布什精彩演讲原文附原文(2008-03-13)
时间:2018-12-05 作者:英语课 分类:美国总统每日发言
President Bush Discusses FISA
THE PRESIDENT: Last month House leaders declared that they needed 21 additional days to pass legislation giving our intelligence professionals the tools they need to protect America. That deadline passed last Saturday without any action from the House.
This week House leaders are finally bringing legislation to the floor. Unfortunately, instead of holding a vote on the good bipartisan bill that passed the United States Senate, they introduced a partisan 1 bill that would undermine America's security. This bill is unwise. The House leaders know that the Senate will not pass it. And even if the Senate did pass it, they know I will veto it.
Yesterday the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence sent a leader [sic] to the Speaker explaining why the bill is dangerous to our national security. They cited a number of serious flaws in the bill, including the following:
First, the House bill could reopen dangerous intelligence gaps by putting in place a cumbersome 2 court approval process that would make it harder to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists. This is an approach that Congress explicitly 3 rejected last August when bipartisan majorities in both houses passed the Protect America Act. And it is an approach the Senate rejected last month when it passed a new -- new legislation to extend and strengthen the Protect America Act by an overwhelming vote of 68 to 29.
Now House leaders are proposing to undermine this consensus 4. Their partisan legislation would extend protections we enjoy as Americans to foreign terrorists overseas. It would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats, and it is a risk that our country cannot afford to take. (%bk%)
Second, the House bill fails to provide liability protection to companies believed to have assisted in protecting our nation after the 9/11 attacks. Instead, the House bill would make matters even worse by allowing litigation to continue for years. In fact, House leaders simply adopted the position that class action trial lawyers are taking in the multi-billion-dollar lawsuits 5 they have filed. This litigation would undermine the private sector's willingness to cooperate with the intelligence community, cooperation that is absolutely essential to protecting our country from harm. This litigation would require the disclosure of state secrets that could lead to the public release of highly classified information that our enemies could use against us. And this litigation would be unfair, because any companies that assisted us after 9/11 were assured by our government that their cooperation was legal and necessary.
Companies that may have helped us save lives should be thanked for their patriotic 6 service, not subjected to billion-dollar lawsuits that will make them less willing to help in the future. The House bill may be good for class action trial lawyers, but it would be terrible for the United States.
Third, the House bill would establish yet another commission to examine past intelligence activities. This would be a redundant 7 and partisan exercise that would waste our intelligence officials' time and taxpayers 8' money.
The bipartisan House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees have already held numerous oversight 9 hearings on the government's intelligence activities. It seems that House leaders are more interested in investigating our intelligence professionals than in giving them the tools they need to protect us. Congress should stop playing politics with the past and focus on helping 10 us prevent terrorist attacks in the future. (%bk%)
Members of the House should not be deceived into thinking that voting for this unacceptable legislation would somehow move the process along. Voting for this bill does not move the process along. Instead, voting for this bill would make our country less safe because it would move us further away from passing the good bipartisan Senate bill that is needed to protect America.
The American people understand the stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror. Congress has done little in the three weeks since the last recess 11, and they should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk.
Thank you.
- In their anger they forget all the partisan quarrels.愤怒之中,他们忘掉一切党派之争。
- The numerous newly created partisan detachments began working slowly towards that region.许多新建的游击队都开始慢慢地向那里移动。
- Although the machine looks cumbersome,it is actually easy to use.尽管这台机器看上去很笨重,操作起来却很容易。
- The furniture is too cumbersome to move.家具太笨,搬起来很不方便。
- The plan does not explicitly endorse the private ownership of land. 该计划没有明确地支持土地私有制。
- SARA amended section 113 to provide explicitly for a right to contribution. 《最高基金修正与再授权法案》修正了第123条,清楚地规定了分配权。 来自英汉非文学 - 环境法 - 环境法
- Can we reach a consensus on this issue?我们能在这个问题上取得一致意见吗?
- What is the consensus of opinion at the afternoon meeting?下午会议上一致的意见是什么?
- Lawsuits involving property rights and farming and grazing rights increased markedly. 涉及财产权,耕作与放牧权的诉讼案件显著地增加。 来自辞典例句
- I've lost and won more lawsuits than any man in England. 全英国的人算我官司打得最多,赢的也多,输的也多。 来自辞典例句
- His speech was full of patriotic sentiments.他的演说充满了爱国之情。
- The old man is a patriotic overseas Chinese.这位老人是一位爱国华侨。
- There are too many redundant words in this book.这本书里多余的词太多。
- Nearly all the redundant worker have been absorbed into other departments.几乎所有冗员,都已调往其他部门任职。
- Finance for education comes from taxpayers. 教育经费来自纳税人。
- She was declaiming against the waste of the taxpayers' money. 她慷慨陈词猛烈抨击对纳税人金钱的浪费。
- I consider this a gross oversight on your part.我把这件事看作是你的一大疏忽。
- Your essay was not marked through an oversight on my part.由于我的疏忽你的文章没有打分。