Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that if the gentleman wanted to offer an amendment on our authorization bill, at least he ought to give us the benefit of the doubt that we have professional staff and we have people who spend an inordinate amount of time, including the gentleman's ranking member because this is her only committee assignment. She spends all of her time in this Congress working on intelligence activities. Apparently the gentleman does not think enough of her expertise and the expertise of the committee staff on that side to give them some kind of an assignment. And why the Vice President? Why not the President? Why not the Director of the CIA? Why not the Director of the FBI? This is a political amendment. This is an extension of a campaign.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LaHOOD. I will be more than happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say this. I would say that the gentleman's ranking member has bent over backwards. It was the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and others who asked for the two advisory committees. And it is other people on the gentleman's side who are asking for some kind of a commission. Now, we have not acted on that, and that is not in this bill; but I think every request that was made by the gentleman's side to the chairman has been granted.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LaHOOD. Really, Mr. Chairman, I think we have done everything we can. Now, to go outside of the jurisdiction of the committee and to take a cheap shot at the Vice President, it makes no sense, I say to the gentleman. It really does not. I think, really, the truth is, after listening to this and listening to the fact that the gentleman's ranking member is not going to support the gentleman's amendment, I think it is in his best interest to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Why the Vice President? Why not other officials of the government? Why not officials of the government who have direct responsibility for intelligence-gathering information? If there is some kinds of a cabal going on around here, why did the gentleman just happen to pick this individual? I believe this is what it is. This is a political amendment. This is an amendment to try and embarrass one member of this administration. This is an amendment to try and embarrass the second-highest-ranking elected official in our government by some way, shape, or form, thinking that if the gentleman gets some kind of phone records he is going to find something out. As members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we get information every day, 24-7, our staff. Pretty much 24-7, our staff are working on gathering intelligence; and this is a slap in the face at the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to the gentleman's own members, to our members. It really is what it is. It is a political amendment, and I stand by what I said. It is the cheap shot amendment. It is the cheap shot amendment of the year. It gets the award, in my opinion; and I hope people see it for what it is.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I simply would say to the gentleman that he knows that we have established in this bill two advisory committees. We had people on the floor earlier suggesting a commission; but apparently, the gentleman does not think the oversight obligation that we serve, as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is enough. And I say it is a slight. It is a slap at us.

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

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the latest speech of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and that is to say if the gentleman really wants the prerogatives of the House to be worked out, let the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence do it. The gentleman's amendment says the IG or the GAO is supposed to go in and get the Vice President's phone records. If the gentleman thinks it is such a great idea, let us do it. We have been doing it. Why have some outside group do it? That is the flaw in the gentleman's amendment. That is what our committee is supposed to do. That is the flaw, and that is what politicizes it.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana for his comments. I rise in support of the Senate bill 858, a bill to continue the important work of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. I encourage all of our colleagues to join with me in voting for this fitting tribute to our greatest President. I want to thank Senator Durbin for getting this through the United States Senate, and I want to thank the majority leader's office for scheduling this for consideration today. It is my honor to serve as cochair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission along with Senator Durbin of Illinois and Mr. Harold Holzer of New York, a noted Lincoln scholar. Created by Congress, the commission has 15 members and is charged with planning and organizing the national celebration of Lincoln's 200th birthday on February 12, 2009. Current plans for the bicentennial include a joint session of Congress, educational initiatives throughout the country, a new Lincoln penny, film projects and much more. In celebrating Lincoln's birthday, we honor not just the memory of one man but also the promise of America's freedom. The ongoing struggle against tyranny abroad and the continued fight for racial justice at home both find their inspiration in the life and work of Abraham Lincoln. Last year, the commission appointed an executive director and moved into offices in the Library of Congress. We have held meetings in Illinois, Kentucky and Washington and will travel to Indiana next year and will also be in Vermont this year. Through our Web site, www.lincolnbicentennial.gov, we have already received countless suggestions from the public about how best to celebrate this important national event. This year, the commission celebrated Lincoln's birthday by gathering together our distinguished advisory committee. Made up of scholars, business people and artists, we asked for their help in planning for the bicentennial. That evening nearly 500 people and many more watching C-SPAN witnessed ``Lincoln Seen and Heard'' in which the acclaimed actor Sam Waterston gave a dramatic performance of Lincoln's speeches, while Harold Holzer provided the accompanying images and narration. Through events like this, we hope to raise the profile of the commission and prepare the public for the important occasion of Lincoln's 200th birthday, which we hope to celebrate nationwide and around the world. It is vital that this important commission be allowed to continue its work through the actual bicentennial celebration. This bill would simply extend the life of the commission through the bicentennial year and require a final report so that future generations will have a record of how we celebrated the life of the foremost champion of human liberty. Therefore, as the representative of the same District that sent Abraham Lincoln to Congress and as cochair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, I urge my colleagues to support S. 858. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for the time.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. I want to pay my respects and admiration to both the chairman and the ranking member who I think are extraordinary public servants and do a great job for our committee. As chair of the HPSCI's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I am continuously impressed by the men and women of the Intelligence Community. Over the past year, we have witnessed significant success in the war on terrorism, to include the capture of a number of significant terrorist operatives around the world. The men and women of the Intelligence Community have worked tirelessly to deter, disrupt, and destroy terrorist capabilities wherever they threaten our interests, and they have performed remarkably in support of our successful military action in Iraq. Their ability to carry out their mission is due, at least in part, to the support provided by the Select Committee on Intelligence. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), this House has consistently supported providing more resources and better tools to the Intelligence Community. This support has only now begun to reverse the underinvestment suffered by the Intelligence Community in the last decade. As we continue to face threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad, we must remain vigilant. We must ensure that the Intelligence Community has the personnel, the skill, the languages, and the resources necessary to work against such threats. The Intelligence Community must be prepared to confront the asymmetrical threat to the future. Mr. Chairman, to this end, H.R. 2417 provides authorization funding for the counterterrorism activities of the Intelligence Community. It provides money and other resources to deepen all-source analytical capabilities. This is most important when confronting the terrorist target. It is through our analytical efforts that all the dots that get collected ultimately get connected. This bill also provides funding for the Terrorist Threat Integration Center proposed by the President of the United States in his State of the Union address. The TTIC is a primary example of how well the Intelligence Community is marshalling its resources, encouraging efficiencies, and disseminating timely intelligence across government in defense of the American homeland. The President deserves a great deal of credit for his vision. The Intelligence Community deserves credit for putting that vision into action. H.R. 2417 also authorizes additional funding to specifically improve the sharing of terrorist threat-related information across all levels of government, Federal, State and local, and it is through the aggressive collection, analysis, and dissemination of threat information that the agencies and organizations of the Federal, State, and local governments, as well as the private sector, can best protect the homeland, prosecute the war on terrorism, and work together to keep America safe. The counterterrorism elements of the Intelligence Community are at the forefront of this effort, and this bill is an investment in that effort, and I urge support of H.R. 2417. I want to say a word about two other issues. Some of us have been briefed on the House floor by Secretary Rumsfeld. He stood in the well of this House and briefed many Members. On one occasion, when asked the question, how do we know when we have won the war, he said three things: regime change, which we have accomplished; a new regime, which is now being put in place; and finding the weapons of mass destruction. I have great faith that with two of those goals accomplished, the third goal will be accomplished. I have great faith, after a number of briefings from folks in the Intelligence Community, that the weapons of mass destruction will be found. And I think all Members should have that kind of reassurance from the Select Committee on Intelligence, based on reports that we have received, based on information we have been given by the Secretary of Defense that that will take place. If I could say one other thing. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: I think our committee probably has stepped over the bounds a little bit by saying to every Member of the House they can have all of this information. I think sharing this information is going to turn out to be a mistake. This is the greatest talking body in the whole world. People love to talk. Very few listen. And I am afraid that when 435 Members have access to the information we do, a select committee, an important committee, I am afraid of what is going to happen, particularly after what the New York Times had to say about a very important meeting that we had in the Select Committee on Intelligence, which is now out in the public. Nobody knows how it got out there, but I guarantee my colleagues, if we give 435 access, we got big problems.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2185, legislation that will allow unemployed workers to receive 13 weeks of additional Federal unemployment benefits. This legislation also provides an additional 13 weeks for workers who live in States with high unemployment rates. Congress previously passed an extension of benefits in December, and I urge my colleagues to once again support this important legislation. Approximately 300,000 unemployed workers will exhaust their benefits each month without this extension. While I think we all agree that unemployment compensation should be a temporary benefit, I do not believe that our economy is currently strong enough to phase out the extension we passed in December. With the unemployment rate at 6 percent and an estimated 2 million unemployed workers predicted to exhaust their benefits between June and November, families need this benefit to simply make ends meet and keep their homes. Many of my own constituents in central Illinois, despite their hard work and persistence, cannot find suitable work. In Illinois, over 100,000 unemployed workers are likely to exhaust their benefits over the next 6 months. This legislation will help to sustain these families until they can once again become self-sufficient. Additionally, it will provide even more benefits to unemployed workers in States in a worse position than Illinois, such as Washington and Oregon. It is important that we pass this legislation today and avoid a possible disruption in benefits. While Congress is doing its part to ensure that our economy improves, we should not ignore those who are struggling. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the House Agriculture Committee, I would like to pay tribute to Representative Larry Combest, who has announced his intention to retire at the end of May. During his ten terms in Congress, Larry Combest has earned a reputation of being a friend of American Agriculture. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Representative Combest always worked in a fair and bipartisan manner to insure that all sides had an opportunity to make their voices heard. This was especially true when the Agriculture Committee developed what eventually became the 2002 Farm Bill. In order to hear from all interested parties, Chairman Combest held extensive hearings throughout the country, including one in my hometown of Peoria, Illinois. I believe that this level of inclusiveness was a major factor in Congress passing a Farm Bill that addresses the needs of America's farmers and ranchers. Representative Combest's mark on this Chamber will not only be found in the work he has done for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Representative Combest also served with distinction as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. While I did not have the privilege of serving under his Chairmanship, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I know that his legacy of bipartisanship and integrity remains. During his tenure in Congress, Representative Combest always worked for the interest of his constituents, his State, his country, and the House of Representatives. Knowing that actions speak louder than words, Representative Combest joined me as co-chair of the House Bipartisan Retreat Committee to help instill civility and bipartisanship to the proceedings of Congress. Representative Combest will be sorely missed.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think we owe a big debt of gratitude for the way that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) has conducted the proceedings of the House all day today. Mac, you did a great job.

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, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for this important concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 36 offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). The Emancipation Proclamation transformed the Civil War into a war of liberation, and changed American history forever. 140 years ago last month the United States took the first bold step towards a new birth of freedom. Abraham Lincoln was well aware of the epic importance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Before signing it in his office in the White House on January 1, 1863, he looked at those around him and remarked: ``I never in my life felt more certain that I was doing right than I do in signing this paper.'' His hand was sore from greeting thousands of guests at the annual New Year's reception; and he took a moment to steady his hand, unwilling to have his signature appear wavering or hesitant. Finally, he signed the document with his full name, as he very rarely did. Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation was a remarkable act of political courage. After the preliminary proclamation was released on September 22, 1862, reaction in the North was harshly critical. The Republican Party lost seats in the congressional elections that year, and New York City later erupted into riots, partly as a result of the outrage over the proclamation. The year after the proclamation was issued, President Lincoln wrote: ``I am naturally antislavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.'' It was this core principle, combined with enormous courage, that led the President to draft and sign the historic document we celebrate today. One of Lincoln's most distinguished biographers has called the proclamation the single most revolutionary document in our history after the Declaration of Independence. Yet Lincoln clearly defined the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure justified by military necessity. He knew that the permanent destruction of slavery would require more than a proclamation signed by the President. Therefore, he labored mightily to ensure the passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery forever. Lincoln had so identified himself with the cause of freedom by the end of the war that he signed the 13th amendment, though not constitutionally required to do so. The legacy of Lincoln as the emancipator will be among the subjects addressed by the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, on which I am honored to serve as co-chair. Created by the Congress, comprised of scholars, collectors, political leaders, and jurists, the commission is charged with planning the annual celebration of Lincoln's 250th birthday. Therefore, as a representative of the same district that sent Abraham Lincoln to Congress for one term, and as the co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important continuing resolution. Again, I thank both the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for this important concurrent resolution brought to the House floor today.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are two other people in the Chamber that I have more regard for than the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. Both people are very, very hardworking people. They have done extraordinary work for the country. The leadership of Chairman Goss and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), has just been extraordinary, particularly given what happened after 9-11 and particularly given the events that we have been through in the House and as members of the joint committee studying what happened prior to 9-11. I have really enjoyed the opportunity for the last 4 years to serve with both of these people. I want to say a word about my friend from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) because I know he will be leaving and his service has been valued very much by all the members of the committee. I know that you will be missed, Tim, and I know that it will be a great loss to our committee. And also to you, Madam Leader, you will also be missed and thank you for your service to the committee. I rise in very, very reluctant opposition to the conference report. As those people on the committee know, I have objected very strenuously to the idea of a commission. Almost from the very first day that this idea has been proposed, I thought it was a bad idea. I have thought it was a bad idea because what is going to happen is you are going to have people with little or no experience, and many of us on the committee have tried to gain experience over the years and tried to gain knowledge in terms of what the community is about, the intelligence- gathering community and how they do their work and what the failures are, and to have some kind of a concept of a so-called blue ribbon committee, I think, really is going to fall far short of what people's expectations are. I know that some people think this commission is going to provide a lot of answers and provide a lot of opportunity to assuage the feelings of the family members of the victims. I think we are holding out a real, real big false hope for the family members. I have always felt that. Many of us on the committee have tried to become experts. It is difficult to do. But there are people who are experts. I consider Chairman Goss and I consider Ranking Member Pelosi experts because of the time that they have devoted. I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is an expert because of the time he has devoted. But to try and get 10 people from the outside to come in and understand all of this in such a short period of time I think holds out a very big false hope. It just does not make sense. I really think this is a mistake. I want people to understand that this is a good bill, it is a good conference report in every other regard except for the idea of holding out a false hope to the families that are left behind of the victims, that somehow this blue ribbon commission is going to be the panacea, that is going to answer all the questions, that is going to lay the blame where it needs to be laid. You know I have characterized this as the blame game commission and I know you do not like to hear me say that, but that is how I feel about it. There are people here that want to try and find blame within the government, whether it is in the CIA or the FBI or within the administration. I characterize this as no more than that, an opportunity for 10 citizens to try and come together and understand something that is so complicated and so complex that it makes little sense to try and hold out hope to people that this will really give the answers to the families that have been left behind. It will not. It simply will not. I think that hopefully our joint committee can offer some answers out of the kind of work that we have done for the last year and will continue to do until the final report is written. The idea that this is a blue ribbon commission where people are going to be paid, I think, detracts from what kind of a blue ribbon commission is it. It is right in the bill that there are going to be people who are going to be paid for this. Why do we have to pay people to serve on a blue ribbon commission? I wish I would have had an opportunity to at least strike that out of the bill, but we do not have an opportunity to strike these kinds of things out of conference reports. I think the idea of compensation is nonsense. It degrades the commission; it degrades the idea that it is a blue ribbon commission. The final thing that I would say to my friends here in the House and to colleagues is that this really is an opportunity, I think, for people just prior really to a political election to lay on the table some kind of a report to try and lay blame at the foot of an administration. That is how I see it. This report will come out maybe a few days or a month or two before the next Presidential election. I have no idea what the report will say, but I know there are people out there that want to find blame. I have the feeling that that is what this commission will be out to do, to look for those who made mistakes, to look for those, to find fault with institutions in our government that probably in some ways did not serve the interest the way they should have. As one Member, and I hate to do it because I know a lot of work has gone into this bill, into this conference report, but I intend to vote against it. I think this is a terrible mistake. It sends a terrible message. I do not want the families out there to think that when this report comes in from some so-called blue ribbon commission, it is going to answer. It is not going to answer. Some of these things are unanswerable and those of us that have served on the joint committee know that some of these things are unanswerable. So I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak, and in no way do I want to be degrade any member of the committee, any member who supports this. I just think it is a bad idea, it is a bad time to do it, it does not make sense, and it is going to hold out a false hope that we are never ever going to be able to meet.

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 ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.