Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor today the oldest, continuous social organization in Rockford, Illinois--the Rockford Burns Club--which will celebrate its 150th anniversary on November 5, 2008. The Rockford Burns Club is one of the oldest Burns Clubs in the United States that was established to honor Scottish heritage and, specifically, the great poet, Robert Burns. Not only are his works historically important but Robert Burns is the quintessential symbol of Scotland and the Scottish people, many of who emigrated to the United States for greater opportunities.

There are approximately 4.8 million Americans of Scottish descent-- nearly as many as live in Scotland today. Their independent spirit continues to contribute enormously to the growth and well-being of the United States. Many Scottish-Americans played a formative role in the political and economic development of this Nation, including several of our Founding Fathers, such as Thomas McKean of Pennsylvania, the Reverend John Witherspoon of New Jersey, and Alexander Hamilton of New York; and the inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell.

The Rockford Burns Club fosters this creative spirit by reminding us what is best about Scottish culture, including the literary contributions of Robert Burns. I salute the current leadership of the Rockford Burns Club for their efforts to keep this tradition alive, and I wish them every continued success for at least another 150 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Department of Justice for recently proposed regulations relating to the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. The program provides death benefits for the survivors of public safety officers who die in the line of duty; and disability benefits to those officers who have been permanently and totally disabled by a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and thereby prevented from performing any gainful work; and also educational assistance benefits for surviving family members. Among other things, these proposed regulations will help to shore up the program against fraud and abuse by clarifying the requirements for certifications and their effect. I strongly support the mission of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, and I commend the Department of Justice for keeping the regulations up to date and for taking action to ensure that the funds available go to those public safety officers (and their survivors) that deserve them. I would like to take a moment to comment on the statutory predicate for some of these regulations.

As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized,\1\ Public Law 94-430 creates a ``limited program,'' whose principal purpose is to help ensure that the families of ``public'' officers be protected from financial calamity that is likely to result from the death or permanent and total disability, in the line of duty, of the primary money-maker. The statute (including the two parallel 2001 benefits statutes, which do not, strictly speaking, amend the Public Law or directly affect the precise program it creates) enshrines various and competing policy considerations and purposes that it proposes to achieve by particular means that have been worked out, over the last 30 years and more, in the legislative process. Because no law pursues its ends at all costs, the limitations expressly or implicitly contained in its text and structure are no less an articulation of its purposes (and the intent, goals, and policies that inform it), than its substantive grants of authority are. Benefits under these statutes--charges on the public fisc--are to be granted fairly, but not speculatively, or beyond what the statutory language unequivocally requires and unequivocally expresses, or beyond the letter of the difficult judgments reached in the legislative process and clearly reflected in the statutory text. It is precisely to enable the Department to balance and harmonize these various considerations into a single workable and coherent program that the law confers extraordinary administrative and interpretive authority on the Department. For example, at least seven distinct statutory provisions--42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3796c(a) (twice), 3796(a) & (b), 3796d- 3(a) & (b), 3782(a)--expressly authorize the Department to issue program regulations and policies here, and the law expressly provides that those regulations and policies are determinative of conflict of law issues relating to the program, and that responsibility for making final determinations shall rest with the Department. Under the Public Law (as under the parallel 2001 statutes), the very right to a death or disability benefit, which the Supreme Court correctly has recognized as a legal ``gratuity'' \2\ (and thus not ``remedial'' in nature), is not freestanding, but contingent, rather, upon a determination by the Department.

When Public Law 94-430 was enacted in 1976, only the Circuit Courts or the old Court of Claims (of similar rank) heard appeals from final rulings of the Department of Justice thereunder, which meant that only one level of judicial review ordinarily was available to claimants and the Department, alike. In 1982 (when the appellate functions of the Court of Claims generally were merged into the newly-created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), jurisdiction over these appeals-- apparently as a result of an oversight--was not transferred to the Federal Circuit, and thus (unlike the case with other administrative appeals, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1295, 1296), by default, lay in what is now the Court of Federal Claims, established under Article I of the Constitution, rather than Article III, with an additional level of appeals available in the Federal Circuit. Although there are notable and distinguished exceptions,\3\ over the past decade or so, many of the Federal Claims Court's rulings on these appeals applied the law incorrectly,\4\ sometimes disregarding the express terms of the relevant statute \5\ or implementing regulations,\6\ or binding and applicable Federal Circuit/Court of Claims precedent,\7\ and even Supreme Court precedent.\8\ To order the administering agency to pay on a claim when payment is not clearly warranted by the programmatic statutes and their implementing regulations and administrative interpretive superstructure is as much an affront to the law as for the agency not to pay when payment is clearly required by those statutes and regulations.

Overall, the sixteen opinions issued to date by the Federal Circuit (and its predecessor) under the statute \9\ indicate a proper understanding of the law and the application of the Chevron doctrine to the Department's determinations. (All but two of these opinions were affirmances of the administering agency; in Demutiis, the agency was affirmed on all points but a very minor one (relating to application of a (now-repealed) regulation),\10\ and the 1980 holding in Harold, which reversed the Department's determination, itself soon thereafter was rendered moot, as a practical matter, by a statutory amendment consonant with the Department's position.) For these reasons, the corrective proviso in the consolidated appropriations legislation, entrusting judicial appeals under Public Law 94-430 (and the two

2001 statutes) exclusively to the Federal Circuit \11\ (and returning to a single level of judicial review, as originally intended) should further the purposes of the program, reduce litigation costs for claimants and the taxpayers, and serve the interests of justice.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Department of Justice for recently proposed regulations relating to the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. The program provides death benefits for the survivors of public safety officers who die in the line of duty; and disability benefits to those officers who have been permanently and totally disabled by a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and thereby prevented from performing any gainful work; and also educational assistance benefits for surviving family members. Among other things, these proposed regulations will help to shore up the program against fraud and abuse by clarifying the requirements for certifications and their effect. I strongly support the mission of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, and I commend the Department of Justice for keeping the regulations up to date and for taking action to ensure that the funds available go to those public safety officers (and their survivors) that deserve them. I would like to take a moment to comment on the statutory predicate for some of these regulations.

As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, Public Law 94-430 creates a ``limited program,'' whose principal purpose is to help ensure that the families of ``public'' officers be protected from financial calamity that is likely to result from the death or permanent and total disability, in the line of duty, of the primary money-maker. The statute (including the two parallel 2001 benefits statutes, which do not, strictly speaking, amend the Public Law or directly affect the precise program it creates) enshrines various and competing policy considerations and purposes that it proposes to achieve by particular means that have been worked out, over the last 30 years and more, in the legislative process. Because no law pursues its ends at all costs, the limitations expressly or implicitly contained in its text and structure are no less an articulation of its purposes (and the intent, goals, and policies that inform it), than its substantive grants of authority are. Benefits under these statutes--charges on the public fisc--are to be granted fairly, but not speculatively, or beyond what the statutory language unequivocally requires and unequivocally expresses, or beyond the letter of the difficult judgments reached in the legislative process and clearly reflected in the statutory text. It is precisely to enable the Department to balance and harmonize these various considerations into a single workable and coherent program that the law confers extraordinary administrative and interpretive authority on the Department. For example, at least seven distinct statutory provisions--42 U.S.C. 3796c(a) (twice), 3796(a) & (b), 3796d-3(a) & (b), 3782(a)--expressly authorize the Department to issue program regulations and policies here, and the law expressly provides that those regulations and policies are determinative of conflict of law issues relating to the program, and that responsibility for making final determinations shall rest with the Department. Under the Public Law (as under the parallel 2001 statutes), the very right to a death or disability benefit, which the Supreme Court correctly has recognized as a legal ``gratuity'' (and thus not ``remedial'' in nature), is not freestanding, but contingent, rather, upon a determination by the Department.

When Public Law 94-430 was enacted in 1976, only the Circuit Courts or the old Court of Claims (of similar rank) heard appeals from final rulings of the Department of Justice thereunder, which meant that only one level of judicial review ordinarily was available to claimants and the Department, alike. In 1982 (when the appellate functions of the Court of Claims generally were merged into the newly-created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), jurisdiction over these appeals-- apparently as a result of an oversight--was not transferred to the Federal Circuit, and thus (unlike the case with other administrative appeals, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. 1295, 1296), by default, lay in what is now the Court of Federal Claims, established under Article I of the Constitution, rather than Article III, with an additional level of appeals available in the Federal Circuit. Although there are notable and distinguished exceptions, over the past decade or so, many of the Federal Claims Court's rulings on these appeals applied the law incorrectly, sometimes disregarding the express terms of the relevant statute or implementing regulations, or binding and applicable Federal Circuit/Court of Claims precedent, and even Supreme Court precedent. To order the administering agency to pay on a claim when payment is not clearly warranted by the programmatic statutes and their implementing regulations and administrative interpretive superstructure is as much an affront to the law as for the agency not to pay when payment is clearly required by those statutes and regulations.

Overall, the 16 opinions issued to date by the Federal Circuit (and its predecessor) under the statute indicate a proper understanding of the law and the application of the Chevron doctrine to the Department's determinations. (All but two of these opinions were affirmances of the administering agency; in Demutiis, the agency was affirmed on all points but a very minor one (relating to application of a (now- repealed) regulation), and the 1980 holding in Harold, which reversed the Department's determination, itself soon thereafter was rendered moot, as a practical matter, by a statutory amendment consonant with the Department's position.) For these reasons, the corrective proviso in the consolidated appropriations legislation, entrusting judicial appeals under Public Law 94-430 (and the two 2001 statutes) exclusively to the Federal Circuit (and returning to a single level of judicial review, as originally intended) should further the purposes of the program, reduce litigation costs for claimants and the taxpayers, and serve the interests of justice.

Mr. Speaker, America faces an energy crisis that threatens the livelihood of the people we represent. Every day they get up to go to work, many people wonder whether or not they can afford the gas for their tanks. And to compound it, the high cost of energy is destroying manufacturing jobs in our country. My largest city is at 11 percent unemployment. Many manufacturing facilities have been hit because of the high cost of energy; they simply cannot compete.

Today, we debate an energy bill that further compounds the problem. Last night, the Democrats filed a bill that gives the illusion of opening up our coast to drilling, but really continues to keep those areas closed, with no opportunity to debate it.

Last May, I authored a 12-point gas relief plan that incorporates more domestic production of oil, conservation, and new fuel and vehicle technologies. Until these technologies come online, we have to increase our supply of oil to give us the relief that we need, to give us the time that we need.

We have enough oil now in order to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years. Does that mean that we use it all up? Of course we don't. We simply need this as an opportunity for breathing time until we can develop these new technologies.

The time had come to put partisanship aside and solve this issue on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the adage that one reaps what he sows. As we seek to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac today, Congress is reaping what it has sown for so many years.

These organizations were supposed to help Americans buy their homes by making the mortgage market work better. But in pursuit of this goal, Congress and the regulators allowed these two organizations to shun good governance in pursuit of high profits. What was supposed to be a boost to the taxpayers, has turned into a raw deal characterized by privatized profits for socialized risk.

And now, Congress is in a bind: allow Fannie and Freddie to realize the results of their risky behavior and deal a catastrophic blow to an already troubled economy; or fulfill the implicit promise made to shareholders and bail out these two organizations. Congress created its own trap by allowing Fannie and Freddie to become too big to fail, and given their huge market exposure, it has become obvious that a bailout of some sort is necessary.

But this is a bailout of the worst kind, one that does not even seek to mimic the actions of the private market in punishing those who take too many risks. Unlike other bills we have passed that required government intervention into the private market, there is no mandate that the taxpayer be repaid. Fannie's and Freddie's CEOs don't get paid any less; the board of directors remains the same; and Fannie and Freddie are specifically allowed to continue the risky practices that got us into this mess in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. If we are going to put billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the line, we need to make sure that something like this never, ever happens again. We need the reforms that are necessary in order to make sure that these two government-sponsored enterprises act more like an enterprise than they do like somebody that is putting the tab on the taxpayers' pocketbook.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend to the attention of this Congress the following speech by one of my constituents, 16- year-old Heidi Erbsen, of Stephenson County, Illinois. Heidi participated in an oratory contest hosted by the American Legion. Her speech won first place at the local, division and state levels, and she then moved on and completed as a quarter finalist at the national level of competition. As we face the difficult decisions of today, I hope Heidi's words will stir us to cling to our heritage as we seek to create a brighter tomorrow.

Creating a Brighter Tomorrow

(By Heidi Erbsen)

As many of you know, Abraham Lincoln is notorious for the

Gettysburg Address, which states, ``Four score and seven

years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new

nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the

proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are

engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or

any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We

are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to

dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place

for those who here gave their lives that that nation might

live.'' When he spoke these words in 1863, it must have been

hard for him to imagine our country's future. With all of the

struggles facing our nation, how could he have ever known for

sure that we would continue to prosper? The Civil War had

split the nation, torn families apart, and claimed thousands

of American lives, yet President Lincoln still believed in a

brighter tomorrow for his country and his people. This

mentality has carried our country through every single

struggle it has faced. It is the belief that the people of

our nation can give it a brighter tomorrow. And now, for over

200 years our country has prospered because of this belief,

and it will continue to do so as long as we uphold this

legacy.

When the monarchy in Europe began to mandate religion and

other personal affairs in the 1600s, many people began to

seek refuge from their oppression. The rule in Europe made it

so hard for people to live without persecution that many

sought to leave their homes in search of a New Life.

Thousands of these people found their new life in what was

then known as the New World. Since the pilgrims sailed to

America, this country has been a monument of hope. This New

Land represented a chance for men and women to start over

new. It gave them a chance to create their own fortune and

futures. It was a land not yet at the grip of a stifling

ruler or government. Most of these colonists arrived here

with nothing in their pockets, and a dream in their hearts.

It was the dream of freedom and prosperity, and it would not

by any means come easy. The first men and women to colonize

America suffered more than any of us can imagine. They

endured brutal wars, strife, famine, and much more, but they

never gave up their dream, and slowly they began to see this

dream come alive. When the same ill leadership the pilgrims

had escaped in the 1600s began to take hold of the New World

in the 1700s the colonists finally fought back. After the

Revolutionary War plagued them with years of death and

despair, a new horizon dawned on America. The Declaration of

Independence was signed and what was formerly known as The

New World became The United States of America.

Becoming a free nation of our own may have seemed like the

end of struggle for the people of America at the time, but it

was really only the beginning. After being ruled by a single

monarch for so long the people in our country had no idea how

to govern themselves. When they were finally declared a free

nation there was a long period of struggle for guidance and

rule. Many feared that any form of government would tarnish

the freedom they had struggled so hard to achieve. The very

men who wrote our Constitution harvested the fear that they

would become their own dictator. They knew that it was

entirely up to them to see that the future of their country

was a bright one, free from persecution and oppression in any

form. That is why they did everything in their power to

dispose of any form of ultimate rule. They knew they had only

one chance to set the land of their dreams into motion. They

wanted a balance between the power and the people. This way

the people could have a say in what was just in everyday life

rather than abiding by the rules of a leader focused only on

what would make things easier for him or her. As a solution,

they developed a three-part system, each containing officials

elected either indirectly or directly by the people, each

branch having one main duty: To see that one particular

person or even section of the government never gained too

much power. Not only did this three-part system give them the

balance they were striving for, but our writers of our

constitution hoped to ensure that every man, woman, and child

living in America benefited from the natural freedoms to

which we are all entitled. And to this day, it does just

that.

As citizens of America today, we are still reaping the

benefits of the sturdy foundation that was built up by our

ancestors. The men and women who came together to put a stop

to persecution did so not in vain. Look around. We are still

living without it today. We have preserved their efforts, but

in doing so some of us have lost sight of the sacrifices that

have been made. Today many Americans take the freedoms we

have for granted. I've lived in the United States all my

life, and I'm sure many of you have. I understand completely

how hard it is to walk out that front door every morning and

not take what we have for granted. When you live in a country

as free and prosperous as ours how

could you not? But if we don't continue to appreciate the

sacrifices that have been made, neither will the generations

following us. And the more we take what we have for granted,

the more we lose those values the first colonists in the new

world built our country upon. Now is our time to ensure that

the foundation of our nation does not crumble. I know I said

previously that the United States becoming a free nation was

only the beginning, but if we as a nation continue to strive

for freedom and justice for all, we do not have to be the

end. Our country has succeeded all these years for one reason

and one reason only, and that is the effort that has been put

forth by citizens just like every one of us in this room. We

have the power to ensure that our country's walls do not

crumble, all we have to do is remember its roots, and

continue to live by its foundation.

In times like these, when there are huge obstacles facing

us we need to keep our faith in our country and its

foundation. The first settlers in the New World never gave up

on their hopes and dreams, despite the famine and hardships

they faced. Abraham Lincoln never lost sight of the bigger

picture, regardless of the alarming death tolls brought about

by the Civil War. He knew that our founders had structured a

government sturdy enough to withstand the hardships of war

and strife. All he had to do was encourage the people of our

nation to create a brighter tomorrow. In the United States

there is always a brighter tomorrow awaiting us, all we have

to do is build it.

Mr. Speaker, temporary tax relief should not be offset with permanent tax increases that will stifle foreign direct investment into this country.

The Alternative Minimum Tax is a mistaken tax policy. Originally designed to tax the super-rich, it now covers many in the middle class, particularly those with large families, because of inflation. Without relief, 19 million Americans will see a tax increase of $2,000 next year.

However, to temporarily correct this error by permanently raising nearly $7 billion from foreigners who invest in the United States simply makes a bad situation worse. We are finally attracting more foreign investment into the United States. In 2007, foreign direct investment rose to its highest levels in seven years, reaching over $204 billion.

U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad now employ 5.3 million Americans, of which 30 percent work in the manufacturing sector. Nineteen percent of all U.S. exports came from these firms and they reinvested nearly $71 billion back into their U.S. operations.

In Illinois, U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad employed over 226,000 workers, of which over 61,000 were in the manufacturing sector. In fact, there are over 30 U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad that employ over 6,000 workers in the northern Illinois district that I am proud to represent.

The offset used to ``pay for'' part of this AMT bill will strongly discourage future foreign investment in the United States and will halt any future progress on negotiating tax treaties with other countries.

For example, Nissan USA, which is owned by Nissan headquartered in Japan, borrows money from their finance unit based in the Netherlands. Under our current tax treaty with the Netherlands, no tax is applied. However, under this bill a new 10 percent tax would be applied to this transaction. The Netherlands will then most likely view this as an abrogation of our tax treaty and will either seek renegotiation or outright annulment, thus hurting our overall trade with the Netherlands.

This is all a silly exercise. We all know how this will turn out because the Senate will not agree to these offsets. However, this bill sends a chilling message to our friends overseas that they will be subject to a higher tax next year because this is the second time that the Democratic Party has proposed this offset. Vote no on H.R. 6275 to preserve jobs in your district and to send a signal that the U.S. remains open to foreign direct investment.

Mr. Speaker, when Jefferson was given the duty and obligation of drafting the Declaration of Independence, he could have turned to the Revolutionaries of lower Europe, the followers of Russo, which led to the Jacobites and the reign of terror who believe that man is the center of the universe and man is the ultimate judge of what is truth.

But instead, Jefferson turned to the writings of Blackstone and Locke. Ms. Blackstone, the great jurist of England, examined the laws of England and laid them side by side with the biblical statements to come up with something called the Doctrine of Natural Law. And Blackstone said, When the supreme being formed the universe and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter from which it could never depart, without which it would cease to be.

This will of a Maker is called the Law of Nature for as God, when he created matter and did it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion so when he created man and indued him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature.

Considering the Creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to prescribe whatever laws he placed to his creature, man, whoever unfit or severe. But as he is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice.

These are the quotes of Blackstone. It was the thoughts of Blackstone, in fact many of the words that were incorporated directly into the Declaration of Independence, and that great document set forth not only our severance from Great Britain, but also a statement as to the source of laws in this country that God is the source of liberty, that man is given the power to form governments for the purpose of protecting those rights that God gives.

Jefferson took that knowledge, sat down, inscribed that into the Declaration, and that's what forms the basis of the law of America. It's the law of nature and of nature's God.

Madam Speaker, with the recent firings at the Air Force, I am greatly concerned about the aerial refueling tanker contract that was awarded to a consortium dominated by Airbus.

In its internal evaluations, the Air Force gave almost identical scores to both sides. Yet, they awarded this contract to a company that has never delivered a tanker with a refueling boom to be assembled in a factory that does not yet exist.

EADS has pledged to incorporate about 60 percent U.S. content in its tanker. Yet, Boeing already has 85 percent U.S. content in its tanker.

EADS has promised to create up to 48,000 jobs to Americans. However, a recent analysis concluded that EADS' job figure is closer to 14,000. The same study found Boeing would create at least twice as many U.S. jobs.

The sad truth is that the bulk of the EADS tanker will be built in Europe. Yet, current policies prohibit the Pentagon from considering the U.S. industrial base during a major defense acquisition. This must change. We must have the ability to build the weapons necessary to defend ourselves to be a great nation. Even Adam Smith agrees.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, specifically my good friend, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, for including a provision in the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill that finally provides for consideration of our Nation's defense industrial base when contracting officials evaluate major Federal defense contract proposals.

Few people are aware that the Pentagon is prevented by law from including defense industrial base considerations when deciding to award a major defense contract. A contract award determination is made primarily by examining which party has the ``best value'' in terms of price, quality, quantity, and delivery. However, how many jobs a particular contract would produce or retain in America or how many suppliers would be able to stay in business in America because of a particular contract is currently not part of the ``best value'' evaluation by the Pentagon. Most believe that

the Buy American Act protects the interests of American workers. However, because of a series of Memorandums of Understanding, MOUs, signed years ago between the Pentagon and other foreign defense agencies, a product can be made completely in Europe and be considered as if made in America and thus compliant with the Buy American Act. In return, U.S. defense articles are supposed to be considered by European procurement officials on the same grounds as European products. However, Europe protected its economic interests in these agreements by including European defense industrial base protections as one criterion in their source selection process. This didn't used to be a problem in the past. However, with the consolidation of major prime defense contractors in the United States and the relatively recent creation of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, EADS, there has been more and more conflict in major U.S. defense procurements.

Section 805 of H.R. 5658 seeks to copy Europe's example. It simply allows the Pentagon to consider impacts on the U.S. industrial base during source selection for major defense acquisition programs. This section also authorizes defense acquisition officials to impose penalties on a contractor who misleads the Government regarding potential domestic industrial base impacts.

The bill also asks the Secretary of Defense to notify congressional defense committees at least 30 days before requesting a proposal for any major defense acquisition program that will not use a domestic industrial base evaluation factor during the source selection process. It also includes second and third level suppliers as part of the defense industrial base because the health of this sector of the economy cannot be measured solely by looking at the stock price of the large prime defense contractors.

As someone who voted for every free trade agreement since being elected to Congress in 1992, this section is not protectionism. Back in 1776, Adam Smith argued in his celebrated ``Wealth of Nations''; that ``(i)t is of importance that the kingdom should depend as little as possible upon its neighbors for the manufactures necessary for its defense.'' He supported a bounty--or a tax--on the export of British sailcloth and gunpowder to prevent other nations and potential enemies from benefiting from Great Britain's advantage in these products. If the founder of modern-day capitalism and free trade supported an exception to the free flow of trade in defense goods, then domestic sourcing preferences to protect our national security and defense industrial base must be considered consistent with the very foundation of free trade and capitalism.

Congress has a duty to be concerned with our nation's ability to build the weapons and equipment necessary to defend itself. Any argument founded merely on shopping for the best value without considering the larger defense industrial base will leave our great nation exposed and vulnerable. A nation that cannot produce the materials necessary for its defense will eventually become a second- rate power.

Now, some analysts have argued that we should not press for more domestic sourcing of defense articles because Europe and other nations buy more U.S. defense technology that we buy from them. These statistics, however, fail to account for the offsets in defense sales required by other governments, including our friends in Europe.

According to a 2007 report entitled Offsets in Defense Trade prepared by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, over 98 percent of all U.S. defense sales to Europe were ``offset'' from 1993 to 2006. In other words, for every dollar a European government spent on U.S. defense equipment, the U.S. prime defense contractors had to provide 98 cents in industrial compensation arrangements to that government. These compensation arrangements range from requiring re-locating a share of the production of that defense item to that country to marketing that country's goods in the United States. However, the United States is prohibited by law to require of a foreign defense contractor to ``offset'' part of the cost of the proposed acquisition. thus, our two-way defense trade with Europe is already heavily weighted in their favor.

Finally, Section 805 of H.R. 5658 will not launch a trade war because there have been several occasions in the past when European governments refused to buy from American companies because of their own defense industrial base concerns. In 2003, Pratt & Whitney lost a bid to EuroProp International (EPI) to supply the engine for the A400M European military troop transport plane despite the fact that their initial bid was 20 percent lower, they had a higher quality engine, and they committed to build a new assembly line in Europe and include 75 percent European content in the engine. According to the Financial Times on June 13, 2003, Airbus effectively declared Pratt & Whitney the winner until European governments intervened and promised financial support to EPI so it could drop its price and clinch the deal with a redesigned engine in order to keep all the work in Europe.

Similarly, in 2003, when Italy wanted to build a new fleet of search and rescue helicopters, Skirosky and MD Helicopters were interested in bidding on the contract but were not even given the opportunity. The Italian government decided instead to award the contract without any competition to their national helicopter company--Augusta/Westland--on the grounds of ``homeland security.''

Mr. Chairman, encouraging the Pentagon to consider the defense industrial base as one factor in their contract decision-making process will help us safeguard over the long-term the knowledge and innovation that make our defense industry the best in the world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5658 and, in particular, Section 805, throughout the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Today, we rise to offer our heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the people of China for the horrific loss they suffered as a result of the gigantic earthquake that struck Sichuan Province in southwestern China on May 12 of this year. The 7.9 earthquake struck without warning during the busiest time of the day when schools and office buildings were full of people. And as Congressman Wu states, the toll of the dead has not yet been completed, except we know it remains in the tens of thousands, including those that remain missing. At least 10 to 12 million people remain displaced, and we all saw with horror on television the school that had collapsed on over 900 children on that one particular site.

I want to thank Mr. Wu for sponsoring this resolution so that the House of Representatives can stand with the people of China in their hour of need. I also want to commend the American people for showing their generosity in pledging humanitarian support for the victims. In America, the sense of loss is perhaps felt strongest in the Chinese American communities where loved ones pray and hope for positive news from across the Pacific.

Madam Speaker, I chaired the U.S.-China Interparliamentary Exchange for 7 years, and I'm now the vice-chair. I had the opportunity to travel extensively in China, including the Chengdu area in 2005, as part of our official business. To see the utter destruction on television comes as a complete shock. I echo the words of the President in saying that we admire the spirit and the character of the Chinese people as they desperately strive to put their lives back together.

I also want to commend the Chinese Government for not being embarrassed or too proud to seek out and receive help from American resources. I only wish that the Government of Burma were as open under these particular and similar circumstances.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I recognize Mr. Smith of New Jersey, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, for as much time as he may consume.

I have no more speakers. Can I inquire of Mr. Wu if he has any more speakers?

I'm ready to yield back the balance of my time, if the gentleman from Oregon is.

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

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 1194, which reaffirms America's support for the Government of Lebanon and condemns the violent Islamic group Hezbollah and its state sponsors, Iran and Syria, for undermining the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.

For over two decades, Hezbollah and its state sponsors have done everything in their power to destroy any hope for a free and democratic Lebanon. In response, some have tried to compromise with Hezbollah to incorporate it into the Lebanese electoral system, to pretend that it is a group of Lebanese freedom fighters instead of a wholly-controlled subsidiary of Iran and Syria, to permit it to arm and re-arm in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and to excuse its relentless attacks and incitement against America and Israel.

Mr. Speaker, America and other responsible nations must stop Hezbollah's current attempt to rule by the gun. We must support efforts in the U.N. Security Council and elsewhere to ensure that Hezbollah is disarmed and that Iran and Syria are barred from rearming that group. Moreover, we must hold Iran and Syria accountable for the continuing efforts to spread violence and to undermine our allies in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.

Mr. Speaker, Iran and Syria continue to start fires throughout the region only to disingenuously step forward and offer to put them out for an unconscionable price. We must cease falling prey to their deception, and we must stop their deadly behavior, which undermines the security of Lebanon and the entire world.

I thank my good friend and colleague from California, Chairman Berman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for introducing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), an esteemed member of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

I am prepared to yield back. I want to commend the gentleman for his impassioned speech.

I thank you for the things you have said this afternoon in this Chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is a great day. When others talk about a dysfunctional Congress or claim that members of different political parties can't work together, they ought to look at this bill. Today, the House votes on the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008 (H.R. 5196) that we debated on Tuesday. Subtitle A of Title I of H.R. 5916 has been in the making for the past 18 months when I first learned of the complaints from industry regarding the immense backlog of defense export license applications at the State Department. The Executive Branch, both sides of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, industry, and Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, interested in non-proliferation all had input into this legislation.

Last year, I joined with Representatives Joe Crowley of New York and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon to establish the Congressional Export Control Working Group. We educated Members of Congress and their staff on the importance of export control modernization efforts to both our national and economic security.

Export control modernization is extremely important to the constituents I am proud to represent in the 16th District of Illinois. This area of the country is one of the most heavily industrialized Congressional districts in the Nation. We make everything from nuts and bolts to the advanced electrical system for the new Boeing 787, the Dreamliner. Many of the products and technologies produced by the manufacturers I am so proud to represent are regulated under U.S. export control law.

When I was first elected to Congress almost 16 years ago, a manufacturer from northern Illinois came to me for assistance in navigating the regulatory process for selling their product overseas. Ever since that first experience, I have been dedicated to modernizing our Nation's export control system. I am continuing to work on policies that will enhance U.S. national security, strengthen our defense industrial base, and boost U.S. competitiveness.

One piece of that puzzle is being considered here today. The Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008--which I am proud to have co-sponsored--contains legislation (Subtitle A of Title I entitled the Defense Trade Controls Performance Improvement Act of 2008) I co-wrote along with my good friend and colleague from California, Representative Brad Sherman who is the Chairman of the Terrorism, Non-proliferation, and Trade Subcommittee. This legislation will reduce defense trade license processing times, create a spare part waiver for our closest allies, and make licensing of defense items more transparent and predictable. These process improvements will make U.S. defense manufacturers in every category, including space, more competitive in the international marketplace. No longer will they have to fear being shut out of foreign markets or products because of a taint from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR.

The bill will modernize the Federal Government's inefficient export control policy while strengthening national security and helping American companies sell more defense-related goods and services overseas to our allies.

H.R. 5916 requires the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, DDTC, at the State Department to hire more staff to reduce the backlog of license applications that impedes legitimate trade with our allies without compromising national security. The last time I checked, the State Department has only 42 licensing officers. By 2010, this legislation requires adequate staff and resources at the State Department to review and process defense trade licenses in a timely manner. This legislation creates a ratio of at least one DDTC officer for ever 1,250 applications by 2010. The independent Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that this provision would require the hiring of 35 additional licensing officers.

H.R. 5916 also requires DDTC to assign no less than 3 individuals by fiscal year 2009 to review applications for commodity jurisdiction determinations. This is one area of export controls that is extremely complex and time consuming--determining whether or not a particular widget is a commercial dual-use item or a munition. Having specialized personnel dedicated to this task will be extremely helpful in improving the processing of these determinations. The legislation also increasing the transparency of commodity jurisdiction determinations with the publication of those decisions on the Internet. This will help companies know in advance whether or not their particular product would fall into a commercial or munitions category.

The legislation also creates a series of performance goals for DDTC: No longer than 60 days to process a defense trade license; 30 days to process a defense trade license for close allies; and 7 days to process a defense trade license from our close allies in support of combat operations or peacekeeping or humanitarian operations with U.S. Armed Forces. This in no way implies forcing a premature decision--these are simply goals to achieve that have already been vetted with the Executive Branch. All tolled, CBO scored these personnel enhancement as costing $6 million in 2009 and $31 million over the next 5 years,

which is a relatively modest price to pay to insure a vibrant and growing U.S. aerospace export industry. In 2007, the U.S. exported nearly $97 billion worth of aerospace products, producing a $60 billion positive trade balance in an otherwise grim trade picture. Nevertheless, H.R. 5916 also requires a report within 90 days on possible means for DDTC to achieve 100 percent self-financing.

H.R. 5916 creates a special licensing authorization for U.S. manufactured spare and replacement parts or components in connection with defense items previously lawfully exported to our closest friends and allies. This will help free up time of DDTC employees to go after more significant threats to our national security. Finally, the bill augments the input of the private sector Defense Trade Advisory Group, DTAG, into the State Department's defense trade agenda.

In conclusion, the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008 streamlines the export control process, reduces the application backlog, and allows greater scrutiny on sensitive exports that could harm our country. It will better protect our Nation while helping U.S. companies sell more goods and services to our allies, creating more jobs for Americans. I appreciate the Foreign Affairs Committee's bipartisan efforts on this issue, particularly Chairmen Berman and Sherman and their respective staffs, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5916.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, it's not without irony that just this past week Congressman Joe Crowley and I, representing the House, and Senators Feinstein and McConnell, representing the Senate, the other body, were at the White House for the signing of the bill that awarded the Congressional gold medal to Aung San Suu Kyi, and it was a very interesting moment there. The First Lady joined the President at the bill signing, which was quite unusual. And the First Lady, the day before, had actually conducted a press conference, which is quite unusual for her, talking about the untold suffering that is occurring in this country.

And while we discussed the issue, it was apparent the intensity with which the President and the First Lady, and indeed the entire Nation is viewing the impact of the fact that the junta in Burma simply would not allow humanitarian aid to flow into that country. And so at the time, when we honor somebody with the Congressional Gold Medal, somebody who represents a bulwark of freedom and democracy, the country gets hit with this horrible tragedy.

Our purpose here today is simply to encourage the junta to follow the humanitarian strain which is written in the soul of every individual, and that is to set aside the politics, to allow the American aid that is available and, indeed, world aid that is available, in order to alleviate the suffering.

I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity today to improve national security, support our foreign policy interests, and help American manufacturers.

H.R. 5916 is a product of nearly 18 months of work. We closely worked with the executive branch, the business community and non-proliferation nongovernment organizations. Without this legislation, foreign customers will continue to search out products that are ITAR-free to avoid being entangled in U.S. export control laws. The process improvements in this bill will make U.S. manufacturers more competitive in the international marketplace, creating and retaining American jobs, and supporting economic growth here in the United States.

This legislation permits the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to hire more staff, reducing the backlog of defense trade license applications and improving our scrutiny of the most sensitive technologies.

The bill creates a special licensing authorization for American-made spare and replacement parts. It also establishes some goals for licensing processing, including a 7-day deadline for defense trade licenses for those countries who support our combat, peacekeeping or humanitarian operations.

I appreciate the Foreign Affairs Committee's efforts, particularly the outstanding leadership of my good friend from California, Mr. Sherman, on this very delicate issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.