To redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, as the "Bob Hope Memorial Library".

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 254.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, and the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order to provisions of the bill, as amended.

The rule makes in order seven amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The amendments are considered as read, are debatable for the time specified, are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All points of order against the amendments except, again, those in clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived.

Finally, the rule does provide one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which makes in order nearly all of the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee. Even though many on our side had concerns about the intent and effect of certain provisions in the amendments, the Rules Committee, with the recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, voted to allow the House to debate the amendments and let the votes fall as they may.

Besides the manager's amendment, the rule makes in order more Republican amendments, actually, than Democratic ones, four Republican and three Democratic amendments. The few amendments that were not made in order by the rule were either withdrawn, determined to be nongermane, or had already been voted on earlier by the House.

The rule also provides extensive time for debate on each amendment so that the House can have a very vigorous discussion on each of them. Under this rule, each of the amendments is debatable for 20 minutes. Two of the amendments are debatable for an hour each.

Chairman Frank came before our committee and testified that we should allow considerable time to debate each of these amendments on their merits and allow the views of all Members to be heard, even if that meant that we have to work late into the evening.

The Rules Committee agreed with the chairman, and I am pleased to bring forth this very even-handed rule.

Madam Speaker, as you know, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 25, 2005, followed by Hurricane Rita on September 24 and Hurricane Wilma on October 24, 2005, causing extraordinarily heavy loss of life and dislocation of thousands of families. Hurricane Katrina alone devastated 90,000

square miles, made 770,000 people homeless and had a death toll of 1,464 in Louisiana alone.

Just by comparison, in 1906 the earthquake and fire in San Francisco killed an estimated 500 to 3,000 people, resulted in about 250,000 people homeless. The Galveston Island flood of 1900 killed as many as 8,000 people, in the island and the city. The Chicago fire, the famous fire of 1871, burned an area of approximately 3 square miles and made 100,000 people homeless.

In the aftermath of the storms, Congress approved $16.7 billion for Community Development Block Grants, and that's the portion of Katrina aid that we are talking about here, to aid the affected areas with rebuilding efforts. Of that, roughly $1.2 billion has been spent. There has been a lot of bureaucratic mismanagement, frankly, in FEMA, resulting in the delay of aid approved to the people who need it.

Tragically, many residents continue to be displaced, and the pace of home repair and reconstruction is much slower than had been hoped for. And tens of thousands of federally assisted evacuees from these hurricanes face impending deadlines later this year for continued eligibility for rental assistance. A great number of residents are still scattered around the country, many hundreds of thousands of miles from their homes.

Madam Speaker, we are aware that FEMA didn't get its job done in the aftermath of the hurricane. We are here, in part, to try to put this back together and make certain that the aid people need is delivered. In part, this Congress now is responding to the needs of the folks in the gulf coast again.

I am very pleased to support this rule and support the underlying bill because it does provide some overdue housing relief to displaced gulf coast residents. H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007, was passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 50-16. The bill is practical in speeding up the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental housing to the displaced low-income victims to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

Very specifically, the measure frees up for use $1.175 billion in funds that was previously made available to the State of Louisiana, but which has been held up by FEMA. Louisiana has proposed combining these funds with other Community Development Block Grant funds under its Road Home program for grants to homeowners, but FEMA won't approve use of the funds, thereby slowing down the program because of concerns about specific provisions of the Road Home program that provide incentives for homeowners to commit to return to the State of Louisiana and live.

This bill would transfer such funds to CDBG grants in order to expedite the availability of those funds. The bill also has a number of provisions designed to address the shortfall in affordable housing for low-income families. And, as we all know, it was low-income families who bore the brunt of suffering as a result of these hurricanes. This measure would prevent public housing units in New Orleans from being demolished until the Federal Government has a plan to replace them and grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return to either their former neighborhood or one as close as possible.

Faced with a looming September deadline for the cutoff of some 12,000 families currently receiving Disaster Voucher Program assistance, H.R. 1227 extends this deadline through at least the end of the year and authorizes replacement vouchers to affected families when the program terminates, and that would continue as long as the family is eligible for voucher assistance.

Additionally, responding to numerous accounts of government waste in the gulf coast rebuilding process, H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions to ensure effective oversight. Federal funds must be used efficiently, effectively, and legally. The bill requires the State of Louisiana to submit monthly reports on the progress of the Road Home program in making funds available to homeowners. The bill requires the Government Accountability Office to complete quarterly reports identifying any waste, fraud, and abuse in connection with the program. We have got to stay on top of this money. And the bill requires the GAO study to examine methods of improving the distribution of Federal housing funds to assist States with hurricane recovery efforts.

Finally, the bill authorizes reimbursement of communities and landlords for monies lost through providing assistance to displaced individuals. A number of communities and private sector landlords throughout the country did play a critical role in providing housing assistance to evacuees in the aftermath of the hurricanes. This was crucial at a time when housing was in short supply and hundreds of thousands of families needed that assistance. We want to encourage such actions in future disasters to restore people's faith that the government can be a friend and an ally at a time of extraordinary need.

Much of the gulf coast remains devastated. Residents continue to suffer from inadequate housing, health care, and other basic services. And, more than 1\1/2\ years after Hurricane Katrina struck, the situation in the gulf coast remains an emergency. We must act now to right some of the wrongs that have been done and not wait on the sidelines anymore. We urge that you support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, just in response to the comments by my friend from Florida, this pretty much is an open rule. The ones that weren't allowed were nongermane. And then there was one amendment that was not allowed because it was an amendment that was earlier offered and rejected by this House, and that was at the recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, who had a very open process in the Financial Services Committee considering numerous amendments and then has pretty much invited any Member who wanted to submit an amendment to have an opportunity on the floor to do so or for consideration before the Rules Committee.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank.

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from Georgia, I would say two things. First, there are seven amendments that have been allowed. One of them included an amendment by the gentleman from Georgia that was not timely, but was accommodated by the Rules Committee. The amendment that was rejected is an amendment that has been rejected before.

The second point that I think it is important to make is that we have a responsibility in this House to get work done.

And the rules are intended to help us do the work of the American people, not be a political wedge to make bogus arguments about process. And it is a disgrace, it is a disgrace, that going on 2 years after these hurricanes, there are people who are still homeless because we had a Federal Emergency Management Administration that was incompetent and reckless. It was headed by a person whose previous experience was as a judge of an Arabian horse contest, and that happened under the administration and the Congress that was led by Republicans.

That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to this Congress. It is not acceptable to this party. It is not acceptable to this Congressman. It is not acceptable by a bipartisan vote of 52-16 of the Financial Services Committee.

We have business to do because there are people who are still in emergency situations well over a year after devastating hurricanes. This legislation is about doing something now that should have been done 1\1/2\ years ago.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend from Florida.

Once again, Madam Speaker, this is, we believe, a fair and open rule that provides consideration for a much-needed, bipartisan piece of legislation. The rule makes in order nearly every amendment brought to the Rules Committee, more Republican than Democratic amendments, and with considerable time to debate the merits of each amendment that will be presented.

The underlying bill will provide increased flexibility for already allocated funds, provide new oversight for existing programs. It preserves public housing, assists evacuees with rental housing and provides support for landlords in local communities who assisted evacuees with housing.

Don't forget the displaced victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. That is really what this is all about. The Federal Government's response to the storms has been a national embarrassment, and it is just not acceptable. We have an obligation, all of us, to get our act together so that they can move on with their lives and put them back together.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, my friend Mr. Welch, for the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

On August 24, 1992, I remember Hurricane Andrew, category 5 storm, devastated my community, with wind gusts of over 200 miles per hour. That storm caused over $26 billion of damage to south Florida. Entire communities were destroyed. Hurricane Andrew caused 43 deaths, destroyed over 125,000 homes, left approximately 180,000 people homeless, and wiped out approximately 80 percent of the area's farms. Until Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, Hurricane Andrew was the costliest natural disaster in the United States' history.

We in south Florida were very fortunate to receive generous assistance from fellow Americans in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. I know that assistance was essential for recovery, as it is for recovery in the gulf coast.

As someone who experienced Hurricane Andrew firsthand, I have an idea of the trials that confront those who live through horrific storms. The road to recovery is long and difficult. It doesn't come easy. But communities must come together and put all of their efforts into rebuilding and meeting the needs of the residents. We cannot walk away from our obligations to our fellow Americans. And, just as we did after Andrew, together we must build, together we must recover, together we must be better and stronger than before.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the Republican majority in this Congress committed over $100 billion to help the area confront the immediate aftermath of the storm and to deal with the recovery effort. Included in that were $16.7 billion, almost $17 billion for the Community Development Block Grant programs. States applied for those funds through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. So far, HUD has approved under $11 billion of those funds to affected States.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that those who wish to return to New Orleans or other devastated areas should be able to do so. This is the position of Mr. Alphonso Jackson, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, which he reiterated in August when he said during a visit to New Orleans, ``Every family who wants to come home should have the opportunity to come back.'' We should all do what we can to make certain that we rebuild, that we see communities rebuild and become even more robust and safer communities.

The underlying legislation seeks to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina. There is some concern, Madam Speaker, that the legislation goes beyond the scope of the bill's stated intent. For example,

the legislation seeks to turn what is currently a temporary disaster voucher program into a permanent voucher, and to require HUD to provide tenant replacement vouchers for all public housing units not brought back on line, including those slated for demolition prior to the storms.

The American people have demonstrated their resiliency before and will do so again. Obviously our prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families of these horrific natural disasters. The spirit of community, generosity, and goodwill across the country continues to give me confidence that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, just as Florida did before, will recover from these tragedies stronger and better than before.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He listened to the needs of Miami-Dade County with regard to how the distribution formula for HUD section 8, when it was changed in the CR that this Congress passed some weeks back. There was damage, damage cost, and the chairman is ameliorating and alleviating that damage, and we are grateful for that.

Now, Mrs. Biggert, our colleague from Illinois, went before the Rules Committee with an amendment to hold harmless all of the public housing agents from the damage done by the change in the formula in the CR, to hold harmless all the agencies through this calendar year. I am sorry, I truly am, that the majority in the Rules Committee refused to make in order Mrs. Biggert's amendment, and that is one of the reasons why we are opposing the rule today.

I think it is appropriate to point out that the majority is failing to live up to its commitment to run the House in an open and fair manner. The majority sent a notice to Members that they had until Monday at 10 a.m. to file amendments with the Rules Committee in order to be considered; however, the official committee report accompanying this bill was not filed until Friday, giving Members less than 1 business day to review the report and file amendments for consideration, not to mention the fact that most Members were already in their districts or traveling back home on Friday.

So I think it is fair to ask the question, how can the majority expect Members to review the actions of the Committee on Financial Services in a timely manner when they barely give them a chance to review the committee report?

The majority also promised to provide more open rules. Yes, they have provided several open rules on noncontroversial bills. I think it is important to ask, what about on bills where both sides do not necessarily agree on all aspects of the legislation? Will the majority continue to block amendments from the minority? What will they do on the supplemental appropriations bill? We shall soon find out.

I believe it is fair to say, if the majority is serious about their commitment to openness, they should allow for open rules on the underlying legislation and the supplemental appropriations bill which is coming forth soon. Members of the minority are concerned that this bill, as I stated before, turns a temporary disaster voucher program into a permanent one, and the concern that of the $110 billion appropriated by the 109th Congress, only a small portion has been distributed to those in need. In response to these concerns, they offered several thoughtful and germane amendments to the Rules Committee to address their concerns; however, the majority once again closed them out. I think that is unfortunate, and, again, that is why, Madam Speaker, we oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from Georgia.

I think a fundamental part of the role of the opposition of the minority is to hold the majority accountable, not only to history, which our friend from Massachusetts is making reference to, but accountable with regard to the promises made by the majority.

And so it was the majority that reiterated that they would bring an open process. And, for example, we are already seeing not only, we have seen in bill after bill after bill, the minority closed out. But also, for example, rules passed by the majority, for example, requiring 3 days for people to view legislation before it comes to the floor, rules like that being waived.

So let's see, for example, what is done on the supplemental appropriations bill. Are they going to waive the rule passed by the majority requiring 3 days? Are they going to waive it with regard to that legislation as well?

And my friends on the other side of the aisle point out that, I think they said this is almost an open rule. It is not an open rule.

Mrs. Biggert, I mentioned before, had an amendment to hold harmless the public housing agencies from the effects of the change in the formula in the middle of the fiscal year with regard to section 8. And her amendment was not made in order.

So it is important to point that out. No, this is not an open rule nor an almost open rule nor a semi- or a pseudo-open rule. It is not an open rule.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I don't know exactly where the standard is in height. I will say that the promise was an open process, and that process does not exist, and that promise has not been kept. And in bill after bill after bill, the minority is closed out.

Now, it is true that some open rules have been permitted on legislation that we would bring forth under suspension. Madam Speaker, when bills are noncontroversial, many times they are brought forth under a process called suspension of the rules when there is mostly unanimity or often unanimity or almost unanimity in this House. Yes. So in bills like that we have seen some open rules where the minority has been able to have the amendments that it wishes to be considered.

But I just want to remind colleagues that may be listening to this debate, Madam Speaker, that when I point to Mrs. Biggert, it is not a theoretical, you know, height issue, whether so much height of a promise has been met. No. No. Mrs. Biggert is here and Mrs. Biggert is a colleague, and she went before the Rules Committee with an amendment that I thought was an important amendment and that she has worked hard on, and she was closed out.

As a matter of fact, I would like to recognize, at this point, another colleague, and then I will recognize Mrs. Biggert. I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, Dr. Price, who also had an amendment, a germane amendment, that he has worked on, that he has given thought and effort to and he brought to the Rules Committee so that we here could consider it today. And he was closed out.

So, again, not theory, not height, not almost closed, almost open. The gentleman from Georgia exists.

I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Price.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who also had an amendment that was closed out, closed out by the majority in the Rules Committee.

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

We are grateful for the tolerance in the gentleman's committee with regard to the amendment presented by Mrs. Biggert. The Rules Committee could have been equally tolerant. Let us be clear.

In other words, the Rules Committee waives points of order, Madam Speaker, with regard to the whole bill; so, obviously, they could have waived a point of order with regard to the issue of germaneness for Mrs. Biggert. So the Rules Committee could have been amply tolerant. And that is one of the reasons, since the Rules Committee majority was not, with regard to our colleague who has put so much work into this issue to hold harmless the public housing agencies for the remainder of this year from the mistake made by the majority in the so-called continuing resolution, that we believe that she should have been able to make her point before all of the Members.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and all who have participated in this debate for having done so. I think it has been a good debate.

I simply want to reiterate that on such an important issue, I am sorry that we do not have a truly open rule, one that obviously would satisfy any definition of the word. Under an open rule, for example, Mrs. Biggert could have had her hold-harmless amendment discussed and debated by the full House, as well as Dr. Price and others who wanted to have their amendments debated and discussed.

I would simply urge and request of my friends on the other side of the aisle that not only on noncontroversial bills should we have the ability for the minority to be heard, not only on noncontroversial bills or bills of consensus should there be open rules, but rather there should be open rules on other legislation, legislation where there will be genuine debate and even disagreement and discussion.

Madam Speaker, having said that, having no other speakers, and reiterating our opposition to the rule, and looking forward to the debate on the underlying legislation, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, no, it is not a fully open rule. It is a far more open rule than any that the majority allowed in the previous Congress on major legislation from the Financial Services Committee. I tell you that as a fact.

First, the argument was made that people didn't have enough time to file amendments. This bill was voted out of committee on March 7. It is true that the actual report was delayed. It was delayed partly because staff on both sides held up the actual writing on the language, and we had a CBO scoring issue, and we were waiting for CBO. But the text of the bill was put forward publicly on March 7.

In fact, there are a number of amendments offered here; most of them are from members of the committee, some are from nonmembers of the committee.

So the notion that people didn't know until Friday what to put in the amendments on Monday is false. The fact is that this bill on March 7 was voted out of committee. In fact, the text of the bill was set on March 6. What we did on March 7 was come back and complete roll call. But as of noon on March 7, people knew what would be in this bill. It was not a secret that we were marking it up; it was not a secret that it would be coming up today.

So anybody who waited until Friday, who made the mistake, they have themselves to blame. In fact, we made a couple of accommodations. The gentleman from Georgia had an amendment which he filed which was misfiled, and his amendment as filed went to a section different than he wanted to affect.

Whether you realize that, we urged the Rules committee to allow him, after the deadline, to make an appropriate substitution. That was done so that his appropriate amendment is in order. To the extent that there was that technical glitch, we said, that's not right; let's allow the gentleman from Georgia's amendment to go forward, the one substantive to the bill.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) had an important amendment that was adopted in committee. CBO raised issues with it. We then asked the Rules Committee, after the deadline, to accommodate a change for Mr. Baker's amendment because we were accommodating the CBO scoring. So we did make two agreements after the deadline to accommodate these particular changes.

But I want to stress again, Members knew on March 7 what was going to be in this bill. So I don't know why anybody would have waited until Friday to do the amendments. It was a fairly public controversial process that we had. We had a number of rollcalls in the committee.

And I will say this: my view, I would have had a rule that was even more accommodating. But what this does is allow every amendment that the Parliamentarian's Office found to be germane to the bill and the substance of this program to be in order. There is some debate over one amendment from the gentleman from Georgia involving a kind of generic language about offsets. And that was not allowed. I would have voted to allow it; but it was not allowed. We considered it in committee. It was voted on, debated, defeated.

But every amendment that was offered and, again, the deadline for amendments was Monday. The bill had been voted out of committee on Wednesday, March 7. There was plenty of time for that bill to be looked at and for people to offer amendments. When I saw the amendments on Monday, I urged the Rules Committee to put in order everything that was germane. They have put in order a number of germane amendments with a lot of debate time.

Now, I understand that there are Members who would like it to have included a few more things. But every single one of them voted for rules far

more restrictive. So this bill, you know, I have always thought the question is, Is this a good rule? I have always thought the fount of all wisdom that we should be guided by was expounded by a philosopher named Henny Youngman, whom you, Madam Speaker, along with I certainly remember. And the wisdom was, asked, How is your wife, the answer was, Compared to what? And is this a good rule? Compared to what? Compared to every rule that affected the Committee on Financial Services during Republican leadership, it is a rule of great openness. Compared to an ideal of complete openness, not quite.

So it is a far better rule than any Republicans ever brought forward with regard to openness. It is not as good as I would like, but it does allow into debate every amendment germane to the substance of this bill, particularly to this bill, in terms of these programs, a number of amendments that change it one way or the other: some that would expand it, some that would retract it. And I believe the House will have a chance to work its will on this issue.

The only other thing I would say is this when we are talking about time: For people who haven't been remembering exactly, I do want to remind people, despite what you might think, it is not November of 2005. We are now here in March of 2007. I say that because people who saw the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi and in Louisiana, to some extent in Texas, and who expected the Federal Government to respond, and looked at the things we are doing, which are called for by that dilemma that was created by the hurricanes, they would have assumed that their Federal Government would have done that within a couple of months after the hurricanes.

Unfortunately, about an 18-month freeze elapsed because the now- minority, then-majority, did not have the energy to deal with it. So we are doing a bill today that is 18 months overdue.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Yes, I do agree, but it was changed as of Friday, and so people could have looked at that on Friday and gotten it right. And I appreciate that. So, yeah, the section changed and as somebody even picked it up as of Friday, in the case of the gentleman from Louisiana, it was a different thing. We didn't get the CBO's scoring until too late, and then we had to work it out. The scoring came in. Part of the problem was CBO is very busy, and we passed the bill on March 7 and we didn't get their scoring until that Friday, and that was one of the reasons for the delay.

I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, first, the Parliamentarian ruled that the gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment which we debated in committee was not germane because it went far beyond the hurricane. So that was the reason for that.

The second thing is I want to concede one point to the gentleman. He has chided us because we have set ourselves too low a standard. We have set ourselves the standard of simply being better than they were last year. I acknowledge that is too low a bar. I think we have met it with ease, but I am inclined to do better. So I promise him, as far as I am concerned, I will try to have a higher standard.

Madam Speaker, I rise to correct myself.

The gentleman from Georgia asked me to acknowledge that his amendment was originally misfiled because of a change in the section that occurred last Friday. I acknowledged that, but incorrectly. In fact, the change happened during the markup. The section was renumbered during the markup. And the gentleman, of course, being a member of the committee, could have done that.

I want to stress again no change was made in the text of that bill from March 7 until today; so anybody who wanted to offer amendments knew that on March 7.

Secondly, as to the gentlewoman from Illinois, as I said, I guess I am coming here, Madam Speaker, confessing all day. I mean, I confess that I have not reached as high enough a standard as I should in parliamentary terms because I have taken simply being better than the Republicans as my standard, and I pledge to do better.

Similarly, I guess I should be scolded for being lax on the rules. The gentlewoman from Illinois offered her amendment in committee. We did not raise a point of order against it in committee. Now, I do want to point out the parliamentarian for our committee is the parliamentarian that was the parliamentarian under my predecessor. That is one of the first things I did after the election was to call the parliamentarian, Mr. Duncan, a former member of the Parliamentarian's Office, who had been hired by my predecessor, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and asked him to stay on. I believe it should be totally nonpartisan, and I believe it has been. It was the Parliamentarian's Office that told the Rules Committee that the gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment was not germane.

Now, I acknowledge my excessive tolerance. I have learned I am more tolerant of a lot of things than a lot of people here, and I accept that. I perhaps should have been more strict with regard to the committee. We had that debated, and the rule is generally that you do not take something that is narrowly applied and make it broader. There is language in this bill that applies to how vouchers are allocated where there was a hurricane. The gentlewoman wanted to change something that had been in the CR. She said it shouldn't have been in the CR. And I will say this: We will in our committee be revisiting that. We will have a voucher bill. That will come before our committee going forward. But I do want to make it clear in defense of the Rules Committee that where I allowed the amendment without getting a ruling on it, the Rules Committee, when they restricted the gentlewoman's amendment from being offered, were following the ruling of the parliamentarian that it was not germane.

I will yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

I understand.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I acknowledge that I did not raise a point of order. I acknowledge that I was very tolerant and did not make a point of order that apparently would have been sustained by the parliamentarian. But it was the parliamentarian who said that.

I am sorry the woman spent over an hour in the Rules Committee. Sometimes that is fun; sometimes it is not, but that is part of the job. But the fact is that the decision to exclude her particular amendment was made on the ruling of the parliamentarian that it was not germane.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.