normandy to the Battle of the Bulge, where he was wounded by machine gun fire. His service earned him the Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars and four Battle Stars. After the war, Bob Michel continued his service to our country and to our community, first as a congressional staffer, then as a Member of this House for 38 distinguished years. He served 6 years as the minority whip and 15 years as the Republican leader, the longest-serving Republican leader in the history of the House of Representatives. During his career, he never forgot about those who served with him in World War II and those who served in uniform after him in peacetime and conflicts that followed. He knows firsthand the sacrifice veterans have made for our country, so he was instrumental in gaining funding that established the VA clinic in Peoria, Illinois, in 1979, a source of care and comfort for thousands of veterans throughout central Illinois. In 2003, there were more than 42,000 visits to the Peoria clinic. Respect for Bob Michel is certainly widespread. In 1989, President Reagan awarded the Presidential Citizens Award Medal, which recognizes individuals who performed exemplary deeds for their country and fellow citizens, to then minority leader Bob Michel. In 1994, President Clinton honored Mr. Michel with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award. In 2003, Mr. Michel became one of the first recipients of the Congressional Distinguished Service Award presented to him by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), and in June of this year, Mr. Michel returned to France with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and was one of only 100 people to become a Knight of the Legion of Honor, one of the highest honors paid by the French Government to a noncitizen. Bob Michel, a member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, the Distinguished American Veterans and the Military Order of the Purple Heart, continues to be an example of patriotism and the exemplary public service to which we all aspire. I am honored to call him my mentor and my friend of more than 20 years, and I know many in this House, both staff and fellow Members alike, share these feelings with me. On the top of many other accolades and honors, I can think of no better way to honor his lifetime of public service than to add his name to a facility that serves other patriots during their time of need. So I urge my colleagues today to help honor Bob Michel by designating the veterans clinic in Peoria, Illinois, as the Bob Michel Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), and as I said, the majority leader's office, the staff on both sides of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for so quickly taking action on this legislation, and I urge passage.

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4608.