Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from California, Chairman Berman, has work tirelessly over the last year to make this deal better. He has been a great champion of nonproliferation in this House, and he has led many efforts to prod and question the Bush administration on the negotiations with India--pressing for a deal that would enhance our relationship with the world's largest democracy while protecting the global nonproliferation regime and our interests around world. Unfortunately, the administration resisted many of his efforts, and those of others, and I am forced to oppose the final package.

I believe that our relationship with India is one of our most important. Our interests are inextricably linked, and our economies draw ever closer. In the past, that relationship has been strained by the issue of nuclear proliferation--India never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and continues to build nuclear weapons. The agreement we vote on today began as a valiant attempt to bring India into the nuclear mainstream, while binding our business communities closer together. Unfortunately, it has ended with an agreement that falls short of either goal: the safeguards are not strong enough, the incentive for other nations to proliferate is too great, and while opening India's nuclear market to the world, it places American companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to French and Russian firms.

Even worse, the ``deal'' is not really a deal at all. The Indian government and the Administration have been issuing contradictory statements about it for the past year. This is not a problem of each side interpreting the treaty differently--the two sides have apparently signed two different treaties. The next time India has a new government, which could be as early as this winter, it may withdraw from the agreement, and the net result of all of this negotiation will be to allow foreign companies to sell nuclear technology to India. No nonproliferation goals would be accomplished, no new business would be generated for American companies, and no new relationship with India would be achieved.

So, I have a few questions for the administration, which have not been answered, and I think they're important questions to consider as we vote on this proposal.

When the administration realized that the Indians would not accept a deal that punished them if they decided to test a nuclear weapon, a requirement of the Hyde Act, why did they continue to negotiate?

When it became clear that the real winners in this deal were the Russians and other nuclear powers that indiscriminately and irresponsibly sell nuclear technology around the world, why didn't we pull out?

When the administration realized that this deal might undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty that has succeeded in dramatically limiting the number of nuclear nations, why did they not take steps to strengthen other nonproliferation efforts?

When it became clear that we couldn't get the assurances we needed to stem proliferation, why didn't we shift gears and produce a deal in renewable energy, information technology, or another area that would bring actual benefits to the American economy without harming our national security?

Some proponents of the deal have said that it brings India into the nonproliferation mainstream. But in fact, India remains free to test nuclear weapons, has not agreed to abide by the Nonproliferation Treaty, has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and will only allow international inspectors access to a few of their civilian power plants. That is not the mainstream.

India has become a vital partner in a world that has grown dangerous and unpredictable. But tragically, an agreement in any other field would have brought us more, without seriously weakening our efforts to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and South Asia.

As a strong supporter of improving our relationship with India, but a firm advocate of nonproliferation, I cannot support this agreement, and I must urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the fine efforts of my colleague and Chairman Howard Berman to approve this deal, and I find myself in reluctant opposition.

I believe our relationship with India is one of our most important. Our interests are inextricably linked, and our economies draw ever closer. In the past, that relationship has been strained by the issue of nuclear proliferation--India never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and continues to build nuclear weapons.

The agreement we vote on today began as a valiant attempt to bring India into the nuclear mainstream while binding our business communities closer together. Unfortunately, it has ended with an agreement that falls short of either goal: the safeguards are not strong enough, the incentive for other nations to proliferate is too great; and while opening India's nuclear market to the world, it places American companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to the French and Russian firms.

Even worse, the deal is really no deal at all. The Indian government and the administration have been issuing contradictory statements about it for the past year. This is not a problem of each side interpreting the treaty differently. The two sides have apparently signed different treaties. The next time India has a new government, which could be as early as winter, it may withdraw from the agreement, and the net result of all of this negotiation will allow foreign companies to sell nuclear technology to India. No nonproliferation goals would be accomplished, no new business would be generated for American companies, and no new relationship with India would be achieved.

When it became clear that the real winners in this deal were the Russians and other nuclear powers that indiscriminately and irresponsibly sell nuclear technology around the world, why didn't the administration pull out? When the administration realized that India would not accept the deal that ended cooperation if it decided to test a nuclear weapon, a requirement of the Hyde Act, why did they continue to negotiate? When the administration realized this deal might undermine the MPT, a treaty that has succeeded in dramatically limiting the number of nuclear nations, why did they not take steps to strengthen other nonproliferation efforts?

Some proponents of the deal have said that it brings India into the nuclear nonproliferation mainstream.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from California, Chairman Berman, has worked tirelessly over the last year to make this deal better. He has been a great champion of nonproliferation in this House, and he has led many efforts to prod and question the Bush administration on the negotiations with India--pressing for a deal that would enhance our relationship with the world's largest democracy while protecting the global nonproliferation regime and our interests around the world. Unfortunately, the administration resisted many of his efforts and that of others, and I am forced to oppose the final package.

I believe that our relationship with India is one of our most important. Our interests are inextricably linked, and our economies draw ever closer. In the past, that relationship has been strained by the issue of nuclear proliferation--India never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and continues to build nuclear weapons. The agreement we vote on today began as a valiant attempt to bring India into the nuclear mainstream, while binding our business communities closer together. Unfortunately, it has ended with an agreement that falls short of either goal: the safeguards are not strong enough, the incentive for other nations to proliferate is too great, and while opening India's nuclear market to the world, it places American companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to French and Russian firms.

Even worse, the ``deal'' is not really a deal at all. The Indian Government and the administration have been issuing contradictory statements about it for the past year. This is not a problem of each side interpreting the treaty differently--the two sides have apparently signed two different treaties. The next time India has a new government, which could be as early as this winter, it may withdraw from the agreement, and the net result of all of this negotiation will be to allow foreign companies to sell nuclear technology to India. No nonproliferation goals would be accomplished, no new business would be generated for American companies, and no new relationship with India would be achieved.

So, I have a few questions for the administration, which have not yet been answered, and I thInk they're important questions to consider as we vote on this proposal.

When the administration realized that India would not accept a deal that ended cooperation if it decided to test a nuclear weapon, a requirement of the Hyde Act, why did they continue to negotiate.

When it became clear that the real winners in this deal were the Russians and other nuclear powers that indiscriminately and irresponsibly sell nuclear technology around the world, why didn't we pull out?

When the administration realized that this deal might undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty that has succeeded in dramatically limiting the number of nuclear nations, why did they not take steps to strengthen other nonproliferation efforts?

When it became clear that we couldn't get the assurances we needed to stem proliferation, why didn't we shift gears and produce a deal in renewable energy, information technology, or another area that would bring actual benefits to the American economy without harming our national security?

Some proponents of the deal have said that it brings India into the nonproliferation mainstream. But in fact, India remains free to test nuclear weapons, has not agreed to abide by the Nonproliferation Treaty, has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and will only allow international inspectors access to a few of their civilian power plants. That is not the mainstream.

India has become a vital partner in a world that has grown dangerous and unpredictable. But tragically, an agreement in any other field of renewable energy would have brought us more, without seriously weakening our efforts to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and South Asia.

As a strong supporter of improving our relationship with India, but a firm advocate of nonproliferation, I cannot support this agreement, and I must urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing the Japanese-American 100th Infantry Battalion and 442d Regimental Combat Team, commonly known as the ``Go For Broke'' regiments, for their dedicated service to our nation during World War

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th Anniversary of the Armenian General Athletic Union and Scouts- Homenetmen, Glendale Ararat Chapter. As an ardent believer in the strong mind in a strong body concept, Homenetmen provides young adults with scouting, moral, physical, health, social and cultural education. Established on December 15, 1978, by seven volunteer members, the Ararat Chapter has served over 14,000 members since its inception.

Ararat's main focus consists of developing and supervising balanced programs for our community's youth. A dedicated staff of eight, assisted by more than 300 volunteers, does a remarkable job of planning, implementing and overseeing year-round supervised after- school and weekend activities for more than 2,300 children, teenagers and young adults between the ages of 7 and 25.

Homenetmen ensures that youngsters are taught civic and cultural values, volunteerism, teamwork, and leadership training in a family- oriented atmosphere, and are kept away from the negative influences of drugs, gangs and crime.

Homenetmen has always been an influential organization in the community. In accordance with their roots in civic duty, they have built close ties with other community and volunteer organizations. Some of Homenetmen's accomplishments include blood drives with the American Red Cross, drug awareness education programs with the Glendale Adventist Medical Center, preparation of holiday lunches and dinners in cooperation with the Salvation Army, graffiti cleanups, participation in cancer walks and visiting senior retirement homes.

Our community is grateful to Homenetmen and honors them as an important resource in shaping the lives of the children in the 29th Congressional District. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Homenetmen, Glendale Ararat Chapter on their 30th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great appreciation and admiration for Hoover High School student Lauren Arana, who saved her friend's life earlier this year. I am truly proud to have Lauren, who is now a 10th grade student from Glendale, as a constituent of mine.

On May 14, Lauren received a text message from a friend of hers in Nebraska who said that she was going to commit suicide. Lauren did not hesitate for a second in responding to this call for help. She immediately took the initiative to try and contact her friend's mother, and when she was unsuccessful, she contacted her friend's school in Sioux City, Nebraska.

Upon receiving Lauren's call, an assistant principal stepped into action

and went to the troubled student's home, where he found her with a knife to her neck and having already consumed antifreeze. Thankfully, due to Lauren's swift actions, the assistant principal was able to intervene in time to save her friend's life. This is a remarkable story, and demonstrates Lauren's extraordinary character.

Youth suicide is a tragic problem plaguing our Nation. It is the third leading cause of death for 15-to 24-year-olds and the sixth leading cause for 5- to 14-year-olds. Lauren's heroic intervention is a perfect example of how anyone should react to such a call for help. We should all learn from this story which, thankfully, avoided a tragic ending.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Asbarez-Armenian Daily Newspaper. Asbarez, which translates to `arena' in English, was founded on August 14, 1908 in Fresno, California, by seven dedicated members of the Armenian-American community: Aslan Aslanian, Bedros Hagopian, Levon Hagopian, Abraham Seklemian, Hovaness Kabadayan, Avedis Tufenkjian and Arpaxat Setrakian.

Like its counterparts in other Diaspora communities, such as Hairenik in Boston and Aztag in Lebanon, Asbarez has chronicled the Armenian experience worldwide. Among other things, they have written about the dire conditions in the homeland under Imperial Russia and Ottoman Turkey, the calamity of the Armenian Genocide, the World Wars, the rise and fall of the first Republic, Soviet rule, the tragic 1988 earthquake, the Karabakh ``Artsakh'' liberation and the independence of the Republic of Armenia.

In the words of Edward Megerdichian, who worked at Asbarez from 1956- 1963, ``[Asbarez] was ninety percent voluntary, and everyone had a sense of ownership, a sense of community--that this is our paper and our lives are described in this paper.''

During the 1970's Asbarez Publishing Company moved its operations from California's San Joaquin Valley to the Los Angeles basin. Since its inception, the circulation of the newspaper has grown from 1,200 copies to thousands; it has become a formidable bilingual daily newspaper and a dependable source for information in the online community.

It is my distinct honor to recognize Asbarez's unwavering commitment to inform and educate the public. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Asbarez on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, in the days after the 9/11 attacks, politicians, journalists and assorted experts rushed to claim that America and the world had entered a new era and that the battle with al Qaeda would define the first decades of the 21st century.

As the fight against al Qaeda has continued and intensified, we have come to see the impact of that fight on a key national security paradigm of the post Cold War era: the quest for energy security in an industrializing and ever-flattering world.

The United States has long recognized that our global leadership and economic strength depended on cheap, abundant energy from the Middle East. Disruptions to that supply as a result of the 1973 oil embargo, the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had demonstrated our vulnerability to events halfway around the world. Rather than taking the steps necessary to wean ourselves from Middle East oil, we sought to create stability in the region by aligning ourselves with pro-Western autocrats whose powerful internal security forces kept restive populations in check.

Capacity and price, the first high and the second low, stayed our hand. Cheap and plentiful oil powered the American economy to preeminence while solar, wind and biomass energy were expensive. Environmental concerns, including increasing evidence that the burning of fossil fuels was altering the Earth's climate, were relegated to secondary status.

All of that has now changed. The 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war have highlighted the seething political instability in the Middle East. The rise of China and India have increased competition for oil even as the global supply has remained stable. Finally, the Earth's climate is changing more rapidly and more profoundly than many scientists had forecasted, leading to a global consensus that humanity must take immediate steps to curtail the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

This confluence of political, economic and environmental factors is one of the greatest challenges that this Nation has faced in its history, but just as we have risen to meet other challenges--from the Revolution to the Civil War to the Great Depression and the totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century--I am confident that we will emerge from this crisis stronger and better positioned than our economic rivals to prosper in this new world.

As for the other problems that we have faced, finding a solution will require us to put our faith in American ingenuity and in our enormous capacity to fund and focus research and development efforts. In the last 2 years,

we have dramatically increased funding for research into renewable energy, but we must do even more by declaring a new Apollo Project for energy independence.

Even as we provide incentives to accelerate scientific research into reducing the cost of renewable energy, we must also act now to reduce our fossil fuel imports. The cheapest and quickest way to accomplish this is to reduce energy and fuel use through fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, conservation, and green development. We can also reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil in the short term by a responsible increase in domestic production, but this must be viewed for what it is--a short-term expedient and a bridge to a future based on renewable energy.

We cannot convert our economy from one dependent on fossil fuels to one that is based on renewable energy overnight, but we must take the position that our continued use of oil and gas will be largely phased out in the coming decades and that renewed, environmentally responsible exploration is intended to ease the conversion to a post-fossil fuel economy.

As a threshold matter, we must improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, as Congress mandated last December, and develop plug- in hybrid vehicles to drive further efficiency. Doing this will not only break our addiction to oil, it will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent.

This effort should be undertaken in conjunction with the national effort to improve our public transportation system, which still receives just a fraction of the investment that we put into roads. Congress has acted to increase public transit, but more needs to be done both at a local level and, more importantly, at State and regional levels.

We must also make our homes more energy efficient by installing rooftop solar panels, switching to energy-efficient appliances and enabling consumers and businesses to pay lower prices for electricity at night so that we can reduce the daytime spike in electricity usage that requires utilities to keep high-price power generation on call.

Companies have invested and workers have trained themselves in industries that were supported by our past Tax Code and its provisions. Climate change legislation will change those incentives, and while many high-tech American industries will prosper, some industries will suffer. For example, in my home State of California, solar and geothermal are growing by leaps and bounds. There are start-ups throughout the State building solar energy plants and installing solar energy systems. The silicon shortage that has slowed solar development in the last 3 years is fading as new factories come online.

But this new development is still dependent on the tax incentives that Congress has still not extended past the end of the year. We must not let these tax incentives expire and, instead, extend them for several years so that this expanding industry can become a driver in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are telling me they want Congress to take the steps necessary to transition our Nation to clean, renewable energy. I urge us to do exactly that.

They have told me that the energy crisis has imposed enormous hardship on them and on millions of other Americans. But, as in crises past, they also believe that our ingenuity, our can-do spirit and optimism will enable us to bequeath to our children and grandchildren a world that is cleaner and more prosperous. I share their hopes and their determination.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and rise in support of

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3564) to amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the United States through fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal regulation process is one of the most important ways by which our Nation implements public policy. Each year, agencies issue thousands of regulations to promote safety in our lives, from the food we eat, to the cars we drive, to the air we breathe.

Although regulations play a critical role in protecting so many aspects of our daily lives, there is no independent, nonpartisan entity that Congress can rely upon to help us ensure that these regulations are working as intended.

The Administrative Conference of the United States was just such an entity, a public-private think tank that provided invaluable guidance to Congress about how to improve the administrative and regulatory process.

First authorized by President John F. Kennedy, the Conference made numerous recommendations over the course of its 27-year existence, many of which were enacted into law. The conference was last funded into in 1995. H.R. 3564, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007, would reauthorize it for 3 years.

Some might ask why we are reauthorizing an entity that has been out of existence for so long. Let me mention three important reasons. First, the Conference can save taxpayer dollars, in fact, millions of dollars. When it was in existence, it helped agencies implement many cost-saving procedures and make numerous recommendations to eliminate excessive litigation costs and long delays.

Just one agency alone, the Social Security Administration, estimated that the Conference's recommendation to change that agency's appeal process yielded approximately $85 million in savings. Indeed, Justice Stephen Breyer testified before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law about the ``huge'' savings to the public resulting from the Conference's recommendations. Justice Antonin Scalia likewise agreed that it was an enormous bargain.

Second, the Administrative Conference promoted innovation among agencies. For example, it convinced 24 agencies to use alternative dispute resolution for issues concerning the private sector. The Conference also spearheaded implementation of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, governing consumer product warranties.

The Conference played a major role in encouraging agencies to promulgate smarter regulations. It did this by working to improve the public's understanding and participation in the rulemaking process, promoting judicial review of agency regulations, and reducing regulatory burdens on the private sector.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Congress needs the conference. Experience with the Congressional Review Act proves that there are limitations in Congress' ability to provide aggressive oversight of the regulatory process.

Congressional recognition of the Conference's significant contributions to the regulatory process is probably best evidenced by the fact that legislation assigning responsibilities to it continues to be introduced in nearly every Congress, including the current one.

The Congressional Research Service advises that reactivation of the Conference now would come at ``an opportune time,'' especially in light of efforts by the White House to augment its involvement in the regulatory process.

There are few entities that have enjoyed more bipartisan support than the Administrative Conference, and understandably so. It is all about promoting good government.

I commend my colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Chris Cannon of Utah, for his leadership in continuing to pursue reauthorization of the conference.

Last October, the House passed this bill on suspension by voice vote without amendment. The Senate late last month finally acted and passed the bill with a small amendment which essentially reauthorizes the Conference at a level of funding in the amount of $3.2 million.

I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment so we can send this bill to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers my colleague from Texas has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and I thank the Speaker as well as the work of Mr. Cannon of Utah. I urge passage of the bill.

As we have seen most recently in the actions and inactions by the FDA dealing with the salmonella incidents, or whether it is the Consumer Product Safety Commission and some of the issues involving manufactured products from other countries, the regulatory process is extraordinarily important in protecting the American people. Congress is doing its best to oversee these agencies, but we can use the assistance of this important conference, and I join my colleague in urging passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 381) honoring and recognizing the dedication and achievements of Thurgood Marshall on the 100th anniversary of his birth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution commemorates the life and work of Thurgood Marshall on the 100th anniversary of his birth, which was July 2, 1908.

I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership in allowing us to recognize an American whose life work was marked by the principles of justice, equality, and freedom, and I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation.

It is hard to know where to begin in reciting Justice Marshall's accomplishments. While best known for breaking the color barrier on the Supreme Court, Justice Marshall is honored because he was an expert jurist who worked on behalf of all Americans. Born 100 years ago in Baltimore, Maryland, and with just one generation between him and slavery, Thurgood Marshall experienced its legacy of segregation and racist hatred in his own time.

Rather than allow that legacy to defeat him, however, he dedicated his life to removing its stain from our society. His courageous determination propelled him to success in the classroom, in the courtroom, and on the bench.

When he was denied admission on the basis of race to the University of Maryland's School of Law, he attended Howard University's School of Law and graduated first in his class in 1933.

When he challenged the separate-but-equal status quo in his capacity as legal director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, from 1940 through 1961, he won 29 out of 32 cases before the Supreme Court, the most Supreme Court cases won by any attorney.

Later, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1961 to 1965, he would author 112 opinions, with not one of them being overturned.

Thurgood Marshall would continue his service to this country in two very distinguished capacities. He served as the first African American Solicitor General, from 1965 until 1967. That year, he was appointed associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the first African American Justice, where he served until he retired in 1991.

While Justice Marshall is best known for his lead role in the cases culminating in the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which laid the foundation for the dismantling of Jim Crow segregation, he fought racial segregation in every aspect of society, and this pursuit for a fair and just America made him one of the Nation's best advocates of civil rights.

In Chambers v. Florida, he challenged a biased criminal justice system. In Shelley v. Kraemer, he challenged discrimination in housing. And in Smith v. Allwright, he challenged inequitable voting practices.

Finally, in commemorating Justice Marshall, we acknowledge not just a good lawyer and judge, but a good man who reminded us that ``in recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute.''

Thurgood Marshall should be remembered as an individual who raised the morale, spirit and conscience of this country and who tirelessly fought social injustice throughout his life.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution that calls upon us to recognize the important legacy of Thurgood Marshall, a man who challenged and inspired Americans to live up to the principles and ideals on which this country was founded.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would now be delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their eloquent words, and I join them in urging the passage of this resolution recognizing a genuine American giant.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1182) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American flags flown on Federal Government buildings and on Federal property be made in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution, introduced by Bob Filner of California, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, is both appropriate and timely. It expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that American flags flown on Federal Government buildings and on Federal property should be made in the United States.

As with many basic products sold in the U.S. today, it can be difficult to find a flag that is made in America. But the American flag is not just any product. It is our national symbol, and especially when it flies over Federal Government property, it ought to be made in America by Americans.

I am proud that the Architect of the Capitol flies only American-made flags. When one of our constituents or a community organization receives a flag flown over the Capitol, they can be sure it was made in the U.S.A.

When we see the American flag, it should remind us of American workers whose jobs are sometimes now being shipped overseas to countries with lower labor and worker safety protections. The American flag represents the values of our Nation, values that cannot be reconciled with the conditions in many overseas factories.

There is a lot we need to do to ensure that America retains the jobs that drive our economy. But as one step, if only a small symbolic step, let us assure the American people that we will not fly imported American flags over Federal property. The flags we fly will be made by American workers in American factories. They will never be made in foreign sweatshops or by children.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And I want to commend the gentleman from California for introducing it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I join my colleague from Texas in urging support of this measure, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 369) honoring the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the brave men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. The DEA's employees include not only the special agents, but intelligence analysts, diversion investigators, program analysts, forensic chemists, attorneys and administrative support staff, together with task force officers and vetted foreign officials. These men and women work tirelessly to hunt down and bring to justice the drug trafficking cartels that profit by poisoning our citizens with dangerous narcotics.

The DEA and its dedicated officers have served our Nation with courage, vision and determination, protecting all Americans from the scourge of drug trafficking, drug abuse and related violence. It is fitting that we recognize their accomplishments and express our gratitude for their service.

Throughout its 35 years, the DEA has combated the evolving trends of drug trafficking by aggressively targeting both domestic and international organizations involved in the unlawful growing, manufacturing and distribution of such substances as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, Ecstasy and controlled prescription drugs. These successes are unfortunately not without tragic costs.

Over its history, more than 75 DEA employees and task force members have given their lives in the line of duty, with many others wounded. During the time I served with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, I had many, many occasions to work with DEA officers. I saw the professionalism of their work, their determination, their bravery and courage.

For some time I worked on the investigation into the capture, murder and torture of Enrique Camarena and, along with my colleagues, worked to investigate and bring to justice some of those that were responsible for the death of that courageous agent. So I have great personal regard for the many employees of the DEA, their proud history and the great work they do.

It is a commitment to duty almost too great to ask of anyone, yet these dedicated men and women of the DEA and their families face the risks and endure the hardships to make our Nation safer for all of us.

And so, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a well-deserved tribute to the DEA on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude on the legislation recognizing the 35th anniversary of the DEA, I recall very well the loss of two DEA agents in the City of San Marino, very close to my district, back when I was with the U.S. Attorney. They were involved in a buy-bust. It was a small amount of drugs, a small amount of money, I think amounting to some $35,000. These two agents, one was killed in a shoot-out with the drug dealers, the other shot at point-blank range execution style when these young drug dealers decided they would rather keep the $35,000 and kill two people for it.

This is the kind of risk the DEA agents face every day. We're extraordinarily grateful to have such courageous men and women working within the agency. I urge the passage of the recognition bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5057) to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5057, the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008, authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to States to assist them in reducing the enormous DNA evidence backlog in the Nation's laboratories. This important legislation will help to solve more crimes. It will help to solve more crimes more quickly, and perhaps most importantly, it will help to ensure that other crimes are prevented altogether.

Across our Nation, law enforcement officers and prosecutors have come to recognize the role that DNA evidence can play in solving crimes. As a result, ever-increasing numbers of DNA samples are being collected from crime scenes and offenders. There is no better example that demonstrates the effectiveness of DNA technology in solving crimes than that of Debbie Smith, the bill's namesake.

In 1989, Ms. Smith was kidnapped in her Virginia home and viciously attacked by a stranger who threatened her life should she report the attack. Nevertheless, with remarkable courage and determination, she reported the rape, and the crime lab preserved the DNA evidence of her attacker. Eventually, when the perpetrator was required to provide a DNA sample for a separate violent crime he was convicted for, a match was made to the sample collected from his attack on Ms. Smith, identifying him as her attacker.

Mr. Speaker, Debbie Smith and her husband, Rob, are here with us today, and I would like to ask them to stand so we can not only acknowledge their presence but thank them for their courage and determination and their work which has served as the driving force behind this legislation.

The remarkable law enforcement value of DNA evidence has unfortunately been limited by the enormous backlog of DNA samples still awaiting analysis. This means that crimes remain unsolved, violent offenders remain at large, and innocent individuals may be wrongfully imprisoned. H.R. 5057 would significantly increase the funding levels authorized for this important program and would also provide for important studies to further improve the system. H.R. 5057 also includes a number of other important initiatives that were adopted during the committee process.

Beginning in the 1990s, the Nation's crime labs were largely unprepared for the onslaught of requests for DNA services. Samples continue to pour into our Nation's crime labs at a pace faster than they can be processed. In order to address backlog problems, many States have begun outsourcing some of the work to accredited private laboratories. However, the FBI requires the crime labs perform in-house technical reviews of 100 percent of database samples from contract labs. While this requirement is certainly important with regard to forensic casework samples, it is found to be an onerous requirement with regard to the rather simple swabs that are taken from convicted offenders.

In fact, these requirements add substantial additional costs and further delay backlog reduction. Indeed, even Debbie Smith grant funds are expended on fulfilling these onerous requirements.

The National Institute of Justice has confirmed that ``the burden of these requirements has increased the backlog of convicted offender samples, cost millions of dollars, and forced crime laboratories to remove staff from analyzing rape kits and other forensic samples.''

In order to address this issue, I offered a bipartisan provision with my colleague Representative Dan Lungren that would create a new National DNA Index System Advisory Board to ensure diverse representation of views, including State and local lab directors, officials from the FBI and DOJ, and other relevant stakeholders.

The board is directed to develop new standards governing the use of the Federal index that provide for the expedited uploading by State and local forensic labs of convicted offender profiles generated by private labs. These new standards are to be issued within 6 months.

In addition, the board is directed to look into the feasibility of other measures that would greatly expedite analysis and uploading, as well as backlog reduction. These include the feasibility and desirability of entering into agreements with private forensic labs to enable direct access to CODIS for the purpose of uploading DNA analyses of samples obtained from persons convicted of crimes; the feasibility and desirability of providing for more limited technical review audits of DNA analyses of samples prior to uploading such data into CODIS; and the feasibility and desirability permitting greater participation in the technical review process of contractor personnel.

I also authored another provision in this legislation that aims to increase the crime-solving abilities of our DNA databases.

Today, 12 States collect samples from murder and sex crime arrestees, including my home State of California. Four of these States, including California, collect or are preparing to collect samples from all felony arrestees.

Virginia was the first State to expand its database to include arrestees, and since then, the State has seen a total of 398 hits to their arrestee database, 74 of which were associated with sexual assault cases. For the first two months of this year alone, six hits to arrestees were made, the first hit coming just after the upload of the first 80 samples into the database.

A 2005 Chicago study examined the criminal activities of only eight individuals and found that 60 violent crimes could have been prevented, including 53 murders and rapes, if DNA was required for felony arrests.

In one example, Andre Crawford was charged with 11 murders and one attempted murder/aggravated sexual assault. If the State had required him to give a DNA sample during an earlier felony arrest, the subsequent 10 murders and one rape would not have occurred.

In another example, Mario Villa was charged with four rapes, linked by DNA to two other rapes, and a main suspect in an additional rape and two attempted rapes. If the State had required him to give a DNA sample during an earlier felony arrest, eight rapes or attempted rapes could have been prevented.

A recent Maryland study looked at the criminal histories for three offenders and found that 20 crimes, including rapes, sexual assaults, and murder could have been prevented had their DNA samples been required upon arrest.

Mr. Speaker, States who have moved to collect arrestee samples, such as Virginia and California, are greatly increasing the power of the national DNA network, while States with far narrower collection regimes are making the Federal database, which Congress has invested a substantial amount of money in, less sufficient. These States can still avail themselves of the Federal database and take full advantage of the expansive collection regimes of other States.

Therefore, a provision of this bill would provide incentives for States to follow the lead of the 12 States that currently collect samples from individuals arrested for or charged with murder and sex crimes. These States who would enact such an enhanced collection process would be eligible for a 10 percent increase in Federal formula law enforcement funds.

Since State backlogs are so huge and Federal funds remain limited, States have had to share a significant portion of the burden to fund these activities. However, State funding can fluctuate from year-to- year given the budget process and competing priorities. Some States, such as California, have penalty fee structures in place that provide a more stable and consistent funding stream.

Proposition 69 in California provided for a $1 penalty for every $10 or fraction thereof upon every fine, penalty and forfeiture levied on criminal offenses, including traffic expenses, but excluding parking. Over $40 million has been raised in California since its inception, and this has taken some of the burden off the Federal Government and the Debbie Smith grant funds available each year.

States should be encouraged to put such structures in place and for their ability to not rely as heavily on Federal resources.

Therefore, I authored a provision in this bill that would authorize the Attorney General to provide matching funds to those States that have implemented permanent funding mechanisms that generate funds, whether by fees or penalties, that are allocated by the State only for the purpose of analyzing DNA samples for law enforcement purposes.

Finally, this legislation includes a separate grant authorization for upgrading laboratory capability and infrastructure. And it provides supplemental grant incentives for States to fund their own DNA initiatives.

We have a comprehensive bill that will give lawmakers the best information for formulating policy, as well as provide law enforcement the most up-to-date tools and technology for solving crimes.

I'd like to commend Carolyn Maloney of New York for her leadership in authoring this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith of Texas, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott and Ranking Member Louie Gohmert for their leadership in making this a fully bipartisan effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for 4 minutes.

I would be happy to yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, the reauthorization of this important program also provides us with an opportunity to investigate some important related issues.

From my work on this issue, I've learned that the Federal Government is unable to determine how many hits the Federal Government informs States about are actually followed up on by law enforcement. I think this data is very important for policymakers to have.

A few years ago, USA Today engaged in a comprehensive examination of DNA cases. In one case, the DNA of a convicted child molester matched DNA from an attempted sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl. Police did not contact the offender until after he had molested another 10-year- old child 6 months later.

In another case, the DNA of a career felon matched DNA left at a rape and abduction from 2001. At the time the offender was serving a prison sentence for assault. The police did not contact him until 8 months later, after he had been released from prison and only after being alerted by the rape victim, who encountered the offender by chance while walking in a local park.

These are two examples of situations where there was a match made in the Federal database. States were informed about it, but no action was taken, with tragic consequences. Therefore, I have authored a provision in this bill that would direct the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate and report on how many CODIS database hits are actually followed up on by law enforcement, how many of those hits are ultimately brought to the attention of a prosecutor and how many go to trial.

Importantly, the report will also shed additional light on the factors that play in the event that matches were not followed up on. In particular, we asked the IG to determine the reason why matches were not pursued accordingly, and to determine the resulting impact on the criminal justice system, namely, whether other crimes were committed that could have been prevented if the matches were pursued accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3218) to extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal history background checks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilots Extension Act of 2008 will allow a simple 6-month extension to the National Child Safety Pilot Program passed as a part of the PROTECT Act of 2003.

I am proud to sponsor the House version of this bill. The Senate has already taken up the legislation by unanimous consent, so if the House votes to pass this bill, as I hope it will, it will go to the President to be signed into law.

We're fortunate to have millions of Americans who generously give their time and energy to volunteer and mentor children. In 1986, as a then young lawyer, I volunteered as a Big Brother for a 7-year-old in the Greater Los Angeles area. That relationship has been one of the most rewarding and enduring that I've ever had. It also taught me firsthand the trust that we place in the adult in a mentoring situation. It's important that we protect children by taking reasonable and practical steps to help guard against the chance that a convicted child abuser or sex offender might conceal his or her past and place our children at risk.

Since 2003, and earlier, States have been authorized to access national fingerprint-based background checks through the FBI on behalf of youth-serving organizations. Unfortunately, as of today, only one- third of States have the infrastructure in place for a youth-serving organization to get a background check from the FBI in an affordable and timely manner.

In passing the PROTECT Act, Congress acted in response to the need to protect children from predators who could gain access to children under the guise of volunteering. Mentoring groups, large and small, want access to the information they need to protect children, and the pilot has been extremely successful in providing that access through a fee- supported system at no cost to taxpayers.

The pilot demonstrated that there was a clear need for this program to protect children. Six percent of checks conducted came back with serious criminal records, in many cases records that would have not turned up through a search of a State database or through a name-based commercial search. We have cases from around the Nation in which applicants for volunteering positions with children were sex offenders, repeat felons, and child abusers.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reviewed files in which an applicant had a criminal record in four States, including a conviction for murder, which they didn't reveal to the organization. Losing access to these checks would be disastrous for hundreds of small, community-based mentoring organizations.

Due to the success of the program, we have extended the pilot twice before. It is now set to expire July 31 unless we extend it again. This bill would provide a 6-month extension to give us all time to work on an appropriate permanent bill that protects our children, while also protecting the privacy of potential volunteers.

I am proud to sponsor, along with my colleague, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, the Child Protection Improvements Act, a bill which would do just that. We will continue to work with stakeholders and the Judiciary Committee to put in place a permanent system of protection.

The pilot program has demonstrated that youth-serving organizations correctly want to watch out for children and want access to affordable, accurate and prompt background checks to help them do so. We need to keep the pilot program in place while we develop the permanent bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in urging passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5464) to direct the Attorney General to make an annual grant to the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center to assist law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing children, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have an additional 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5464, the ``A Child is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act,'' helps address the terrifying experience of when a family member or friend goes missing.

Under current law, there are programs such as Amber Alert to help missing children who are abducted or become victims of foul play. But these programs do not extend to situations where a child or elderly person becomes missing in other more innocent ways. H.R. 5464 fills this gap and authorizes money for annual grants to the A Child is Missing Alert and Recovery Center. This national nonprofit program provides assistance to local law enforcement throughout the country in all situations of missing persons, not only those involved in criminal activity.

The center helps when a small child fails to come home from school or a grandmother suffering from Alzheimer's disease walks out of her home in the middle of the night. When the terrifying event of a missing person is reported to the police, the responding police officer can call the center, which operates 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Based on information from the call, the center quickly prepares a recorded message that includes a description of the missing person, along with a location where the person was last seen. Within minutes, the center sends this recording to thousands of phones within a radius of the last known location. This activity can save not only precious lives, but also critically needed enforcement resources that would otherwise be spent in extended searches for missing persons.

The bill before us today will make a significant contribution to the protection of children and vulnerable adults throughout the United States. I want to thank the sponsor of this bill, Ron Klein of Florida, for his leadership on this very important issue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.