Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1808, to name the VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia after my good friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood. I served with Representative Norwood for 12 years here in Congress, and was honored to work alongside him. This principled man did not hesitate to stand up for his conservative principles, even if it meant criticizing his party.

Charlie was an intelligent and respected man, both in this House and in his hometown that he ably served. He was an amiable man full of a love for life and with a wisdom that he had earned through experience. I was never surprised when in Committee he would comment on an issue with particular insight and concern for the complexities involved.

It is fitting that a VA Medical Center be named after this courageous man, especially since he himself had served our country with

distinction in the Armed Forces. Representative Norwood served as a Captain in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969, beginning with an assignment to the U.S. Army Dental Corps at Sandia Army Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 1968, he was transferred to the Medical Battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam, and served a combat tour at Quin Yon, An Khe, and LZ English at Bon Son. During his tour, he participated in experimental military dental practices that are now standard procedure for the armed forces. Charlie Norwood was one of the first participants in the Army's outreach program that delivered dentists to forward firebases, instead of the previous practice of transferring patients to rear treatment areas. Interestingly, he also provided some of the first field-based dental treatment of military guard dogs, and assisted in non-dental trauma care in Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals.

In recognition of his service under combat conditions, Representative Norwood was awarded the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars. After Vietnam, Charlie was assigned to the Dental Corps at Fort Gordon, Georgia, where he served until his discharge in 1969. He remained a member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Military Order of the WorId Wars until his recent tragic death.

I was honored to serve with this effective Representative from the 10th district of Georgia, was strengthened to draw from this intelligent individual's wealth of knowledge and insight, and have been blessed to know this vibrant and caring man, Charlie Norwood, as a friend. I support honoring his memory by this designation, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, for the last two weeks the Democrats have continued their political games. They have failed to correct the inherent flaws in this legislation and at a closer section by section look it is clear this legislation contains numerous errors.

Section 101: provides an appropriation of $9 billion in 2008, 25 percent more than governors of both parties have told CMS would be necessary to fully fund SCHIP next year.

Section 211: provides a new citizenship documentation option, but what this new provision does is completely erase the stricter citizenship requirements enacted in the Deficit Reduction Act. The Social Security Administration states that this provision will not guarantee that applicants who use false Social Security Numbers will be identified thus clearly opening the door for millions of illegal aliens becoming enrolled.

I hope the other side stops using these children as political pawns and crafts sound legislation that does not throw away tax dollars for votes.

Madam Speaker, let me just talk to my colleagues. A new Gallup Poll just came out yesterday, and it really shows what we on this side have been talking about.

The poll indicates that over 55 percent of Americans are worried that the expansion of the SCHIP program would create incentives for families to drop private health coverage and switch to the public program. This goes to the very core of what we've been saying.

I was here in 1997 when Republicans created the SCHIP program. The Democrat leadership is creating a future entitlement train wreck, and they would be wise to listen to the American people before tying the hands of our Federal Government with more spending.

The poll goes on further to state that over 52 percent of Americans believe that most benefits should go to families making 200 percent below the poverty line. This was the original intent of the law.

The American people are asking Congress to follow the original bipartisan plan for the SCHIP program. The American people want to cover the poorest kids first; we do, too. The Democrat leadership needs to understand they're not doing the American people a favor with this program.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Energy Information Agency, the United States currently imports about 60 percent of its oil, and that number is expected to rise to 75 percent in the coming decades.

As a country, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign fuel sources and start implementing alternative energy sources that can be found domestically here in the United States.

Imported fuels such as crude oil and natural gas are costing the country billions of dollars a year, accounting for about one-third of the United States trade deficit. At $45 a barrel, liquid coal fuel is a desirable alternative to the $60 plus or more per barrel of oil we're paying today. Not only does this innovative fuel source cost less, but also coal is one of the most abundant natural resources in the United States. As Congress continues to explore the use of alternative energy sources, we need to look closely at the enormous benefits of coal-to- liquid technology.

Madam Speaker, it's a great opportunity to see you in the Speaker's chair today.

I would like to commend, obviously, Congressman Moore for his dedication and his determination to move H.R. 814, the Gasoline Burn Prevention Act. He has been, Madam Speaker, and as my colleague knows, the chairman of the committee has been tireless in his efforts to ensure portable gasoline containers are fitted with child-resistant caps, and that is simply what this legislation does. This bill mandates that all portable gas cans sold in this country be equipped with child- resistant caps.

I'd like to note, however, that mandating the standard is not a substitute for preventing access to gasoline. In fact, all prepackaged gas containers are required to be sold with child-resistant caps. And empty gas containers, which this legislation addresses, are now sold with such caps as a matter of compliance with a voluntary industry standard. Let me repeat. The industry has complied with this on a volunteer basis. The very standard that this bill adopts, industry has voluntarily complied with and set up themselves or in compliance with State environmental laws requiring child-resistant and spill-resistant caps.

As a consequence, I'm just a bit concerned about this legislation. Not, obviously, because of its substance, but simply because of the precedents that we have here, Congress, how we will treat industry who voluntarily step out, set their standards, comply with it and do it themselves. So when the industry is in compliance and did so voluntarily, why does the United States Federal Government need to get involved? Requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act establish the CPSC should only promulgate a standard when no industry or other standard exists, or when an existing standard is inadequate or is not being complied with at large. But, again, industry in compliance; did so voluntarily. So why does the United States Government have to step in?

I'm concerned that we'll send a message to industry that even when you do things correctly, you adopt the standards voluntarily, and you comply with them, Congress will not hesitate to intercede, turning an industry standard into a commission rule while bypassing the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Now, think about that. They adopt the standards, they comply with it, they do it themselves; Congress still intervenes and adopts what the industry put as a standard as part of a bill here. If turning industry standards into agency rules becomes regular practice around here, it could severely diminish the willingness of industry to develop standards on their own because, be careful what you ask for. The industry will say to themselves, lo and behold, we work hard, we developed this voluntarily, this standard, bingo. They come back and they might take the standard, and not only take the standard, but the standard plus one, plus two, plus three.

So I worry that these additional layers of regulation liability, and of course there's liability when the Federal Government steps in, on the manufacturing industry, particularly when the industry complies, simply complies with the industry standards, are unnecessary in many cases, and often contribute to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs because of the concern about liability.

Now, having said all that, Madam Speaker, expressing my concerns of the unintended precedent, I obviously support this bill because the bill, in effect, is a reasonable effort that may, perhaps will, reduce danger to children. And so for that, Madam Speaker, I commend Congressman Moore. I just think it establishes a precedent that we, on this committee, Commerce, Consumer Protection and Trade, have to be careful about.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, this bill aims to improve

the recall process of children's products such as toys and furniture by requiring the inclusion of a product safety registration card with each product at the point of sale. The program is modeled on the car seat registration program mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, better known as NHTSA.

Now, my colleagues, this legislation creates a new mechanism for keeping consumers informed of child product recalls. To the extent we can improve the recall process, we should, and we think it's a good idea. Parents should know as soon as possible, if they own a product that's dangerous to their child's safety.

Children have been injured by the continued use of a recalled product simply because the parents were simply unaware of the product's dangerous nature. Our hope is that this registration program will render these type of accidents preventable.

Now, my colleagues, of course children's products are often passed along to other friends or family members once their child is grown, outgrows its use. We all know that. We put it up in the attic, then we hear a friend at church says they have a new child and we bring down this particular product. So many products are donated to charity outlets for resale, or sold at secondhand stores, online or at yard sales. No registration program will reach these parents in the event of a recall. They'll have to depend upon media.

This legislation will attempt to reach these legacy owners by permanently marking each product with the manufacturer's name, model number and other information used in consumer product recalls. A parent can simply research the item on the Internet or call the manufacturer to verify a product's safety if he or she gets this product either in a yard sale or it's given to them by a friend. This is good.

To the extent this measure improves notification to parents of potentially dangerous products, all of us should support this bill. At the same time, we all know that nothing is more important to a child's safety than vigilant parental supervision. I hope the good intentions of this legislation proves effective for both the consumers who purchase the products and the companies who will have to maintain these databases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a straightforward bill, and we support it on this side. Of the four consumer product safety bills that we have on the floor, we feel this is the one that is the most straightforward and, obviously, we support and we speak in favor of it.

My colleagues, go back to 1972. The House passed the Consumer Product Safety Act. At that time the penalty was simply $500,000. Now let's leap ahead. Adjusted for inflation, what is that equivalent in today's dollars? About $2.5 million. However, the original penalty maximum in the CPSA was not indexed to inflation; so $500,000 as years went by up to 1990 was a pretty paltry amount over this period of time. And then in 1990 it was indexed to inflation so that the current civil penalty maximum is $1.825 million.

The chairman would indicate that is a small incentive for companies out there. I submit that the penalty is not the big product for companies. It's bad PR. If you are a Wal-Mart and you have a product that is defective or you are a toy manufacturer, the penalty is going to be a deterrent, but the big deterrent is you won't be able to sell that product if those products have to be recalled and everybody knows that your

company has manufactured a defective product.

I support the ability of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to penalize those who willfully, willfully violate the act. At the same time, we are not sure whether the effect of an increase in potential penalties to as much as $10 million will have the desired effect.

I can support this measure, however, because there are three key factors when you look at this bill. First, the increase in the penalty maximum will be phased in, thanks to the chairman and his staff and our staff working together. Two, this measure amends the CPSA to include specific penalty assessment factors. And, three, the measure directs the CPSC to promulgate rules interpreting these factors and delineates how the commission will assess the fines.

My colleagues, this last factor in particular is important to our business community. Interpretive rules are necessary to provide guidance, clarity, and some predictability to regulate industries. Additionally, interpretive guidelines will provide a constant framework within which the CPSC may act. $10 million is too great an amount to not act responsibly, I agree with the chairman. That is a deterrent, and consistently imposing such fines is important.

But again, I point out that the larger deterrent for corporations is the fact that the publicity will be damaging to their sale of future products.

So, I would commend the chairman for his leadership in updating the CPSC on this matter, again, for his staff working with us to create, I think, a bipartisan work product that all of us, both Democrats and Republican, can support.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, as the chairman mentioned, simply aims to prevent tragic drowning and entrapment accidents that of course are entirely preventable with the addition of some simple equipment at a modest cost, I think we all agree. What we have here I believe is significantly different and significantly improved over what was initially referred to our committee. So, again, in a bipartisan fashion, I think we've improved the bill. So I commend the chairman for including some of the modifications that we suggested and some of the modifications that came from his staff.

My colleagues, this legislation has two distinct components: one, it adopts an industry standard on drain covers; and two, it establishes a grant program administered by the Commission designed to provide incentives to States to change their State laws regarding pool safety demands. These incentives, through these grants, the States will change their laws.

I fully support the intent of this measure, and I will, therefore, support the drain cover standard. I would like to reiterate the concern I expressed during consideration of the bill earlier, that of turning voluntary industry standards into commission rules. Without repeating what I said earlier on one of the previous bills, I again simply caution my colleagues about the unintended precedents our actions today may put in place.

Further, I would like to express my reservation about the pool safety grant program and its effect on a States' rights to regulate property and safety within its own borders. This piece of Federal legislation mandates that States adopt specific safety standards and no other. Mr. Speaker, there are 38 States with pool safety laws on the books today. None of these States, my colleagues, including my home State of Florida and the State of California, probably the two States with the most swimming pools and the most stringent pool safety laws, will be eligible for the $25 million in grant funds unless they change their existing laws, making this essentially a 12-State grant program.

The laws mandated by this legislation are overly prescriptive and may even weaken the safety laws of some States. Some of us may disagree on this, but that's what we could possibly consider. Holding Federal tax dollars over the heads of State lawmakers to urge them to change in their States their laws to a proscribed standard may not have any effect. We hope it does. If a State opts to change its laws, a change will unfortunately and indiscriminately raise the cost of compliance for all pool owners, regardless of whether they have children or not.

I note that the Commission itself expressed concern about the grant program. The CPSC does not have experience in ministering any grant program, and Mr. Speaker, it's not staffed to do so.

Now, notwithstanding those concerns that I have just expressed, I voice my support for this bill today and for its author, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who did a very strong, persevering job on this. It came through committee when I was chairman and we tried to make changes. I appreciate her patience, and I look forward to supporting her, and I commend her for her perseverance.

We are going to support the bill because it will undoubtedly improve swimming pool safety by requiring that all drain covers sold in the United States be made in accordance with standards to prevent entrapment. This is very good. These horrific entrapment accidents are entirely preventable. It is my hope that this legislation will result in such prevention and avoidance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.

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

Madam Speaker, when our soldiers come home from combat, they often face an uphill battle. For many servicemembers, the transition from active duty to veteran status and returning to a full, meaningful civilian life is daunting, fraught with many challenging obstacles and bureaucratic barriers. Many times, these brave service men and women require job training but for entirely new careers.

Although statistics show that eventually veterans in general enjoy a favorable rate in the Nation's job market, many veterans obviously find it difficult to compete successfully in the labor market. That is why for over a decade the Federal Government has provided job training benefits to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor. The mission statement for the Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service, VETS program, is to ``provide veterans and transitioning servicemembers with the resources and services to succeed in the 21st century workplace by maximizing their employment opportunities, protecting their employment rights, and meeting labor market demands with qualified veterans today.''

Additionally, the Department of Labor offers servicemembers leaving the military with a service-connected disability the Disability Transition Assistance Program, DTAP. DTAP includes a 3-day workshop plus additional hours of individual instruction to help determine job readiness and address the special needs of disabled veterans. However, this is the identical DTAP program offered to all transitioning disabled veterans across this country. This 3-day program is valuable support, but it only provides general employment information and at no time addresses the specific needs of the community in which the veteran lives. Unfortunately, this means that frequently there is a void of information on local labor market conditions that result in veterans using their benefits to train for jobs that do not exist in their community.

Mr. Jeffrey Askew is director of the Marion County Veterans' Service Center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. He said many veterans have used their Federal job training benefit for information technology (IT) career training. However, Ocala has little demand for IT professionals, and veterans are often advised to move to Orlando where there are many more opportunities for them. Upon finally getting settled back into civilian life, it is frustrating and unfortunate to say the least to be forced to uproot one more time and move your family to an unknown city.

I am concerned about this problem, but I think and I believe that there is an easy solution. That is why I introduced legislation to provide better information to veterans on their local job market needs.

H.R. 3646, the Veterans Effective Training Job Opportunities and Benefits Act of 2007, or VET JOBS Act of 2007, directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the greatest employment needs in various job markets around the country and post these results on the VA Web site. These results would then be updated annually to reflect the current and possibly changing needs in the local job market. With this tool, a veteran could plug in his or her zip code and see a list of the occupations that are most in demand, and subsequently use their Federal job training most effectively.

The Department of Labor already has the infrastructure in place for this kind of research, so this is a practical, low-cost solution. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has unofficially scored this proposal as having insignificant costs, insignificant costs for immeasurable benefits to our veterans.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. Help our veterans today. Help them with their quality employment. Help them to find out where the jobs that they wish to be trained for are located, and support the VET JOBS Act that I ask for all of my colleagues to cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force.

America can rightly claim to be the greatest military power. This status is due in no small part to our overwhelming supremacy in air and space. Air Force men and women have produced an unsurpassed record of achievement. Never before has our ability to project military power depended so heavily on air and space capabilities.

As an Air Force veteran and cochairman of the House Air Force Caucus, I know firsthand how the Air Force provides our Nation a unique military advantage. However, what is most impressive is the dedication of the men and women of the United States Air Force who work hard every day to ensure air supremacy.

Let me leave you with the words of one of the Air Force founders, General Hap Arnold: ``Air power will always be the business of every American citizen.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. And as a former Air Force officer and veteran and one of the co-founders of the House of Representatives Air Force Caucus, I know firsthand how the Air Force provides our Nation a unique military advantage, obviously, indispensable in war and peace, to know what is happening around the globe, to lend a hand with humanitarian assistance, to deter nations that would use aggression to bully their neighbors, and to defend our Nation when we are attacked and dealt a decisive blow to our foes.

But I bring to your attention, my colleagues, something that perhaps would not be talked about, that this supremacy could be threatened. And so I wish to, in this short amount of time talk about, although the Air Force has an overwhelming advantage right now, we are now at a point where a lot of the equipment is growing old.

Our Air Force flies the oldest aircraft that we have ever had to support, and they will be getting older and more costly to maintain if nothing is done to reverse this trend.

Both our B-52s, our KC-135s average 46 years old today. In 2030 they'll be 68 years old. Our A-10s average 26 years old today. In 2030 they'll be almost 50 years old. Though the Air Force is the youngest service, it has the most to lose in the fight against complacency.

Our Air Force is constantly in demand by combat commanders around the globe, but the size of our Air Force is the smallest it's ever been in decades. The Air Force had approximately 4,400 fighters in 1985. Today we have 2,500.

In 2030 it will have fewer than 1,400. Despite technological improvements, the Air Force cannot fulfill its global missions without sufficient force structure. Aircraft simply cannot be in two places at once, whether in Korea or Afghanistan or above New York City.

So for all of its immense accomplishments, the Air Force still faces formidable challenges as it enters the seventh year of the global war on terrorism. Losing our airpower edge is not a responsible option. We must ensure this does not happen.

In closing, let me leave you with the words of one of the Air Force founders, Five-Star General Hap Arnold. His words still ring true today and are especially poignant as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force:

``Our Air Force belongs to those who come from ranks of labor, management, the farms, the stores, the professions, and colleges and legislative halls . . . Air power will always be the business of every American citizen.''

I rise today to honor and celebrate the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force. The Air Force is the world's dominant source of air and space power. America can rightly claim to be the greatest military power--a power that affords us prosperity and security. This status is due in no small part to our overwhelming supremacy in air and space. However, what is most impressive is the integrity and dedication of the men and women of the Air Force who work hard everyday to ensure air supremacy.

The Air Force is the youngest of our Nation's military branches. It is able to adapt in time and space by changing position. The effects the Air Force can achieve through perspective, range and endurance are those no other military instrument can execute. Our Nation's ability to gain an advantage over our enemies by exploiting air and space is unsurpassed.

The overwhelming advantages afforded to our Nation by the Air Force can be lost through inattention to modernization or by under-funding force structure. We are now at a point, after 17 years of continuous combat--from Desert Storm, Bosnia and Kosovo to Iraq and Afghanistan today--where our Nation's continued superiority in air and space is at risk.

Our Air Force flies the oldest aircraft that we have ever had to support--and they will be getting older and more costly to maintain if nothing is done to reverse the trend. Both our B-52s and KC-135s average 46 years old today; in 2030, they will average 68 years old. Our A-10s average 26 years old today; in 2030, they will average 49 years old. Though the Air Force is the youngest service, it has the most to lose in the fight against complacency.

Our Air Force is constantly in demand by combatant commanders around the globe but the size of our Air Force is the smallest it has been in decades. The Air Force had approximately 4,400 fighters in 1985, today we have around 2,500, and in 2030 it will have fewer than 1,400. Despite technological improvements, the Air Force cannot fulfill its global missions without sufficient force structure--aircraft simply cannot be in two places at once, whether in Korea and Afghanistan or above New York City.

Never before has the Nation's ability to project military power depended so heavily on air and space capabilities. Whether it is the principal actor or a supporting force, the Air Force brings to the fight unsurpassed air, space, and cyberspace capabilities--adding strength, flexibility, and resilience to the joint force. In many cases, other U.S. military branches would not be able to carry out their missions without the Air Force.

Much has changed over the years. The Air Force is flying unmanned aircraft over Iraq and Afghanistan controlled by airmen from bases in the United States and other remote locations around the world. Moreover, investments in air and space technologies have produced precision that would have been unimaginable even 15 years ago. Accuracy of weapons is now measured in mere feet from the target.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, the control of information is critical to national security. This asset was compromised as reported in the London Times AP story in the Washington Post recently, last week. It was compromised from a cyber attack against the Department of Defense's unclassified e-mail system, which included the e-mail accounts of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. While the Pentagon does not have sufficient proof to formally make an accusation, China is the prime suspect. The responsibility is unclear, because China is home to many insecure computers and networks that hackers in other computers could use to simply disguise their locations and launch these attacks, making proper attribution difficult.

The Chinese Government replied, ``It has always opposed any Internet wrecking crime, including hacking, and crack down on it according to their law.'' This is not true. Last June was not the first cyber attack that points back towards China. In 2005, a group with ties to China compromised secure networks from the Redstone Arsenal Military Base, to NASA, to the World Bank. In one case, the hackers stole flight planning software from the Army. The files they have obtained are not classified, but many are strategically important enough to require U.S. Government licenses for foreign use.

Experts note China's military has openly discussed using cyber attacks as a means of defeating a more powerful conventional military such as ours. In fact, other governments have also been the targets of these vicious cyber attacks. Unidentified officials in Germany and Britain reported to the media that government and military networks had been broken into by hackers backed by the Chinese Army. The Guardian reported that Chinese attackers launched online assaults on the network in Britain's Parliament, the Foreign Office, and Defense Ministry. My colleagues, last month the German weekly Der Spiegel also reported that computers at the chancellery and three ministries had been infected with so-called Trojan horse programs, which allowed an attacker to spy on information in those computers. The report, which appears on the eve of German Chancellor Merkel's visit to Beijing, said Germany's domestic intelligence agency believed hackers associated with the Chinese Army might have been behind the attacks. Motives for such hacking may range from the stealing of secrets or confidential technology to probing for system weaknesses and placing hidden viruses that could be activated in case of a conflict.

The reported Pentagon attack was the most flagrant and brazen to date, said Alex Neill, an expert on the Chinese military at London's Royal United Services Institute. Quoted by the British newspaper, The Guardian, Neill said such attacks begin at least 4 years ago, and are increasing at an alarming rate.

Now, this is a substantial threat to the security of the United States and its allies. In January 2005, Japanese officials had reported that Chinese hackers were routinely attacking web sites and Internet services. According to the Korean Information Security Agency, a total of 10,628 cases of hacking were reported in the first half of the year 2004, 30 times higher than for the same period in 2003. In 2005, Chinese hackers assaulted South Korean government computers, gaining access to information concerning the country's National Assembly, Atomic Energy Research Institute, Democratic Progressive Party, and even the itinerary of the South Korean president himself.

Whether or not cyber attacks are government sponsored, China has become a growing focus of global antihacking efforts. In a report earlier this year, security software maker Symantec Corporation listed China as having the world's second largest amount of computer activity. Experts say the attacks originating in China often employ standard weaponry such as Trojan horses and worms, and many other sophisticated techniques. In some cases, hackers slip in after launching viruses to distract monitors, or coordinate multiple attacks for

maximum effects. China denies backing such attacks, and foreign governments have declined to openly accuse Beijing. Yet, after the threatening test of the Chinese anti-satellite weapon, the reports are further illustrations of China's pursuit of new methods of unconventional strategy. Chinese military thinkers frequently debate these strategies, including the use of attacks on satellites, financial system and computer networks. ``In the information age, the influence exerted by a nuclear bomb is perhaps less than the influence exerted by a hacker,'' a pair of Chinese colonels wrote in a key 1999 work on asymmetrical strategies titled Unlimited Warfare.

We must ensure the legal authority is clear for our government agencies in tracking and responding to cyber attacks. It is vital that we swiftly detect attacks, accurately identify the source and intent, and respond forcefully against all malicious intrusions.

My colleagues, our enemy needs to know attacking our cyber space is the same as attacking our homeland, and we will respond accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously with great sadness that we all honor the service of our colleague and friend, Paul Gillmor.

Paul and I came to Congress the same year. We were in the 101st Congress and we were both veterans of the United States Air Force. He obviously expressed a great love for this Nation, for this institution, and I believe sincerely he brought credit upon all of us.

This dedication was matched by his love for his family, his wife, Karen, his two daughters, Linda and Julie, and his three sons, Paul Michael, Connor and Adam. I express my deepest condolences to the family.

I had the opportunity when I first met Paul to talk informally with him about his background. He said he was a leader of the senate. Coming from the private sector and not understanding the full significance of what that meant, I became acutely aware of what it meant when I heard him in informal sessions or in meetings where he had a presence about him, an aplomb, and also a sincerity, in which he would express his ideas in a way that would get to the meat of the issue and cut to the chase. And I realized during this, he could do it tactfully. He was not a partisan individual. He was bipartisan, in fact. I can't recollect on the floor him having a really partisan speech because I think it goes to when he was a leader of the senate, he understood to get things done, he had to develop consensus. So when he went to a meeting, he listened more than he talked and he also stepped forward with the idea of what we should do in a very nice way such that most people would say, Wow, at the end of the meeting, Paul Gillmor made the most sense.

Another vignette is when he was in the Speaker's chair. I watched when there would be a huge din on the floor, and somehow his voice rose to such a crescendo and also a pitch that he could pierce this noise and bring order and stability to the House here. I used to watch him also with great admiration on how he did this. It was a tribute to his leadership and also his background as leader of the senate.

So I come to the House floor to say his dedication and expertise will be greatly missed. He has had 40 years of public service. He established a long record of working for average Americans. God bless the Gillmor family, and God bless Paul Gillmor.

Mr. Chairman, let me first of all agree with the Democrat from Oklahoma. He said this is a bad bill for the State of Oklahoma. This is also a bad bill for the State of Florida. Why is this bad? First of all, it is a giant tax increase.

Now, Mr. Udall has indicated that part of the reason this bill should be passed is because it stimulates the economy. I suggest when you stimulate the economy with an increase in taxes, you are not going to get the stimulation that you expect.

The Udall amendments proposes, as was mentioned, a one size that fits all States. Let each State work this out themselves.

Mr. Chairman, do all the Members realize that the Renewable Portfolio Standard does not include municipal solid waste? That does not qualify as renewable under the RPS proposal. In fact, a lot of the States that you represent use municipal solid waste. That is not even going to be part of this portfolio stand?.

This one size fits all is not going to work and does not take into account the nuances and the specific energy and economic needs of individual States. They are working on this themselves. We do not need this bill. Vote against the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico. I appreciate his effort to support renewable energy and ensure clean, renewable sources of energy but this amendment is not the way to go about it. The Udall amendment proposes a one size fits all renewable portfolio standard RPS that would drastically increase electricity costs for Floridians and the entire Southeast without promoting investment in renewable energy generation.

Because of its design, the proposed Federal RPS imposes an unequal burden on States. Utilities located in areas of the country with poor renewable resources, like Florida, will be required to purchase credits from utilities located in areas with strong renewable resources potential, leading to significant wealth transfers out of Southeastern States.

This one-size-fits-all Federal mandate does not take into account the specific energy and economic needs of individual States by requiring that 15 percent of retail electricity sales be generated from specific renewable resources which are not prevalent in the Southeast. Because Florida and the Southeast lack sufficient quantities of such resources, utilities in our region would be forced to pay harsh penalties for noncompliance.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable resources currently account for only 3 percent of Florida's total electric generation. More than one-third of this power is generated from municipal solid waste, but municipal solid waste does not fully qualify as renewable under this RPS proposal. In fact, the majority of renewables currently used in Florida do not qualify under this proposal. Even if all existing renewable resources were included in the RPS, Florida would still have difficulty meeting the requirements given our limited availability of solar, landfill gas and virtually no wind power in the State.

And because Florida lacks the renewable resources as defined in this RPS proposal, this mandate would force electric utility companies to purchase renewable energy credits to meet the federal requirements. Since most of these credits would be purchased from the government and would not be based on actual renewable generation, it would essentially amount to an energy tax on all Floridians and anyone who lives in the Southeast. If Congress enacts a 15 percent RPS, this tax would cost Florida ratepayers billions of dollars and greatly increase the average annual energy cost to residential customers. In a report released by the Department of Energy in June 2007, the proposed RPS would cause residential customers to spend $7.2 billion more for electrtity.

Every single State public service commission in the Southeast, including the Florida PSC, recognizes this amendment will significantly raise electric bills for the ratepayers they represent. The Southern Legislative Conference, representing the legislatures of Southeastern states, has also recognized how unfair the Federal RPS is and has recommended that States be allowed to write their own standard.

In fact, 23 States already have an RPS tailored to fit their own available resources and energy needs and many more States are presently in the process of creating an RPS. Florida is one of those States. Governor Crist recently announced a 20 percent renewables program by 2020. However, he remains strongly opposed to a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate. It is Florida's position that individual States can best determine what is attainable in their State and should be allowed to set standards tailored to their specific capabilities and needs. I believe that renewable energy programs should be based on customer demand, regional differences, and appropriate incentives, not on unrealistic Federal mandates that selectively penalize electricity consumers in certain regions of the country. Regrettably, a Federal RPS mandate would impose significant additional costs to Floridians and the entire Southeast without providing any new investment in renewable generation within their State.

The Udall amendment will impose a giant new tax, while doing little to promote renewable energy, and absolutely nothing to lesion our dependence on foreign oil. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this one-size-fits-all RPS and vote against this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to talk about Shaymaa el-Sayed, an Egyptian woman. Security forces in Egypt tortured this young woman for converting

to Christianity. Fanatic relatives of Shaymaa el-Sayed, 26 years old, attacked her in Alexandria, beating her, attempting to shove her into a car and vowing to kill her for her ``apostasy.''

Police intervened. They arrested the victim herself. When they found her Christian identity papers, local police transferred her to a state security investigation office where the officials forcibly disrobed and photographed her naked in front of all the policemen at the station.

She was repeatedly subjected to interrogation and severe torture, including electrocution. She was released by the Egyptian police into the custody of her family despite their threats to kill her. ``This is not legal treatment, but it is happening all the time,'' said Rasha Noor, an Egyptian human rights activist. ``The Christians from Muslim backgrounds can't change their identities, so they are forced by the authorities to return back to Islam, or else.''

God bless this young woman.