Heather Wilson

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to let my colleagues know that I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question on this rule. We have a problem, a very serious problem that we must address before the House adjourns in August, and this resolution which we have done before does not deal with the real issues that this House must address because of the threat that we face. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very simple and critical thing, that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States. The Director of National Intelligence has testified to us, as has the director of the CIA, that their hands are currently tied. They are being tied up, requiring warrants with probable cause, to listen to people who are terrorists who are not even in the United States because of the way the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is written. We cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind because of a law that is woefully outdated. All of us have heard what the Department of Homeland Security has said, the chatter is at levels we have not seen since the summer of 2001. And the Director of National Intelligence has testified we are missing significant portions of intelligence. We have to open our ears and open our eyes to keep this Nation safe. That is the critical issue we should be debating here today. And if we defeat the previous question, I will immediately offer that for the consideration of the House.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act, H.R. 1904. The New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act would assist the State of New Mexico with the development of comprehensive State water plans that will help the State more effectively manage our most precious natural resource--water. I introduced the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act on April 17, 2007, and Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman introduced companion legislation in the Senate on January 10, 2007. Mr. Speaker, this legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to: provide to New Mexico technical assistance and grants for the development of comprehensive State water plans; conduct water resources mapping in New Mexico; and conduct comprehensive studies of groundwater resources in New Mexico to assess the quantity, quality, and interaction of groundwater and surface water resources. The legislation also directs the Secretary, subject to the availability of appropriations, to allocate: $5 million to develop hydrologic models of eight New Mexico river systems; $2.5 million to complete the hydrologic models for the San Juan River and other Southwest New Mexico river systems; and $4.5 million for statewide digital orthophotography mapping. The Federal cost share shall be on a 50-50 match basis, and all Federal funds are to be non-reimbursable. Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico was the home to many indigenous southwestern peoples from A.D. 850 to 1250. Unfortunately, the Chacoans ingenuity in storing and channeling water was not enough to save them from a 50-year drought that began in 1130. The Chacoan pueblo people left Chaco Canyon in stages and established a string of pueblos along the Rio Grande and a few other desert rivers. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and State conservancy and irrigation districts flood control and reclamation projects along New Mexico's river systems that store water during wet years for use during dry years help ensure that New Mexico's current population will not have to relocate during extended periods of drought--like the Chacoans were forced to do more than eight centuries ago. However, like much of the West, the demands on New Mexico's ground and fresh water resources are immense and growing. For example, the First Congressional District of New Mexico is bisected by the Rio Grande. The flows of the Middle Rio Grande serve the biggest city in New Mexico, Albuquerque, many smaller cities, six Indian pueblos, and a network of agriculture users. Many of these farmers irrigate the same land as their Spanish ancestors did over 4 centuries ago. In addition there is the endangered silvery minnow, which, under a 2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion, requires 180 miles of continuous minimum river flow in the Middle Rio Grande. New Mexico has an average allotment of 393,000 acre-feet of Rio Grande water under the 1938 interstate compact that apportions the Rio Grande between Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. These demands have stretched this allotment to the limit. Further complicating the picture is the fact that Article VII of the Rio Grande Compact severely restricts New Mexico's ability to store native water upstream at Heron, Abiquiu, El Vado, or Cochiti Reservoir. Thus far, New Mexico's water managers have been able to stretch New Mexico limited water supplies to meet the expanding demands of New Mexico cities, industries, Indian pueblos, and endangered species, without widespread displacement of its historical agriculture users. By providing Federal water planning assistance to New Mexico's water managers this important legislation will help stretch New Mexico's limited water resources; and, as a result, will help prevent waters conflict in New Mexico well into the future. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1904.

Ms. WILSON of New Mexico

Ms. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, on June 17, 2007, our nation lost a wonderful man and veteran: Agapito ``Gap'' Encinias Silva, from Albuquerque, New Mexico. Gap was a man of extraordinary character. A World War II veteran, Gap was a member of the distinguished 200th Coastal Artillery, a unit from the New Mexico Army National Guard. Gap found himself stationed at Fort Stotsenberg on Clark Field in the Philippines when World War II broke out. Along with his fellow soldiers, Gap became one of the ``Battling Bastards of Bataan'' who held out on the peninsula until they had nothing more to fight with. He survived the infamous Bataan Death March and was interned by the Japanese as a POW for 3\1/2\ years. For his service, Gap Silva earned the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, along with numerous other decorations. Gap's courage during those difficult years still stands as a testament to the strength and the resilience of the human spirit. When he came back home, Gap continued to be active within the veteran community, choosing to be involved with organizations such as the Bataan Veterans organization, the American Ex-POWS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor. Gap selflessly gave of himself to other veterans to help them with their needs, and to make a difference in their lives. Gap was indeed a leader for his fellow New Mexican veterans. He will be greatly missed. I first met Gap through his son, whom I worked with in State government. I got to know him even better while working on veterans issues as a Member of Congress. There are a handful of people who really stand out and make an impression on you during the course of one's work. Gap was one of those. He brought dignity and grace to his community service. Gap is survived by his wife, Socorro, and their seven children, Fred, Patricia, Michael, Agapito Jr., Maurice, Jerome and Erlinda Silva. Gap is also survived by twelve grandchildren: Reina Silva, Thomas Silva, Theresa Utash, Phillip Silva, Emma Gonzales, Danielle Gonzales, James Gonzales, Amanda Silva, Melanie Silva, Rachel Silva, and Emily Silva. Gap also had several great grandchildren, to help carry on his family legacy: Nyssa, Gianna, Jayden, Jude and Sophia. In addition, Gap is survived by his sister Jennie Noriega and by many nieces and nephews. Madam Speaker, please join with me in paying tribute to Agapito ``Gap'' Encinias Silva; an unforgettable American hero.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, in January of this year, I introduced the companion to the Senate measure that we're considering today, and I wanted to thank both my colleagues from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce and Mr. Udall, for their support of that legislation. I'm very happy today that the House is taking up the Senate version of this bill, which is supported both by Senator Bingaman and by Senator Domenici. I am also very pleased that the governor of New Mexico, Governor Richardson, and a wide variety of veterans' organizations in New Mexico, have supported this legislation. Jerry Murphy passed away on April of this year, on Good Friday. He was a hero in Korea, as my colleagues have pointed out, but it's the way he chose to spend the rest of his life that makes him so special to New Mexico's veterans. He was a Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps Reserves. He volunteered to go into the Marine Corps when it looked as though he was going to be drafted and sent to Korea in the Army and he thought the Marine Corps might suit him better. In 1952, he commanded an infantry platoon in the Fifth Marines in Seoul, Korea, and was a recipient of the Silver Star. In February of 1953, he positioned his unit about the Imjin River facing the Chinese Communist troops. Their job was to continually push the Chinese lines to keep them from getting too dug in. He was commanding the reserve platoon, and as the battle went on and he sensed that the operation was not being executed as planned because there were no wounded coming back to the lines, he decided he had to go forward and find out what was going on. When he took his platoon forward, he found that all the officers and the noncommissioned officers of the two assault platoons were dead or wounded, and there was mass confusion among the troops. He very quickly took command, and in the midst of machine gun fire, he ordered his men to find their comrades and evacuate the area. He made several trips in the midst of heavy gunfire to rescue casualties. At one point, he was helping to lift a stretcher and he was hit in the back by the fragments of an enemy grenade. He refused medical attention and continued to lead his men to rescue their wounded comrades. As he continued to command his reserves, he came face to face with two Chinese soldiers, and he killed them both. The Chinese entered the trenches as the last American wounded troops were being evacuated. Jerry Murphy picked up an automatic rifle and held off the Chinese Communist forces until all of the marines were safe. He then went and counted all his marines. He noticed he had a handful still missing, and he went back to the top of the hill with a search team. He located the bodies of a machine gun crew and took them down the hill. At this point, he was wounded a second time. He again refused medical treatment until all his men had preceded him into the main line. He eventually received treatment and returned to America. In October, 1953, when he was in graduate school, Jerry Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor. It was presented to him by President Eisenhower on October 27, 1953. For more than 20 years after Jerry Murphy left the service, he dedicated his life to serving New Mexico veterans. He served at the VA hospital as Director for Veterans Services. For 23 years, he provided lots of support to all kinds of veterans in New Mexico. The neat thing is that even after he retired from the VA, he continued to volunteer at the VA hospital. One of the VA hospital employees once told me that Jerry Murphy was a volunteer; he had his turquoise smock on, and he would push veterans to and from their appointments at the VA hospital. The veterans had no idea who it was that was pushing them around in their wheelchairs. He was always a humble servant. That is the kind of man he was: A quiet, humble servant, soft-spoken, a modest man who was concerned with his fellow soldiers. His humility really never ended. You know, if you think about this guy, he was a Marine, a Medal of Honor winner, and he chose to be put to rest wearing his VA volunteer smock. He will be missed by his family and his wife, Mary Ann. I want to commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for sponsoring this legislation and ushering it through the Senate; my colleagues, Mr. Pearce and Mr. Udall, for cosponsoring the House version of the bill; Secretary John Garcia of New Mexico for first suggesting to all of us that it might be appropriate to name the VA medical center after Jerry; the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Filner, for their leadership and willingness to bring this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment, and I will tell my colleagues I intend to withdraw it at the end of my presentation, but there is an issue that has been festering between two agencies that I think Congress needs to go ahead and take action to resolve. This amendment ensures that the Department of Energy Office of Science and the Office of Biological and Environmental Research spends $37 million on medical isotope research in an account that is known as Medical Applications and Measurement Science. This would restore the funding to FY 2005 levels. Medical isotopes are used extensively in imaging technology for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, heart disease, and several neurological disorders. The program that DOE runs funds basic research in new diagnostic and therapeutic applications using nuclear isotopes. This research has identified new metabolic labels and imaging detectors that have helped identify colon cancer, brain tumors, bone cancers and many other cancers. In addition, this research would fund new radiopharmaceuticals to attach to specific cancer cells and treat them and prevent metastasis. Congress reduced this program in fiscal year 2006 by $23 million because of pressures on the other part of the DOE budget, but also directed them to transfer the program over to the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute. The NIH did not pick up this research; and in a recent meeting with scientists who do this research, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the director at NIH, said NIH does not do this type of research; NIH cannot do this type of research. They don't have the expertise in the nuclear materials required, and also that this research must go forward. The new director of Office of Biological and Environmental Research has said that he understands the need for DOE to conduct this research and has said he could provide the funding within his own budget within this research at the fiscal year 2005 level if directed to do so by Congress. The National Academy of Sciences is currently conducting a review of this program, and I think this program does need to go forward. The funds in this particular program, in the last year that it was at this level, FY 2005, funded on the basis of competitive grants programs and research projects in 40 different locations, largely universities, some national laboratories, most of them in the State of California, although also at Case Western University in Ohio in New York, and across the country, but it is critical research using radiopharmaceuticals and targets, enriched targets, that really only the Department of Energy works with. For that reason, that's the appropriate place to do this research. Now, for technical and procedural reasons, I understand that there is a legitimate point of order against this particular amendment that's legitimate, but I did want to at least raise this issue and say we need to sort this out, that the appropriate place for this nuclear research is actually in the Department of Energy rather than at the NIH, and the NIH has said, no, we don't have the expertise to do it. We need to sort this out to continue this highly successful research. I strongly support it, and I hope that we would be able to work with the Senate in conference to make sure that this program is appropriately funded through the Office of Science. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member of the committee.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the House something that is being done in this bill that I think has received insufficient discussion and debate. This Energy and Water appropriations bill includes in it the most radical shift in U.S. policy on nuclear weapons that I have seen at least since the mid-1990s, that will lead us either to be forced to return to nuclear testing or to abandon nuclear deterrence because we stop maintaining the stockpile. Without any debate, we have made this drastic change in this bill that is devastating to American nuclear weapons capabilities and will significantly change our policy on nuclear weapons without any discussion at all of any substance. In 1992, the United States stopped nuclear testing. In 1996 we joined the moratorium on nuclear testing and said we will continue to maintain the stockpile through something called science-based stockpile stewardship. It is kind of like if you had a car that was a 1980s car and you said okay, we are never going to turn the key, but every year through science and engineering we are going to be able to tell the President, if we turned the key we believe it would be safe, secure and reliable. The car would go on. It won't be turned on unless we turn the key; and, Mr. President, we are confident of that. This bill devastates that capability with respect to our nuclear weapons. It has a 20-percent reduction in 1 year in the engineering laboratory that is solely responsible for over 6,000 parts in our nuclear weapons. It has a 40-percent reduction at Los Alamos National Lab's nuclear weapons program. And 80 percent of the existing stockpile is designed by Los Alamos. They are responsible for being able to tell us if these weapons are safe, secure and reliable. What does this mean? It means we will not be able to achieve the stockpile reductions we're trying to achieve because the labs will not have the sense of reliability of the stockpile. Your percentage of reliability determines how low you can bring the stockpile. Second, we are increasing the likelihood of the need to go back to underground testing, because at some point in the future, the lab directors will not be able to certify the reliability of the stockpile. There will be a problem, as there is every year; and they won't have the tools to be able to assess that problem without nuclear testing. And, third, you are undermining allied confidence in the American nuclear umbrella. Mr. Obey, my colleague, said they're devastating this program because there's been no strategy for post-Cold War nuclear weapons. That is a complete fallacy. It is rubbish. We signed the Moscow treaty to reduce the size of our deployed stockpile. We have gone to a policy of no underground testing. We have gone to a policy of science-based stockpile stewardship and the majority in this House is moving toward a nuclear freeze and unilateral disarmament without any debate whatsoever. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill for FY 08. My amendment would devote $2 million dollars from the Department Administration General Operations Expenses Account, of the nearly $1.6 billion appropriated in this bill, to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. The intent of my amendment is that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans would establish a commission to evaluate and make recommendations for improvements to the VA system so that it can better meet health care needs of women veterans. In 1978, I purchased a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado to enroll at the Air Force Academy. I was in the third class that accepted women into our service academies. I am the only woman veteran serving in the Congress. Women face different obstacles than men when trying to receive care from the VA. To start with, many women who have served in the military don't call themselves ``veterans'' and many women don't think of the VA as ``their'' system. A larger number of women are serving in military and in the future we will see a higher number of women veterans. One in seven Americans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman. My goal in proposing this amendment is to bring together a group of people who can truly devote the time and effort to study the needs and examine the challenges our women veterans face. They then can report to Congress their finding and recommendations so that we, as a body, can evaluate these findings and implement improvements and initiatives to ensure women receive the care they have earned. I introduced legislation similar to my amendment, H.R. 2394, the Bipartisan Commission on Wounded Women Veterans. This amendment would fund the commission envisioned in H.R. 2394. I am grateful to all who serve their nation and we as a Congress have a responsibility to ensure they receive the best possible care. In this war on terrorism, the greatest burdens have fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. Events over the last few years have made a new generation of Americans realize just how precious our freedoms really are. We owe our freedom fighters--past, present, and future--a debt of gratitude for their selflessness and sacrifice. I will continue to fight to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our Nation owes them. Thank you for the time and I ask for a yes vote on my amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill this year. My amendment would designate and devote $2 million from the Department of Administration general operations expenses account. This is a very large account. The President requested $1.4 billion for that account. This body is appropriating $1.6 billion for that account, and what it does is fence that money and say that $2 million of this must be devoted and appropriated to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. The intent of this amendment is that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans would undertake a special effort, through a task force or special commission, to study and make recommendations on the health care needs of women veterans. All of us are concerned about whether the veterans health care system is meeting the needs of this newest generation of veterans. But there is a special category of veterans that I think sometimes gets overlooked. In 1978, I got a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the third class with women at the United States Air Force Academy. And I walked up a ramp, and over that ramp was a big sign in aluminum letters that said, ``Bring Me Men.'' That sign stayed there for 20 years after women were admitted to the Air Force Academy. It's gone now, but some of us as women veterans feel that maybe the VA hospitals have a similar sign over their doors, if not literally, then certainly figuratively. I am the only woman veteran serving in the Congress. And women veterans face different obstacles than men and have different health care needs than men when they start to get care from the VA. To start with, many women don't even consider themselves or call themselves veterans, and they don't think of the VA as their system. A larger number of women are serving in the military, and in the future we are going to see higher numbers of women veterans, and they will face different problems and challenges as they age. One in seven veterans of the current war on terrorism, one in seven Americans who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman, and yet the VA health care system is very oriented towards the health care needs of men. Just let me give you one example. If you are a veteran and you go to the VA for a clinic on PTSD, if everyone else in that group is a guy, are you really getting the care that is appropriate to you? A lot of women veterans don't feel comfortable in those settings. They are not sure that the OB/GYN care is what they need. If they face osteoporosis, they're not sure that the VA is where they should be. Or if they face problems with cancers particular to women, is the VA going to meet their needs? My goal in proposing this amendment is to get the VA to bring together a group of people who can truly devote the time and effort needed to study the needs of women veterans and examine the care that is available to our women veterans and the challenges that we face so that they can report their findings to Congress and to the VA so that we as a body can evaluate and adjust the system so that all of our veterans get the care that they have earned. I am very grateful, and I think all Americans are, to those who serve our Nation, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they receive the best possible care. The burdens of this war on terrorism has fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. We owe them, our veterans past, present and future, a debt of gratitude for their selflessness and for their service. We need to make sure that our veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our Nation owes them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank my colleague for his support of this effort. I look forward to working with him to make sure that the VA undertakes this effort and takes it seriously, and we get some good, solid recommendations that all of us can work on. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, the following graduating high school students from the First Congressional District of New Mexico have been awarded the Congressional Certificate of Merit. These students have excelled during their academic careers and proven themselves to be exceptional students and leaders with their scholastic achievements, community service, and participation in school and civic activities. It is my pleasure to be able to recognize these outstanding students for their accomplishments. Their parents, their teachers, their classmates, the people of New Mexico and I are proud of them. Certificate of Merit Award Winners 2007 Daniel Lerma, Robert F. Kennedy Charter High School; Jennifer Roberts, Mountainair High School; Jennifer Johnston, Del Norte High School; James H. Caughren, Sandia Preparatory School; Arthur Chacon, Manzano High School; Siobhan Degnan, Southwest Secondary Learning Center; Abigail Martinez, South Valley Academy; Molly Nelson, Albuquerque Academy; Ashley Marie Maturino, Evangel Christian Academy; Ruby Trujillo, Rio Grande High School; Nicholas A. Maestas, Highland High School; David Aaron Parks, Cibola High School; Kelsey Byrne, Moriarty High School; Mathew Garcia, West Mesa High School; Eric Layer, Sandia High School; and Austin Baker, Temple Baptist Academy. Angelica Aguilar, Los Puentes Charter School; Amanda Fernandez May, St. Pius X High School; Ashley Hope Darnell, Bernalillo High School; Sara Beth Dunham, Victory Christian School; Geri Lucia Lia, Menaul School; Corina Franco, New Futures School; Kelly Walker, Bosque School; Kelly D. Clingenpeel, Sierra Alternative High School; Audrey Wofford, Hope Christian School; Desiree J. Sandoval, Cesar Chavez Community School; Katie Gilliam, La Cueva High School; James C. Bohnhoff, El Dorado High School; Elizabeth McConaghy, Los Lunas High School; Charles Andres Padilla, East Mountain High School; Stacy Daniels, Valley High School; and Lindsay Riblett, Moriarty High School.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, the Democrat leadership has blocked several important amendments on this bill, and I will oppose this rule. But there is one that they block that makes absolutely no sense, and it really calls into question the priorities of the majority on the Rules Committee. There are 2 million women in this country's history who have served in uniform. All of them have been volunteers, and I was one of them. I am the only woman veteran serving in the United States Congress. One in seven Americans serving in Iraq or Afghanistan are women, and the challenges that they face when they come home are often different than their male counterparts, particularly when accessing health care from both DOD facilities and VA facilities. Many women veterans don't even call themselves veterans and don't know that they are eligible for care, and care is not always available that is appropriate for women in the VA system. I offered an amendment that was noncontroversial, and it wasn't even particularly aggressive. All it said was that we should have a bipartisan commission to make some recommendations to us to get a group of people together, including women veterans, to make recommendations to this House on how we can make this system better for women veterans so they can get the health care that they need, and all of us have seen the problems that women veterans are facing. The amendment wasn't made in order. Now, I know, like everyone else, that time on the floor is limited, and we can't do everything. But I would note that an amendment was made in order for a study in Ms. Slaughter's district, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for a plan for Niagara Air Reserve Base in her district. So we have got time on the floor to have an amendment for a study for Ms. Slaughter, but 2 million women veterans don't count as much. So I would ask my colleague here from Florida, who is here defending the decision of the Rules Committee, why did you, in your committee, think it was more important to allow an amendment for a study of Niagara Air Reserve Base in Ms. Slaughter's district and to turn your back on 2 million women veterans? I yield 30 seconds to get an answer from the Rules Committee. Why is the Niagara Air Reserve Base study more important than helping 2 million women veterans get their health care? You didn't rule my amendment in order. What's your excuse?

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I am not, as the gentlewoman knows, I am not a member of the Armed Services Committee. This is my opportunity to offer the amendment, and you have set your priorities.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I am here to urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the previous question on the rule for the Intelligence authorization bill today. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that was similar to one that I offered in the Intelligence Committee that would modernize our foreign intelligence surveillance laws so that we can listen to the terrorists trying to kill us, while protecting Americans' civil liberties. Every member of the House Intelligence Committee knows that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not working, and so does the Speaker of the House. In fact, she has been briefed on this earlier than any of us have, since shortly after 9/11. Last week, in unclassified session in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, urged the Congress to modernize our intelligence surveillance laws. He told us and the world, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' We are missing a significant portion of what we should be getting. In January of this year, the Attorney General of the United States wrote to the Congress and said there were new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders that were innovative, that would put the President's terrorist surveillance program underneath the auspices of a judge in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They are innovative, because the court is stretching the law like a twin sheet over a king-sized bed. And every member of the Intelligence Committee knows just how fragile the legal framework is in this arrangement. Yet, a single judge in a nonadversarial secret setting has said it is okay to go forward on this basis because it is important to the country, and the Congress has failed to act. Will the next judge go along? Every one of us knows there is a problem. Here is the problem: In 1978, almost all local calls were on wire and almost all long distance calls were transmitted by microwave over the air. The FISA law distinguishes between collection over a wire and collection over the air. You don't need a FISA warrant to collect signals over the air. And that is where long-haul communications were in 1978. Now, in 21st-century communications, the situation is completely reversed. Most long-haul communications are on wire and most local calls are over the air. 230 million Americans have cell phones, but the FISA law we operate under is stuck in the 1970s, while we are trying to protect this country from terrorists who are exploiting the 21st- century technology that was invented by this great country. We are tying the hands of our intelligence agencies while our enemies are using these communication systems to plot to kill Americans. But the rule is even worse than that. The committee has ruled in order an amendment by Mr. Flake and Mr. Schiff that insists, insists that our intelligence agencies must use this outdated 1978 law. What do you think the FISA judges are going to think when they see that pass the House of Representatives? We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting. What did we miss today? What are the terrorists plotting today? What are they talking about that is flowing over the wires that America built today? Who is going to die tomorrow because you won't let our Intelligence Committees listen to the foreign communications on a wire and you will not allow a debate on this floor on this very important issue? I pray to God that we don't need another 9/11 Commission to look at what our failures were in intelligence. Because if we have to look at failures, if we have to look at whether we should have done something when we had a chance, then mark this vote on this day in history, when the Democrat majority in this House chose to tie our hands in the face of a determined enemy. If we defeat the previous question on this rule, we will offer the amendment to modernize our intelligence surveillance laws to update them for 21st-century technology. A vote in favor of the previous question on this rule is a vote to keep the FISA law frozen in time in 1978, while our enemies use 21st-century communications to plot to kill Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Rule for debate and the previous question on the Intelligence Authorization Bill today. This vote is more important than most procedural things we do around here. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would modernize our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Laws so that we can listen to the terrorists trying to kill us and protect the civil liberties of Americans. Every member of the House Intelligence Committee knows that the FISA law is not working, and so does the Speaker of the House. She has been briefed on these matters since shortly after 9/11--long before any of us were. Last week, in unclassified session in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence urged the Congress to modernize this law. He told us and the world, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' In classified session, the details of the problems are even worse. On January 17, 2007 the Attorney General told the Congress that there were new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders that are ``innovative''. They are ``innovative'' because the court is stretching the law like a twin sized sheet to cover a king sized bed. And every member of the Intelligence Committee knows just how fragile this legal arrangement is. Yet, a single judge in a non-adversarial secret session allowed it is important to the security of the country and because the Congress has failed to act. Will the next judge continue to stretch the law? The Problem In 1978 almost all local calls were on wire and almost all long-haul calls were over the air. The FISA law distinguishes between collection on a wire and collection out of the air. You don't need a FISA warrant to collect foreign intelligence over the air. Now, in 21st century communications, the situation is completely reverse. Most long-haul communications are on a wire and local calls are in the air. But the calls we want, for foreign intelligence information, are on the wires and fiber optic cables. The FISA law we operate under is stuck in the 1970s while we are trying to protect this country from enemies that use 21st century communications. We're tying the hands of our intelligence agencies while our enemies are using the communications systems we built to plot to kill us. But It Gets Worse But the rule is even worse than that. The committee has ruled in order an amendment by Mr. Flake and Mr. Schiff that says our agencies must use this outdated 1978 law. The Democrat leadership will insist that we turn our backs on 21st century terrorists, using 21st century communications and pretend we can be frozen in a 1978 world. ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting,'' said our Director of National Intelligence. What did we miss today? What are the terrorists plotting today? Who is going to die tomorrow because you won't let our intelligence agencies listen to foreign communications on a wire? I pray to God we never need another ``9/11 Commission'' that looks at how we failed to protect ourselves when we could have done something. If we do, mark this vote, this day in history, when the Democrat majority in this House chose to tie our hands in the face of a determined enemy. A vote in favor of the previous question on this rule is a vote to keep the FISA law frozen in time in 1978 while our enemies use 21st century communications to plot to kill Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I would agree with my colleague Mr. Cramer that much of this bill was developed in a bipartisan way. And one of the reasons that I like the Intelligence Committee is we don't have the C-SPAN effect. The cameras are off, and we get down to doing some very serious and important business on behalf of the country. While we fixed a lot of things in the initial draft of the bill in committee, particularly with respect to technical intelligence and overhead systems, there are two very serious concerns that I still have that cause me to stand here today and oppose the bill. The first is that there is a significant reduction in human intelligence in some very important special accounts, and they are reductions that are marked and serious and will impact our ability to conduct human intelligence in an area of the world where it is absolutely critical, not only for current operations but for our long- term security in the region. We can't cut human intelligence. That was one of the number one recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We have to strengthen human intelligence after a decade of neglect. The second problem is that this bill fails to address in any way one of the most important problems that we face in the intelligence community, and that is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Director of National Intelligence came to the committee with written recommendations on how we need to update and modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and this bill does nothing. He said to us we are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting. Because of the way the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is written, we are not collecting critical intelligence important to this country. We should have addressed that in this bill. The DNI asked us to address that in this bill because we were operating with one hand tied behind our back. That is dangerous for this country and causes me to oppose this bill.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When the President acknowledged the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, he claimed the inherent authority, under article II of the Constitution, as the Commander in Chief to be able to conduct that surveillance. Now, whether you agree or don't agree with his interpretation of the Constitution, this amendment, and a bill with this amendment in it, does not change the Constitution. I will admit to the gentleman from California I personally believe that the legal arguments that were presented in favor of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were not strong. They weren't strong at all. And that is why I demanded more rigorous oversight to the program and proposed legislation to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that we can listen to our enemies and protect the civil liberties of Americans. The sad thing is that the bipartisan leadership of this body, Democrat and Republican, knew for 5 years this program was going on and did nothing to update the laws or even propose that perhaps this was wrong to do this this way. They remained silent. The failure is in the Congress. We now know that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as it is currently written, is not getting us critical information about our enemies and also, frankly, not protecting the civil liberties of Americans. It is broken and not working. The Director of National Intelligence testified last week in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying that we are missing important information because this law is trapped in 1970s technology. In January of this year, the Attorney General wrote to the Congress and said that we now have innovative orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By ``innovative'' what he really meant is that we are on very fragile legal ground. I describe it as putting a twin-size sheet on a king-size bed, and everybody on the Intelligence Committee knows exactly what I mean. We have one judge, in a nonadversarial proceeding, in secret session, who has approved some innovative orders. He is way out on a legal limb. So what will the next judge do? And after this amendment passes saying, by golly, we are determined to stay in the 1970s, the Congress is happy with a 1970s law governing 1970s technology, what is the next judge going to do? And how does that compromise our national security? We have a problem. In 1978 almost all local communications went over a wire and almost all long-haul communications went over the air. The statute sets up different regimes for what to do for over-the-wire communications that you need a warrant for to collect foreign intelligence information. Over the air the sky is the limit. We now, in the 21st century, have things completely reversed. Now almost all local calls are over the air. 230 million Americans have cell phones, and yet almost all long- distance calls are over wires. The information that we critically need is on the wires. This law is outdated, and we are stuck with our heads in the sand in 1970s law. And your amendment insists that we stay there. I will oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been amended since 1978 several times. But what has not changed is the basic structure of the law, that it treats wire communications differently than it treats over-the-air communications. You do not need a warrant to gather foreign intelligence information that is flowing through the air by radio waves or cell tower or microwave or anything else. We do it. You do need it over a wire. The law needs to be technology neutral and it is not. What you are doing by your amendment is reaffirming that this House tonight is determined to stay with the 1970s law and 1970s technology. And this House also rejected an amendment that would have updated these statutes. My colleague from Arizona says do we need to change FISA? We really don't know. We have a written submission from the Director of National Intelligence telling us the changes that need to be made. I urge my colleagues to look to the 21st-century technology to protect this country and reject the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, the following graduating high school students from the First Congressional District of New Mexico have been awarded the Congressional Certificate of Merit. These students have excelled during their academic careers and proven themselves to be exceptional students and leaders with their scholastic achievements, community service, and participation in school and civic activities. It is my pleasure to be able to recognize these outstanding students for their accomplishments. Their parents, their teachers, their classmates, the people of New Mexico and I are proud of them. Certificate of Merit Award Winners 2007 Daniel Lerma, Robert F. Kennedy Charter High School; Jennifer Roberts, Mountainair High School; Jennifer Johnston, Del Norte High School; James H. Caughren, Sandia Preparatory School; Arthur Chacon, Manzano High School; Siobhan Degnan, Southwest Secondary Learning Center; Abigail Martinez, South Valley Academy; Molly Nelson, Albuquerque Academy; Ashley Marie Maturino, Evangel Christian Academy; Ruby Trujillo, Rio Grande High School; Nicholas A. Maestas, Highland High School; David Aaron Parks, Cibola High School; Kelsey Byrne, Moriarty High School; Mathew Garcia, West Mesa High School; Eric Layer, Sandia High School; and Austin Baker, Temple Baptist Academy. Angelica Aguilar, Los Puentes Charter School; Amanda Fernandez May, St. Pius X High School; Ashley Hope Darnell, Bernalillo High School; Sara Beth Dunham, Victory Christian School; Geri Lucia Lia, Menaul School; Corina Franco, New Futures School; Kelly Walker, Bosque School; Kelly D. Clingenpeel, Sierra Alternative High School; Audrey Wofford, Hope Christian School; Desiree J. Sandoval, Cesar Chavez Community School; Katie Gilliam, La Cueva High School; James C. Bohnhoff, El Dorado High School; Elizabeth McConaghy, Los Lunas High School; Charles Andres Padilla, East Mountain High School; and Stacy Daniels, Valley High School.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, H.R. 1538. This legislation will enhance the way the Department of Defense provides medical care for wounded warriors. Furthermore, the legislation will improve the transition of soldiers from the Department of Defense health care system to the Department of Veterans Affairs. An evaluation of care that our wounded men and women are receiving is requested in the legislation. I strongly support these provisions. The Wounded Warriors Assistance Act will help address and eliminate the red tape that veterans and soldiers get tangled in. My home district in Albuquerque is home to one of the premier VA hospitals in the country. They provide excellent care and support to our veterans. This legislation will improve the transition that New Mexico Service Members may face when leaving the Department of Defense medical system and returning to New Mexico to receive care at Albuquerque VA hospital. Specifically, the improvements will include a written transition plan specifying the schedule of milestones for transition of the member from the military service before the date of separation or retirement and set up a formal process for transmittal of records and other information to the Department of Veterans Affairs on or before the date of separation or retirement during a formal meeting. Furthermore, the legislation would require the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a single medical information system, which will be a significant improvement for our service members. I look forward to the findings of the many reports requested in the legislation. It will allow us as a body to evaluate these findings and implement improvements and initiatives that will continue to support our brave men and women. I am grateful to all who serve their nation and we as a Congress have a responsibility to ensure they receive the best possible care. In this war on terrorism, the greatest burdens have fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. Events over the last few years have made a new generation of Americans realize just how precious our freedoms really are. We owe our freedom fighters--past, present, and future--a debt of gratitude for their selflessness and sacrifice. I will continue to fight to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our nation owes them.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall vote 178 on H.R. 740, the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual spending bill, because we are voting to spend money for the military while putting conditions on the use of that money that will make it highly likely that our military will fail. That doesn't make any sense. This bill is also an example of the wisdom of the Constitution that was written so many years ago, and we would be well advised to respect the wisdom of that Constitution that separates the powers among the branches. We need to understand our role here as a Congress. It is not to micromanage dwell times and to put limits on deployments so that the sergeants and the captains who are jumping through enough hoops as it is have one more set of hoops to jump through, courtesy of the United States Congress. History will not end on your schedule. We need real leadership from this House to focus on what America's vital national interests are and how we will pursue those interests for the long term.