Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 562 provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3093, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and ranking member for reporting out a bill that not only does not pay lip service but makes critical investment in our Nation's communities.

The bill provides $725 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, more commonly known as the COPS program, 25 percent above the current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.

The administration had proposed to modify the COPS program into a new discretionary grant program, but the committee has chosen instead to keep COPS as a separate dedicated grant program. This is a proven model for getting these grants to the communities that need them, and I applaud the committee for preserving this program.

The bill includes $303 million for Economic Development Administration, the EDA. The EDA administers several economic development programs including public work grants for upgrading infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment assistance for communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to other countries.

Additionally, the legislation would direct the EDA to consider with favorable bias grant proposals which incorporate green technologies and strategies that would reduce energy consumption, reduce harmful gas emissions, and contribute to sustainability.

The bill provides $50 million, 52 percent more than the current funding, for the Weed and Seed program. The Weed and Seed program helps localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime, and then take the all-important step that is so often left out of seeding the formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in cities, such as my home in Utica, New York, and

sponsor activities such as truancy prevention, conflict resolution, mentoring, and job training for at-risk youths.

Additionally, the bill, this resolution, provides for consideration and includes $40 million for grants, technical assistance, and training to State and local governments to develop dedicated drug courts that subject nonviolent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives, and sanctions.

As a DA, I quickly learned that no matter what initiatives law enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it never really affected the demand for drugs which never seemed to diminish and, therefore, created a seemingly endless market for drug dealers. But when my office established the county's drug court program, I realized the powerful effect that the program had in helping enrolled participants get control of their addiction and thereby reducing their demand for drugs. The appropriation of $40 million for drug court provided by H.R. 3093 is $30 million more than the current level, and I congratulate the committee for increasing funds for this vital and proven weapon on the war on drugs.

H.R. 3093 would also create incentives to fight illegal immigration. It would prohibit the Federal Government from using any of these funds on any entity that does not participate in the basic pilot program which allows employers to verify whether potential or current employees can legally work in the United States. This voluntary pilot program was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 and allows employers to verify employment status through an automated system linked to the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security data bases.

This legislation also includes $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation. This level of funding will support the doubling of NSF's budget over the next 10 years, and represents a true commitment to investment in basic research and development, which will provide for innovation and future technologies. This commitment is an important part of the innovation agenda designed to maintain the United States' competitiveness.

H.R. 3093 also includes over $17.6 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research; and this appropriation enables them to accomplish this mission by restoring some of the cuts made by the administration to science, aeronautics, and education portfolios at the agency. This recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of NASA's Moon- Mars goals. The act calls on NASA to expand human knowledge, develop and operate advanced aeronautical and space-faring vehicles; encourage commercial use of space; coordinate with other U.S. agencies to maximize research results; cooperate with other nations in research and applications and to preserve U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space.

This bill also prohibits the use of funds by the FBI to issue National Security Letters in contravention of the statutes authorizing their use. National Security Letters enable the FBI to secretly review customer records of suspected foreign agents without judicial review. In March, the Department of Justice Inspector General reported that the FBI agents had in numerous cases misused National Security Letters without complying with either statutes or DOJ guidelines governing their use. This widespread abuse of secret investigatory powers undermines the very notions of liberty and freedom from tyranny upon which this Nation was founded. The prohibition on use of funds contained in H.R. 3093 will ensure that such abuse does not continue.

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important programs for which H.R. 3093 would appropriate funds. My remarks have focused on the criminal justice, NASA funding, and economic development aspects of the bill; but there are many other important areas addressed in this legislation. It provides funding for critical scientific research, including several programs which study global warming and climate change that the administration attempted to eliminate. The Appropriations Committee has approved a bill which would maintain the funding of this critical research, and I once again thank them for their work and welcome a chance to vote in favor of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his comments, and I couldn't agree with him more. Clearly, the safety of our Nation from foreign enemies is critical, and it's something that needs to be a priority and is a priority with this Congress and prior Congresses.

But one thing that I think is critical that we can never forget is safety doesn't begin at our borders. Safety is something that we need to recognize within our borders as well, and this bill takes great strides in terms of ensuring that our children are safe when they go to school. It puts more police officers on the street. It increases funding for the DNA database to help us locate rapists and criminals who have committed crimes and locate them and

bring them to justice. It funds the drug court program, which is critical in terms of dealing with people who are addicted to drugs.

This bill takes a balanced approach to law enforcement, takes a balanced approach to what this country needs to keep our citizens safe, both internally and externally as well. And I believe that it is a very good bill, and that we should support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of the CJS subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's passion and concern. We are all very concerned for the safety of our country.

But I think it is critical that we not forget the reason we are here today. We are here to debate a rule which is very concerned, which deals with a balanced approach to making our country safer domestically, to being concerned with putting more police officers on the street, for increasing funding for Drug Corps, for increasing funding for science and NASA. That is what we are here to do today. That is what we are here to debate, and I would strongly urge passage of this ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has presented us with a bill that will provide funding agencies related to Commerce, Justice and Science for the fiscal year 2008.

The bill contains a higher overall allocation than was requested by the President, but with very good reason. By all measures this bill will have a real, tangible impact on all Americans, improving their daily lives in many ways. It funds the Economic Development Administration, Weed & Seed program, prescription drug monitoring, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Census Bureau, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and community-oriented police services.

And I would just like to mention in that regard, from a personal perspective, in my community in which I live, there is a small police department, 20 officers; that as a result of the community-oriented police in New Hartford, New York, they were able to get three additional police officers, increase their technology significantly. That's a 15 percent increase in officers to that department. The COPS program makes our streets safer.

The Drug Corps program is a phenomenal program that this bill will continue to fund. And I would urge any of my colleagues in Congress to someday sit through a Drug Corps graduation program. When they see that, and they see the testimonies of the people who have finished, and listen to their families talk about how devastating drug addiction has been to their family and how this program has helped them, they would strongly support this bill and strongly support the Drug Corps program.

In short, H.R. 3093 provides critical funding for programs that keep our streets safe, our economy prosperous, and allows our scientists to continue studying global warming and climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a vote of ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution insert the following:

Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment

printed in section 5 of this resolution if offered by

Representative Hoekstra of Michigan or his designee. All

points of order against consideration of the amendment

printed in section 5 are waived.

Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as

follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is

amended to read as follows--

`(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--

`(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,

or other surveillance device for acquiring information by

intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known

person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States

under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable

expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for

law enforcement purposes; or

`(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any

communication under circumstances in which a person has a

reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be

required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and

all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located

within the United States.'.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, who has been a leader on the Great Lakes issue, and also my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because this issue is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is an issue between right and wrong.

British Petroleum, who is now seeking to expand their refinery capacity in Indiana, has run advertising campaigns all over the country that they are ``beyond petroleum.'' If they are allowed to dump more ammonia and mercury and other metals into the Great Lakes, BP's ``beyond petroleum'' will become standard for ``big polluter.''

I say that not just as a way to embarrass them, although I hope it accomplishes that goal. They have the capacity to live up to what they are advertising; that they are a company that is sensitive to the environment.

Thirty-seven million Americans now get their daily drinking water from the Great Lakes. It is the largest body of fresh water in North America. It contains 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply. It is the economic heart of the Midwest.

As my colleague Mr. Oberstar noted, the fire at the Cuyahoga River and on Lake Erie galvanized the country. When I was growing up, prior to that bill, we used to run past the dead fish, dive into Lake Michigan, and swim 30 or 40 feet past all the dead fish to pop up. The Clean Water Act improved dramatically the environmental standard of Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario and all the Great Lakes. The question here is, are we going to move forward, or are we going to go back?

What is ironic about all of this is that this issue isn't about technology. They can do the refining to clean up and make sure that we don't dump ammonia and mercury and other environmental hazards into the lake. The question here is not technology or money. They are spending $3.8 billion to expand this facility, which is a good thing to do, because it will help on the energy supply.

The question is they said they don't have the land mass to deal with it. They have 2.6 square miles there. If you look on the Google map, you can see the size of what they have. It is 1,600 acres. They have the land capacity to do this.

Now, I compliment British Petroleum on one other issue. They brought Democrats and Republicans together on a single issue. They are a uniter, not a divider. Usually we are divided here on other issues, so I want to compliment BP for having brought Democrats and Republicans together in a unique act of bipartisanship realizing that Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes deserve our support.

We have made great progress. The question before us is whether BP will live not only up to their advertising, but what this Congress has committed to do, and every Congress has committed to do for the last 30 years, is that when it comes to our lakes, our drinking waters, whether we are going to go forward or backward.

I would hope that BP would take this notion that what they are seeing today on the floor is the beginning of a pressure, and that they realize that the decision they make, they can do the right thing. I think every one of us knows that if they made a decision to expand their refinery with the environmental qualities, every one of us would put a resolution on the floor the next day praising them for that decision.

So they have the choice: We will join them and say that they are right. They are a company that literally puts their money where their mouth is. Are they ``beyond petroleum,'' or will they be the company known as the ``big polluter''? They have a choice.

I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for having this resolution on the floor and taking the leadership and the time to commit to this.

Madam Speaker, there's a sad irony on this decision by British Petroleum, and that is, 10 years ago, 1997, when I was working in the White House, we had made a decision and Geolyse standards were negotiated at that point, coming on line just about now. It took all of the States, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, to set standards, as also the other States supported the Great Lakes, about polluting and what was allowed and permissible to pollute on the lakes and what wasn't. And those Geolyse standards that brought everybody together 10 years ago and started this movement to protect our Great Lakes in a way that we had not seen since the Clean Water Act, that negotiation and the product of that negotiation was just coming on line right now.

And just at that moment, we have this decision by British Petroleum, which is the most significant dumping in Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes and Lake Michigan since basically we started the Clean Water Act and reversing the trend of using the lake as nothing but a dumping ground.

Now, if this can happen in Lake Michigan, it can happen in other Great Lakes, which is why other Members of other delegations have stepped forward, and I want to repeat, all that British Petroleum has to do here is they have the technology to actually take a different course here. It's about the size of a land mass that they have to acquire, and if you look again at Google Map, they have plenty of land, 1,600 acres, to do what's right.

So many decisions we face on the environment are about jobs and the environment. You can both double the size of the refinery, create those 80 jobs, and also preserve our national commitment to the clean water of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. It's not an either/or choice.

And what's so sad about the rush here is that this is a decision that could easily be won, that's a victory for British Petroleum, doubling the size of their refinery, but not doubling the size of the ammonia that's dumped into Lake Michigan and not increasing the amount of both mercury and other metals that are going to be untreated, dumped into Lake Michigan, and then we're all going to be asked to increase the money to clean up what they could have done in the beginning.

They're spending $3.8 billion. For a fraction, they could actually not only increase the refinery, but increase the capacity to treat these chemicals, and then we're all going to be asked to increase the money to clean up Lake Michigan with something that never should have happened and hasn't happened for 10 years.

Now, this unusual unity here is because all of us have constituents that don't regard this as a party issue, a partisan issue; they regard it as a commitment. We have had a tremendous increase in the consciousness of folks about the importance of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes to the environment.

If this was the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone, there would be no question. Lake Michigan, Ontario, Superior, Erie and all the Great Lakes are the Midwest's national parks. They stand as the largest body of fresh water in North America. Twenty percent of the world's entire fresh water is right there.

It is America's third coast. We would never consider doing this to any other national treasure. BP should not consider it here. They can double the size of the refinery, which is a good thing; they can increase employment by 80 jobs, a good thing; and they can be true to their advertising, ``Beyond Petroleum,'' and being the most green energy company if they decide to take the right actions. We'll help them if they want to do that.

But to act intransigent, like they have, is wrong. We are going to be meeting with the North American executive this afternoon. I know the Illinois delegation is. We are going to meet with them to let them know that they have a choice here to live up to their word.

I want to again thank all of my colleagues for stepping forward and giving a voice to their constituents who are outraged across the area with the decision by British Petroleum to do something no other company has decided to do in the last 10 years and reverse the standards and the progress we have made on the environmental quality of our Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this issue before us first came to my attention 9 days ago in a July 15 story published in the Chicago Tribune entitled ``BP Gets Break

Dumping in Lake.'' Shortly after that I went into a meeting which Mr. Oberstar was chairing, and I alerted him to the issue, because I know he loves the Great Lakes as much as I do.

That article highlighted the wastewater discharge permit granted by the State of Indiana to British Petroleum for its refinery facility in Whiting, Indiana, on the shores of Lake Michigan. The new permit allows BP to discharge an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia per day, up from 1,030 pounds per day, a 54 percent increase above the old limit. The new permit also allows BP to discharge 4,925 pounds of total suspended solids per day, up from 3,646 pounds per day, a 35 percent increase. This level of discharge is extremely disconcerting to me and the entire Great Lakes region.

Let me provide a little background information. The BP facility in Whiting was built in 1889 by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Today, it is the fourth largest refinery in the country. It employs 1,700 people and supports another 1,500 contract workers in producing gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. It is a major, major refining operation not just in northwest Indiana, but, indeed, the entire Midwest.

BP plans to spend more than $3 billion in upgrading and expanding the facility so it can process more heavy crude from Canada. I support the expansion of refinery capacity to help address our immediate and pressing need for fuel in the Midwest, but I know that the switch to refining more Canadian crude will inevitably lead to more waste from the facility.

No one is accusing BP of subverting the regulatory process. The permit went through the regular public comment period, although I must say that the time between the notice and the final issuance seems to me a very short period for a project of this magnitude. According to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the permit was issued in full accordance and compliance with State and Federal environmental laws. If that is true, and I don't doubt that it is, there is something wrong with State and Federal environmental laws.

The benefits of this project should not come at the expense of our most precious natural resource. The Great Lakes are the world's largest freshwater system and serve as a source of drinking water, food, jobs and recreation for more than 40 million Americans. It is critical that we enhance our restoration efforts for this vital resource. It is already polluted enough, and we certainly do not want to degrade the condition of the lakes even further.

All the communities and States around the lakes have tried to improve their practices. My own town, my city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has spent several hundred million dollars improving its wastewater treatment system to help clean up the lake, and that is the story in many cities around the lakes.

President Bush 2 years ago issued an Executive Order calling together the mayors and the Governors of the Great Lakes regions, the Members of Congress, the environmentalists and the tribes to work together to develop a solution to the pollution in the lakes. Over 1,500 policymakers and stakeholders came together in a collaborative process to develop a long-term strategic action plan for protecting and restoring the environmental health of the Great Lakes. I was proud to participate in that process as the congressional representative, and I have a bill in process which will make the collaborative's recommendations come into law.

The discharge of harmful pollutants that is proposed by BP and permitted by the State of Indiana is totally inconsistent with the goals of Great Lakes restoration. Ammonia and TSS, suspended solids, promote algae blooms that can suffocate fish, destroy fish habitat, deprive plants of sunlight and oxygen, and trigger beach closings. We cannot allow for more of these kinds of problems in the lake.

For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I would urge both the EPA and the State of Indiana to take a second look at this permit and find a better means of disposal. I also urge BP to look at other means of disposal. Certainly if they can afford to pipe crude oil from Canada thousands of miles through pipelines, they certainly should be able to find a better solution for disposal of wastes.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, this issue extends throughout the entire United States in terms of its concern, and I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) as someone who lives very near this particular facility.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the Fighting Illini, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I have one speaker, and then I would like to make some comments again.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to offer some comments to close, particularly in view of the previous speaker.

As I said in my earlier comments, I emphasized I was not condemning British Petroleum for their actions; although, I wish they had taken the lead in demonstrating the environmentalism that they often advertise that they have. But I do deplore that the State of

Indiana was willing to give them a permit. I do deplore that the Environmental Protection Agency was willing to give them a permit.

This is contrary to everything that we have been trying to do to clean up the Great Lakes, at huge expense. All over the Great Lakes, communities have tried to clean it up, and my preference would be not only that BP does not add to the load they're putting in the lake, I would prefer that they say, we're going to find a different method, and we're not even going to dump in the lake what we're dumping in now, because they are already dumping a substantial amount in.

The goal here is not to drive BP away. It's not to stop the refinery project. I'd emphasize that over and over. The goal is to make sure that we can maintain the purity and cleanliness of the Great Lakes. And Lake Michigan, of course, drains into three of the other Great Lakes and with a smattering going into Lake Superior. So this is a very important issue.

The gentleman talked a minute ago about drinking water out of the lakes. Forty million Americans draw their water out of the Great Lakes, their drinking water. That is a huge number of people. We are very worried about cleaning up the mercury that already exists in the lake, also the toxaphene and other contaminants, because people are drinking that water, and they are getting ill.

The goal here is not to stop BP. The goal here is to make certain they find an alternative method of disposing of the ammonia and the total suspended solids that they are proposing to dump in the lake, and I would hope they also, while they're doing that, stop dumping what they are dumping, and make sure all the ammonia, all of the total suspended solids get disposed of elsewhere. Perhaps they can use a waste landfill, perhaps something else, but certainly we do not want them to be dumping any additional contaminants into the Great Lakes system.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Pasco for yielding to me. And I thank him for his management of this rule, as well as my new friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

I have to say that I'm glad that there is bipartisan concern voiced about security, and I appreciate the remarks that my friend from New York has just made, Mr. Speaker, about the issue of ensuring that we provide security for our children and for anyone who possibly could face the challenge of being a victim of crime in this country.

The fact of the matter is I am very, very supportive of the notion that Mr. Hastings is putting forward here that we need to do everything that we can to prevent those who want to, en masse, kill us, as Americans, from being able to do that.

Now, it was 1978, Mr. Speaker, during the Cold War, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put into place. It was designed to deal with what today is very, very antiquated technology. I mean, I remember when we had this debate before about the notion of being able to follow one single telephone line that is out there. Well, when all we had were hard lines and one telephone line, courts would get a warrant to follow that one phone line because that's the only way people could communicate.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the world, when it comes to telecommunications, certainly is a heck of a lot different than it was 30 years ago, 29 years ago, 1978.

And what is it that we're saying?

Mr. Hastings is saying that, in recognition of the statements that were made most recently by the Secretary of Homeland Security Mr. Chertoff, that there is a higher level of chatter, and we need to do what we can to monitor it; coupled with statements made by the Director of National Intelligence, Director McConnell, who's made it very, very clear that we are today blind and deaf when it comes to the ability to monitor not people here in the United States, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about people who are foreigners and who are trying to do us in.

And so Mr. Hastings is simply saying that what we need to do is defeat the previous question so that we can make in order a chance for us to deal with the issue of modernization of that three-decade-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which today hamstrings us when it comes to the need for us to try and prevent terrorists from killing Americans. It's just that simple. And that kind of modification, that kind of modernization, that kind of reform is absolutely essential if we're going to have the tools necessary to successfully prosecute the war on terror.

And so I believe that every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, who's concerned about our need to ensure that people who are overseas and want to do us in, and that we cannot monitor, we should be able to do just that. And I think most thinking Americans believe that having the capability to monitor those in Iran, in Syria and in other countries who would want to do us in, that they should, in fact, be monitored, and we should get that information.

Now, this bill itself does, as my friend from Pasco has said, have a number of good things in it. It has some very, very important items that will help us deal with the challenge of crime that exists in this country, and obviously it provides very important funding for a high priority that I have, and that is NASA funding. The jet propulsion laboratory in La Canada Flint Ridge, California, is a very important facility which has made great strides with its Mars program and a wide range of other programs that they're involved in.

Mr. Speaker, this program also has funding for something that I believe is essential for us to realize, and it's on an issue that this place has debated time and time again, and it's one that we're still struggling over, and that is the issue of border security and the problem of illegal immigration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be offering an amendment when this bill proceeds which will allow us to actually increase the funding for what is known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.

Now, one of the things we found, we put this program into place in the mid-1990s, and we found that State and local governments are, in fact, shouldering the responsibility, the financial burden, of the incarceration of people who are in this country illegally and commit crimes. In my county alone of Los Angeles, the cost is $150 million a year, according to my friend who's the sheriff of Los Angeles County. He's said that to me repeatedly; $150 million a year to incarcerate people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes against our citizenry.

It's not the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles or the State of California to shoulder that financial burden. The protection of international borders lies with the Federal Government, Washington, D.C., and that's why we have the SCAAP program.

We need to secure our borders. We need to take the responsibility for securing our borders. And because we have not done that yet, and I still am optimistic about our chance to do that, we need to make sure that we reimburse the States and counties and cities that are, in fact, responsible for the financial burden today of incarceration of those people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes against us.

And so I will be offering that amendment. We'll be transferring monies, Mr. Speaker, out of the administrative expenses of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice, and I hope that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support.

I will say I'm very proud that our California delegation has, in years past, come together, Republicans and Democrats, working together to increase the level of funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Last year I was proud to have offered an amendment that had a $50 million increase for the SCAAP funding level that brought it to the $405 million level where it is today, and we had Democrats and Republicans joining in support of the amendment that I offered.

I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that once again this year we'll have Democrats and Republicans who will join in support of the amendment that I will be offering that will have that increase in the funding level for SCAAP, so that we will be able to say to State and local governments that you are not going to be totally responsible for shouldering that burden.

So I thank my friend for yielding. I want to join, again, in urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can make this very important amendment in order for FISA reform. And I hope that when we do get to consideration of the bill itself, that we'll have strong bipartisan support for the very important amendment that I'm going to be offering to increase funding for SCAAP.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill provides more than $53.5 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008, which is over 6 percent more than last year's enacted level.

While I support some of the increases in this bill that support our national priorities, such as counterterrorism and crime-fighting initiatives, I'm concerned that this bill falls in line with the spend now, tax later philosophy of the Democrat majority. This philosophy, as outlined in the Democrats' budget plan, puts each taxpayer on the path toward an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. This, once again, is another burden for the average taxpayer to bear.

Rather than prioritizing spending and making the tough choices, this bill aims to solve our Nation's problems by simply spending more money. This also ignores real threats to our security that must be addressed.

So, Mr. Speaker, one very serious problem that must be addressed before Congress adjourns next week, and that is changing current law so that our Intelligence Community has the tools it needs to monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in foreign countries.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff earlier this month indicated that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack, and that recent chatter levels are near those levels prior to September 11, 2001. But because of our failure to respond to technological advances, current law ties the hands of our Intelligence Community since significant portions of our intelligence is being missed, intelligence that could prevent a future attack on our Nation.

If we expect our Intelligence Community to do everything in their power under the law to protect our Nation against a future attack, then we must give them the resources and tools they need to stay ahead of those who wish to harm us.

It is vital that we act immediately to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify, change the law in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Community could be missing vital information, increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. soil.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question on the rule so that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can be immediately modernized.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a leader in this body on national security issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me talk about this process of defeating the previous question so we can take up the amendment regarding the FISA Act.

This does not slow down the process at all. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker; this does not slow down the process at all. It simply makes in order, with the appropriate waivers, to discuss the amendment that was described by Mrs. Wilson from New Mexico.

This is a very, very serious issue. It has been described by a number of people how important this is to our Intelligence Community. And by definition, it falls into the area of secure knowledge. But for those that are on the committees of jurisdiction, those that hear this on a regular basis, we need to act on it sooner than later. And we can act on it today without slowing down the process whatsoever by defeating the previous question, voting ``no'' on the previous question.

I will be submitting an amendment that will be made in order, with the appropriate waivers, and we can debate the issue. It sounds to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is strong bipartisan support in order to achieve this end that has been described. We have the opportunity to do it now. We ought to do it before the August recess.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our Intelligence Community has the tools that they need to help protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text

of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.