Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 117, 118 and 119, I was detained at a meeting with firefighters and missed the votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 117, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 118, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 119.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentlelady from New Mexico, Congresswoman Wilson, for their leadership on this critical issue. I'm also pleased to be joined by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

But after looking at that graphic, I think all of us should take note. It was not only Attorney General Mukasey and National Intelligence Director McConnell who have talked about the degradation of our intelligence and the intelligence product. But it's also the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, who also talked about how our intelligence capacity has been degraded because of the failure to enact the Protect America Act. He said, and I quote, ``What people have to understand around here,'' and that's the Senate, ``is the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest.''

He said three times, this capacity will be degraded. And I do want to applaud the gentleman from Texas for bringing up that e-mail that was cited in the 9/11 Commission report from the FBI agent who was so frustrated in August of 2001 about the failure of our law enforcement intelligence officers being able to collaborate effectively because of the wall that existed pre-PATRIOT Act. And he talked about that frustration. And he wanted to make sure those barriers were removed. And he also talked about how so many protections were being provided to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda at the expense of the security of the American people.

When we came to this Congress, the 110th Congress, when it first convened, we were told by the new leadership under Speaker Pelosi that fulfilling the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report was a top priority. Well, it's time to equate those words with action. It's absolutely essential that we do so.

And many of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue because we have bipartisan support for this bill. We have more than a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and there are over 20 members of the Democratic Caucus who have said that they're going to vote for this bill. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all know that.

And they've often talked about that we should be allowing our law enforcement officials to deal with these terrorists more effectively and that we shouldn't be using our military as much. That is what they say.

I have a letter here from the Fraternal Order of Police asking us to pass this law. We need to give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. We can't simply say on the one hand we shouldn't be using the military but we should be using law enforcement, and then tie the hands of those very law enforcement officials we need to help us.

Mr. Speaker I will be happy to submit this letter for the Record so that people can see what the Pennsylvania Fraternal Order of Police police have said or, actually it's the National Fraternal Order of Police, what they have said, why we need to enact the Protect America act.

Grand Lodge,

Fraternal Order of Police,

December 4, 2007.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington. DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: I am writing to you on

behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to

advise you of our position as the Senate prepares to consider

legislation amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act.

The FOP does support the inclusion of language that would

adequately protect telecommunications companies which

cooperated with the Federal government and law enforcement

investigators from any liability as a result of that

cooperation. It is important that such a provision strike the

right balance between the need to investigate and gather

intelligence about our nation's enemies--those actively

plotting to attack and kill our fellow citizens--and the

genuine expectation of privacy of the customers of these

firms. It is important to emphasize that these records were

voluntarily turned over because these companies were trying

to assist the Federal government and law enforcement protect

the United States and investigate terrorists, and we do not

believe they should be punished for providing this

assistance. In the view of the FOP, this is no different from

a citizen helping to protect their streets by participating

in a Neighborhood Watch program and reporting suspicious

activity to the police.

The attacks on the United States in 2001 were a turning

point in our nation's history and, like any turning point, it

demands that we change and adapt without yielding our

essential liberties or compromising our American values. One

of these values is that of compromise, of working together to

find common ground and solving problems. The defense of the

United States against our terrorist enemies is not the sole

province of any entity. If we are to be victorious in this

struggle, we must work together. I am proud that law

enforcement agencies at every level of government, Federal,

State, and local, have changed the way they work so as to

foster greater cooperation in the war on terror. I am pleased

that our nation's corporate citizens worked with law

enforcement and Federal investigators in the wake of

September 11th. And now I implore our executive and

legislative branch to put aside political considerations, to

seek the common ground and to do the right thing those who

acted in the best interests of their nation and its citizens.

Law enforcement officers must make decisions every day

weighing the safety of the public against the individual's

expectations of privacy--occasionally these decisions have to

be made in seconds--because a law enforcement officer may not

have the luxury of having months to deliberate the matter. It

is time for all parties--the Administration, Congress and

interest groups from both sides of this issue--to stop the

hyperbole and work together to reach a solution that will

protect those companies that came to the aid of their country

in our war against terrorism.

I urge both of you, as leaders of your respective parties,

to bring the compromise version of this legislation to the

floor and work together to see it pass. I thank you in

advance for your thoughtful consideration of the views of the

more than 325,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police.

If I can be of any additional assistance on this or any other

matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive

Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Moreover, my own Attorney General from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, visited me today. He's down here with the Attorneys General. He also talked about the need to enact the Protect America Act. And it is absolutely essential that we do so.

People are often frustrated by what they consider the mindless partisanship, the inability of people to get things done in Washington. That's why they're upset with Washington. They believe that Washington is broken. They're angry because Congress just fails to get commonsense legislation accomplished. And I think they want us to put the national interest ahead of special interests.

I think great points have been made here tonight about why we should pass this law, and I think we have to recognize what's holding this up. There are people in this body who are more interested in protecting the concerns of the most litigious among us in our society at the expense of the security of the American people. We all know a bipartisan accord has been reached on this FISA Act, on the Protect America Act. There really should be no more excuses. It's time to take yes for an answer. It's time to get the job done. I look forward to working with all of you to make sure we accomplish this before our intelligence is degraded further than it is today.

With that I would yield back to my friend from Texas.

That graphic you just showed from 9/11 in New York vividly reminds me of that day, and my cousin was on the 91st floor of the north tower. He was one of the lucky ones. He got out. Everybody above him was killed, and all 11 people on his floor made it out, and it was a harrowing experience which I won't go through here tonight.

But we should also remember an article that was written by a woman named Debra Burlingame. She wrote this editorial in The Wall Street Journal a few years ago, and she talked about the fact that there were two individuals in this country before 9/11 that FBI agent you referred to earlier was concerned about. He was concerned about those individuals, and for whatever reason, nobody in the FBI was prepared to go to the FISA Court to go on a nationwide manhunt for these two individuals. Didn't happen until the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

And those two individuals that Debra Burlingame wrote about, who we were so concerned about, who were operating out of San Diego, who were making phone calls to Yemen into a switchboard run by the brother-in- law of one of those two individuals, bin Laden would call into that switchboard himself.

The point is those two individuals were the ones who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, and the pilot of that plane was a man named Burlingame, Captain Burlingame, the brother of Debra, and it really speaks to the issue that we should be surveiling and monitoring calls of people who are not American citizens and who we suspect that are engaged in serious terrorist activities.

We had a sense that those two people were bad actors, but we failed to act. We can't let that happen again. Heaven forbid if there's another terror attack like that of 9/11 or something worse, and heaven forbid if, for whatever reason, we failed in our duty to provide our law enforcement officials, our counterterrorism officials the tools they needed to connect the dots. And as you so eloquently stated, we cannot connect the dots if we can't find the dots. That's precisely the point.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just say that I think the American people hear our frustration here tonight. People of all ideological stripes in this body support the Protect America Act, and I think the people of the United States expect an answer as to why the leadership of this body under Speaker Pelosi will not allow this legislation to be considered.

And I believe very respectfully that Speaker Pelosi and the far left are driven by an extreme agenda on this critical national security issue, and it appears that there are a very small number of people in this body, in this country, who don't want to enact these important reforms.

It's time to stop pandering to trial lawyers or to the ACLU or moveon.org and get on with the business of this country, and it seems that in too many cases there are some people who are misguided, who seem to think that the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and other intelligence agencies that support this government are a greater threat to us than is al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden.

And that is what is so frustrating to me, that our law enforcement officials, our counterterrorism officials, our intelligence officials want us to get the job done. Intelligence officials are taking out personal liability insurance to protect themselves against lawsuits or a congressional inquiry, not protect themselves against al Qaeda but to protect themselves against people in this town, Washington, DC. And again, it's really time for us to get on with the business of this Nation.

The bipartisan compromise that we have all talked about has been reached. Many of us try to work in a very bipartisan manner on a number of issues. This is one clear case where we've done so, and it's time for the leadership to allow us to get the job done, and we call on Speaker Pelosi to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentlelady from New Mexico and the gentleman from Georgia for engaging in this colloquy tonight.

I think just about everything has been said. We have a job to do. The American people expect us to get it done. We've heard from the attorney generals, we've heard from the U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey. We've heard from the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell. We have heard from everyone. And the fact that this intelligence product is being degraded should be alarming to every single American. The fact that we're debating this this evening, knowing that we may not be getting vital intelligence or information I think should be cause for alarm.

There are going to be those who say that we're doing this fear- mongering. That is absolute nonsense. We're simply stating facts. And the facts are that our intelligence personnel today don't have the tools that they had just a few weeks ago to deal with the threats that we face as a Nation.

With that, I want to thank you again for your leadership. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, you and I are deeply engaged in these issues, along with Mrs. Wilson, who has been a great leader on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, we need to keep pounding this point home. I am prepared to come to the floor of the House every single night until this law is enacted.

With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentlelady. And I thank you for your leadership as

a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But to just follow up on what you said, if there are two insurgents or two terrorists in Iraq talking to each other by cell phones, what appears to be a wireless communication, one to the other, it's likely that that call will be routed through the United States, hit a wire, and then that would pretty much trigger the Wire Act. And that's what caused the intervention of all the lawyers.

So we're talking about the denial of tactical intelligence to our men and women who are on the ground, soldiers on the ground and marines on the ground not being able to pursue a hot tip or a hot bit of information because of the inadequacy of current law.

I've been following this dialogue very carefully, and I commend you all for your leadership on this, but I want to say something. You know, the American people, I think, they believe that Washington is broken, and they get sick and tired of the mindless partisan bickering. But as has been stated here already, we have a strong bipartisan consensus, veto proof majority in the Senate. Senator Rockefeller, and I won't read his quote just now, but we have people who are prepared to vote for this.

In the House, we have 20 Members who signed the letter, 20 Democratic Members who signed the letter saying they support this bill as it passed the Senate, our friends and our colleagues. We stand ready to work with them in a bipartisan manner to pass this bill.

You know, sometimes I think the Speaker of the House has to take ``yes'' for an answer. It's time to get the job done. The time for debate is over. It's time to get the job done. And, again, our failure to act on this legislation is tantamount to dereliction of duty. And I think all of us have had enough. Let's get it done. The consensus has been reached. It's time to move forward.

Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being

considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a

FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly

consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President

before the Protect America Act expires in February.

It is our belief that such legislation should include the

following provisions: Require individualized warrants for

surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;

Clarify that no court order is required to conduct

surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are

routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight

by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel

compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court

of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers

that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.

The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory

language addressing all these issues and we would fully

support that measure should it reach the House floor without

substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a

strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism

across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a

timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect

America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a

limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical

surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace

the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,

bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed

into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing

such a measure could place our national security at undue

risk.

Sincerely,

Thank you. I'd like to try to answer the question you just raised. Why wouldn't we pass this bill, given the comments by Senator Rockefeller, who said on three separate occasions, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, that our intelligence capacities had been degraded? And the Director of Intelligence, Director McConnell, he has made similar statements. So the question is why aren't we dealing with this.

I think the answer is this: that there are people in this body who are prepared to put the special interests ahead of the national interests. And it's quite clear they are protecting the interests of the most litigious members of our society at the expense of the security of the American people. And that is wrong.

And, again, I believe many of us standing here, I know I have tried to work in a bipartisan manner on a number of issues in this Congress. I have reached out on a number of issues from SCHIP to stem cell research to others. We're doing it again today on intelligence, and we are being brushed aside, and I think it's simply disgraceful.

And I also want to read a comment, if I may. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has weighed in on this issue, and their commander, Commander George Lisicki said, ``Americans are protected from illegal search and seizures by the fourth amendment, but critical legislation is now being delayed because some would extend these same constitutional protections to those who want to harm America, people who kill without conscience, who represent no country, and who have no agenda other than the total destruction of our country.'' That's not me. That's from the VFW.

It's been pointed out that Senator Rockefeller, the Democratic Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that our intelligence capacities are being degraded. The Attorney General and National Intelligence Director McConnell have said, and I quote, that that is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired 6 days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. ``We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress's failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillance of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.''

What they are saying is that those people who were partnering with us, helping us to protect America, are now afraid to do so out of fear of lawsuit. They'll have to be compelled to cooperate. And that's really the tragedy here, in addition to saving American lives.

Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Along those very same lines about protecting our intelligence agents and our counterterrorism officials, it's my understanding that because of this legalistic approach to intelligence gathering, this approach to national security, that has forced intelligence officers to take out liability insurance for fear of investigations or prosecutions for taking the kinds of liberties that someone suggested they take but knowing they are committing a felony. Is that your understanding too, that these intelligence officials are actually having to take out liability insurance to protect themselves not from al Qaeda, not from the enemy, but from prosecution or congressional inquiry?

I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding.

And to follow up on your very valid point about how this law does provide protection for American citizens, in the letter that was signed by about 20 of our Democratic House colleagues in support of the Protect America Act, and the legislation that we'd all like to have considered, they have said that this legislation should include the following provisions:

First, require individualized warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad. So there is protection in there for American citizens who are living or traveling abroad.

It clarifies that no court order is required to conduct surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are routed through the United States.

It provides enhanced oversight by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; compels compliance by private-sector partners; review by the FISA Court of minimization procedures

that I believe you have just alluded to; and targeted immunity for carriers that participated in antiterrorist surveillance programs.

So I think that there are plenty of protections in place stronger than current law. And I think there is one other issue that needs to be addressed here and now, immediately. Some have suggested, that I think they have irresponsibly suggested, that the PAA's, Protect America Act's, existing certifications will cover all potentially needed surveillance, and I think it's quite clear that in the event that it expired, which it has, it's unclear whether a court would find any directives under the PAA enforceable once the act expires. And it's my understanding too, if a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers after the act expires, it would not be covered under the certifications of the Protect America Act. And I think we should talk about that.

And there is another thing that I think we have to be concerned about too is that I guess within 48 hours after the act expired, around February 14, there were at least a few incidents that occurred around the world where we have seen threats from radical jihadists or radical extremists. In Denmark 2 days after February 14, we saw three jihadists that were arrested in a plot to murder a cartoonist for drawing an editorial cartoon years ago that they found objectionable. We've all heard about that case. In the Philippines it's my understanding that there were two jihadists associated with al Qaeda who were said to be plotting the assassination of the Filipino President and bombing western embassies. And, of course, there were repeated threats against Israel that we have all heard about, including one from Mr. Nasralla, the chief of Hezbollah, who raised a prospect of a war with Israel. He even said, ``Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen. Let this war be open.'' And this was all said within 48 hours after the expiration, I believe, of the act.

The gentleman from Texas made a very eloquent point. It is well stated. His op-ed is worth reading. I would recommend anybody to read this. It states all the points.

But to follow up, we did have an incident in this country where there were two suspected terrorists in the United States, and in August of 2001, I believe this was written about in the 9/11 Commission Report, there were two suspected terrorists, and I know there was an individual whose name I can't recall at the moment, but I believe he was in the counterterrorism division of the FBI who was very concerned about two individuals who he thought were in this country, and he wanted a nationwide manhunt.

And he had written a memo in August of 2001 saying, some day someone is going to care about this, that all the protections are being provided to al Qaeda and bin Laden at the expense of the security of the American people. Those two people he was concerned about were the two who crashed the plane into the Pentagon on September 11. I believe it was sometime in the afternoon of September 11 he received his request to go engage in that nationwide manhunt for those two individuals. So this is a very real issue.

And I think we should try to conclude this program in the way it began, in talking about the need for bipartisanship, particularly when it comes to national security issues. And it can't be stated enough that our friends on the other side of the aisle in the Senate and many in this House are waiting to vote for this bill. We just want to have the opportunity. As I said earlier, I think it is almost tantamount to a dereliction of duty that the Speaker has not allowed a vote on this issue.

Sometimes, we have to take ``yes'' for an answer. We have the solution. It is in our reach. It is time to get the job done. And maybe if we do that, the American people will look more favorably upon Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Derek Brian Johnson and the efforts of his father, Robert Johnson, a resident of Easton, Pennsylvania, to seek justice for his son.

Derek Brian Johnson was only 32 when he died. He worked as an Internet security manager. He enjoyed singing, skydiving and motorcycle racing. He was passionate in his support of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. He also loved music and bands. And it was this last love that ultimately cost him his life.

On February 20, 2003, nearly 5 years ago, Derek went to a club called The Station in West Warwick, Rhode Island, to hear a band called Great White. The club was jammed that night with patrons. As the show ensued, tour manager Daniel Biechele set off a pyrotechnic display that was part of the band's floor show. The display ignited the building's soundproofing foam.

The Station went up like kindling. People rushed for the exits, and panic ensued. Many were crushed as the crowd stampeded to get out of the burning building. In the end, 100 people died that night at The Station, including Derek Johnson.

Ultimately Biechele and club owners Jeffrey Derderian and Michael Derderian were charged with manslaughter as a result of the fire and ensuing deaths. And there began my constituent, Robert Johnson's, quest to find justice for his son, a search that from his point of view has not been at all fruitful.

First, there was the matter of the club itself. There were more people in the club than there should have been. The Station had no sprinkler system, which would have prevented, or at least minimized, the conflagration. And the soundproofing foam was not treated with flame retardant materials.

Second, there were the court proceedings. Biechele pled guilty to 100 counts of manslaughter. He could have gotten 10 years to serve under a plea agreement that Bob claims he did not know about. The judge gave Biechele 15 years but suspended all but 4. Michael Derderian was allowed to plead no contest to 100 counts of manslaughter pursuant to a plea agreement. He too only received 4 years to serve.

Finally, there were the parole hearings. Even though both of these men were responsible for the deaths of 100 people, the State parole board in Rhode Island has decided to release them.

I have to say that I agree with Bob Johnson when he tells me that serving less than 4 years after being found legally responsible for so much carnage hardly seems just. I commend Robert Johnson for the hard work he has put

forth to find justice for his son and for the other victims of The Station nightclub fire. I know that the memory of Derek Brian Johnson will live on in his father's heart forever, and I applaud his efforts to soldier on on behalf of a man who was taken from us all too soon.

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on what my friend Mr. Bishop of New York has just said.

We all learned about Lieutenant Michael Murphy's bravery. And, of course, last week, as was just stated, he received the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Bush on October 22.

I also want to share with you an experience over the weekend prior to the

Penn State/Ohio State game on Saturday evening. We had a ceremony on the field of Beaver Stadium, 110,000 people. Of course Lieutenant Murphy is a Penn State alumnus and graduated from the university in political science, as I did about 17 years earlier. And we had a ceremony. It was touching to be with his parents, Dan and Maureen, to recognize his gallantry, his bravery. As Abraham Lincoln said, he had given that ``last full measure of devotion.'' But we joined his parents on the field, myself along with our colleagues, Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania and Todd Platts of Pennsylvania. We escorted them on the field, along with the president of the university, Graham Spanier. And just prior to the playing of the national anthem, which was dedicated in memory of Lieutenant Murphy, the university presented a certificate that read: ``Pennsylvania State University recognizes Lieutenant Michael Murphy as the recipient of the Medal of Honor, for his gallantry and bravery, serving as a United States Navy SEAL while under enemy attack in Afghanistan. Lieutenant Murphy represents the highest ideal of the university as an alumnus and patriot.''

And, again, I would just like to share with my colleagues from New York, and certainly all Americans, the sense of deep loss we feel for the Murphy family and so many others who have paid the ultimate price in this war, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the courageous efforts of numerous first responders currently battling wildfires in Southern California. Today, these dangerous fires stretch over more than 400,000 acres and have forced the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of local residents from their homes.

As we've seen on national television, the tragedy unfolding in Southern California is of epic proportions; yet the many first responders charged with saving life and limb have performed magnificently since the initial flames. Taking on these blazes from all angles, firefighters are ensuring the safety of Californians while fighting to protect their property and homes. The courage of these first responders is truly exemplary.

As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee's Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response Subcommittee, I am pleased to see that these brave firefighters, police officers, and paramedics are being aided in their efforts by FEMA, the National Guard, and other elements of the Department of Defense.

Exacerbated by drought conditions and the fierce Santa Ana winds, these fires are some of the most menacing in American history. Like every American, I am thankful for the selfless efforts of all first responders, who perform so bravely in harrowing circumstances, especially those currently battling the wildfires in Southern California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of one of my constituents, Mr. Deven Amin of Easton, Pennsylvania. Deven, a senior at the Blair Academy in Blairstown, New Jersey, recently raised $7,500 in local contributions for the Nyumbani Village Project in Kenya.

Nyumbani Village, located a short distance from Kenya's capital, Nairobi, is a settlement where HIV/AIDS affected orphans are placed under the stewardship of elderly Kenyans in mutually beneficial family settings. Founded in 1992, the village today provides shelter, nutrition and education for roughly 160 orphans, over 100 of which are infected with HIV/AIDS, and 63 elderly adults. From infants to teenagers, these orphans represent nearly every tribe and ethnicity in Kenya.

In the past 2 years, Deven has twice traveled to Kenya to volunteer at Nyumbani, where he helped cultivate the village's farm, organize children's activities and assist families with various household duties. After witnessing firsthand the impact of this unique project on its many participants, Deven returned to Easton eager to share his experiences, enhance awareness of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and generate local support for the continued development of the Nyumbani Village.

This year, Deven raised an astonishing $7,500 for the project through an ambitious letter-writing campaign that targeted local businesses and health care professionals. The funds gathered by Deven will be used to help construct a critical multipurpose hall in Nyumbani. This structure will provide necessary recreation space for children during times of inclement weather and serve as a gathering place for the entire Nyumbani community. Construction of the facility has been identified as a top priority by the program's directors, who envision the settlement housing between 1,200 and 1,600 individuals in the future.

While raising money, Deven also educated residents of the Lehigh Valley about the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa through various speaking engagements at local organizations. Recently, Deven spoke at the Palmer Township Kiwanis Clubs, and he will address an audience at a local Rotary International chapter in the near future. He also plans to host a chapel service at his high school in late November. Deven's desire to enhance local awareness of global HIV/AIDS through firsthand accounts of his experience in Kenya is truly commendable.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues today join me in recognizing the achievements of Deven Amin, whose selfless efforts will undoubtedly improve the lives of hundreds of Kenyan orphans impacted by HIV/AIDS. We are all extraordinarily proud of Deven. On behalf of myself and the people of the 15th Congressional District, I congratulate him and thank him once again for what he has done to help make this world a better place.

Madam Speaker, I have to add my two cents' worth, that the same folks who were training up in the Poconos near Congressman Carney's home were training about an hour from my home as well, and we all, I think, realize the nature of this homegrown threat.

But I want to rise today to speak in support of H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.

Recently, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have enjoyed a number of successes in the war against violent extremism. The plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, the attempt to disrupt the Kennedy Airport pipeline system, and last year's conspiracy to bring down the U.S./U.K. transatlantic flights, were all disrupted by good intelligence efforts and, as a result, lives were saved.

But we cannot rest on our laurels. After all, it is still al Qaeda's stated goal to kill 4 million Americans, to bring the United States to its knees, and to impose a system of radical violent Islamism upon the Middle East, and in fact the rest of the world. We need to protect ourselves from this threat to do everything we can in order to make sure that there are no future terrorist attacks on the homeland, and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act would help us certainly in this effort.

This bill's effectiveness is enhanced by the fact that it was put together in a spirit of bipartisan, much to the credit of the Chair, Ms. Harman. Earlier this year, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee's Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee, Congressman Dave Reichert, introduced legislation, H.R. 1695, that forms the basis for the current bill, H.R. 1955. Chairwoman Harman and Ranking Member Reichert have both actively supported the current bill, which was voted out of the Homeland Security Committee without opposition in August.

Also, this bill was the subject of numerous hearings, excellent hearings, much to the credit of both of them.

This bill can help us to stop the spread of violent radicalization that has helped terrorist groups to grow their rank-and-file membership. It creates a 10-member national commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, which will study radicalization and come up with recommendations for defusing its power and preventing its spread. It establishes a university-based center of excellence that will study this phenomenon in depth, and it encourages international cooperation to stop the spread of this violent extremism. It authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to work with nations such as the U.K. and Israel, countries that have had a lot of experience and success in dealing with violent extremism within their borders, to develop a ``best practices'' methodology that can be used to help prevent radicalization and to thwart ideologically based violence.

I hope that Members will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting us against violent extremism and at making us safer here in this country.

Mr. Speaker, if there is an example of how legislation should be crafted, the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 is it. This is a great bill that will help to improve our homeland security. And if it should succeed on the floor today, its passage will be a tribute to the spirit of bipartisanship that is alive and well in the Homeland Security Committee and that has been carefully cultivated under the leadership of that committee's chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), its ranking member (Mr. King), and certainly Mr. Lungren, to my immediate left, who have all worked very hard to work in that bipartisan environment on the committee.

The bill started out in the 109th Congress where it was introduced by former Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, while it passed in the Homeland Security Committee, it was never addressed in the full House. Fortunately, in 2007, Chairman Thompson recognized the importance of this legislation and helped revive the bill in the new Congress. Both sides worked together to make sure that the bill accomplished its objective, to keep ammonium nitrate out of the hands of Timothy McVeighs and other would-be terrorists of the world while making sure that legitimate end users of the substance in agricultural production were not inconvenienced. An en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Thompson, for example, removed the requirement that farmers and others register with the Department of Homeland Security so long as they never come into possession of the ammonium nitrate.

In addition to protecting the rights of legitimate end users, the chairman also helped make sure that the final legislative product had input from both sides of the aisle. Three key Republican amendments were added to the bill during committee markup as a result. First, offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Lungren), directed applications by those seeking to distribute or utilize ammonium nitrate be checked against a terror watch list with an expedited appeals process to handle any cases of mistaken hits. Ranking Member King also offered an amendment that would protect legitimate distributors of ammonium nitrate if they act in good faith when they refuse to sell to a suspicious purchaser or if they notify the department of that would- be purchaser's suspicious behavior. Finally, Congresswoman Brown-Waite offered an amendment that would help to streamline record-keeping requirements for agricultural retail outlets. These amendments have all served to strengthen the bill.

The need for this legislation is clear. Ammonium nitrate has been the explosive material of choice in a number of acts and attempted acts of terrorism, including the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City which killed 168 innocent men, women and children. The 1998 attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Toronto- based bomb plot thwarted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in June 2006, of course, most recently, the attempts by a terrorist group in London to detonate explosive charges throughout the United Kingdom.

I hope the House will see fit to join me in supporting this effective legislation. It is a very bipartisan piece of legislation. Again, I would like to thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I am fortunate to have located within my District a company by the name of OraSure Technologies. OraSure, of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has been at the forefront in the development of diagnostic testing technologies. Specifically, it is the leader in the development of a protocol for the utilization of oral fluid samples in diagnostic testing.

Conducting drug testing on oral fluid samples, as opposed to blood, urine or hair submissions, represents a huge advancement in drug- testing technology. Drawing blood or collecting urine from a subject is invasive and time-consuming, as compared to utilizing an oral fluid sample, which can be obtained from a simple swab of the cheek. Moreover, oral fluid testing is both cost-effective and accurate. For these reasons, the use of this technology has increased. Nearly seven million oral fluid drug specimens have been successfully processed in the non-federally regulated workplace since the technology was first approved by the FDA in 2000.

Technological advancements in the testing of oral fluids for the presence of drugs have come none too soon. In a July 16, 2007 report released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, a tenant agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA indicated that illegal drug use is on the rise in the workplace. The survey found that nearly one in every 12 Americans had used illicit drugs in the 30 days prior to the survey. Overall this survey found that 8.2 percent of Americans are drug users, up from 7.7 percent in 1997. Much of the increase in drug use is occurring in our young people, a very real concern for America. In the 18-25 age group, SAMHSA found 19 percent had used drugs in the last month. Still concerning, the 26-34 age group had used drugs at a rate of 10.3 percent. This trend needs to be reversed. The development and availability of testing methods--such as OraSure's--that are accurate, cost-effective, and non-invasive gives employers a tool to set expectations and promote accountability.

SAMHSA recognizes the gravity of drug use in the workplace. Accordingly, it is now revising federal drug-testing guidelines to ensure that more companies and federal agencies have access to the latest advancements in drug testing technology including oral fluid- based testing. I encourage SAMHSA to move quickly with the revisions. Illegal drug use is not just a criminal justice issue; drug use has a negative effect on productivity in the work place and drug users who labor in positions vital to the public safety constitute a potential threat to homeland security. I commend SAMHSA for taking steps to decrease drug use in our society and I urge quick adoption of revisions to the outdated federal drug-testing guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Israel for helping organize this Special Order this evening, and I do want to commend you for what you've been doing to help try to change the tone of this institution. You're absolutely right when you talk about the level of noise, the partisan vitriol.

I think we all realize that many of our constituents come to us from time to time, and they see partisanship for the sake of partisanship. They don't always see the philosophical differences that may underlie those partisan debates. They get annoyed with it, and they see carping and whining. They hear Republicans criticizing Democrats over their policies, Democrats criticizing Republicans. And I think at times they would just like us to turn the temperature down, improve the tone and try to find solutions to the problems that face us, especially on issues of war and peace.

It was after the Second World War in the late 1940s and right up until the demise of the former Soviet Union, this Nation seemed to have a bipartisan policy to carry us through the cold war. It was called the policy of containment, and that doesn't mean that everybody in Congress felt universally that containment was a great policy, and they might have disagreed with certain aspects of that policy. But nevertheless, containment was the policy and it was able to survive from one administration to the next. Whether that be a Democrat or Republican administration, the policy survived, and each administration may have had a different spin on it and tweaked that policy, but it was the policy of this country.

And I think that our enemies understood that. We all understood that there was a Soviet threat, and we as Americans came together during that Cold War and eventually were successful. We outlasted the Soviet Union, and here we are in Iraq.

I think the American people have reached a point where they'd like us to develop that same kind of bipartisan consensus as we deal with the threats that face us today, the threats from violent extremists, people who are represented by al Qaeda we know who want to do great damage to us, who have made statements to the effect that they want to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million children.

So the American people expect us to work together, and Iraq certainly is part of this whole debate because, of course, al Qaeda has a significant presence in that country. And I do want to thank you once again for helping to facilitate this dialogue. Because of your efforts and many others, we were able to talk about the Iraq Study Group and the recommendations presented there.

Also, we may hear from some of our other colleagues later tonight, people like Congressmen Tanner and Castle, Tanner a Democrat from Tennessee and Castle a Republican from Delaware, who have talked at great length about the need for a bipartisan compact on Iraq. And they really set forth several principles that they thought that we could all agree to as we move forward.

And one of those first principles they talked about was that we could agree in Congress that we need to end the political infighting over the conflict in Iraq and commit immediately to a truly bipartisan dialogue on these issues that we're facing, and that was I think really their first main point. And many of us have signed on to that compact, an even number of Republicans and Democrats, and I think that's very important.

And we came to an agreement on many of those issues, and I won't elaborate them all right now because I think some others may want to talk about them, but I think it is absolutely critical. Those points of interest of policy in this bipartisan compact on Iraq are entirely consistent, in my view, with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, another very significant initiative headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former distinguished Congressman Lee Hamilton that talked about a lot of things I think many of us agree on.

For example, we all agree that there shouldn't be permanent bases in Iraq, and you came up with the idea of a status of forces agreement in lieu of permanent bases, just a status of forces agreement just like our Nation has with other countries where we have a military presence, whether that be in Germany or Korea, like we had in the Philippines at one time, where our country enters into agreements with those governments to really state the nature of our presence and what the presence would be. And it's also certainly important to the government that we'll be dealing with, whether it be in Iraq or elsewhere, to help give them legitimacy.

So that was an idea that you came up with, and again, I think it's an issue that we can all agree to on a very broad bipartisan basis.

There are other issues, too, but I won't belabor them all tonight, but I think something you said to me a few weeks ago I think is worth repeating, and it's this: That as our constituents from time to time watch C-SPAN and they hear the noise, they hear the rancor and they sometimes get a little frustrated and throw up their hands about what's happening in Congress, and I think you said it was one of your constituents who pointed out after the last time we did one of these bipartisan Special Orders, they said that we were making C-SPAN safe for children once again, and for that, I want to give you a lot of credit, but there's a lot of truth to that.

Hopefully, because of these types of activities that we are conducting here tonight, more people will be likely to turn on C-SPAN and listen to I hope what will be a very thoughtful and constructive dialogue on one of the preeminent issues that's facing this country.

Again, I applaud you for your leadership on this issue. You are absolutely right, the Jones Commission really did give your legislation, without saying it, a very strong endorsement.

I think you pointed out another issue that I think we can all agree on about this issue of permanent bases. We have voted before against permanent bases, and your status of forces agreement, I think, really does provide the right answer to the question of permanent bases.

I would also point out too that should not be an open-ended commit in Iraq as has been reported and stated in the Iraq Study Group report.

Finally, I think there is another area where most of us degree in this Chamber, that what we want in this country is we want to make sure that we pursue our national interest as it relates to Iraq.

I think most of us realize that we cannot allow al Qaeda to have a base from which to operate in Iraq. I think that's something on which Republicans and Democrats can agree. I think we also agree that we cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state, that is, it becomes a threat to itself and to the region.

The third point I want to make on this, I think it's a very significant point, and perhaps we don't state it enough, and I think you will get a sense of this issue, if you have ever attended the funeral of someone who was killed in Iraq, as I know we all have, and I have families in my district, and Paris and Rush that have lost family members in recent months, and the issue really deals with honoring the service and sacrifice of our people who have invested so much or in some cases, as Abraham Lincoln said, gave that last full measure of devotion.

I have had numerous conversations, for example, with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, and I know some of you have as well. We talk about these types of issues that, regardless of how one feels about the run up to this war, or how it has been executed, and the mistakes have been made along the way, critics of this administration, for example, have said they do not listen to many of the generals going into Iraq.

But I think it's very important that we do listen to generals as we transition down and go out of Iraq. I think that's critically important that we do this, and as we transition, that we remember the service and the sacrifice, remember our national interest, which is making sure al Qaeda has no base from which to operate and that we do not leave a failed state in our wake.

I just wanted to share those thoughts with you and, again, applaud you. I hope that your bill is one of those bipartisan bills that we will be able to bring to this floor for consideration, just as we did with the Tanner-Abercrombie-English bill today, which was a good start. I think we saw a broad consensus in this House that supported that legislation, and I think that's good for all of us.

Again, I would just applaud you for your work on the status of forces agreement.

I'd like to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

And Madam Speaker, there's one issue that I always recall very much, having visited Iraq in the summer of 2005 with at least one gentleman in this room tonight. And it dealt with the issue of reconciliation, although we really didn't talk as much as about it back then, but that's what the exercise was in.

You've mentioned this, as we talked about reconciliation in Iraq, you were very good enough to organize a meeting among the Center Aisle Caucus not so long ago where a prominent Iraqi in the diplomatic corps addressed us, and he talked about the need for reconciliation in our country. And we referred to the tribalism in Iraq that we saw that was frustrating to us and difficult for us to comprehend, and he sort of noticed the tribalism in our country, as he referred to it, I believe, as in Republicans and Democrats and very hard for him to understand the type of chatter that was going on here. So the point is there's reconciliation needed here in America as well as in Iraq.

But one issue of reconciliation that I learned about in Iraq, Madam Speaker, was in August of 2005 when I met a fellow named Albert Chowanski, Jr., who was from a town about 45 miles from my hometown of Allentown, Pennsylvania. He lives in Frackville, Pennsylvania; been in the Middle East for about 30 years. He was working for a contractor, the Siemens Corporation, and was building a power plant, helping to construct a power plant in the Taza area near Kirkuk. And he told me the challenges of building a power plant while people are shooting mortars at you, and how difficult that was. And I asked him, ``Well, how did you deal with the situation?'' He said, ``Well, the mortar attacks weren't very effective, to be perfectly candid, but nevertheless it was troublesome and made life difficult for us.'' And so he said the way he dealt with it, he went out and he met with each of the tribal leaders, and that's a multiethnic area near Kirkuk. You have ethnic Turks or Turkmen, and you have Kurds and Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs. And so he went out and he met with all the tribal leaders, and he gave jobs to members of each tribe. And he said, ``You know, they all work together just fine, and everything went pretty quiet.''

And my point is that here's a fellow who seemed to be an engineer of some sort. I think he was an electrical engineer, and he was out there trying to solve a problem from a very practical level. And we've seen a bit of that in Iraq, I think, in recent months. You've seen it in the Sunni areas that have been much talked about, the tribal leaders turning on al Qaeda, which is all very encouraging. But sometimes we talk about benchmarks and we talk about things that we expect the Iraqis to do, and we are frustrated with the pace of or lack of progress in that country from the higher levels.

But then we see some of these more local efforts at reconciliation that do bring a certain amount of encouragement and hope.

But I just wanted to share that with you tonight as something that we ought to think more about as we talk about this policy of how we deal with Iraq and as we try to deal with the issue from 60,000 feet in the air here. And as many of us have visited that country and we talk to a lot of folks who are in charge, sometimes life brings us unexpected events, and sometimes those events are positive, and I think we can learn from people who are on the ground.

If I may, Madam Speaker, I just hope that our exercise tonight has done just what you want us to do to make C-SPAN safe for children again, and I hope this exercise has accomplished that goal.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise this afternoon in support of this legislation which designates the third week of October as National Teen Driver Safety Week.

As has already been stated, we witness this issue on far too many occasions, but roughly 7,500 teenage drivers were involved in fatal car crashes in 2005. Today, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among American teenagers.

The time has come for Congress to recognize this terrible problem and consider effective interventions that will help reduce the number of accidents involving teens on American roads.

On Monday, January 22, 2007, following a tragic accident that claimed the lives of two young high school students in my district, The Morning Call newspaper compiled a report: Fatal crashes involving teens that had occurred in the Lehigh Valley region since 2001. This report indicated that there were a total of 13 fatalities between 2001 and 2006, with alcohol involved in two of the seven accidents reported. Other contributing factors included racing and reckless behavior.

Sadly, it appears that these events, which are happening in every corner of the United States, could have been prevented, enabling these young adults to reach their destinations safely.

To address this troubling issue, the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania, or CHOP as it's commonly referred to, is currently conducting research that will help develop the best interventions to reduce the risk of crash injury for teen drivers and travelers sharing the road with them.

The alliance of Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania and State Farm Insurance Company, CHOP's partner in this initiative, is nationally recognized for its research and outreach involving child passenger safety. However, this year they've expanded their agenda from the car seat to the driver's seat in an effort to address the cause of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among American teenagers.

Together, CHOP and State Farm have conducted research indicating that teens often drive while distracted and fatigued.

I believe this alliance brings together a wide range of expertise and research and outreach, translating scientific evidence into actions that will help save lives. It's important that Congress support efforts to effectively educate these teens and families about ways to address these problems.

This resolution will endorse the goals and ideals of a week in which intensive programming will be used to encourage these teens to drive more safely. By delaying exposure to risky driving conditions until they have had enough supervised driving experience, managing

peer-to-peer interactions while in the vehicle, and reinforcing the need to protect and react to hazards more appropriately, teens will be better prepared to drive responsibly. Throughout our great Nation, teens are dying in crashes at a rate of four times that of adult drivers.

Congress must work to prevent these tragedies, and I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the excessively partisan comments from the gentleman from Florida that did not serve this bipartisan, bicameral product well, I do want to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King of the Homeland Security Committee for their hard work to bring this very fine bill together. As a member of the conference committee, I had an opportunity to see firsthand the extraordinary leadership these two gentlemen provided. I thank them for that.

This leadership really came together and really came to the forefront during the debate on the so-called ``John Doe'' provision. I vigorously applaud their efforts to make this immunity grant part of the bill. These provisions were made necessary because of an outrageous lawsuit that attempts to punish airline passengers and crew for

being vigilant. Contrary to what some might think, vigilance on the part of our traveling public is important, especially during a time when terrorists want to attack us both at home and abroad.

Above and beyond the ``John Doe'' language, this bill has noteworthy accomplishments. It allows a greater percentage of homeland security funds to be distributed based upon risk, and it authorizes funds for transportation security.

Further, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, I was especially pleased that this report establishes a new grant program within the Department of Homeland Security that will promote the development of interoperable communications.

But while this bill has some good provisions, it does leave some 9/11 Commission recommendations and some 9/11 Commission business undone, especially in two important areas. First, it does not address the issue of congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, and it does nothing to promote the development of a comprehensive screening system for international travelers arriving at our borders.

Had the majority chosen to incorporate my Fast and Secure Travel Initiative into this legislation, we would have dovetailed very nicely with the transportation security provisions contained within the act. Frankly, that second recommendation would have satisfied completely.

Passage of this conference report, though, is another part of our continuing efforts to keep our homeland secure. It is a laudable step. But as you can see, there is still much more to do.

I would very much like to.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to applaud you for your leadership on this issue. As an OB/GYN physician, you know this issue probably better than anyone in this institution.

But I just wanted to share with you a perspective from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where we were a crisis State. And you're right on on some of these issues you just discussed, but the bad policy on medical liability reform was far too common in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a very long time.

Our crisis actually originated back in the 1970s when no one would write medical liability insurance. So we created a State fund, and it was supposed to be a stopgap measure. We addressed that stopgap measure almost 30 years later in 2002, 2003.

But the point of the whole issue is you had to buy insurance from the State fund, we call it the MCAT fund, and it's been renamed the MCARE fund, and then you would buy additional insurance from the private sector.

The problem with the program was, though, you would buy your insurance basically today, if you're a young doctor you buy into the MCARE fund, and you're really paying for past claims, unlike a traditional insurance product where you pay your premium today to pay against a future claim, and so this has created an enormous retention problem for us because over the years there are so many unsettled cases in this MCAT fund that what would happen is these claims all collected and we started settling these cases rather aggressively in the late 1990s and 2001 and 2002. And so today's physicians were being assessed with an emergency surcharge to pay for previous medical liability incidents. A major, major problem.

And also, in a city like Philadelphia, where the average jury verdict was more than double that of anywhere else in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where jury verdicts were in excess of $1 million on average, as reported by a jury verdict research, and the rest of the Commonwealth, the verdicts were less than half that.

But my point again is this: we created this State fund, an unfunded liability accumulates, today's doctors are paying for the liability situation of their predecessors, creates an enormous physician recruitment problem. Of course, there's always a retention problem, but the recruitment problem was enormously pronounced because of that policy change.

And so what ultimately happened, because the premiums became so high through this State fund, the people who ultimately had to solve this problem for the physicians were the taxpayers. And so cigarette taxes were used to pay for physicians' premiums, particularly in the high- risk areas, the OBs, the neurosurgeons and many other trauma surgeons and orthopods.

That's what happened in Pennsylvania, and I think many of the remedies you've discussed here, such as caps on noneconomic damages or collateral sources, structured payments, some of the things that you've done in Texas, I'm not as familiar with all those changes, but it certainly had an impact.

I just wanted to applaud you for this. You know, of course, that there's legislation pending in this Congress from some of the legislation last session, and I just want to thank you for yielding, but I just again want to applaud you for your leadership on this issue. I'm glad you're bringing this issue, once again, to the attention of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns over the Senate's Immigration bill.

I am disappointed that the Senate continues to maintain a ``Z'' visa program within the text that would reward illegal behavior. Not withstanding how its proponents choose to characterize this plan, it represents de facto amnesty and is unfair to those who have patiently pursued the citizenship process legally.

We have some 12 million illegal aliens in this country. Granting amnesty will only push those numbers up, not down, as we saw after the implementation of Simpson-Mazzoli.

The White House and the Senate just do not seem to recognize the fatal flaw in their so-called immigration ``compromise'': If we cannot control our borders now, then how can we reasonably expect to manage future immigration programs that will inevitably increase the numbers of individuals seeking to enter this country illegally? The end results of this bargain, I fear, will be compromises to the rule of law and to the security of the homeland. And those we most certainly do not need.