Floor Statements

I just want to clarify a point just made by the gentleman from Rhode Island. Under the Smith language, contraceptive devices will be distributed. This whole debate is about whether we're going to give contraceptives to Planned Parenthood, Parenthood International, aggressively trying to overturn the pro-life laws in countries all over the world.

We have dramatically increased distribution under Mexico City of contraceptive devices. Ethiopia, from 4.9 million to 19.5 million. A big, long list here. This is about Planned Parenthood and their effort to overturn pro-life laws all over the world and we don't want to give money to them. That's what this debate is about.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairwoman Lowey for working diligently on this bill. She has produced a fairly good product here, and I want to commend her more for working with Mr. Wolf and myself to address many of our concerns.

She has produced a bill that is good in many respects. I appreciate the efforts as well of the staff that have worked very hard on this bill. A great example of working together is what my colleague from New York, Mr. Israel, was talking about in dealing with Darfur. I want to commend Mr. Wolf for his passion on that issue and his passion for the issue of human rights throughout the globe. I also want to commend Ranking Member Wolf and Chairwoman Lowey for their work on Colombia, and I am very pleased with the final product that they have there.

I am also very pleased that we have included language dealing with better accountability for the Global Fund to provide greater transparency. I commend Chairwoman Lowey for including the language that I introduced, the amendment, to get a better understanding of why the participation of faith-based organizations in the Global Fund appears to be significantly underrepresented. Numerous faith-based groups have been on the ground providing health care in many of those these countries for decades. In recent decades they have been on the frontlines in fighting against the spread of AIDS.

I saw the critical role that many of those faith-based groups provided firsthand when I visited Africa twice in recent years. I can tell you what part of the problem is, and it is really spelled out very nicely, and I will include for the Record this brief 3-page article from Catholic News Services, ``African Churches Find Global Fund Money Fairly Inaccessible.''

Basically, what I feel is going on here with those faith-based groups is relatively simple. They are small. They are out there. They are going into these villages on foot and on mopeds. They don't have the ability to apply for grants with multi-billion dollar organizations in Geneva. It is going to require the Global Fund to reach into these countries, identify the groups, the church groups, the faith-based groups, that are doing the work. Frequently, they are on the pointy end of the spear. So I commend the gentlewoman for that language.

I know there are a few issues that we disagree on. The Mexico City policy language, we will have amendments to address that. Certainly, I understand that the gentlewoman has tried to reach out on this issue.

For me personally, the issue is an organization that is not only maybe providing abortion but as well is actually actively lobbying to overturn pro-life laws in many of those countries. We should not be supporting them even indirectly.

Finally, let me just close on the PEPFAR language. I played a role in getting the President's plan through the Congress, the authorizing language and the appropriations language. To me one of the most important things was the requirement that a portion, actually a small portion, I think it is 20, 25 percent of the preventive dollars go to abstinence education and abstinence training.

I want to make it very clear to my colleagues the reason why I felt so strongly about that and why I feel that we should continue the requirement that abstinence education be included in the preventive dollars is my experience in going into Uganda. Uganda lowered its AIDS incidence from 18 percent to 6 percent, a two-thirds reduction in AIDS.

The Global Fund didn't exist. PEPFAR did not exist when they did this. They did not do this through distributing condoms and comprehensive sex education. They did it through what they called ABC, abstinence before marriage, be faithful in marriage. We all know, you can't expect everybody to comply. But what is amazing to me is when you educate people on this thousands of people comply.

I just want to share with my colleagues that I had a meeting just 2 weeks ago with a Parliamentarian from Uganda who was an epidemiologist and a physician who was there from the ground up, and he verified just what I said, that people responded to the message.

Let me just finish up on that. Last July, southern African AIDS experts met and they officially listed ``reducing multiple and concurrent partnerships'' as their number one priority for the prevention of spreading HIV. It was not distributing condoms and comprehensive sex education, it was reducing concurrent and multiple partnerships. That is what this is really all about.

Let me just close and again commend the gentlewoman for a bill that has a lot of good in it. I am focusing on some of the things I disagree with. But for everything I disagree with, there are 10 to 20 different things that are good in it.

The spending level, I am very concerned that the President may veto this bill. I know there are a lot of worthwhile programs covered in the spending. I certainly would like to see us get a bill enacted into law. I think that would be to the credit of the chairwoman and the ranking member, the good gentleman from Virginia.

[From the Catholic News Service]

African Churches Find Global Fund Money Fairly Inaccessible

(By Michael Swan)

Nairobi, Kenya (CNS)--In Kenya churches provide about 40

percent of all health care in remote and impoverished areas

with no government services, but for their AIDS programs,

churches receive no money from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and Malaria.

``Since the inception of the Global Fund, the Kenyan

bishops' conference has not accessed any direct funding from

the Global Fund, even after applying to all the rounds,''

said Titus Munene, an HIV/AIDS program coordinator for the

Kenyan bishops' conference.

``It isn't rocket science to say if 40 percent of the

health care is in the church system in Kenya, you would think

a good portion of (Global Fund money) is going to go to our

operational system. But unfortunately, it isn't that way,''

said Maryknoll Father Ed Phillips, who runs seven community-

based health care clinics.

The Geneva-based Global Fund, established in 2002, is a

partnership among governments, civil society, the private

sector and affected communities.

The Catholic Church alone provides more than 25 percent of

all AIDS care in the world, according to Caritas

Internationalis, the Catholic aid network. All faith-based

organizations combined have received just 6 percent of the

Global Fund's money since the first disbursements in 2002.

The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference, which

represents South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland, has almost

stopped applying for Global Fund money.

More than 18 percent of adult South Africans are HIV-

positive, and the church is the largest health care provider

after the government. But church bodies have been unable to

access Global Fund money either directly or through the South

African National AIDS Council, which coordinates South

African applications to the Global Fund.

``I have sat on SANAC, the South African National AIDS

Council, which is also the CCM (country coordinating

mechanism) for the Global Fund. It has not been a helpful

process,'' Dominican Sister Alison Munro said in an e-mail

from Pretoria, South Africa.

``The Global Fund process is too large and too cumbersome

for the churches,'' said Sister Alison. ``If they (the

churches) could apply directly to the Global Fund, some

would. They can't because of the procedures. . . . The work

involved is too much for any church group other than a

national structure or a group with lots of capacity.''

While many nongovernmental organizations employ grant

application experts, church-based agencies have tended to

regard such functions as wasteful of donor money.

Munene said when the churches do not get Global Fund money

it weakens the fight against AIDS among some of the poorest

Africans. A lack of international and Kenyan-government

funding has forced mission hospitals, clinics and

dispensaries to charge some of the poorest people in Kenya

for AIDS treatment and services, while relatively well-off

people in the cities are accessing free services.

Munene said when church agencies charge for health care it

``means some of the poor cannot access services, since there

are no government facilities in those rural areas.''

The 6 percent of Global Fund money going to faith-based

organizations translates into $325 million spread over five

years in dozens of countries. The Global Fund recognizes the

number is too low, said spokesman Oliver Sabot.

``Given the essential role that they play in health care in

many countries, particularly in Africa, we would like to see

the amount of funding to FBOs (faith-based organizations)

increase,'' Sabot said.

Part of the problem has been that churches have not done

enough to fulfill conditions that might be expected from

major international funders, such as making detailed

applications for funding and monitoring expenditures to the

satisfaction of donors, said Father Robert Vitillo of Caritas

Internationalis, the Vatican's most prominent adviser on HIV/

AIDS policy.

``Each of these funding mechanisms comes with its own set

of challenges for (faith-based organizations), which are more

expert in providing support, care, treatment and prevention

education than in completing such complicated funding

applications and then in monitoring and reporting on the

funds received,'' said Father Vitillo.

Even if it is a lot of red tape, church organizations have

to be willing to fight through it in order to continue

delivering effective AIDS prevention and care, said Father

Phillips. But the Global Fund also has a responsibility to

help churches through the red tape, he said.

``The churches have to get more proactive,'' said Father

Phillips. Sabot said the Global Fund has taken steps to

ensure that faith-based organizations are able to apply for

money. But by relying on countries' coordinating agencies or

mechanisms, the Global Fund has become subject to the

politics of Africa.

``This hands-off approach does mean that bias at the

country level is sometimes reflected,'' said Sabot. He said

sometimes faith-based groups are excluded from country

proposals ``either because of deliberate efforts by the

government or other groups, or simply because they are less

experienced with applying for international aid funding, and

not enough outreach and support was provided to them'' by

country coordinating agencies.

``We have taken steps to help correct both these problems,

but there is still more to be done,'' Sabot said.

Father Phillips said more than bureaucratic bias is

involved in shutting churches out of national applications to

the Global Fund.

``The church was considered in some of these countries to

be the opposition to the government,'' he said. ``Naturally,

if they are considered to be opposition, well, they're

(government mechanisms) going to make sure they're not going

to target a lot of money'' for the church.

Father Phillips said African bishops must get tough and

vocal about demanding that they be represented fairly in

national applications to the Global Fund, but Munene said the

churches may be talking to a brick wall when they demand fair

representation.

``The Kenyan bishops have made frantic efforts to meet the

minister of health on several occasions, and even his

excellency, the president. And promises were given, but to

date the pledges have not been fulfilled,'' Munene said.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very good amendment. The State of Arizona reports it has saved $10.2 million by removing illegal aliens into Federal custody.

The City of Nashville, Tennessee, in it's first year of implementing this program, is reportedly on track to deport as many as 4,200 illegal immigrants.

This is a good program. It needs to be expanded. The lady should be commended. All of my colleagues should vote in support of this very valuable amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Weldon of Florida

Amendment No. 11: Page 18, line 25, insert before the

period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That,

of the funds made available under this heading, $250,000 is

for a study to determine how participation in the program

under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) can be increased nationwide''.

Offered By: Mr. Weldon of Florida

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to provide funds to a State or political subdivision

of a State that refuses a reasonable request made by the head

of a law enforcement agency of the State or subdivision that

the State or subdivision take such steps as may be necessary

in order for the law enforcement agency to participate in the

program under section 287(g) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the bill as a physician who practiced medicine for many years prior to coming to the House. And, indeed, I still see patients once a month at the VA clinic in my district.

I always considered it very, very important not only to help my patients with illness but as well to give them hope and to give them real hope and not false hope. And one of the things I've always been concerned about in this debate for the last 7 or 8 years since we've been conducting this debate is that the advocates for more funding, Federal funding, for embryonic stem cell research; and we are funding embryonic stem cell research, we're just not funding more research that involves destruction of human embryos; have been contending, the advocates of this have been contending for years that this has the greatest potential. And in reality, there are no phase 1 clinical trials with embryonic stem cell research. There are no phase 2 clinical trials. There are no phase 3 clinical trials. Embryonic stem cells have never moved beyond animal research because embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be safe.

Embryonic stem cells form tumors when you put them in animals, whereas adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, not only have been shown to be safe, but they're in phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. They are in clinical trials in heart disease, I think about 28 clinical trials, FDA-approved clinical trials. They're in clinical trials on treating a whole host of blood-borne diseases. And just very recently we saw published research, amazing research in phase 1 diabetes, juvenile diabetes research.

Indeed, I've been saying for years that medical science is going to move beyond this debate. And we saw a preview of that today published, that skin cells can be converted, possibly, back to forming embryonic- like cells. Science is going to move beyond this discussion. I don't think, being that millions of Americans believe in the sanctity of human life, that we should be funding research involving the destruction of human life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This bill before us today entitled the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, is better entitled the ``Human Clone Implantation Prohibition Act.'' Essentially what it does is make it a crime to implant a cloned human embryo in the uterus of a woman.

While the gentlewoman from Colorado has said this is a very different bill from the Greenwood substitute, it is true if you sit down with the two of them and read them, they read differently; but the net effect, let's be serious, is the same. It is the goal pursued by many research scientists, who I assume do not ascribe to a belief in the sanctity of human life, that they want to begin experimentation on human embryos produced through the process of human cloning.

My position when we began debating this issue 5, 6 years ago, remains the same. There are a host of problems with this, not the least of which is that I and millions of Americans like me believe that human life is sacred and we should not be wholesale producing it to be experimented with in the lab and then discarded when the experimentation is done.

Are we really trying to say to the American people we want to make the human embryo the lab rat of the 21st century?

I will add, this is going to create a huge demand for human eggs. It has been very surprising to me to see so many people on the left who claim to be great champions of women's issues, it is going to create a lot of pressure for more human eggs. And the way you get human eggs, it is not a simple, overnight procedure. You have to give women a powerful medication that produces something called superovulation. It has the potential for complications, depression in some 25 percent of the women who get these drugs, possible significant complications requiring hospitalization called the superovulation syndrome.

And who will be donating their eggs to all these research labs? We all know who it will be, it will be women who really need the money. You will probably have problems and complications, suicides from depression. What will end up happening is they will end up going overseas to Third World countries where they can't bring litigation.

This is why many leaders in the feminist movement chose to support the Stupak-Weldon bill over this alternative. It is just down right bad policy.

Let me say as well, the lady said previously that the women could, under my previous bill, could be criminally prosecuted. I disagree wholeheartedly. I thought the language of the Stupak-Weldon bill was very clear, that the criminal act would be the creation of the human embryo through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is the way they created Dolly; that is the way this process begins.

Let me just say in closing, the process by which we have undergone this, when we were in the majority, we had committee hearings. We allowed a substitute. And to rush this to the floor on the suspension calendar is an inappropriate way for us to deal with a very, very significant issue.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a profound slippery slope. They will not be satisfied with doing research on human embryos. The next target will be the human fetus itself, creating human models of disease so research scientists can do research on certain forms of human disease by doing research on human embryos and fetuses. That is the direction we are going, patenting some of those diseased human embryos.

I say this is a place where we should be drawing the line. We should defeat this on the suspension calendar. I believe if you brought it forward under regular order, it would go down under regular order, and I encourage all of my colleague to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to price gouging.

The good news for Florida consumers is that the state of Florida already has the ability to protect consumers from price gouging.

Florida law finds that gouging has occurred when a commodity's price represents a ``gross disparity'' from the average price of that commodity during the 30 days immediately prior to the declared emergency. This applies unless the increase is attributable to additional costs incurred by the seller or to national or international market trends. In fact, Florida law enforcement fully investigated over 58 cases of alleged gouging after Tropical Storm Rita.

Violators of Florida's anti-gouging law are subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per violation. In 2005, the State of Florida enacted criminal penalties for those who engage in price gouging.

In addition to the protections that Florida consumers already have in place through State law enforcement, the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to investigate and bring charges against those that engage in price gouging.

In a significant departure from previous legislation addressing this issue, Floridians who are gouged would not receive a rebate. Instead, H.R. 1252 would direct any fines collected from gougers to a program that largely benefits the Northeast and the Midwest. Previous legislation on this matter directed that any fines collected from price gouging be returned to the State where the gouging occurred so that the consumers could be reimbursed. H.R. 1252, however, directs that all of these funds instead be placed in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, fund. Unfortunately for the residents of Florida, this is a fund that they get little benefit from. The primary beneficiaries LIHEAP grants are those living in the Northeast and Midwest. While New York and Florida have populations that are nearly equal, New York received 10 times the amount of LIHEAP money that Florida received ($247 million for New York vs. $26 million for Florida). Other large beneficiaries include: New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In fact, on a per capita basis, no state does worse than Florida when it comes to

LIHEAP. The bottom line is that if Florida consumers get gouged, those living in the Northeast and the Midwest get the rebate.

This bill is more about show than about substance. Even the comprehensive investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, in the aftermath of hurricane's Katrina and Rita found no gouging or anti- trust violations.

The real driver of price for gas is the growing global demand for energy. The rapid growth in the worldwide demand for crude oil is being driven primarily by economic growth in China, India and the United States.

Ironically, during a Congressional hearing on this bill, the proponents of the bill offered some bizarre testimony. When asked if the oil companies were engaging in collusion--which is already illegal--a proponent of the bill offered that what was being engaged in is ``conscious parallelism.'' He then offered that you cannot prove ``conscious parallelism'' in court, so this bill does virtually nothing to address that. Another advocate for the price-gouging bill testified before the committee that ``drilling [for oil] will do nothing to lower the price of oil.'' I am concerned that these individuals are so dedicated to an ideology that they defy common sense.

The most important thing we can do to lower the price of gas for American consumers and to ensure our energy independence is to expand domestic energy production, expand refining capacity in the U.S. by reducing excessive burdens, encouraging more nuclear power, fostering the development of renewable energy, and encouraging conservation. Unfortunately, it took us 12 years to end the Democrat filibuster that kept America from developing more oil and gas off the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. Last year we were successful in opening a small portion of the OCS to oil and gas recovery, and I hope that we can build on that success. Also, last year we secured passage of legislation that allows for greater production of oil and gas from Federal lands. Unfortunately, Democrat leaders have introduced legislation and are holding hearings to close off those sources of domestic energy production. We streamlined regulations for nuclear power plants, yet Democrats are considering injecting new regulations into the process. I was also pleased that we were able to secure passage of renewable energy tax credits. I have cosponsored legislation to extend these tax cuts for renewable energy and conservation so they are not allowed to expire.

The Democrats expression of ``outrage'' over gas prices is a bit ironic given that they are the ones who have consistently proposed higher gas taxes, higher energy taxes like the proposed BTU tax, and who are presently moving forward with ``cap and trade'' global warming legislation along the lines of what has been adopted in Europe. As the Washington Post pointed out last month, this cap and trade system has led German consumers to pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did two years ago, while German utilities are making record profits. This higher cost for electricity has made it difficult for some European countries to compete with cheaper foreign imports, resulting in European workers losing their jobs.

The rhetoric simply does not match the policies being advocated by the Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, recently, the House considered legislation to reauthorize the Community Oriented Police, COPS, program. Unfortunately, this bill was brought up for consideration with no opportunity to amend and improve the bill. Rather than allowing an open discussion and amendment process, it was a take it or leave it choice that Members were given.

In reauthorizing this program little has been done to address the glaring shortcomings of the program as pointed out in audits by The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, OIG, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and other independent analyses--including one by the USA Today newspaper. Before tripling a program that the Office of Management and Budget has graded as ``Not Performing: Results Not Demonstrated,'' members should have been given an opportunity to consider amendments aimed at improving this bill. This is particularly important at a time when the size of the program is being tripled from an appropriation of about $540 million in 2007 to nearly $1.5 billion within 5 years.

These audits point out that New York City, the largest recipient of COPS funding--$422 million--actually has 300 fewer officers today than they did before they received $422 in Federal tax dollars. In 1994, New York City had 36,693 officers, yet by 2004 this had dropped by 321 officers to 36,372. The audit shows that Miami, while receiving over $45 million, increased their police force by only 21 officers. That works out to over $2 million per officer according to the audit.

Since the creation of this program in 1994, over $13 billion has been spent on the COPS program. While some of that funding has been well spent, I am concerned that audits determined that, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars were misspent. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure that the money that the Federal Government takes from them is not misspent.

Analyses showed that in spite of spending $6 billion dollars in the first 6 years of the program, COPS fell short of placing 100,000 police on the streets. While the GAO found that the shortfall was about 12 percent, when you factor in historical hiring trends, the number of new police on the streets is far less. In fact, the Heritage Foundation analysis found when these historical police hiring trends are accounted for, the actual number of new police on the street nationwide is somewhere between 7,000 and 39,000--less than half of what was promised.

While the COPS grants were not supposed to supplant local funds, the U.S. Department of Justice OIG audit of expenditures found that grant recipients routinely supplanted local funding with COPS grants: simply allowing the Federal Government to pick up the tab for what they otherwise would have and should have paid for. The OIG audit of 147 high-risk grants found that 41 percent used the COPS grant to supplant local funds.

An investigative report by USA Today found in an audit of 3 percent of COPS grants that $277 million was misspent and ``tens of thousands of jobs funded by the grants were never filled, or weren't filled for long.'' This is particularly concerning given that my constituents, who happen to be net donors to this program, receive less than half of their equitable share of Federal COPS grants.

Finally, the purpose of the COPS program was to reduce crime. While many of the grant recipients saw a reduction in crime, a USA Today analysis found that crime fell at the same rates in communities that did not get COPS grants.

So, before we all embrace a bill that triples the size of this program, we should first make sure that we are being responsible with taxpayer dollars and getting the most out of every dollar. I am not sure the bill before us does that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1615, Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007. I commend my colleague from Florida who serves on the Judiciary Committee for bringing this bill forward from that committee.

This is an important step in furthering aviation security. We have already taken a number of steps since 9/11 to make our skies safer for the flying public and this is one more important step in that direction.

This bill establishes a new Federal crime for anyone who aims a laser pointer at an aircraft or the flight path of an aircraft. This new statute will enable Federal law enforcement officials to pursue cases that it would not otherwise be able to pursue. Those prosecuted under this new law would face fines and time in prison.

Establishing these penalties will help address an issue that threatens public safety, pilots, and aviation security. When aimed at aircraft, lasers can cause not only discomfort, but they can also cause temporary or permanent visual impairment at critical stages of take-off and landing. The National Transportation Safety Board has already documented instances in which pilots sustained eye injuries and were incapacitated during critical times of flight. Furthermore, the Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 1615 highlights the findings of a report from the U.S. Department of Transportation that since 1990 there have been over 400 reports of lasers being pointed at aircraft.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the FAA took steps to require that air traffic controllers immediately notify pilots about laser events. The FAA is also to immediately notify local law enforcement and security agencies. This will enable police to act in a more timely manner to identify and prosecute those shining lasers at aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill is a good step in helping protect the flying public and pilots.

Mr. Chairman, while I believe that Government Sponsored Enterprise, GSE, reform is absolutely necessary, I cannot support H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, in its current form.

It is important for Congress to promote home-ownership for all Americans by giving citizens access to affordable housing. However, this bill, under the Affordable Housing Fund, AHF, section, requires that GSEs set aside nearly $3 billion over the next 4 years into a special fund. H.R. 1427 essentially represents a $3 billion tax on those seeking to purchase homes. These new fees will simply be passed along to those purchasing homes. I'm not sure how a $3 billion tax increase is going to make homes more affordable. When given the opportunity to ensure that these costs would not be passed along to homeowners, supporters of the AHF voted against the amendment that would have protected homeowners. Clearly, this is designed to be a hidden tax on homebuyers.

This newly created AHF would make grants to states and Indian tribes, which would then make grants to third-party housing-related entities. H.R. 1427 fails to provide adequate oversight of these third-party grantees and the funds could easily fall into the hands of politically motivated groups. Also, while using grant money for lobbying or other political activities is not permitted under the bill, there is nothing preventing groups from displacing their other funds for these activities while still receiving grant money. One such third party group that stands to benefit financially from this new grant program is ACORN. ACORN is notorious for partisan voter registration drives. Allegations of voter fraud have plagued ACORN political activities in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, Missouri, Michigan, Colorado, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Yet, the Democrats' plan is to create a slush fund to funnel millions of dollars in grants to ACORN and similar partisan groups, freeing up money for partisan political activities.

Adding more layers of bureaucratic waste and pandering to left- leaning groups will not help low-income buyers purchase the homes of their dreams. While we need GSE reform, we should not be forced to sign onto a $3 billion tax on homeowners. There are better, more financially responsible ways to address affordable housing.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Reservists and Guardsmen Tax Relief Act of 2007. As Reservists and Guardsmen are activated, this can cause financial strains on many of them, and my legislation is meant to help provide some financial relief during the time in which they are called to active duty.

My bill would extend the penalty-free withdrawals from retirement accounts for Reservists and Guardsmen who are called to active duty for more than 179 days. This benefit is set to expire on December 31, 2007. My bill extends this benefit through December 31, 2008.

Under this tax benefit, Guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty can receive payments from their individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, without having to pay the 10 percent early-distribution surtax. Some Reservists and Guardsmen have already taken advantage of this benefit. While premature withdrawals from retirement accounts should be very carefully considered by anyone who has a retirement account, this proposal may assist in dealing with economic difficulties that may occur when a self-employed reservist, or any Reservist or Guardsman, is called to active duty service. This would be one way to allow them increased access to their money at a time when they are defending our liberties.

Some Reservists and Guardsmen, including small business owners and employees of small businesses, experience loss of income when they are called to active duty. The drop in income is real for many Reservists and Guardsmen. Removal of the early withdrawal penalty would be one way to help alleviate some of the income loss that a Reservist or Guardsman's family might suffer as a result of activation.

Our Reservists and Guardsmen should have access to their own money in order to help them make ends meet while activated. This is a small step to help out those who are serving in defense of our Nation. As a former active duty and reserve Army officer, I am committed to doing what I can to make active duty service easier for all of our servicemembers, both active and reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to commend the majority for including, under the rule, the amendment that will be offered later by Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking minority member, former chairman of the committee, to strike section 407 of the bill. This is the section of the bill that so many people have commented on so far today that will now task our national intelligence resources to start looking at the issue of climate change.

To me there is a great irony in this happening here today because for many years we have heard criticism from Democrats over and over again on the so-called inefficiencies, inadequacies of our national intelligence capabilities, specially as it related to WMD in Iraq and their failure to get an accurate picture of that. And now we see today an expansion of their duties and responsibilities.

I believe most Americans look for our intelligence agencies not to be engaged on the issue of climate change but more directly to be involved in the business of protecting American safety and security, protecting our national assets, protecting the American people.

Furthermore, one of the other things that strikes me as greatly ironic about this is, we have an extensive array of Federal agencies currently studying this issue. We have NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has a wide array of satellites and scientists that are constantly studying both short-term and

long-term implications of climate change.

We have, additionally, NASA engaged on this issue, with three major Earth-observing satellites on orbit studying the issue of the Earth's climate.

And as well, there are multiple programs run by the National Science Foundation; they have the Geosciences Directorate (GEO), the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), the Atmospheric Science Subactivity, the ATM. And, ladies and gentlemen, I haven't even touched on the EPA and all the work that they are doing on this issue.

To me, this issue is controversial. There is a sizeable number of Americans who feel that the severity of the problem of climate change does not justify some of the extreme actions that many people in the radical environmental community are trying to propose today, and I just can't help but feel this is a political issue to try to hijack our intelligence assets to get them on the global warming bandwagon so we could have draconian changes in American policy that could adversely affect our economy and our Nation.

So I thank the majority for putting the Hoekstra amendment in order. Mr. Hoekstra, the former chairman, now ranking member, is very knowledgeable on intelligence policy.

I intend on supporting the Hoekstra amendment. I encourage all my colleagues to listen carefully to that debate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority pays lip service to their support of religious people and faith-based groups, but now they are here today, in this House, enacting a piece of legislation that I believe is a shot across the bow to all faith-based organizations that are involved in social services in this country. The Head Start bill today says that if you participate in the grant process, you will not be able to hire like-minded people to work in your child-care facility.

The Democrats are saying that a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., has more wisdom to decide who you can and can't hire than the hundreds, thousands of small businesses that run these Head Start programs. The Democrats are essentially saying, with this legislation, while we thank you for your tireless dedication and recognize that you are an integral part of this process, we don't trust you to make fair choices in the employees that you hire.

Don't be misled. This is in direct contradiction to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court, both of which came to the conclusion that faith-based organizations had the right to hire employees on a religious basis. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues and other faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of communities all across America. Many of these organizations provide assistance and services to the neediest members of society, offering a helping hand to the less fortunate among us. Many faith-based organizations can and want to make a vital contribution to the Federal assistance programs.

The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith- based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization's civil liberties and does not constitute discrimination under Federal law.

The freedom to hire those who share religious beliefs was upheld in a unanimous 1987 Supreme Court decision, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, in which the Court observed, ``A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose. For a law to have forbidden 'effect' . . . it must be fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence.''

Now, in an attempt to appease Republicans and conservative Democrats, an alternative amendment will be provided by the gentleman from North Carolina. This amendment, in effect, praises the work of faith-based organizations, but tells them they have to give up their right to hire who they want to hire to participate in Head Start.

Current Federal law protects the Civil Rights Act hiring protections for faith-based organizations and providers. And, indeed, as was stated earlier by a previous speaker, President Bill Clinton signed four laws protecting religious organizations in this context.

Now, I want to close by just pointing out a very, very simple fact. There is a reason why on the floor today the amendment to correct this problem will not be allowed, and the reason is because it will pass. A majority of this Congress, Republicans working with Blue Dog Democrats, would pass the Fortuno amendment which would protect these faith-based religious organizations. We had many of the Blue Dogs vote with us on this issue in the past. But, alas, under this rule, and it is why I am imploring my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this rule, that amendment will not be allowed and we will be asked to stifle the freedom of religion in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the authors of this piece of legislation, and make very clear that I am a strong supporter of the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I have an undergraduate degree in a science field, biochemistry. I did basic science research as an undergraduate, and I fully recognize the need for this country to make a significant increase in our investment in basic science research as the kind of research that comes through the National Science Foundation.

My concern before the committee today is that the National Science Foundation is in the same budget category as NASA; and already, the new majority this year has chosen to significantly cut funding to NASA.

Specifically, over one-half billion dollars was reduced out of the NASA budget to fund the replacement for the space shuttle. The replacement for the space shuttle is badly needed. Our shuttle fleet is aging, and indeed we are looking at a scenario in the early part of the next decade where we will not have the capability of putting men and women into space. And we, the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, will be relying on the Russians to put our astronauts into space for many, many years. And, that the further reductions in NASA that will put forward by the new majority have the potential to lengthen that period even further, and possibly perhaps permanently cripple our manned space flight program.

So my amendment is very simple and very straightforward. Basically what it says is that we are not going to cut NASA for the purpose of plussing up the National Science Foundation. I believe we need to fund both of these programs, and that is my goal and that is the purpose of my amendment.

I think one of the things that the authors of this bill keep talking about, which is very revealing and I think very important to the debate we are having right now, they talk about the importance of training kids in math and science, and that we are falling behind in our international competitiveness. But I can tell you, when I talk to teachers all across the country about what motivates our young people to study math and science, it is not the level of grants that are coming out of the National Science Foundation, it is actually our space program and an enthusiasm for the possibility or the chance that they might some day be able to participate in the space program, the manned space flight program in particular that motivates our kids.

So I think these two programs are really linked at the hip, and I think it is important that we do not fund one at the expense of the other. The current language in this bill has the potential to create that climate, and so I think it is critically important that the point of order be waived and that my amendment move forward and be approved by this body.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is inappropriate to exercise a point of order on this amendment. It's quite clear that the NASA budget and the National Science Foundation are within the same budget category, function 250, and that there's a strong relationship between increasing the National Science Foundation that it can have a negative impact on