To limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this legislation cites the fact that the House of Representatives has passed six, one, two, three, four, five, six separate bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq, including three, one, two, three, which have been enacted into law by the President.

In fact, the language contained in H.R. 2929, which is before us today, is nearly identical to the language adopted under a Republican- controlled Congress in section 1519 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

This is the bill before us today. This is the law.

The fiscal year 2007 bill states:

``No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.''

That is law. That has been passed a couple of times. And now the bill before us this morning says this:

``No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq; and

(2) to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources in Iraq.''

Once, twice, three times. We can pass it again. But why are we here? Why are we spending valuable time, Mr. Speaker, debating an issue that the Congress on a bipartisan basis already has agreed to, once, twice, three times, four times, five times, six times? The majority's attempts to score political points on a range of issues, including particularly Iraq policy, has already paralyzed precious months of military planning and congressional business, including the 9/11 bill.

It was only last night when the majority conferees finally agreed to incorporate into the 9/11 conference report critical language offered by the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, my good friend Mr. King of New York, which would provide immunity to passengers and commuters who report suspicious activities.

In a post-9/11 world, Mr. Speaker, passenger vigilance is essential to our Nation's security. An alert citizenry is our first line of defense against those who may seek to do us harm.

Yet, some of our colleagues, rather than supporting or encouraging such personal commitment and involvement from our citizens, would have preferred to leave them vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits and, instead, engage in debates on legislative items and policy already enacted into law and discussed once, twice, three times, four times, five times and six times.

However, since we are having this ``Groundhog Day'' discussion, it is important to once again note that there are no permanent United States bases overseas. Rather, the scope and the duration of U.S. basing rights are determined by individual agreements and entered into with host governments throughout the world.

It is also important to clarify that a policy position that does not support permanent bases in Iraq does not translate into either a prohibition against the American troop presence in Iraq, we could have that discussion on another bill, or a prohibition against the existence of any U.S. military installation in that country.

But that is not what is before us today. The bill before us in its ``findings'' section states that the Iraq Study Group Report recommends that ``the President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq.''

Correct.

The bill also specifically highlights the other component of that recommendation, which says, ``If the Iraqi Government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the United States Government could consider that request as it would be in the case of any other government.''

This legislation therefore accepts the prospect of a negotiated agreement for a future relationship with the Government of Iraq to, among other things, allow U.S. military and security forces to operate from U.S. installations within Iraq, including through a possible status of forces agreement that would define the legal status of U.S. personnel in Iraq and would define the rights and responsibilities between the United States and the Government of Iraq. Furthermore, this legislation before us today does not prohibit the United States from entering into the interoperability agreements that allow the United States and Iraq to share common infrastructure and bases.

Mr. Speaker, I do not object to this legislation. We have supported it before and look forward to supporting it again.

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

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

If I could point out that the most recent reincarnation of this very same issue was passed earlier this year in this very House, and I would like to read verbatim what it said. I was proud to vote for it, and I will vote for it.

Sec. 1222. Continuation of prohibition on establishment of permanent military installations in Iraq or United States control over oil resources of Iraq.

Section 1519 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2444) is amended by inserting after ``this Act'' the following: ``or any other Act for any fiscal year''.

Mr. Speaker, with that I am pleased to yield with great pleasure such time as he may consume to a great American, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who has also voted for this measure six times.

Absolutely. I would love to yield you 3 minutes. We have two speakers, Mr. Poe, who is already here, and Mr. Rohrabacher. I just want to make sure that they would have enough time. But once they're done, I would be glad to yield you the time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Texas, a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Judge Poe, who is very cognizant of Public Law 109-364, which already says that they will have no permanent military bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on International Operations.

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

Mr. Speaker, were we seen as occupiers in Haiti, in Bosnia? Do we not, as some have said on Iraq, have a sustained military presence in these countries? Did we not intervene in Haiti to restore democracy and remain to prevent the increased violence?

In fact, as our distinguished Speaker, whom we'll be hearing from in just a few moments, when she argued for a sustained U.S. deployment in Bosnia, Speaker Pelosi said, Is the Bosnian mission without danger and risk? No. With strong leadership there are always risks. These risks have been minimized. They are risks for peace, risks for ending years of bloodshed, risks for freedom. We risk far more by failing to act.

We risk far more if we allow the tenuous peace to collapse and watch the flames of war ignite again. I agreed with Speaker Pelosi then when she said that on December 13 of 1995, and I agreed with her when she said on September 19 of 1994, when advocating for a sustained U.S. presence in Haiti, the Speaker said, setting a date certain for troop withdrawal will unnecessarily endanger both our troops on the ground and our efforts at promoting democracy in Haiti.

I say that we have no less at stake here in Iraq. The bill before us, as we have said before, is a fine bill. We support what it seeks to do because, in fact, it is law. It is already United States law.

We want to make sure that the Iraqi people have the same level of commitment that we have shown to other oppressed people throughout the world. We should not ignore the consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq in a vitally important region of the world.

But, like I have said, this is not the issue addressed in this bill. Some have remarked about the greater issue of Iraq in their discourse today. On the bill before us, it is already public law. We have passed it six times in the House. It has been law three times, and we have no objection to the bill becoming law a fourth time, a fifth time or a sixth time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and to acknowledge the exceptional leadership of my colleagues from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, for their leadership on this issue, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee's authorship of this legislation. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Tom Allen, Congressman David Price, Congresswoman Maxine Waters have all been important in the leadership of bringing this legislation to the floor and continuing our debate on the involvement in Iraq.

The legislation is timely and a key part of our strategy for a new direction in Iraq. Thank you all.

I am very pleased to join our distinguished colleagues on the minority in support of this legislation. Yes, I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Rohrabacher, with Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and others, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith, over the years on issues that relate to human rights throughout the world. I respect them for their leadership in so many arenas. It has been a privilege to work with them. I am so glad they are supporting this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to measure any initiative in relationship to the war in Iraq against the backdrop of what does this do to contribute to a vision for stability in the Middle East, whether we are talking about no permanent bases, whether we are talking about redeploying our troops out of Iraq, a change of mission there, to leave troops only for specific limited purposes. This is what the generals have told us. General Odom, for one, has said any vision for stability in the Middle East must begin with the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. So, too, this issue today, no permanent bases.

Yes, our colleagues are correct that this has been brought before the Congress before and has been passed into law, but the fact is that it may not have been heard adequately by the administration and certainly not by the people in the region.

This legislation clearly signals that the United States does not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq. This action is necessary to clarify confusing and contradictory statements from the administration regarding our Nation's long-term strategic relationship with Iraq.

In its final report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that the United States clearly state that our Nation does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq's oil. It did so to help shape ``a positive climate for . . . diplomatic efforts,'' which are essential to ending the U.S. presence in Iraq and bringing greater stability to the Middle East.

While the administration has previously indicated it would not seek permanent bases in Iraq, recent statements raise contrary questions. Administration officials have remarked that the President envisioned a continued military presence in Iraq similar to our presence in Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years.

The American people have made it clear in the election that they want a new direction in Iraq that brings the troops home. The Iraqi people and regional powers must also be reassured that the United States does not seek to exploit Iraq either by building permanent military facilities there or by exercising control over its oil. We can make that statement by passing this legislation overwhelmingly today as part of our strategy for a new direction in Iraq and for stability in the Middle East.

The President's remarks in South Carolina yesterday were really saddening. Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think you have heard it all, the President mentioned al Qaeda nearly 100 times to justify his course of action in Iraq. Let us remove all doubt. This Congress, every single person here, is committed to fight the war on terror, but let us not misrepresent what the troops in Iraq are doing.

Everyone who examines the situation with the knowledge says we do not belong in a civil war in Iraq. So, again, the President's statements give great cause for grave concern. They crystallized why the Congress must continue to pressure the administration to change course in Iraq. Yet again, President Bush mischaracterized the facts on the ground in Iraq and the latest intelligence on the real threat of international terrorism.

Just yesterday news reports were that the administration plans a continued substantial troop presence in Iraq through the summer of 2009; heaven knows, beyond then.

As the latest National Intelligence Estimate reveals, the war in Iraq has not made America safer or turned the tide against terrorism. In fact, while we have been tied down in Iraq, al Qaeda has been regenerated, has regenerated its ability to attack the United States while enjoying safe haven in vital areas of our ally in the war on terrorism, Pakistan.

The President's Iraq policy is unacceptable to the American people, and to Democrats in Congress, because it has allowed al Qaeda to regain its footing, reinforce its numbers, and refocus on another spectacular and deadly attack on the United States. That is why we must change direction in Iraq and do it now before it is too late.

America cannot afford another 2 years of war in Iraq. We have already lost more than 3,600 brave Americans to this bloody conflict. There can be no discussion of the situation in Iraq without pausing to remember and acknowledge the sacrifice, the courage and the patriotism of our men and

women in uniform and their families who have sacrificed so much for our country. We thank them, we honor them, and we think they deserve better than no plan for a redeployment of troops out of Iraq.

We have lost 4 years that could have been spent bolstering Homeland Security, strengthening counterterrorism efforts, and focusing all of the resources at our disposal on combating the terrorist threat. Today's vote can again make clear to the President, and to the administration, to the American people, to the people in the Middle East, to the people in Iraq that the American people are opposed to a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The American people are demanding a new direction. The Democratic Congress will go on record every day, if necessary, to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the President is taking in Iraq. The Democratic Congress will go on record every day, if necessary, to fight for a redeployment of our forces as a central element of a new direction strategy for Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to vote in overwhelming numbers for this important legislation.

Again, I thank our colleagues, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Tom Allen, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Congressman David Price and all the others who played such an important role in bringing this legislation to the floor.

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.