Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I introduced the Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006. This legislation would clarify the procedures that should be applied when a criminal defendant dies after he or she has been duly convicted but before the appeals are final.

The need for this legislation has been made evident in recent months. Earlier this year, Enron founder Kenneth Lay was found guilty in both jury and bench trials of 10 criminal charges, including securities fraud, wire fraud involving false and misleading statements, bank fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors sought $43.5 million in restitution for the victims of Mr. Lay's crimes.

However, prior to the scheduled sentencing, Mr. Lay died from a heart attack. As a result, on October 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Sim Lake wiped clean Mr. Lay's criminal record. The convictions were dismissed under a common law rule known as ``abatement,'' which nullifies a conviction when a defendant dies before the conviction is affirmed on appeal, regardless of the merits of the claim. Judge Lake made clear that his ruling simply followed the binding precedent issued in 2004 by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit, in a case called United States v. Estate of Parsons. Last month, the Department of Justice withdrew its notice of appeal on Judge Lake's ruling.

Congress holds a serious responsibility to address this situation in a timely manner. Unless we act quickly, thousands of Enron shareholders and employees, many of whom lost their entire life savings when Enron's $60 billion in market share and $2 billion in pension funds suddenly disappeared, will further lose out on what little restitution they might otherwise receive on the loss of their hard-earned assets and pension funds.

The Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006 is the House companion to S. 4055 in the Senate, introduced by Senators Feinstein and Sessions. The Department of Justice strongly supports the principles contained in this legislation and the effort to fix this problem to ensure that despite a defendant's death, convictions are preserved and restitution remains available for victims of crime.

The legislation that I am introducing today will do the following:

Establish that if a defendant dies after being convicted of a Federal offense, his conviction will not be vacated. Instead, the court will be directed to issue a statement stating that the defendant was convicted--either by a guilty plea or a verdict finding him guilty--but then died before his case or appeal was final;

Codify the current rule that no further punishments can be imposed on a person who is convicted if they die before a sentence is imposed or they have an opportunity to appeal their conviction;

Clarify that unlike punishment, all other relief, such as restitution to the victims, that could have been sought against a convicted defendant can continue to be pursued and collected after the defendant's death;

Establish a process to ensure that after a person dies, a representative of the estate can stand in the shoes of the defendant and challenge or appeal his or her conviction, and can also secure a lawyer or have one appointed; and

Grant the Government an additional 2 years after the defendant's death to file a parallel civil forfeiture lawsuit to recover assets linked to the defendant's crimes when the Government had already filed a criminal forfeiture action to recover the same assets.

Enron's collapse in 2001 eliminated thousands of jobs, tens of billions of dollars in market value, and $2 billion in pension plans. Countless former Enron employees and shareholders lost their entire life savings after investing in Enron's retirement plan. These victims have been closely following the years of preparation by the Enron Task Force, and the 4-month jury trial and separate 1-week bench trial, hoping to finally recover some restitution in this criminal case. Despite prosecutors finally securing a conviction, following the death of Mr. Lay, these efforts to achieve justice for the victims to make up for the harm they have suffered were eliminated. Instead, these individuals have been forced to start anew in their efforts to rebuild their lives.

Now is the time for Congress to take action to remedy this situation. This legislation offers a fair solution and an orderly process in the event that a criminal defendant dies prior to his final appeal. I am hopeful that Congress will act quickly enough to assist these Enron victims and ensure that such an injustice never occurs again. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This afternoon, we had a lengthy debate in the Rules Committee on the base bill offered by my colleague from New Mexico and a substitute amendment that was offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona and by myself. It was a lengthy debate. I think it was a good debate. It would have been a better debate, however, if the conclusion had not been predetermined, if, in fact, it was a real debate in the sense that the outcome had not been decided before we entered the room.

The gentleman asked how long did it take for the committee to decide not to allow the bipartisan alternative, and I can tell the gentleman, by the time it took me to walk from the Rules Committee across the street to my office, the committee had decided it would not allow a bipartisan alternative. But I suppose that was my own fault for walking too fast. Perhaps if I had walked slower across the street, I might have gotten to my office before the committee ruled.

So I am going to tell you today about the bill we will not have the opportunity to vote on, not in an up-or-down fashion, and I think I will tell you a little bit about why we will not have the opportunity to vote on this bipartisan bill.

The ``why'' I think is relatively straightforward. Because the majority does not have the confidence that it has the votes to allow the substitute to come before this House. Because the substitute, which was the product of about 6 months of work between Mr. Flake and myself and in its other forum, legislative forum, has the support of seven Republicans and seven Democrats, as bipartisan as you can make it in this House, very well might command the majority of this House. That runs afoul of the rule of the Speaker that unless it enjoys a majority of the majority you do not get a vote in this House of Representatives. So we will not have a vote on the bipartisan alternative.

But let me tell you and the rest of the country what we are being denied the chance to vote on in the substitute. The Schiff-Flake substitute would do the following:

It would extend the warrantless electronic surveillance authority from the current 72 hours after the fact to 7 days, because the Justice Department and the NSA said that they needed more time after a wiretap is initiated to go to court and get an authorization. It is important for people to recognize that under current law you do not need to get a warrant before you go up on a wiretap. Under FISA, you have 72 hours. The government said that is not enough, we want 7 days; and in our substitute, we give them 7 days.

We enhance the surveillance authority after an attack. The Justice Department and the NSA say, well, under current law, we have 15 days to do warrantless surveillance after the declaration of war. Well, we do not even declare war, and so our substitute provides that when we authorize the use of force and we make it explicit that we will permit warrantless surveillance for 15 days. That authorization to use force grants that surveillance authority after an attack.

We also address the main issue that was raised by the NSA in the public hearings, the main problem the NSA advocated needed to be addressed, and that is that when one foreigner is talking with another foreigner on foreign soil, but because of the changes in telecommunications since the passage of FISA more than a quarter century ago, and that communication touches down somewhere in the United States or is intercepted in the United States, FISA shouldn't be involved. You should not have to go to court when you want to intercept a communication between one foreigner and another foreigner on foreign soil. And so we fixed that problem.

Our substitute permits continued surveillance when targets travel internationally. That was another request made by Justice and NSA. We streamline the FISA application process and remove redundant requirements in the application process. We increase the speed and the agility of the FISA process. We authorize additional resources to hire more personnel to make the applications.

But we also do something very important, which the base bill doesn't do, and that is we reiterate the fact that when you are going to surveil an American on American soil, and that is after all the heart of this matter, when you are going to surveil an American on American soil, the court should be involved, if not before you go and surveil, then within 7 days, that FISA sets up the exclusive authority for that.

Now, my colleague from New Mexico says the constitutional standard is reasonable in this, and that is right. Americans under the fourth amendment have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. We have the right to be protected in our reasonable expectation of privacy. So I ask you, What is your reasonable expectation of privacy, Americans? Is it that if you are not engaged in terrorism, if you are not in contact with terrorists, if you are not engaged in harmful activity that you should be secure in knowing that your phone conversations will not be tapped without someone going to court to prove the facts?

But Members of this body will not have a chance to vote on this bipartisan substitute because the majority doesn't have the confidence they can defeat it. And for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5418, legislation that I introduced with my colleague, Representative Issa, in order to establish a pilot program in the Federal district courts to encourage the enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.

I want to thank my colleague from California for his leadership and tenacity on this issue that has brought us to this place. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the Chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property for working to bring the bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, Mr. Issa, in introducing this legislation because I believe it is a worthy proposal that is narrowly drafted and will provide us with valuable and important insight on the operation of patent litigation in the Federal court system.

This patent pilot program, created under the bill, is designed to enhance expertise in patent cases among district judges, provides district courts with resources and training to reduce error rates in patent cases, and helps reduce the high cost and lost time associated with patent litigation.

The legislation has received an impressive display of broad-based support from a wide-ranging spectrum of interested parties, including the technology industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the consumer electronics industry, biotech, intellectual property owners and other IP organizations, as well as a U.S. district chief judge.

Several months ago, the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on improving Federal court adjudication of patent cases. At this hearing a number of proposed solutions were discussed, serious concerns were expressed with other proposals that would have called for the creation of a new specialized court as well as proposals that would move all patent cases to an existing specialized court.

These concerns centered around the need to maintain generalist judges, random case assignment, and to maintain the important legal percolation that occurs currently among the various district courts.

Our approach avoids these pitfalls and is a worthwhile program that Congress should establish on a test basis. It also bears mentioning that we have consulted very closely with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the representative of the Federal judiciary.

Indeed, these discussions led to a number of important improvements to the legislation that are reflected in the final product. We are also pleased that companion legislation has been introduced in the other body by Senators Hatch and Feinstein.

In closing, I would like to stress that while this legislation is an important first step to addressing needed patent reforms, I believe that Congress must continue to work to address a number of issues surrounding patent litigation that require broad-based reforms to our patent system.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing my work with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and in Congress to address these issues

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the superb work done by my colleague, who really was the driving force behind this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My colleague from California is right, we do have reasonable differences of opinion on this legislation. Regrettably, we won't get a chance to vote on them. The bipartisan substitute that I offered with Mr. Flake will not be permitted to come up for a vote tonight.

Let us look at where we are. It is 5 years since 9/11. And in those 5 years, the Justice Department, the NSA have not come to Congress to ask for the changes that are being proposed by this bill. Indeed, but for the fortuity of the disclosure of the secret program by the New York Times, we wouldn't be here at all. That says something about the efficacy of the current law and the current FISA court.

Now, I happen to think the FISA laws can be improved. We have amended them, though, in 25 different ways over the last several years, so it is not as if this 28-year-old act has been untouched. The question here, the rub here is not what we do with foreigners who are talking to other foreigners on foreign soil, as my colleagues in the majority would like us to believe. The rub here is what do we do about Americans on American soil.

Do we want to entrust to the government and say you can surveil an American here at home without any court supervision? We are going to take entire programs off the books. We are going to embody a philosophy that says to the government, we trust you. We don't need a check and balance. My colleague says that the transportation analogy would be rules of the road. Well, the more accurate analogy would be if we had a speed limit sign and people were racing past it and violating the speed limit, the base bill would say, tear down the sign or do away with the court that would enforce the law by stripping the court of the jurisdiction to review the program.

That is not what we are here to do. We are here to say to the American people that those that wish us harm we will go after with every tool. But you, who are law-abiding citizens of this country, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your homes and we will respect that. When we intrude your home and your phone and your e-mail, you will have the confidence of knowing that a court is overseeing what the government does.

Because the Framers' philosophy was check and balance. It served us well for 200 years. It will continue to serve us well.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, it is a regrettable fact that at the beginning of the 21st century there are a great many people in the world whose primary motive in life is to seek to harm or kill Americans. Our country faces a real threat, and it must be addressed.

As we fight this threat, Americans need to know two things. First, that we will use every tool we have necessary to stop the people that would hurt this country, that we will do everything possible to find them, to capture them, to kill them, if necessary. We will surveil them, we will listen to their calls and their e-mails, and we will do everything in our power to protect this country.

Second, Americans need to know that if you are a law-abiding citizen and you are not a terrorist or supporting terrorists that we will respect your privacy. We will not listen to your calls when we do not have a business to, and we will not read your e-mails when we have no business to.

Under the Schiff-Flake motion to recommit, we modernize FISA. We give the government the time, the flexibility it needs. We fix the problem of foreigners talking to foreigners in calls that go through the United States. In short, we do everything that the NSA and the Justice Department has asked us to do.

The base bill, by contrast, excludes whole categories of surveillance, including the surveillance of Americans on American soil from court review. The base bill can be summarized as follows: Trust us. We are from the government. We may listen to you, but trust us. We know what we are doing.

But our Constitution was drafted on a very different premise, a premise that said we operate from a system of checks and balances, that no one branch of government should be trusted implicitly, without review and oversight by another.

Today, we have a choice between two alternatives, both of which modernize FISA, one which gives a blank check sought by the administration, the other that protects Americans on American soil.

One of the leaders in this debate that I have been privileged to work with is my colleague from the great State of Arizona, and I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken over 5 years since September 11 for the administration to finally come to Congress and seek legislation establishing military tribunals to try terrorist suspects.

For over 4 years now, many of my Democratic colleagues and I have urged this Congress to act in this area. Four-and-a-half years ago I introduced legislation, other of my colleagues did the same, to establish military tribunals, and we introduced that legislation for two reasons: first, because we should detain people who mean to harm our country and mean to injure our citizens; and, second, because the administration's unilateral act in establishing these commissions was on the most dubious of constitutional grounds and we did not want to be where we are today, 5 years hence, with a system that was struck down by the Supreme Court, where people have not been brought to justice.

But here we are. It has taken the majority and the administration 5 years to get here, but here we are.

Terrorists who seek to harm this country must be captured. They must be tried, detained and punished to protect our country, and there is a way to detain them, to gather valuable intelligence from them, to try and convict them without sacrificing our ideals as a Nation.

We are at war with a vicious enemy who seeks to destroy our way of life. It is a military fight; but in a broader sense, it is also a war of ideas.

America has always been not only a Nation it has been an idea and when we sacrifice that idea, it is a setback in this war of ideas.

So we have to ask ourselves where does this position us? Where does this bill position us in the war of ideas? Are we advancing or are we retreating when we are perceived as abandoning the rule of law? When we are perceived as defining what it means to be cruel or inhuman or degrading?

When we wonder out loud in the legislative process whether a Nation so conceived as ours can long endure without cruel and inhuman treatment? When we show to the world that we are questioning the very idea of America, whether this Nation can long endure with a respect for the rule of law, with respect for the concept that people who are detained by America will not be mistreated, that people detained by America will have a right to confront evidence against them will have the sacred right of habeas corpus?

When we put forward legislation that says that an American can be plucked off the street, given a label unilaterally by any administration, by this President or the next, as an unlawful enemy combatant, and all their rights evaporate once they are given that label, that calls into question the very idea of America; and that, I believe, is a setback in the war of ideas.

We can do better than this bill. And, in fact, on Friday, we had better than this bill, when Senator Warner and Senator McCain came forward with what I thought was a sound compromise. We had a sound compromise on Friday, but during the weekend that unraveled. During the weekend, I think we took a step back in the war on ideas.

It was not an irrevocable step back. The majority and the administration has waited 5 years to bring us legislation on this subject. Let us take another 5 days, if it takes it, to get it right.

We shouldn't be retreating back to our districts just because of our election and leaving the work undone or done poorly. And I regret to say that this bill is done poorly, and it must be changed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to resolve an issue which has been debated here this afternoon about what the effect of this legislation is on American citizens.

Plainly, the legislation defines ``unlawful enemy combatant'' as any person who materially supports someone or is believed to support someone engaged in hostilities against the United States. That includes American citizens. And yet the majority says, but, under the legislation, only aliens can be brought up before the military tribunal. That is also correct. So how do you resolve this apparent difference?

The reality is there is no difference. Because what the bill contemplates is a two-part system of justice: one for those who are brought before tribunals, and one for those who may never be brought before tribunals but who are, nonetheless, detained as unlawful enemy combatants. Because this bill contemplates that people will be detained, whether it is in a secret CIA prison or elsewhere, and perhaps never brought before a tribunal; and there is nothing in this legislation that prohibits the detention of an American indefinitely, never brought before a tribunal.

Now the majority says, we don't do away with the habeas rights of Americans, writ large or writ small. If that is the case, why don't we say that in this legislation, that an American detained as an unlawful enemy combatant has the right of habeas corpus? The reason we don't say it in this bill is because the administration has consistently taken the position that those detained, including Americans, as unlawful enemy combatants do not have the right of habeas corpus to seek redress in courts and have fought that already in court.

So where does that leave us in the war of ideas? We have an enemy that has nothing to offer in the war of ideas. We have everything to offer. But when we undermine the idea of what it is to be an American, the idea of this country, by saying that we will water down the rule of law, that we will have a separate system of justice or no system of justice, for those who are declared unlawful combatants will have no right to court redress, that is a setback in the war of ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Holy Family Catholic Community parish in Glendale, California. In 2007, Holy Family will celebrate its 100th anniversary.

Holy Family Catholic Community was founded in 1907, in Glendale, California by Father James O'Neal. The parish originally consisted of only 15 members, who met for weekly services in residential homes. Today, the parish proudly counts over 4,000 families in its membership.

The Holy Family Catholic Community is committed to emphasizing education for the young people of the community. The parish operates both a high school and a grammar school, and hosts annual fundraising events in order to fund quality education for its students. For over a decade, Holy Family High School has sent 100 percent of its graduating seniors

on to college. Over 45 percent of Holy Family High School students receive tuition scholarships from the parish, allowing them to take advantage of the excellent educational opportunities provided by the school.

The Holy Family parish has been served by many distinguished and dedicated pastors throughout its history. From 1975 to 1995, the community was served by Monsignor Arthur J. Lirette who has also acted as Chaplain for the Glendale Police Department, State Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus, and Episcopal Vicar of the San Fernando Region. Since 1995, Father Joseph P. Shea has served as head pastor of Holy Family, following a six-year stint as the Director of the Office of Vocations for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

To celebrate the occasion of its centennial, the Holy Family parish has undertaken a mission of spiritual and physical renewal. The theme of the anniversary celebration is ``Jubilee,'' in honor of an ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, in which all people cooperate to restore the world to its original state of justice, equality and beauty. Jubilee years mark a time of renewal, fellowship, and forgiveness. The Holy Family parish will be participating in a series of spiritual retreats, as well as renovating its church building, in honor of this tradition.

I am proud to recognize the centennial celebration of the Holy Family Catholic Community in Glendale, California, and I ask all Members to join me today in honoring this parish.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act.

Since September 11th, I have been extremely concerned with the security of our Nation's points of entry and the securing of weapons of mass destruction.

I have worked with my colleagues to establish screening of our air cargo, to deploy radiation detectors at our ports and borders, and to secure nuclear materials throughout the world. Most recently, I have worked with Senators Feinstein and Kyl on securing our seaports from terrorist attacks and sabotage, legislation that was signed into law earlier this year.

That is why the discovery in January of this year of a 2,400 foot tunnel near San Diego which was equipped with sophisticated draining, lighting, and pulley systems should shock the conscience of every Member of Congress. In fact, just this week, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced that they had discovered yet another cross- border drug-smuggling tunnel beneath a private residence in Calexico, California, that extended nearly 400 feet to a house in Mexicali, Mexico.

This is not a California problem or an Arizona problem--it is a national one.

Madam Speaker, all of our other efforts to secure our Nation's points of entry will be futile if this growing national security problem on our borders is not addressed. Although these tunnels have been principally used to smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants, there is nothing preventing their use for the smuggling of chemical, biological, or radiological material. The 9/11 Commission warned against a ``failure of imagination'', and it takes little to imagine terrorists making use of these holes in our border security.

Since 9/11, U.S. border officials have discovered 40 tunnels along American borders. They range in complexity from short ``gopher holes'' to massive drug-cartel built passages like the one found near San Diego in January.

We know that terrorists have and will continue to try to enter our country via our borders. The 2000 LAX millennium bomb attack plot was foiled when a terrorist was arrested at the U.S.-Canadian border after crossing by ferry. Customs officials found nitroglycerin and four timing devices concealed in a spare tire well of his automobile.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor to the legislation that we are considering today which would impose a punishment of up to 20 years in prison for individuals who are convicted of constructing or financing a subterranean tunnel under the U.S. border. It would, furthermore, impose a punishment of up to 10 years in prison for anyone who permits others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel on their land. The bill also doubles penalties for those who use a tunnel or subterranean passage to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists or other illegal goods, and permits the seizure of assets of anyone involved in the offense, or any property that is traceable to the offense.

While those attempting to enter our country were being closely scrutinized and airline passengers were taking their shoes off or turning over their nail clippers, 40 border tunnels were being constructed in the United States, and thousands of pounds of illegal drugs and illegal aliens were pouring into our country.

Those patrolling our borders believe there is a direct correlation between the increased fortification of the border and the increase in the number of tunnels being found. If this problem is not addressed, it will just be a matter of time before these tunnels serve as an entry point for weapons and explosives, dangerous materials, and terrorists.

As a former federal prosecutor, I can appreciate how this legislation will serve as a useful tool in going after those who finance or construct these tunnels.

If the tunnel discovered earlier this week in Calexico, California, had been abandoned with no evidence remaining of drug or alien smuggling, those responsible for its construction should not be free from punishment. And those who negligently permit a tunnel opening or passage on their property should not be able to escape harsh penalties.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senators Feinstein and Kyl and Representatives Dreier and Hunter on this important legislation and I applaud Senator Feinstein's leadership on this crucial issue.

We must address this crucial national security matter, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed legislation to stiffen penalties and successfully prosecute those who construct or finance tunnels under the U.S. border.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 15th anniversary of the reestablishment of the independence of the Republic of Armenia. On behalf of the tens of thousands of Armenia Americans in my district, the largest Armenia community outside of Armenia, ``Oorakh Angakhootyan Or,'' congratulations to the people of Armenia on a decade and a half of freedom.

Building upon the foundations of the first Armenian Republic of 1918, today's Armenia has, in the years since it declared its independence from the disintegrating Soviet Union in 1991, strengthened democracy and the rule of law, promoted free-market reforms, and sought a just and lasting peace in a troubled region.

With America's help, Armenia is overcoming the brutal legacy of Ottoman persecution, Soviet oppression, Azerbaijani aggression against Karabagh, and the ongoing dual blockades by Turkey and its allies in Baku.

Recognizing this progress, John Evans, the former U.S. Ambassador, said in 2004, that ``Armenia now has well-founded hopes for a prosperous and democratic future.''

I am proud of the role that the United States Congress has played in strengthening the enduring bond between the American and Armenian peoples. This special relationship is rooted in our shared values and experiences over the course of more than a century. Among these shared values are a commitment to democracy, tolerance, religious freedom, human rights and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

In the 1890s, Clara Barton, the founder of the American Red Cross, traveled to Armenia to help the Armenian victims of massacres being perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish Government.

In 1915, as the Ottoman Empire began its campaign of genocide against the Armenian people, the U.S. Ambassador to Constantinople, Henry Morgenthau, documented and, at the risk of his own career, protested the ongoing massacres, death marches and other barbarities.

Later, President Woodrow Wilson led the formation of the Near East Relief Foundation to help the survivors of the Armenian genocide, and spearheaded the international efforts to secure justice for the Armenian people and to support the first Republic of Armenia.

Later, after the short-lived Republic of Armenia was annexed by the Soviet Union, Armenians here in America and around the world were key allies in our decades-long struggle against the Soviet threat to freedom. This cooperation contributed to bringing an end to the Soviet Union, to the rebirth of an independent Armenia, and to the democracy movement and self-determination of Karabagh.

Armenia has made tremendous progress in building up a free-market- oriented economy over the past decade and a half. According to the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, Armenia is consistently ranked as a free economy, and is currently the 27th freest in the index's 2006 rankings.

Recognizing this, the United States has named Armenia as one of only a handful of countries to have qualified for assistance through the Millennium Challenge Account, a program which targets development assistance to countries that rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom.

Armenia has also sought to integrate itself in the world economy as a member of the World Trade Organization, and I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in working to extend the Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to Armenia.

Armenia's economic accomplishments are more extraordinary when you factor in the crippling and illegal economic blockades imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan. The blockades cost Armenia an estimated $720 million a year and have forced more than 800,000 Armenians, close to a quarter of Armenia's population, to leave their homeland over the past decade.

The biggest challenge Armenia faces is the hostility of its neighbors. While the primary threat from Turkey is economic and diplomatic, Azerbaijan has been far more bellicose. Both Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh have demonstrated their commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In contrast, Azerbaijan has taken reckless steps that have contributed to instability in a region of strategic and economic importance.

Armenia's Soviet past and the economic and security challenges it faces have impeded the country's progress towards full democracy and the rule of law. Those of us who care deeply about Armenia and the Armenian people must continue to help Armenia to perfect its institutions and expand the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, nobody knows the need for broad engagement with Armenia more than the Armenian-American community, which has strong ties to its ancestral homeland. Armenian Americans have made contributions to every aspect of American life. From investor Kirk Kerkorian to Ray Damadian, inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, to the multiplatinum rock band System of a Down, Armenian-Americans have enriched our Nation. They are also committed to contributing to an ever brighter future for Armenia. I have been privileged to work with many of the community on ending this government's tragic failure to recognize the Armenian genocide, on ending the Turkish and Azerbaijani economic blockade, on securing aid to Armenia, and securing permanent normal trade relations with Armenia.

Armenia has come a long way in 15 short years, and I look forward to much more progress in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, 229 years ago today, American forces under the command of General Horatio Gates defeated the British at Saratoga, New York. This battle and the subsequent engagement at Saratoga several weeks later turned the tide of the American Revolution and were crucial in securing the survival of our fledgling Nation.

More than two centuries later, the United States is the most powerful Nation on Earth, but we face myriad challenges to our national security that our revolutionary forebearers could not have imagined.

Throughout much of our history, the security of our Nation was an issue that was above politics. America's leaders put aside their differences and, working together, ensured that our country remained strong and free. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that bipartisan tradition has been cast aside by our GOP colleagues who have sought for the last three decades to portray the Democratic Party as weak on defense or insufficiently concerned with defending the United States. Never mind that this wholly distorts the historical record of Democrats who have always, always answered the Nation's call to lead in the defense of our country. It was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who led America during the first World War and vowed to make the world safe for democracy.

It was Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, who guided this Nation and the entire free world through World War II.

It was Harry Truman, a Democrat, who made the tough decisions to use the atomic bomb against Japan to contain Soviet expansionism after the war and to confront the North Korean attack against South Korea in 1950.

It was John Kennedy, a Democrat, who went eyeball to eyeball with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.

These great leaders and their successors, including Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, never shied away from the hard fights, and our friends on the other side of the aisle know it. Nevertheless, Republicans have continued to try to scare the American people into believing that only they can protect the country.

This shameful use of national security as a political wedge issue has reached new lows since the September 11 attacks. In 2002 and 2004 and again in this election season, Republicans from President Bush on down have used terrorism as a political issue. In so doing,

they have up-ended America's long tradition of optimism, self- confidence and bipartisanship on national security.

In 1933, President Roosevelt told a Nation shaken by 3 years of depression that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. President Bush has spent the last 5 years telling the American people the only thing we really have to fear is the loss of GOP rule.

My colleagues, including the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the other distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), and the gentleman from my home State of California (Mr. Cardoza) will join tonight in a message to the American people that we must change course from the administration's policies which have endangered our country, and that Democrats will do a better job at protecting the American people.

Our plan, Real Security, was developed with the assistance of a broad range of experts, former military officers, retired diplomats, law enforcement personnel, homeland security experts and others who helped identify key areas where current policies have failed and where new ones are needed.

The Real Security Plan rests on five pillars. They involve the creation of a 21st century military, a smart strategy to win the war on terror, a plan to secure our homeland, a way forward in Iraq, and a proposal for achieving energy independence for America by 2020.

Under Real Security, a Democratic Congress will rebuild the state-of- the-art military by making needed investments in equipment and manpower so we can project to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.

We have all heard stories of parents throughout the country using their own money to purchase body armor for their children serving in Iraq. I have asked Secretary Rumsfeld about the shortage of body armor and the lack of properly armored vehicles, about holdups in the development of equipment to counter roadside bombs that have killed and maimed so many of our troops. Despite his assurances, the last few months have seen a spike in the number of IED attacks against American forces in Iraq, and they seem more lethal than ever.

Under Real Security, Democrats will guarantee all of our troops have the protective gear, the equipment, the training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.

I have been to Iraq three times, Afghanistan twice. I visit our troops wounded here at home, there in Germany. I have spoken at the funerals of my constituents killed in Iraq. I have sat with their families as they have mourned. These experiences have reinforced my sense of commitment to ensuring the well-being of America's soldiers and their families and our veterans.

Democrats will enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that guarantees our troops, Active, Reserve, retired, our veterans and their families, receive the pay, health care, mental health services and other benefits they have earned and deserve.

Our Active military are stretched to the breaking point, but our Guard and Reserves have also been ground down by multiple deployments, falling enlistment and reenlistment. This has, in turn, added to the stress.

I remember meeting one young marine from California when I was in Iraq who had been there for 9 months and was on his way home. His wife, also in the service of this country, was on her way to Iraq. These are the kinds of deployments that are so taxing on our military families.

As a part of Real Security, Democrats will strengthen our National Guard in partnership with our Nation's Governors to ensure it is fully manned, properly equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad.

The next pillar of Real Security is a broad strategy to win the war on terror. Four-and-a-half years, five years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Al Qaeda has morphed into a worldwide amalgam of discrete cells that are more difficult to track down. When Democrats are in charge, we will make the elimination of Osama bin Laden our first priority. We will destroy al Qaeda and other terrorist networks and finish the job in Afghanistan, ending the threat posed by the Taliban. We propose to double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure that our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Despite their vow to drain the swamp, the administration has done little to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive. Democrats will fight terrorism with all the means at our disposal, using military force when necessary, but also leading international efforts to uphold and defend human rights and renew the long-standing alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Under Real Security, we will confront the specter of nuclear terrorism by greatly accelerating the pace at which we are securing nuclear material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb. Our goal is to secure loose nukes by 2010. We will redouble our efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. And while Democrats understand that no option can be taken off the table, we are committed to using a muscular diplomacy as the best option for curbing Pyongyang and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The third pillar of Real Security is homeland security. In the wake of 9/11, there have been numerous commissions and investigations at the Federal, State and local levels, as well as a multitude of private studies. All of them have pointed to broad, systemic and other flaws in our homeland security program. Almost 2 years ago the bipartisan 9/11 Commission published its report, but most of its recommendations have not yet been implemented.

As a part of Real Security, Democrats will immediately implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems. We will implement the screening of 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the United States in ships or airplanes at their point of origin, and we will take steps to better safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants and our food and water supplies.

Democrats will prevent the outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure such as ports, airports and mass transit to foreign interests that could put America at risk.

Under Real Security, Democrats would provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, the staffing, the equipment and the cutting-edge technology that they need.

While the immediate threats to our national security come from terrorists, we face other dangers as well. Democrats are committed to a security strategy that will protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.

The fourth pillar, and the one that will have the most immediate effect on our security and the longest-term effect on our security, is to chart a new course in Iraq that will ensure that in the coming months we see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country with a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Democrats will insist that Iraqis make the political compromises that are necessary to unite their country, defeat the insurgency, and we will promote regional diplomacy and strongly encourage our allies in other nations to play a constructive role. Those nations now are largely on the sidelines.

As a part of Real Security, Democrats intend to hold this administration accountable for its manipulated prewar intelligence, its poor planning, contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Our security will remain threatened as long as we remain dependent on Middle East oil. The fifth pillar, and one with far-reaching ramifications for our country and for the world, is to achieve energy independence for America by 2020.

Under Real Security, Democrats will increase the production of alternate fuels from America's heartland: biofuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel

cells, solar and wind. We will promote hybrid and flex-fuel technology in manufacturing, enhance energy efficiency and conservation measures. All of this we will do, and more, to meet the real national security needs of our country.

We are joined tonight by the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a great leader on national security issues. I would invite the minority whip to address us this evening, along with our colleague from Maryland and our colleague from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership.

And I particularly appreciate your comments about the proposal that Zbigniew Brzezinski has put forward. It is, I think, exemplary of the new direction in Iraq that Democrats have been advocating.

The administration's policy of stay the course, the sum and substance of it, is more of the same. Indeed, in a nonclassified briefing when I asked Secretaries Rumsfeld and Rice, Director Negroponte and General Pace how are we adapting our strategy given that the sectarian violence is now more prominent than the insurgent violence, how are we changing from a counterinsurgency strategy to one that attempts to stop the civil war, the long and short of it is we weren't. We are simply doing the same thing we have done all along. The same thing that has led us to a place, as you pointed out, where Marine intelligence is saying we lost Anbar Province probably for good. If you keep doing the same thing and you expect the result to be different, you are going to be bitterly disappointed.

And I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership on this.

For a small State, I have to say Maryland produces more than its share of great leaders, particularly on the issue of national security.

Yes.

That is true.

I now yield to my friend and colleague from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Van Hollen, notwithstanding all of those mistakes in judgment and execution of the war, I am sure it gave you great confidence to hear from the Vice President on Meet the Press that if he had to do it all over again, he would do exactly the same thing. That must have encouraged you.

Mr. Van Hollen, I am sure if there had been an emergency of a national character involving thoroughbred horses, we would have been prepared.

I thank my colleague for his statement tonight and all your tremendous leadership on this. I am confident with Democrats we will not only have a new direction, but we will have a functioning government of checks and balances where there is actual oversight by the Congress of the administration, which every administration needs, no matter how good, but particularly when the administration has made such serious mistakes that have placed this Nation so much in jeopardy. We need oversight.

I would add only one thing, and this you may have watched, Mr. Van Hollen, the interview with the President from New Orleans when he went down for the Katrina anniversary, and Brian Williams asked him, ``Mr. President, some people have criticized that you have never really asked for a sacrifice of the American people in the war on terror. Is that a fair criticism?''

His answer really struck me, because we have been talking about the American people being brought in and given a chance to contribute to our security and our success with an Apollo-like project for energy independence.

Well, the President's idea of sacrifice, he said, ``Brian, that is not true. The American people have sacrificed. After 9/11, our economy was hurt, so American people sacrificed. And they pay taxes. They pay a lot of taxes, Brian.''

That was it. That was the sacrifice he was asking. Now, if he had been a little more forthcoming, he might have said, ``Now, Brian, they pay taxes. They pay a lot of taxes, although actually they pay less taxes since 9/11, thanks to me, so the sacrifice really is they pay less taxes. That is their contribution.''

And you have to ask, where are the Rosie the Riveters? Who is being called upon? These troops of ours that are doing these multiple rotations, they are sacrificing and their families are sacrificing. But what have the rest of us been asked to do? And in this body, I would think at a minimum we could move forward with far-reaching legislation to wean ourselves from reliance on fossil fuels. We could initiate real oversight with vigor. These are the kind of new directions we need to take this country in.

I yield now to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, David Scott, a fellow Blue Dog member, who has been such a superb voice on these issues.

If I can interject, Mr. Scott, because I don't want to do any disservice to the great State of Georgia, a couple other superb Members who are contemporaries of ours, Jim Marshall and John Barrow, great, great advocates and leaders on national security. Jim Marshall is a decorated war veteran. So Georgia has got more than its share.

I thank the gentleman very much for your comments, for your leadership on this issue. It has been a great pleasure and honor to share a few thoughts with you and our colleague Mr. Van Hollen and our whip Mr. Hoyer. Once again, I want to thank the great State of Georgia for sending you to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, Last Sunday Vice President Cheney appeared on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' and provided a vivid example of George Santayana's admonition that ``those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.''

After 3\1/2\ years of bloody combat; after our Nation has lost more than 2,600 of our military's finest; after thousands more of our brave men and women have been wounded; after we have spent more than $300 billion; with no end in sight to the insurgency and Iraq plunging into civil war; and after finding no weapons of mass destruction, the very basis of that war, the Vice President told the American people that ``if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.''

Never mind that the next day the Washington Post published an article on the front page entitled ``Situation called Dire in West Iraq: Anbar is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says,'' which revealed that the Marine Corps Chief of Intelligence had recently completed a report that concluded the prospects for securing Iraq's western Anbar province are ``dim'' and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there. According to Vice President Cheney, ``if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.''

Never mind that our invasion of Iraq was predicated on the need to neutralize Saddam Hussein's active nuclear weapons program and destroy his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. But no weapons were ever found. According to Vice President Cheney, ``if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.''

Never mind that retired senior military officers, former U.S. diplomats, and a wide range of military and foreign policy experts see our efforts to pacify Iraq as undermined by a host of mistakes the administration has made in the prosecution of the war, including the failure to bring enough troops to secure the peace and the catastrophic decision to stand down the Iraqi army. According to our Vice President, ``if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.''

Never mind that our troops went into battle without adequate body armor and up-armored vehicles. According to the Vice President, ``if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.''

Never mind that countless billions have been spent on reconstruction with little to show for the effort, many billions unaccounted for. According to Vice President Cheney, ``if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.''

Earlier this year House and Senate Democrats unveiled our ``Real Security'' agenda that lays out a blueprint for a new direction in Iraq. Our plan calls for the establishment of full Iraqi sovereignty, provides for the responsible redeployment of our forces to better protect our troops and to facilitate the transfer of authority, and provides oversight, vigorous oversight, of the prosecution of the war and the reconstruction of Iraq. This new direction in Iraq was rejected by the Republican majority in the House, which has endorsed the President's stay-the-course policy in Iraq, a policy which amounts to nothing more than more of the same.

The majority in this House is complicit in this failed policy through its failure to oversee the war and to hold accountable those officials who have failed our troops and the American people. That failure of oversight and the need to hold people accountable has plagued Iraq from the very beginning, and because this Congress, this Republican Congress, refuses to hold the President to account, we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

On April 26 of this year, in the International Relations Committee, I asked the administration witnesses in our first hearing on Iraq whether they could name any individual who had been held accountable for the myriad failures in prosecuting the war on Iraq. The witnesses were silent for an interminable 14 seconds before the Assistant Secretary of State replied, ``That is way above our pay grade.'' The answer, however, is no one has been held accountable.

That lack of oversight, the absence of accountability, the stubborn refusal to acknowledge that mistakes have been made has brought us to the precipice in Iraq. But as the Vice President revealed so clearly last week, the senior officials in our government still blithely insist, If we had to do it over again, we would do exactly the same thing.

Our troops in Iraq, their families here at home, the families of those who have served deserve better than a stubborn insistence that all is well when it is not, that no mistakes have been made when there have been many, that no correction in course will be made because to do so would acknowledge error. That is unacceptable.

The Democrats will provide a new direction in America. The Democrats will provide a new direction for our national security. There is no time more than now when a new direction is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, next Monday will mark the fifth anniversary of the most calamitous day in the modern history of this country. Not since the British torched Washington during the War of 1812 has the American homeland suffered such a devastating attack. For all of us, the terrible events of September 11th remain an all-too-fresh memory that still casts a pall over our national life.

For the families of the more than 2,900 people killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the 9/11 attacks remain an open wound. Many of them have sought to redirect their anger and grief into ensuring that we as a Nation are secure and safe from future attacks. In pursuing this goal, they have only asked that our Nation's leaders be honest in assessing the state of our Nation's security, willing to address shortfalls in our defense and that we act together as Americans and not as Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship has been at the center of America's national security policy-making for most of our history. In standing behind our Armed Forces, in standing up for our diplomatic priorities, in supporting the intelligence community and in supporting the President in times of crisis, Congress has often spoken with one voice.

This unanimity was never stronger than in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When President Bush addressed the Congress and the Nation on September 20, this Nation was more united than at any time since the Second World War.

That unity extended around the world, to friends and foes alike. In the wake of the attacks, NATO invoked for the first time in its history Article 5 of the NATO Charter, declaring the attacks on the United States to be an attack on the alliance. As American military assets rushed toward Afghanistan in preparation for the invasion that would topple the Taliban regime, allied early-warning aircraft patrolled American skies to protect us.

Five years later, this national and international unity seems quaint. Here at home, the President and his fellow Republicans have made no secret that they intend to exploit the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror for political advantage in the upcoming midterm elections, and they have sought to smear as unpatriotic anybody who questions their conduct of our Nation's security policy, most recently, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did, likening war critics to Nazi appeasers.

Overseas, we are isolated. Where America was seen as a victim in the wake of 9/11, it is wrongly viewed as an aggressor. American troops are fighting and dying in Iraq while our closest allies sit on the sidelines, many of them refusing to help.

President Bush and the Republicans have not only squandered domestic unity and international goodwill, they have poorly prosecuted the war on terror and failed to improve our security here at home. Even as we spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, basic security here at home has not been improved as it should have been. This failure has been most clearly demonstrated by the administration's woefully inadequate performance in implementing the recommendations of the independent and bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

In fact, in December of last year, the 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project, made up of the members of the commission, issued a report card on the lack of progress in improving our Nation's security. The report card was filled with Cs, Ds and Fs. In a statement accompanying the report card, Chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, said, ``Many obvious steps that the American people assume have been completed have not been. Some of these failures are shocking.'' What we have seen over the last 4 years, Mr. Speaker, has been a failure of leadership and a failure of initiative.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, as we heard tonight, I guess have decided that their best response to the criticism of the 9/ 11 Commission is to blame Bill Clinton. I guess that is the new national security strategy of my friends in the GOP, blame Bill Clinton. I suppose that would be fine if Bill Clinton was the President of the United States, but the last time I checked, it was George W. Bush and had been for a great many years. The last time I checked, it was a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

If we step back 5 years to the immediate aftermath of September 11th and we ask ourselves, would we as a country choose a course that would lead us 5 years hence to a place where we were mired in civil war in Iraq, where Osama bin Laden was still at large, where he and al Zawahiri were issuing a dozen taped messages just in this year alone, where North Korea is testing missiles to carry nuclear bombs that it has manufactured, where Iran is thumbing its nose at the international community and going forward with its nuclear program, where we have become more dependent on foreign oil, not less, how many of us would choose that course for the United States of America? I submit none of us would. None of us would choose that course.

The administration, all they can say is, stay that course; stay a course that has made us more energy dependent on the Middle East than ever; stay that course where Afghanistan's opium production now exceeds what it did under the Taliban; stay that course where sectarian violence is increasing and it is now a civil war in Iraq; stay the course where we have not protected the homeland; stay the course where we have earned Cs, Ds and Fs from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Stay the course is the best they can come up with.

If anyone is hitting the snooze button that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refer to, it is this administration and this Congress. The majority has dubbed this Security September. Well, that has a lovely ring to it, Security September. The problem with Security September is I suppose that in October it will be something else. It will not be security month anymore. Security September will be over. What will October be? October will be, what is a good old term for the political agenda on the floor?

The problem is the Nation's security is not a political agenda to be talked about in the September before a midterm election under the quaint title of Security September.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that everyone has a role to play in the Nation's defense, and with that I wholeheartedly agree, but who has the administration asked among us, other than those brilliant and brave Americans wearing the uniform of this country and their families, who has been asked to be Rosie the Riveter? Who has been asked to make a sacrifice? Has the President asked the American people to sacrifice on the war on terror?

When he was interviewed recently by Brian Williams, who said, Mr. President, many have criticized that you have not asked the American people for a sacrifice; the President said, no, that is not true; the American people have sacrificed. They pay taxes.

That, I guess, was the extent of the sacrifice Americans have been asked to make in the war on terror. The President could have gone on to say he has asked the American people to sacrifice by paying less taxes, by ringing up large deficits on our children to pay for the war, to pay for our own security. That is not the kind of sacrifice, that is not the kind of role that we have to play in the Nation's security.

Now I would like to go through briefly some of the criticisms of the 9/11 Commission that have not been addressed. One of the core parts of the Democratic real security plan is, we will implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We will put them into effect, and when we go through some of those tonight, we will see just how important they are, just how derelict the majority has been and the administration has been in not implementing these recommendations.

I am joined tonight by Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and by David Scott of Georgia, two leaders on national security issues, and I want to turn to them after I go through some of the failing grades that we have

earned as an institution and this Congress, under majority GOP rule and that the administration has earned.

First, in its report, the 9/11 Commission talked about having a national strategy for transportation security. The commission said, ``Hard choices must be made in allocating limited resources. The U.S. government should identify and evaluate transportation assets that need to be protected, set risk-based priorities for defending them, select the most practical and cost-effective ways of doing so, and then develop a plan, budget and funding to implement the effort. The plan should assign roles and missions to the relevant authorities, Federal, State, regional and local, and to private stakeholders. In measuring effectiveness, perfection is unattainable. But terrorists should perceive that potential targets are defended. They may be deterred by a significant chance of failure.''

Well, that was what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Now let us see what the 9/11 Commission said about how this administration and the majority have done. The grade: C. ``DHS,'' the Department of Homeland Security, ``has transmitted its National Strategy for Transportation Security to the Congress. While the strategy reportedly outlines broad objectives, this first version lacks the necessary detail to make it an effective management tool.'' C on the National Strategy For Transportation Security.

Airline passenger prescreening: The 9/11 Commission urged that ``improved use of `no-fly' and `automatic selectee' lists should not be delayed while the argument about a successor to Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening continues. This screening function should be performed by the TSA, and it should utilize the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal Government. Air carriers should be required to supply the information needed to test and implement this new system.''

What grade did the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan commission, give this administration and Congress? An F, failure. ``Few improvements have been made to the existing passenger screening system since right after 9/11. The completion of the testing phase of TSA's prescreening program for airline passengers has been delayed. A new system, utilizing all names on the consolidated terrorist watch list, is therefore not yet in operation.'' Remarkable. We do not have a unified terrorist watch list in operation that is trustworthy, that we can rely on to keep dangerous people off our planes. F, failing grade by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

Checked bag and cargo screening. The 9/11 report stated that ``more attention and resources should be directed to reducing or mitigating the threat posed by explosives in vessels' cargo holds.''

Well, that has not happened either. The grade here: D. Now, we all know we have got to take our shoes off and we cannot carry fluids on the plane, but you can still ship a crate the size of a piano in the cargo hold of a passenger plane, and it will not be screened for explosives. This is a glaring hole. We have known about it for a long time. The 9/11 Commission has talked about it, written about it, cajoled about it, as have the Democrats in Congress. What has been done about it? Very, very little. Precious little. Dangerously little.

Airline passenger explosive screening, the grade given by the 9/11 Commission for the administration and Congress work in that area: C.

Critical infrastructure assessment, where we determine the risks and vulnerabilities that will guide the distribution of Homeland Security funds to the most threatened areas. You would expect that when we are identifying what the risks are to the country, that we would go about it in a logical way; we would identify these are the most vulnerable sites, these are the areas where terrorists could cause the most catastrophic damage and losses, and we will prioritize our resources, addressing the most significant risks first.

Well, if that is what you thought we were doing, then you were wrong. Grade by the 9/11 Commission: D. ``A draft National Infrastructure Protection Plan spells out a methodology and process for critical infrastructure assessments. No risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on allocation of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year away.'' That is negligence with the Nation's security.

Information sharing between government agencies. The grade the 9/11 commission gave: D. ``Designating individuals to be in charge of information sharing'' within the government ``is not enough. They need resources, active presidential backing, policies and procedures in place that compel sharing, and systems of performance evaluation that appraise personnel on how they carry out information sharing.''

Intelligence oversight reform, grade given by the 9/11 Commission: D.

International collaboration on borders, grade given by the commission to this administration and this Congress: D.

Let me just talk about border security for a minute. Again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blame Bill Clinton. Well, that is great. Let us blame Bill Clinton for everything, but border security? We have had a Republican President. We have a Republican House. We have a Republican Senate. If the GOP wanted to pass border security, it could have been done years ago. Positions that we appropriated in this House to fill border patrol positions have remained vacant. The administration has not followed through.

Well, okay, Security September, maybe October will be border Security October. Maybe they will get around to it in October because, after all, the midterms are in November. But one cannot help escape the conclusion that this is driven by the midterm elections and not the national security of the United States of America, and that is wrong.

Those brave people that protected this Capitol when that plane was over Pennsylvania headed our way, those brave people that protected this Capitol deserve better from the people working in this Capitol. They have the right to expect that those working in this Capitol will use their best efforts to protect the rest of the country and not just with the midterm coming up, a couple of months away.

Now, I am joined tonight by two great leaders on national security issues, and I would like to turn first to my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who has joined me on several of these national security Special Order hours, in fact, when it was not Security September, and I thank Mr. Van Hollen for his leadership and yield to the gentleman.

If I can interject for just a second, we had a nonclassified briefing, so I can raise this point, before we had the August recess with Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Director Negroponte, and General Pace, and I asked a question that is based on your comments. It was acknowledged at that time that the sectarian violence now exceeded the violence from the insurgency.

I asked them how are we changing our strategy, militarily or politically, because the strategy used in dealing with the counterinsurgency effort and the strategy you use in trying to bring a halt to a civil war are two very different animals. So I asked, how are we adjusting to these new conditions on the ground? And the long and short of it was, we are not adjusting to the conditions on the ground. We are doing the same thing, the same strategy, the one-size-fits-all, the stay-the-course.

That, I think, given the history you have outlined, where this congressionally compelled report indicates things have gotten worse across almost every metric, not better, that stay the course just doesn't cut it any more.

Mr. Van Hollen.

On that point, Mr. Van Hollen, we had one of the very few hearings, you were in attendance, on Iraq in committee, after years of asking the committee leadership in International Relations to hold a hearing on the Iraq war. You would think it wouldn't be so difficult. We finally had a hearing.

During that hearing, I asked the administration witnesses, who has been held accountable for some of the disastrous decision making that has been made? Who has been held accountable for the standing down of the Iraqi army? Who has been held accountable for the intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war? Who has been held accountable for any one of these innumerable errors?

There was this long, painful, prolonged silence. And the answer was clear: No one. No one has been held accountable.

I thank gentleman. You really put your finger on it. The reality is that ``stay the course'' is nothing but more of the same. That doesn't cut it anymore.

I yield to my good friend, a leader on national security issues, David Scott from the great State of Georgia.

Mr. Scott, I thank you for those words. They are right on the mark. You pose the question, who would have thought, and it is a good one. Who would have thought, here we are, 5 years after 9/11, that the mastermind of the butcher of thousands of American lives would still be at large? Who would have imagined that the strongest nation on Earth would not have succeeded in hunting him down and killing him? That is an astounding, astounding fact.

But I think the important thing here tonight is this country cannot, must not, accept this as the best America can do. We can do better. We can do better in aggressively taking it to our enemy. We can do better defensively protecting America. We have to do better.

The fact that this crowd that runs this House, that runs this White House, can't capture and kill bin Laden doesn't mean he can't be captured and killed. He can. He must, but not on the course this crowd is on.

The fact that this crowd can't stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb doesn't mean they can't be stopped. They can be stopped. They must be stopped.

The fact that this crowd in this House and in the White House can't stop North Korea from testing its missiles doesn't mean North Korea can't be stopped. But it does require a certain competence in an administration. It does require a certain diplomatic skill in an administration. It does mean that you cannot alienate the rest of the world and expect them to come to your assistance, to rally to your cause.

We seem to compartmentalize and think that we can spurn the rest of the world on other things, and then on the issues that we care about, that we can count on them.

It hasn't worked that way. But just because this crowd has failed, it doesn't mean that failure is inevitable. It isn't. I believe in this country, as I know you do. I believe there is a better way. I believe the Democrats have a better way. I believe part of that better way is to make this country energy independent so we are not relying on these Middle Eastern nations.

Do you know why Iran can thwart the international community, they can thumb their nose at us? Because they are a petroleum-rich state, and petroleum prices are through the roof.

It is the same reason Russia can thumb its nose at the United States now, because they are awash in oil money. And part of the reason they are awash in that oil money is because we have that addiction to oil that this oil-soaked administration isn't willing to confront.

Mr. Scott, I think this is the key importance of our being here

week after week, as you and I and Mr. Van Hollen and others have. The country recognizes we cannot go on with business as usual in our national security. We can't just have a policy that says more of the same. More of the same has put this Nation at inordinate risk.

And so the country is asking, all right, we don't like what this crowd is doing. We don't like what the crowd in the House is doing; we don't like what the crowd in the White House is doing. What are Democrats proposing? And for weeks now we have been laying that out, in the pillars of our own security plan, where we will rebuild our military, because that is what it really means at this point.

Our military is strained so thin, stretched so thin, we are now using professional recruiters to try to recruit. We are getting bonuses to recruit people in the Armed Forces. We are using involuntary recalls. These men and women in uniform, they deserve our undying gratitude, because, boy, are we asking a lot of them, not only them but their families.

But our military is at the breaking point. Our forces are stretched, our equipment is degrading in the conditions in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It needs an investment, it needs to be better managed than this administration has done, and we will build that 21st century military. We are committed to the war on terror and to going after the heart of that war, which is Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. When I was in Afghanistan, Mr. Scott, do you know what one of our troops said to me?

He said, Mr. Schiff, you know, we here in Afghanistan, we feel like we are the third front in a two-front war, third front in a two-front war. This won't be the third front in a two-front war under Democratic leadership.

Homeland Security? We will implement those recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission that the snooze alarm policy, the snooze button policy this administration has ignored. In Iraq, we will recognize the facts on the ground, which is now a civil war. We will adjust our strategy. We will reduce and redeploy our forces so the Iraqis have to take control of their own country.

If Shiite and Sunni are determined to murder each other in large numbers, it is not the job of American troops to stand in the way and catch the bullets. We ought to play a supporting role; we ought to do everything we can to reduce the conflagration there. But ultimately Iraqis have to decide they want to be one country.

Finally, we will achieve energy independence. That is a key part of our national security agenda. The fact that this administration has failed in so many of these respects doesn't mean failure is acceptable or inevitable. This country has always done better and can do better, will do better.

Mr. Scott, let's look at this, let's look at this through the prism of more of the same, or stay the course, as our majority is advocating, as opposed to what we have outlined in a new direction on each of these items.

What does it mean to stay the course? Well, what it means in terms of energy independence is that we continue and increase our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, and all of the national security risk that entails for that country. That is what stay the course means on energy independence that we remain dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

What does more of the same mean in Iraq? More of the same in Iraq means most costly, the continuing casualties, American troops losing their lives and becoming severely injured. But in addition to that, more of the same in Iraq means if you look at the course of Iraq, it means an increase in the civil war violence, because when you look at the curve of the Iraqi violence, it has been a steady increase in sectarian violence.

So what does stay the course mean? It means stay the increasing course of civil war violence. The insurgent violence, which has been on the increase, the number of incidents over the summer reaching all-time highs. What does stay the course wartime policy mean? It means more insurgent violence.

Is that the course we want to stay on? The only, and, boy, I have searched, I have searched high and low for some good news to report out of Iraq. The only positive news I have seen out of Iraq has been in terms of the political development in terms of the elections in Iraq, the unity government.

But, unfortunately, that government has not been able to solidify its control over Iraq. It doesn't have the confidence of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, if we stay that course, that doesn't offer much hope either. Homeland security, what does stay the course, more of the same mean for America under homeland security?

It means more Cs, more Ds, and for more Fs for our failure to do more for airports, nuclear plants, chemical plants. More of the same on the war on terror, more of the same means more messages from Osama bin Laden, more of the same from Zarqawi, more of the same bombings in London, Madrid, Turkey, elsewhere, more sanctuary in Pakistan. That's what stay the course means in the war on terror.

More of the same in the military means people on their third deployment, fourth deployment, sixth deployment. That is what more of the same means in the military. That just is not right for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that once again the Members of this House appear poised to let another opportunity pass us by that would have a meaningful impact in the lives of millions of American families. Today, we are voting on a bill that has been rushed to this House floor and purports to raise the Federal minimum wage. In reality, however, the bill before us seeks to muddy the waters about whether America's lowest paid workers deserve to make a living wage.

In stark contrast to the bill before us today, Mr. Miller, the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has introduced very simple legislation that would increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the course of the next 2 years. This bill was introduced in May of 2005 and has yet to receive a hearing.

The hastily drafted bill before us today, however, was only introduced earlier this afternoon, and the House leadership has brought it to the floor for a vote.

This legislation adds unrelated and controversial provisions, that I'm sure some hope will end the debate and ensure that a meaningful increase in our minimum wage never takes place. We should instead, be voting today on a straightforward bill that simply raises the Federal minimum wage to a level that ensures that working families can emerge from the grasp of poverty.

Before the House adjourns for the August recess, I believe we owe the American people a simple up-or-down vote on whether or not working Americans deserve a decent living wage.

The current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is not a living wage. It is not a wage on which single individuals, working full time, can adequately support themselves, and it is most certainly not a wage on which a single mother or single father can raise a family.

Millions of hard-working Americans would directly benefit from a minimum wage increase. Some would argue that this would only benefit high school students and young adults who are being paid minimum wages on their first job at a fast food restaurant. In fact, more than 84 percent of workers who would directly benefit from a minimum wage increase are above the age of 20. In addition, nearly 60 percent of those individuals work full time, and 45 percent of them are married and/or have children.

They are the victims of our inaction, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, it is our children who will suffer. I am ashamed that nearly 36 million Americans live in poverty in our country, and that nearly 13 million of those who live below the poverty line are children. With a very simple vote today--on a very simple piece of legislation--we could dramatically increase the physical, mental, and financial wellbeing of countless American children. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty, and the children of these working families must not be made to suffer for our collective lack of moral conviction.

I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I ask them to partner with us to pass a meaningful increase in the Federal minimum wage. We must pass legislation that does not contain controversial provisions that divide us. Instead, we should speak with one voice, as one Congress, and tell working Americans that we value their work, that we understand their sacrifices, and that they deserve to make a living wage.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation and of the growing strategic partnership between the United States, the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest. The hard work by Members and the staff on the IR Committee under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member have produced a bill that better attempts to address legitimate nonproliferation concerns and respects congressional authority to approve agreements.

During the markup, the committee adopted an amendment I offered to minimize the risk that our nuclear exports would assist India's nuclear weapons programs.

Under this amendment, the President would be required to submit to Congress a report on the steps he is taking to ensure our exports do not contribute to India's nuclear weapons program. In addition, my amendment declared that it is U.S. policy to encourage India not to increase its production of fissile material in military facilities.

Taken together with the other statements by the administration, this amendment makes clear that it is U.S. policy to promote the prompt negotiation of a fissile material production cutoff treaty; that pending entry into force of such a treaty, to press for the earliest possible achievement of a multilateral moratorium to accomplish this purpose; and to urge India to refrain from increasing its rate of production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chairman, the final bill must contain these provisions, and I would ask my colleague and the manager of the bill, Mr. Royce, whether he can assure me that he will work to maintain these provisions and their stated intent in the final bill as the legislative process goes forward.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank both of you gentlemen. I intend to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, tonight Representative Van Hollen and I will be discussing one of the core issues of national security, and that is energy independence.

National security is the core function of our government. For most of our history as a Nation, bipartisanship governed American national security policymaking. In the words of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican, ``Politics must end at the water's edge.''

A succession of American Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan guided this Nation through two world wars and the tense decades of the Cold War. Their leadership was based on asserting America's power in a way

that advanced the ideals of our founders, and which made America a beacon to millions of people who were suffering under fascism and communism.

Most importantly, these men knew the limits of any one Nation's ability, and they saw the wisdom of marshaling our strength with that of other freedom-loving people. They listened to the counsel of our allies and members of both parties here at home.

The current administration has too often believed that it has the answers and does not need to pay attention to the ideas of others. This refusal to listen to other voices and an excessively partisan and ideological approach has resulted in an America that is more isolated than at any time in the postwar era.

Around the world, among nations that should be our strong allies, we are less often seen as a force for good in the world, and this has jeopardized the cooperation we must have to win the war on terror. This has been most clearly seen in Iraq, where insistence on invading the country without the broad international coalition we assembled in the Gulf War, and then our brushing aside offers of help from the international community, have seriously undermined the war effort and increased the burden that our troops and our country must bear.

But Iraq is not the only challenge facing our Nation. The ongoing crisis involving Israel, and Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, Iran's standoff with the international community over its nuclear program, and a similar faceoff with North Korea are all competing for the attention of American policymakers.

In each of those crises, America's ability to marshal international support and use the full range of our power to effect a positive outcome has been undermined by the administration's ineffective stewardship of our national security. Democrats have developed a comprehensive blueprint to better protect America and to restore our Nation's position of international leadership.

Our plan, Real Security, was devised with the assistance of a broad range of experts, former military officers, retired diplomats, law enforcement personnel, homeland security experts and others, who helped identify key areas where current policies have failed and where new ones were needed.

In a series of six Special Orders, my colleagues and I have been sharing with the American people our vision for a more secure America. The plan has five pillars, and each of our Special Order hours have been addressing each of them in turn: Building a military for the 21st century, winning the war on terrorism, securing our homeland, a way forward in Iraq, and achieving energy independence for America, the subject of Ms. Kaptur's recent 5-minute speech.

During our first Special Order we discussed the first pillar of our plan, building a military for the 21st century. To briefly summarize what we discussed 2 weeks ago, here are the elements of that pillar: Rebuild a state-of-the-art military; develop the world's best equipment and training, and maintain that equipment and training; accurate intelligence and a strategy for success; a GI bill of Rights for the 21st century; and strengthening the National Guard.

We next discussed a comprehensive plan to win the war on terror, which focused on a wide-ranging series of strategies to destroy the threat posed by Islamic radicalism. This involves destroying al Qaeda and finishing the job in Afghanistan; doubling special forces and improving intelligence; eliminating terrorist breeding grounds; preventative diplomacy and new international leadership; securing loose nuclear materials by 2010; stopping nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

The job of securing our homeland remains unfinished. In the wake of 9/11, there have been numerous commissions and investigations at the Federal, State and local level as well as a multitude of private studies. All of them, all of them, have pointed to a broad systemic and other flaws in our homeland security program.

Almost 2 years ago, the independent 9/11 Commission published its report, but most of its recommendations have yet to be implemented. Our homeland security plan requires the implementation of all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It provides for the screening of all containers and cargo.

It safeguards our nuclear and chemical plants. It prohibits outsourcing of ports, airports and mass transit to foreign interests. Trains and equips our first responders and invests in public health to safeguard Americans.

In early June we discussed our plan for Iraq, a new course to make 2006 a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country with a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. Democrats will insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency, promote regional diplomacy, and strongly encourage allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

For the remainder of today's hour, we will discuss the fifth pillar of Real Security: Stable, reliable, affordable sources of energy are crucial to the U.S. economy and to the global economy.

To ensure such a supply, I believe developing cleaner sources of energy and encouraging energy efficiency and conservation must be among the Nation's top priorities. Members of both parties in Congress and the administration must work together toward a pragmatic and comprehensive strategy to secure American prosperity in the 21st century.

Democrats have long advocated increased investment in the search for alternative fuels and the development of energy-efficient technology. Today European and Asian competitors are already developing technologies that will reduce fuel consumption and lower the emission of green house gases.

Rather than American entrepreneurs, it is our competitors who are prospering from these developments. By marshaling America's great strengths, our innovativeness, our technological prowess, our entrepreneurial spirit, we can better secure our Nation, save our environment, and become the world leader in this cutting-edge industry.

In pursuing energy security, we must use the Nation's resources effectively. The Real Security Plan directs the national investment to areas that minimize economic risk while maximizing the potential benefits. It also aligns incentives for American consumers with the goals of our Nation.

It makes transparent the true costs of energy and ensures that the easy choice for Americans is also the right choice for the Nation. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of energy as a national security issue.

To achieve this vision, the Real Security Plan offers fresh policy ideas. These ideas are drawn from a broad range of stakeholders, academic experts, government administrators, energy industry executives, environmentalists, and a vibrant grass-roots community.

The Real Security Plan pushes the Federal bureaucracy to overcome its business-as-usual approach and it encourages American entrepreneurs to innovate. While many of the ideas are new, some have been around for years. For example, experts have for many years recommended updating the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency or CAFE standards. This year even the majority on the Government Reform Committee stated in a report that the fuel economy standards have stagnated for years.

Unfortunately, while the President has talked about the Nation's addiction to oil, he has failed to take the simple action of updating the CAFE standards. The President may believe that fuel efficiency standards are a burden on American manufacturers, or a constraint on the American consumer, but, sadly, he has underestimated American ingenuity and the willingness of Americas to sacrifice in the war on terror.

In contrast, in 1961 President Kennedy announced his vision for the Apollo project to put a man on the Moon in one decade, by saying, ``I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out.

``But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a very heavy burden. And there is no

sense in agreeing unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

``This decision demands,'' he said, ``a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already spread thin.

``It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline, which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated cost of materials or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries or a high turnover of key personnel.''

You might recall, in speaking of the Apollo project, President Kennedy also said, ``We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard.''

This is the sort of leadership we need today on energy, and the level of commitment that we must be prepared to make, and we must ask of the American people. Unfortunately, this President has not asked the American people to sacrifice in the face of war or in the face of our tremendous challenges.

I would now like to turn to my colleague, Representative Van Hollen of Maryland, who has been a very outspoken leader on national security, in general, on energy independence, in particular. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

This sounds a little bit about the equivalent, if you are dealing with someone with a substance abuse addiction, to give them a subsidy to buy the contraband that is the subject of their addiction.

I thank the gentlewoman for all her leadership on this issue, and you alluded to the free market and the operation of market forces. That is not always as free as it might appear, particularly in the price at the pump. But there have been several obstacles to our energy independence, what has been a lack of vision in terms of where we need to go as a country in the administration and in the Defense Department, as you point out, but there have also obviously been within the oil industry efforts to stop this from happening.

I have to imagine the best and quickest way to bring oil prices down is to make other sources of energy competitive. If we can incentivize the development of these biofuels and make them more readily available, the oil companies are going to drop their prices in a hurry in order to undercut this new industry, if nothing more.

But what really kind of gnaws at me is when we look around the world at what China is doing with solar power and solar cities now, at what South American countries are doing at making themselves energy independent with biofuels, and what Japan is doing in terms of development of hybrid technology and how they are passing us by, that really grieves me because it hurts our national security interests. It hurts our economy.

Let me do a reality check with Mr. Van Hollen's district which is 3,000 miles from mine. If I ask my constituents, would you be willing to make a sacrifice so that you could tell the oil producing Nations of the world, many of which are not our friends, we do not want your oil, we do not need your oil, you can take your oil and whatever, my constituents would leap at that. How would your constituents feel?

I wanted to make one comment and I have a question for Ms. Kaptur.

When we talk about sacrifice during the War on Terror, really the only people in America who have been asked to sacrifice are the men and women in uniform and their families, and they are sacrificing big time; multiple deployments to Iraq, to Afghanistan, families left behind, wondering if their loved one is going to come back at all, come back in one piece, how to make ends meet while they are gone.

I met when I was in Iraq a young man serving there who was on his way back home. His wife was also in the service. She was on her way to Iraq. They were going to be like two ships passing in the night. The level of sacrifice of the men and women in uniform is nothing short of outstanding.

Outside of that group, though, Americans have not been asked to sacrifice for the greater good, but we are sacrificing in an unexpected way, and that is when we go to the pump. We are paying a heavy price. The problem is that the price we are paying is not going for any productive gain.

Yes, we are paying a lot more at the pump. But where is that money going? It is going in two places. It is going into the record profits that Mr. Van Hollen mentioned, which it is not just record profits for the oil industry. The oil companies have had the largest profits of any corporation in American corporate history, and these are the same companies that are enjoying the tax subsidies that we keep passing. And yes, the market is allowing them to take these profits. It is not compelling them to. It is not compelling them to charge that price at the pump, but it is giving them the opportunity to, and they are taking it. So part of the money is going there.

Where else is the money going? Well, a lot of the money is going to the Middle East. A lot of it is going to countries that, either openly or covertly, are funding people who are trying to kill us. That is not a worthwhile sacrifice for Americans to make. And the terrible tragedy of this is. And I think probably the biggest missed opportunity of this administration is if we had started 5 years ago, or even after 9/11, and we said we are going to make the sacrifice now to wean ourselves off of oil, we might have had to pay a little bit more in terms of our conservation measures, but that money would be an investment in our security. Now we are paying 10 times as much, and it is going to some of the people trying to kill us.

What I wanted to ask Ms. Kaptur, I know other countries in South America, for example, have gone a long way in terms of using biofuel, have made themselves energy independent, have done what we have not been able to do. If we did have the right package of incentives, if the government was a leader and worked with the agriculture industry, how much of our domestic consumption of energy could be supplied by biofuels?

I thank you very much for your leadership on this, and it seems to me there is maybe no other issue that is as cost-cutting, as energy independent and has such a positive synergy, since that to the degree we could wean ourselves off of foreign oil, that helps us with our national security and our foreign policy.

To the degree we can develop these new technologies, that helps us economically. There has been tremendous demand in China, India, and elsewhere that are energy-starved countries with strong GDPs. So it is an economic winner.

In terms of our environment, not sending all of those ozone-depleting gases and the greenhouse effect and the global warming, it is an environmental imperative.

In terms of rescuing the family farm and helping our agriculture industry, it could be a vital part of the answer.

Almost every challenge we face as a Nation intersects at the intersection of energy independence. Now, some people point at other solutions, and I want to ask the gentleman about this.

Probably the most prominent debate we have on energy kind of tells you where we are here is on drilling in Alaska. From my point of view, that does not make much sense, both in terms of how long it would take to extract the oil, the environmental costs, but I wanted to ask your thoughts on that.

That is one of the things that drives me crazy. One of my staff just got a Toyota Prius. She had to wait 6 months to get that Prius. There is a 6-month waiting time to get a hybrid made in Japan.

We don't have a nonSUV hybrid yet that I am aware of, an American car out on the road that competes with the Prius or with the Honda Civic hybrid. Why is it that some of the foreign automakers seem to know the American market better than we know ourselves?

The gentleman is exactly right. We have this choice. We have had this choice for several years. We can have more of the same, more of the same $3.50-a-gallon gas, maybe $4-a-gallon gas at the pump, more warming of the global environment, more production of greenhouse gases, more pain economically in terms of higher energy costs for businesses.

Or we can have a new direction. I think we have talked about several of the ingredients of that new direction tonight. The investment of biofuels: That helps our farms and it helps our economy, it helps our energy independence, and it helps our energy independence and our national security.

Investment in other alternative energy sources like solar power where the profit points are almost there, almost there for a great expansion of solar power. They just need a little incentivization before they can be broadly employed.

The development of windpower, geothermal, and the whole host of renewable energy sources. This is the new direction we need to take this country in. Otherwise, every time we have a flare-up in the Middle East, as right now we are having this tragic situation, Hezbollah has attacked Israel, kidnapped soldiers and prompted this conflagration of the region, gas prices are going through the roof.

Iran thumbs its nose at the international community and says we are going forward with our nuclear program, gas prices go through the roof.

Hurricanes in the gulf take out refining capacity. We can't predict, as you say. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't know next year if it is going to be a hurricane, or next year it is going to be the Middle East, or the Venezuelan head of state who is anathema of the United States, but we do know it will be something. And if we don't take action to change the direction of our country to a new direction, we are going to be continuing to be funding a lot of the people that are bent on our destruction.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and on so many other issues here in the Congress.

I want to wrap up by bringing this back to where we started, and that is the integral nexus between energy independence and national security. You can imagine what a positive to our national security policy it would be if in our dealings in the Middle East, our dealings with Russia and China and our dealings with South America, if energy was not an issue in the sense we were not dependent on other parts of the world, and particularly the Gulf States. What a transformative effect that could have in a positive way on our national security policy. Energy independence is really key.

Our new direction, as outlined by real security, is energy independence by 2020. This is an achievable goal. It would require the kind of commitment that President Kennedy talked about when he talked about the Apollo project, but it can be done.

I have great confidence in the American people and the American entrepreneur. We can do this. It would eliminate our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. We would increase production of alternative fuels in America. We would promote hybrid and flex-fuel vehicle technology in manufacturing, and we would enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives. This is the direction Democrats feel we need to bring this country in order to make sure that our security is in fact very real.

I want to yield to my colleague from Maryland for his closing remarks and once again thank you for not only this evening, but for all of your work on the national security plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is a momentous event when a president vetoes a bill. It is a pronouncement that the lawmaking body of our federal government is in error and that the difficult lawmaking process has produced legislation not worthy of enactment. For the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, nothing could be further from the truth. I was proud to have voted for H.R. 810 when it first came to the House Floor for a vote in May 2005, and I am proud today to vote to override the President's veto--the first veto of his Administration.

A broad spectrum of lawmakers from both parties and all regions of the country recognize the extraordinary opportunity that stem cell research presents to treat and cure tragic diseases afflicting millions of Americans. Some of these potential treatments were only dreamt about a generation ago. Alzheimer's, paralysis, Parkinson's, diabetes--the list of possible applications for stem cell research

goes on and on. For some of the victims of these diseases, stem cell research provides the only present hope for a cure. To use the President's first and only veto to effectively deny these citizens of their best hope is as tragic as it is wrongheaded. H.R. 810 carefully ensures that this research is conducted in a manner consistent with the highest ethical standards.

There have been numerous times in history when a chief executive has denied the progress of science. We mark these times as setbacks for humanity, and we also recognize that in many cases, progress was only delayed, not curtailed. Despite the setback of this veto, the struggle will continue--both the struggle for Americans seeking to overcome disability and disease, and the struggle to support the scientific community in its quest to find the effective cures and treatments. I am confident that the American people will not allow this veto to forever impede the progress of science.