Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and provide this House with an opportunity to vote on legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage, something that has not happened in almost 10 years. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. And since the gentlewoman has no further speakers, I will go to closing.

Ms. MATSUI. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend, Mr. Obey.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me the time. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. The Pacific Ocean is synonymous with California. California's beaches are world renowned tourist destinations. People from my hometown of Sacramento can attest to the beauty of nearby Stinson and Dillon Beaches, of Point Reyes and Capitola near Santa Cruz. But our coasts are more than playgrounds. We Californians consider them to be national treasures, and we certainly wouldn't sell them off to oil developers. But that is a major element of what this bill before us proposes to do. This legislation tempts States to sell off their natural heritage by presenting a false choice between Federal dollars and their coastlines. Even worse, the closer to shore a cash-strapped State allows drilling, the more money it stands to receive. In other words, the more intrusive the drilling, the larger the payoff. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we simply don't need to expand our drilling capacity. Eighty percent of our Nation's offshore oil and gas reserves are already open for drilling. Energy companies hold over 6,000 unused leases in these waters. There is no reason to overturn a 25-year-old bipartisan drilling moratorium when we haven't even utilized our existing capacity yet. Providing less expensive energy to our constituents and reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be one of Congress' top priorities, but we cannot drill our way to energy independence as some claim. Sadly, we should have expected such an idea from a Congress that continues to rely on the same tired and misguided drilling-only approach. This strategy has been the defining element of our failed energy policy for the last 6 years. America can do better, but today's proposal takes us in the wrong direction. Instead of drilling off our coasts, we should devote resources to encouraging renewable energy use and to perform innovative research on advanced technologies. Mr. Speaker, on the Science Committee we worked together in a bipartisan way to create a balanced and forward-looking policy. For instance, earlier this week, the committee approved legislation to authorize alternative energy development programs. Unfortunately, it seems that today's legislation has been narrowly written to benefit oil interests at the expense of States like mine. We should follow the example of the Science Committee, Mr. Speaker, and rely on emerging research and proven scientific fact. Both of these will demonstrate that we do not, we should not, drill off our coasts. Increasing our energy independence should be the first great policy challenge our country addresses in the 21st century. We would be well advised to consider forward-looking energy proposals. Revisiting old arguments and despoiling national treasures wastes a golden opportunity to put our Nation on a course towards energy independence and responsible environmental stewardship. I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided and unnecessary legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time and for her leadership on our committee. Mr. Speaker, today we debate a resolution with far-reaching implications. It affirms the legal authority for the so-called Terrorist Finance Tracking program. It would also condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Finally, it sets the expectation that news outlets will yield to the government's decision whether or not to publish stories with classified information. A vote in favor of this resolution would affirm each of these points: Assertions about a classified program that cannot be proved or disproved with the limited information available; assertions that implicitly threaten the freedom of press enshrined in our Constitution. Because of the closed rule, Members are prevented from correcting its inaccuracies. So if the choice is simply an up-or-down vote, the resolution must be voted down. Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how the information disclosed by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and several other newspapers around the country differed from what was already in the public record. As the Boston Globe documented yesterday, anyone with an Internet connection could have read the President's executive order authorizing increased efforts to track terrorist financing. Public testimony to Congress has described how the administration is actively utilizing wire transfers and other financial transactions to track terrorists around the globe. As one former U.S. diplomat noted, ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing.'' Tracking financial transactions is a general principle of counterterrorism. The question should be the specific ways this administration uses this tool. The administration's actions have indicated consistently that, in a time of war, it is above the law. This raises the concern over how well we as a Nation strike the balance between security and civil liberty and how we scrutinize the outcome. This leads to a second, important point. Consultation and oversight by the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees is required to check the potential for abuse of power. It is not clear this happened as the resolution asserts. Many Members sitting on those panels do not think the limited information given to them meets the required threshold of consultation. Without that, this body cannot judge the program's legal basis, nor ensure a balance is struck between security and civil liberties. Notwithstanding information already in the public domain, some government officials may have disclosed classified information about this program. As a result, the Director of National Intelligence has begun a classified investigation. Anyone who leaked this information should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Recent history is not encouraging, however. Three years ago next month, classified information was deliberately leaked to the press for political purposes by one or more senior White House officials. The intelligence community expressed outrage over the disclosure of Valerie Plame. A network of U.S. intelligence sources developed over the course of several decades was endangered. At no time did the House leadership bring a resolution to the floor condemning the leak. Every effort by Democrats to investigate the incident was blocked. While the resolution before us references other past leaks of classified information by name, it remains silent about this particular incident. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental challenge facing our Nation in the aftermath of 9/11 is how to guarantee the security of our citizens without sacrificing the fundamental principles upon which this great Nation is founded. Guaranteeing security is about the end goal. Guaranteeing those fundamental principles is about how we get there. We cannot allow either principle to erode, and the wisdom of including both in our Nation's founding document indicates that our greatest leaders did not see these ideas as contradictory. My local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, has an editorial of their own this morning which speaks to this subject, and I will insert the full text into the record at the end, but it reads in part, ``The first amendment's durability rests not only on its text but on a long- standing unwritten bargain between government and the press that both will do their best to avoid straying over that line.'' I could not agree more. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying resolution. Editorial: Who's Overreaching? President Bush has condemned as ``disgraceful'' several newspapers'' reports about a government program that monitors international financial transactions. Some congressional Republicans go further: Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky accused the New York Times of ``treason'' and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas wants intelligence agencies to assess the extent of damage to national security. What's ironic about this is, first, that the news reports, while they added much detail, merely described a program that's been no secret to anyone who has followed the administration's anti-terrorist efforts. And if there's any investigative tool that most Americans would probably agree is a proper one, it's tracking suspected terrorist finances. A major component of that tool has been a Belgium-based database called SWIFT--Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication--that tracks millions of financial' transfers, many of them between this country and others. SWIFT serves as a clearinghouse for financial institutions worldwide. The president was infuriated because, he said, disclosure of the program to tap into SWIFT's database ``does great harm to . . . America'' by tipping off suspects. That's debatable. Amid the hue and cry from the White House and Capitol Hill, less fevered voices tried to put things in perspective. Roger Cressey, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, said the White House is ``overreaching,'' that the SWIFT program ``has been in the public domain before.'' And a former U.S. diplomat, Victor Comras, who was involved at the United Nations in efforts to combat terrorist financing, told the Boston Globe: ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on,'' and that ``unless they [terrorists] were pretty dumb, they had to assume'' their transactions were being monitored. That makes sense. And so do the frenzied calls to crack down on the news media, at least in a politically partisan sense. Never mind that some members of Congress had been briefed on the program and that all Americans have known for years about the Government's efforts to uncover terrorist financial movements and seize assets. This issue provides a convenient campaign weapon for supporters of the Bush administration to use against ``soft- on-terrorism'' officeholders, especially Democrats, and against critics in the news media. All of the frothing in Washington raises the possibility that some in Congress will seek to muzzle the press with legislation, subpoenas or other means of intimidation. The long-term effects of such actions might stifle the free flow of information in a society that treasures it, but whose current administration not only has an overdeveloped passion for secrecy but has used that secrecy to cover an array of abuses, including the abuse of people in U.S. custody, some of whom turned out to be innocent. Such actions have tarnished America's reputation and subverted its values. They deserve to be held up to the light of day, no matter how unflattering the result may be to those now in power. The line between what's fair to publish and what might hurt national security is a blurry one. The First Amendment's durability rests not only on its text, but on a long-standing unwritten bargain between government and the press that both will do their best to avoid straying over that line. The burden is on an administration that has gone much too far in the name of national security to show that news organizations have done the same in the name of press freedom. That's not evident.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I was attending the funeral of a former colleague on Wednesday morning, June 28, 2006, and missed two procedural votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as noted: rollcall vote 331 ``yea''; rollcall vote 332 ``yea.''

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. We direct GAO to report this study to Congress no later than one year after enactment of this legislation, but I want to make so clear, the sooner we have this report the better. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleagues from Texas for your support on this amendment.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my other colleague from Texas who is cosponsoring, Mr. Gene Green.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs the GAO to study potential methods, practices and incentives that would increase the degree to which low-income property owners living in high-risk locations participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. I am joined in offering this amendment by two of my colleagues from Texas, Representative Gene Green and Ruben Hinojosa. I thank them for supporting this amendment. This is an important issue for our districts, but I think this is an equally important issue for Congress to consider. Most of the amendments we are considering address the impact of the pending updates of our national flood maps on property owners. It is difficult to craft a policy or an approach when you are missing the correlative information. In this case, the revised flood maps. We will reauthorize NFIP in 2008. Anticipating the degree to which these new maps will affect low-income property owners' participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is a good and necessary first step toward writing that legislation. I want to take this opportunity to begin to address the needs of low- income individuals who live in the floodplains or in high-risk flooding areas now. This amendment will ensure today's legislation will provide us with the information required to plan for the future of the flood insurance program. This is responsible and forward-looking policy, and I hope my colleagues will be able to support our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I have two additional speakers to speak on this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for supporting my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply asks that FEMA utilize emerging weather forecasting technology as they update our national flood maps. Applying such technologies gives us new ways to solve old problems and address rising challenges. FEMA needs to be prepared to utilize this technology as it becomes more available to us. This amendment makes sense. It will ensure that FEMA has the highest quality information when it works to determine the level of risk for vulnerable geographies. This language would not impose any additional financial burdens on FEMA. As a member of the Science Committee, I made it one of my priorities to find ways to integrate emerging technologies into complex policy initiatives. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this bill represents an incredible amount of collaboration between Chairman Baker and Ranking Member Frank. This is a very important bill. It makes reasonable changes to the flood insurance program. It will lay the foundation for a stronger, improved flood insurance program. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can enact this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I will proceed to close.

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, as the representative of a district in a floodplain, I understand the need for a healthy flood insurance program. My hometown of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. Whenever I talk about our efforts to improve Sacramento's level of flood protection, I also mention the importance of flood insurance. If you live behind a levee, you should have flood insurance. I also recognize that to accomplish this we need a healthy and robust National Flood Insurance Program. That is why the legislation we debate today, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, is so significant. Through this legislation, we will meet our responsibilities. We will ensure coverage is available to those at risk, and we will educate those same individuals as to the benefits of flood insurance. This bill takes us in that positive direction. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the deficiencies in the program were laid bare. What remained was a program $25 billion in debt with a questionable future. It is imperative that we rebuild the flood insurance program. For many Americans, owning insurance that protects against a flood is more valuable than in case of a fire. That is because homes in a federally designated special flood hazard area are three times as likely to be destroyed by flood as a fire. This is the case for almost three-fourths of all homes in Sacramento. This is an important program that must be reformed to ensure its long-term stability and solvency. The bill we are considering today makes reasonable reforms. It will lay the foundation for a stronger and improved flood insurance program. For that, I would like to thank Chairman Oxley, subcommittee Chairman Richard Baker and Ranking Member Barney Frank for their work on this bill, as well as the minority staff of the Financial Services Committee, particularly Jeff Riley, for all their tireless work. This bill takes important steps to modernize the flood insurance program. It raises maximum coverage limits to keep up with inflation. It provides new coverage for living expenses if you have to vacate your home, and it also provides optional coverage for basements and business interruption coverage for commercial properties. These are all positive steps that will allow the program to continue to provide peace of mind to those impacted when a flood event occurs. Moving forward, Congress is also making the flood insurance program sustainable in the long run. It tightens enforcement of purchase requirements and ends subsidies on vacation homes, second homes and businesses. These steps may not be popular, but the program needs this kind of tough medicine. Additionally, it directs FEMA to provide Congress with information that will allow us to evaluate whether we should modify the program's mandatory purchase requirements. This is an issue that demands serious consideration, and I know that we will hear further debate on it once this bill reaches conference. As I conclude, I would like to express my disappointment that an important amendment I offered was not adopted. It would have created an educational outreach grant program to ensure homeowners in high-risk flood areas retain their flood insurance. This grant program works. Last year, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, with a FEMA grant, conducted just such a campaign, SAFCA, and reached out to more than 45,000 NFIP policyholders in the American River floodplain with impressive results. Of this group, 43 percent now carry preferred risk flood insurance. Preferred risk policies provide policy owners who are protected by a levee or other flood mitigation method with full flood insurance at a reduced price. Because of the lower price, the preferred risk policies have a higher level of policy retention. To put the success in perspective, FEMA more than recouped its investment. SAFCA exceeded its target for policies, retained more than 20 times over, adding millions to the flood insurance program's bottom line. Extending these grants to other flood plains will only strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program. I will continue to move this program idea forward; and I look forward to working with Chairman Oxley, Chairman Baker and Ranking Member Frank on this grant program. Ensuring the long-term stability and solvency of this nearly 40-year- old program is critical. The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act is an excellent step in the right direction. As my grant program demonstrates, there is still more to do. Having said that, this is a good bill and a much-needed start. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can enact this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)