Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I've been on the Energy and Commerce Committee 10 years, and it was a dark day that we couldn't mark up this bill simply because the Republican minority wanted to read the bill for 2 days, and so we lost jurisdiction of it. It hurt the Energy and Commerce Committee. But it hurt this House. And that's what we're seeing in this House of Representatives.

We want to do things on a bipartisan basis. And there is not a closer friend I have in the House than Joe Barton. But as ranking member, we were stuck there for 2 days and couldn't even amend the bill without reading the whole bill. So to pass it in August we had to get it out of the committee. And we didn't do that when we were the minority. We could have, but we also knew that the majority had to rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague of the Rules Committee for allowing me to speak.

I rise today in support of the legislation to reauthorize the SCHIP program. With 6 million American children currently eligible for the program and yet unenrolled, it is time we quit playing politics with their health care and start covering these children.

This bill accomplishes both of these goals and is a true bipartisan, at least in the Senate, bicameral effort that will result in nearly 4 million additional children receiving health insurance coverage under the SCHIP program. This bill wisely retains the House formula and the incentives for States to implement outreach and enrollment tools, which offered the best combination for finding and enrolling eligible children.

However, I have to express regret and disappointment that the bill did not include the House bill's guarantee that children in families earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level will have 12 months of continuous eligibility under SCHIP. The enrollment and outreach package includes an incentive for States to provide this eligibility guarantee. But for a State like mine, we need to ensure that the State of Texas does right by our Texas children and doesn't use that flexibility inherent in the program to kick these kids off the rolls on a budgetary whim. The 175,000 Texas children who were kicked off the rolls in 2003 know all too well of the State's willingness to balance the State budget on their backs, and I hoped that this bill would take away the State's ability to do that in the future.

But like most pieces of compromise legislation, we have to consider the totality of the bill, and the bill should be celebrated for all that it does accomplish.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the legislation and sending a strong message to the President that we must abandon the partisan politics and reauthorize SCHIP for America's children whose parents are working but cannot afford or are not offered employer-based health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference agreement to reauthorize important user fee programs at the Food and Drug Administration and enact critical drug safety reforms at the agency.

This legislation is the result of intense negotiations between the House and Senate, whose negotiators have worked tirelessly to reach consensus on this legislation. They did so with a looming deadline of September 31, after which the user fee program would expire and many hard-working FDA scientists would likely lose their jobs. To reach a compromise, all parties to the negotiation had to give and take, but I am pleased that the product before us represents something we can all support. I would like to congratulate the negotiators on their success.

The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 makes important changes at the FDA to place a greater emphasis on post-market surveillance within the agency. The Risk, Evaluation, and Mitigation Strategy established by this bill would give the agency the authority to monitor drugs throughout their life-cycle for adverse events or other signs of safety concerns. A critical aspect of this strategy is the additional authority this bill gives the Secretary of HHS to mandate that drug manufacturers conduct post-market studies.

Under this bill, the additional post-market activities extend to the user fee programs that help fund the drug approval process. Specifically, this bill directs drug manufacturers utilizing the FDA's drug approval process to dedicate an additional $225 million over 5 years for postmarket surveillance activities at the FDA. This additional funding represents an important investment by the pharmaceutical industry in the FDA's post-market safety activities, while also ensuring that pre-market user fees are adequate to bring potentially life-saving medicines to market in a reasonable time.

There is no question that the labeling and liability language prompted a great deal of debate during conference negotiations, but one thing is clear: the Congress in no way intends to limit the ability of a patient injured by a drug to seek redress from our Nation's justice system. FDA should have the ability to require labeling changes, but that additional authority does not absolve the drug manufacturer of any duty to initiate labeling changes on their own when new data bears out the need for a change. The implementation of stronger drug safety authorities does not mean that drug companies get a free pass when their products harm consumers. I am pleased that the conference agreement makes this point perfectly clear.

This legislation also reauthorizes the Medical Device User Fee Act, as well as the Best Pharmaceuticals For Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which help ensure that pharmaceuticals are tested for their effect on children. After all, we know that children are not simply smaller adults, and part of protecting America's children is knowing how best to treat them when they face health concerns.

I would like to thank our Chairman, Mr. Dingell, and our Health Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Pallone, for their work on this important legislation, and encourage my colleagues to support this important bill. These necessary changes at the FDA will go a long way toward restoring the American public's confidence in the agency and its ability to ensure the safety of the Nation's drug supply.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to award Dr. Michael E. DeBakey with the Congressional Gold Medal. I would also like to thank my friend and neighbor, Al Green, as well as my fellow Texan, Dr. Burgess, for introducing this bill to honor and celebrate the life and achievements of Dr. Michael DeBakey.

Over the course of his long life, Dr. DeBakey has been a tremendous asset to his long-time home of Houston and has made a considerable contribution to the advancement of medicine. His accomplishments are numerous, both in traditional medicine and military medicine. Dr. DeBakey volunteered for enlistment in World War II where he helped to develop mobile army surgical hospitals. His commitment to military medicine continued with his work to establish both the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the Commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research Council. In recognition of his service to the U.S. Armed Forces and our country's wounded soldiers and veterans, the VA Medical Center in Houston is formally known as the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Dr. DeBakey is a medical pioneer in the area of cardiac surgery, which is his expertise. His career is highlighted by a number of ``firsts.'' While still a student, he invented a roller pump for blood transfusions. He performed the first successful coronary bypass; he was the first to successfully use a partial artificial heart; he supervised the first successful multi-organ transplant and then led the way for telemedicine with the first demonstration of open-heart surgery broadcasted overseas by satellite.

Mr. Speaker, this list represents only a snapshot of Dr. DeBakey's service. He also was the first president of Baylor College of Medicine where he developed the fellowship and residency programs at his namesake Department of Surgery. Today, Baylor is one of the jewels of the Texas Medical Center, in large part due to Dr. DeBakey's leadership, and has been the site of countless medical miracles for patients from Texas and around the world. A true testament to Dr. DeBakey's impact is the admiration he has earned from the Houston community, more than 60,000 members of which count Dr. DeBakey as their physician.

Internationally, Dr. DeBakey has been recognized and honored by well over a dozen governments and even inducted into the Academy of Athens, a society founded by Plato. His many awards include the U.S. Army Legion of Merit and the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded by President Johnson and the National Medal of Science awarded by President Reagan.

I can think of no physician better suited for the Congressional Gold Medal, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to bestow that honor upon Dr. DeBakey.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Stephen F. Austin High School of Houston. This school, located in our district, opened in September of 1937, and for 70 years, it has held education and its students in the highest regard.

Austin High School focuses on the development of their students and the community surrounding them to attain full potential and academic achievement. The student body has grown to almost two thousand students, 99% of which are minority students. Through the use of their magnet program, Advanced Placement courses, Dual Credit Courses for college credit and many more avenues, approximately $1,000,000 in scholarship funding for the graduating seniors of 2007 has been secured. This is quite the accomplishment and deserves much recognition. The school's magnet program also deserves notice as it focuses on the teaching profession and prepares students for academic success in college and their future careers.

Another notable contribution to the community will be the unveiling of the Fallen Heroes Memorial honoring Austin High graduates who lost their lives in faithful service during WWII, the Korean War, and in Vietnam.

It is with great pleasure that I bring due attention to Austin High School, commend them on their accomplishments and challenge them to grow even further and continue their outstanding example in our community.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 864, the higher education conference report, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, the energy package before us today--H.R. 3221 and H.R. 2776--includes legislation passed by eleven House committees with the goals to address global warming and America's ``energy independence.''

H.R. 3221 includes bills I supported in the Energy and Commerce Committee on which I serve. The Energy and Commerce Committee bills will improve the Nation's energy efficiency, develop a ``smart'' electricity grid, improve the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee program, increase the availability of renewable fuels, and encourage the development of advanced technology vehicles and components.

I do have reservations about Title VII, the Natural Resources Committee provisions, which would scale back and repeal several important provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that help encourage new domestic production of oil and natural gas.

While I have reservations with these provisions, I appreciate the efforts of House Leadership for bringing together several Members of Congress that represent energy-producing Districts to review and improve the legislation. While not perfect, we reduced agency timeframes to approve or reject drilling permits and coastal energy projects, as well as removed provisions that would delay energy corridors and eliminate the royalty-in-kind program.

While I intend to support H.R. 3221, I will oppose the Renewable Electricity Standard. We should encourage states to produce more electricity from renewable sources; the question is whether a ``one- size-fits-all'' Federal mandate is the best way to accomplish this goal, which could raise electricity rates for Texas consumers.

I will oppose H.R. 2776--a $15 billion tax package--because it includes additional provisions above those carefully negotiated in H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. While it includes important renewable energy provisions, we cannot keep taxing American's energy industry and expect to have adequate supplies of energy.

The Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas, oil, and coal will compromise approximately the same share of our total energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005, even with new investments in renewable sources of energy.

This large increase in new taxes targeted at the U.S. energy industry could reduce our Nation's energy security by discouraging new domestic oil and gas production, discouraging new investments in refinery capacity, and actually tilting the competitive playing field for global energy resources against U.S. based oil and gas companies.

As we move forward in this Congress, I hope the House of Representatives will address America's need to produce additional domestic energy, both conventional and renewable, to ensure the reliability and affordability of our Nation's critical energy supplies.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to come from a state that has an impressive renewable energy standard--or RES--that was developed by Texans, for Texans, and that meets the needs of our state.

Unlike most state RES plans, which are based on a specific percentage of sales, the Texas RES plan has a fixed statewide renewable capacity requirement of 5,880 megawatts (MW) by 2015, which would represent about 5 percent of the state's energy capacity.

This isn't a question of whether or not we should encourage states to produce more electricity from renewable sources--we should. The question is whether a one-size-fits-all federal mandate is the best way to accomplish this goal.

States like ours are already encouraging the development of renewable energy resources. Because of the diversity of state RES plans, any federal RES mandate could undercut or preempt those efforts. Some states promote resources--like nuclear, fuel cells, biogas, or bio- diesel--that are not considered an eligible resource under this amendment.

I am most concerned with the impact on my constituents' electricity bills with a federal RES. I represent an underserved area where hard- working families cannot afford to face higher energy costs.

In order to meet a 15 percent Federal RES by 2020, based on a 30 percent capacity factor, Texas would need 29,159 MW of intermittent renewable capacity in operation by 2020. This is a 953 percent increase over its existing wind capacity, a 767 percent increase over its existing non-hydro renewable capacity, and a 396 percent increase over the 2015 state RES requirement of 5,880 MW.

Texas utilities will likely be forced to make payments to the Federal Government to meet this federal mandate.

Voting against this amendment doesn't mean you're against renewable electricity generation. It only means you believe each state should decide for themselves the goals and targets that meet each state's unique capabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I don't know how many times this Congress has to vote against this. It's been defeated twice during the appropriations process.

Every analysis of the past decade has confirmed the critical need to expand and upgrade our Nation's transmission infrastructure, a need that's already raising the cost of electricity to many Americans and proving a barrier to diversifying our energy resources. Now is not the time to take a step backward.

I think it's interesting our three colleagues from New York, if it's an interstate line, it doesn't matter, but you may have problems getting it to New York. But also, New York was the last place that had a blackout simply because there was a problem in Ohio.

We need to have these transmission corridors across our country.

This amendment removes from federal law the grant of eminent domain authority that comes with the issuance of a construction permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, to a critical transmission project located in severely congested areas.

The Arcuri amendment would eliminate from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the incentive provided for states to cure gaps in their state siting laws that are especially apparent when interstate projects are needed.

Nowhere else has Congress authorized FERC to grant approval for energy projects--such as natural gas pipelines--without also assuring the necessary federal eminent domain authority accompanies the permit, license, or certificate.

Under EPAct 2005, the only projects FERC will consider are those that are critically needed and for which States could not or would not act to approve in timely manner.

Yet, the Arcuri-Hinchey-Hall amendment would establish greater barriers to the success of these projects than any other energy project.

The same grant of eminent domain authority that is available to all other energy projects approved by FERC should be available to these critical transmission projects.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And if I had known we had so much time on our side, Jim, I would have asked you for time.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by stating how disappointed I am to come to the House floor today and speak against one of this Congress's first major energy initiatives. It pains me because I truly support the bill's goals of promoting clean, domestic, renewable energy.

What I disagree with is how this Congress chooses to pay for these worthy initiatives. I understand we have a budget deficit and funds for new alternative energy programs are in short supply, but like a broken record, this Congress continues to raid the piggybank of America's energy producers.

Now I know it makes great press releases to say this Congress is taking away the record profits of big oil to invest in renewable energy. But are we drafting press releases or are we drafting sound policy?

Earlier this year, I stood on the floor and supported H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act, which included many of the same tax provisions as the bill today, and I encouraged my colleagues at that time to do the same. While I had concerns, it could reduce incentives for domestic production, the bill did not include more punitive measures that could destabilize our Nation's gasoline supply even further.

As a show of good faith during that critical 100 hours for our new majority, I voted for that bill. But I expressed my support for H.R. 6 on the floor concluding with my remarks with one important message: If we hit one industry for billions and billions of dollars, you can't go back for more and more and expect enough gasoline for our cars and fuel to heat and cool our homes.

Only 6 months later, here we are again, only this time we are almost doubling the amount of taxes on U.S. oil and gas companies. I am not here to protect the interest of big oil, I am here to protect the interests of the American consumer who relies on those critical energy supplies. And I'm here to protect the jobs of U.S. workers.

Neither of these interests are advanced if we in Congress continue to view America's energy industry as the ATM for Congress.

Everyone agrees we must invest more in renewable sources of energy, but this isn't a buffet. We don't have the luxury to pick and choose which energy resources our Nation will rely on. The Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas, oil and coal will comprise approximately the same share of our total energy supply in 2030 as it did in 2005, even with the new investments for renewable energy. That is why our Nation's energy security requires tax policies that promote greater supplies of these fuels, not policies that hinder domestic production and refinery capacity.

H.R. 6 included tax provisions that brought in $7.7 billion, mostly from the section 199 repeal. That same section now scores $11.4. In only 6 months, the same proposal has increased in cost by an additional $4 billion.

This large increase in new taxes targeted at the U.S. energy industry will reduce our Nation's energy security by discouraging domestic oil and gas production, discouraging new investments in refining capacity, and actually tilting the competitive playing field for global energy resources against U.S.-based oil and gas companies.

I've heard many Members of this chamber preach to the energy industry on the need to reduce the cost of gasoline for consumers and invest more in refinary capacity.

Can anyone tell me how increasing their taxes could possibly accomplish these twin goals?

From 1992-2006 the five major oil companies invested $765 billion in new capital energy infrastructure, compared to their net income of $662 billion.

These companies invested more than they earned, and less money in their coffers means less money for critical infrastructure investments.

And finally, let's talk about jobs. In the United States, there are almost 1.9 million Americans directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry and almost 6 million total U.S. jobs resulting from oil and gas activity when indirect and other employment is considered.

Increasing costs on the domestic oil and gas industry, and on U.S. based oil and gas companies operating abroad, will jeopardize these highpaying jobs.

So before this Congress makes yet another ATM withdrawal from the oil and gas industry, let us not ignore the big picture of ensuring Americans have a stable supply of energy to help move us towards our long term goals of cleaner energy sources.

I urge my colleagues to vote for sound energy policy and vote against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, rise today in strong support of this legislation.

This legislation along with the passage of the Rest and Recuperation for Troops Act yesterday and the Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill earlier this year, continues a strong record in this Congress of providing our troops with the funding and equipment they need in the field, and ensuring they have the healthcare and rest they need when they come home.

I applaud the Appropriations Committee's work to provide more than the President's request for combat equipment depleted in Iraq, operational training, National Guard and reserves' battle gear, support services for military families, and shipbuilding.

This bill appropriates $459.6 billion for Defense Department programs in FY 2008. The bill's total is $3.5 billion, just 1 percent less than the President's request, but $39.7 billion, or 9 percent more than comparable levels for last year's regular defense appropriations--not accounting for $165 billion in FY 2007 emergency supplemental defense funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan we sent the President earlier this year.

I thank the Committee for including an important project being worked on by a consortium of universities in Texas in collaboration with the Air Force, the Consortium for Nanotechnology in Aerospace Commerce and Technology (CONTACT). Through collaborations among the universities, the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the aerospace commercial sector, this unique partnership will develop leading-edge nanotechnology aerospace applications faster and better than could be achieved individually at each institution.

I hope to work with the Committee as they move to conference and in next year's cycle to highlight the importance of three other projects I requested that did not get funded.

The Radar/Video Fusion Vessel and Port Security Demonstration Project will develop a sensor package integrated to provide surveillance, warning, monitoring and tracking of ships, vessels, and integrate into current and future Houston Ship Channel surveillance capability. Increased security at ports and waterways, landside and waterside, is now an essential part of homeland defense. This is particularly true in Houston where ships and barges have direct access to high value sites where destruction of assets will cause major casualties and/or economic impact.

Two other projects, the Battleship TEXAS Restoration Project, and the Manganese Health Research Project, have each been funded in the past, and I hope the Chairman would work with me to see that these important projects receive the funding necessary to complete the projects in the future.

Again, I strongly support this bill which will provide essential funding for the military and our troops, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.

This is the best piece of legislation since 1997 when the children's health care was created, but this time we will cover 5 million more children if we vote ``yes'' today for this bill.

I want to particularly thank the committee, although we didn't get to have a markup in ours because the Republican minority refused to let us even have votes on our amendments, so we have to have it on the floor today. We have to have that discussion. I am just glad they included that it would cover 12 months of insurability for our children, because some States have made 6 months the way to cut children off of health care.

Let me say one other thing. I have heard, particularly last night, I think it was insulting to say that this bill takes money away from seniors to give to illegal alien children. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. That's just outrageous. When you look at the bill and actually current law that we don't change, it prohibits undocumented children from getting any assistance.

Now the States are going to be the ones that have to prove that. If the States can't do it, they have to pay for it. It is just outrageous that you throw out the ``illegals'' every time you don't have any other argument.

I am particularly proud of the SCHIP provisions in this legislation, which would provide much-needed health insurance coverage to low-income children in need.

Currently, the SCHIP program provides coverage to 6 million low- income American children.

Unfortunately, an additional 6 million children are eligible for SCHIP benefits, yet remain uninsured.

This legislation would reach about 5 million of those children by putting in place a more efficient funding formula based on projected enrollment and providing states with incentives to find eligible children and get them enrolled.

I am particularly thankful for the committee's support of our language to ensure that children in SCHIP get 12 months of continuous eligibility.

This provision is critical to ensuring that eligible SCHIP children remain in the program and are not dropped due to cumbersome bureaucratic requirements imposed on families whose primary focus is on making ends meet.

A recent Health Affairs article underscores the importance of continuous eligibility in addressing retention problems in SCHIP.

Of the policy options suggested, the authors state that ``[f]irst and foremost, the renewal process should be simplified as much as possible, by reducing the frequency of renewal to once a year.''

This bill does just that.

For many states, this bill reaffirms the compassionate and effective policies currently in place.

But for a state like mine, this bill will ensure that the State of Texas does right by Texas children and doesn't use the flexibility inherent in the program to kick them off the rolls on a budgetary whim.

I encourage my colleagues to stand up for low-income children and pass this important legislation.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for reporting out the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and getting through conference so we can send a bill to the President.

The previous two Congresses have failed to do so, and because of that, much needed flood control projects in Houston, TX, had been put on hold. I appreciate the inclusion of our language for the Halls Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston, which will allow the Harris County Flood Control District, HCFCD, to start work on this project in the near future.

Historic flooding along Halls Bayou has been severe and frequent in some neighborhoods. During Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, Halls Bayou was hit very hard, with more than 8,000 homes flooding within the watershed. No project can keep all homes from flooding, but a project can help reduce the risk of flooding for a significant number of families, reducing the need for Federal assistance, property damage, and loss of life.

The purpose of section 5157 of this legislation which pertains to Halls Bayou is to allow the HCFCD to conduct the General Reevaluation Review, GRR, and any subsequent Federal interest project on Halls Bayou. The Corps is limited in its staff, resources, and time with the many projects in the Galveston District and the Southwest Division. Local project sponsors with the necessary expertise, like Harris County, can provide efficiency by becoming more involved.

Halls Bayou, a major tributary of Greens Bayou, was authorized in WRDA 1990 as part of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project. The original Halls Bayou authorization assumed the Greens Bayou project in place, which is now finishing a GRR. Results indicate that the work on Greens Bayou downstream of Halls Bayou will not have Federal work, although it will have significant local projects. Therefore, a GRR is now needed for Halls Bayou as well.

While conducting the GRR to find a possible Federal interest, Harris County can begin project implementation in order to reduce future flood damage as soon as possible. Adding Halls Bayou to Section 211(f) allows Harris County to be reimbursed if the project is later approved by the Secretary. I thank the Subcommittee, full Committee, and the Conference for their work on this Issue.

I support this bill and the balance that it strikes between the need to improve water resources for human purposes and to preserve our water uses for the environment and future generations. The projects in this bill are much needed, and I'm pleased the conference committee was able to complete its work so we can get a bill to the President.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the hard work and comnntment that Mr. Sidney Berger has given to my alma mater, the University of Houston, for the past 38 years. As the director of the University of Houston's Drama Department, he has led the department to national acclaim.

From the time he became chairman of the drama department in 1969, to today, the department has grown from a three-person faculty and 30 students to a faculty of 15 and 300 students. This is an admirable accomplishment.

A significant factor that has shaped this growth has been Mr. Berger's central belief that young artists who are developing their talents should have the chance to work with great artists. Inspired by these beliefs, Mr. Berger founded the Houston Shakespeare Festival in 1975 and 3 years later co-founded the Children's Theatre Festival. Before the two programs were formed, there was no professional outlet in which theatre students could polish their skills in the city of Houston. Today, students have the opportunity to work with theatre pros from across the city, as well as guest artists. Mr. Berger leaves a legacy as he steps down as director to teach and head the Shakespeare and children's festivals.

Besides staging one play for each one of these programs each summer, and productions in the University of Houston's four show subscription season, Mr. Berger founded the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America. He teaches a course in ``Acting Shakespeare'' each semester and has served several years on the board of the International Shakespeare's Globe Center.

Mr. Berger will be greatly missed and thanks to his success, the next director has a steady foundation to build upon. Again, we applaud the efforts of Mr. Berger and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation.

Iran presents a major problem for the United States on a number of levels. Its overt nuclear ambitions, its interference in the Israeli- Arab peace process, and its support for Hezbollah--which is second only to al Qaeda in the number of American lives it has claimed--as well as Hamas and other terrorist organizations all present challenges to stability in the region.

We must use our economic leverage, among other tools, to address this problem, and this legislation allows us to do that. First, it extends the threat of sanctions to foreign subsidiaries of American companies if the subsidiaries were acquired or created in order to evade existing prohibitions on trade with Iran. Second, the definition of Iran's petroleum sector is expanded to include petroleum by-products and liquefied natural gas. Third, it expands who may be sanctioned to include the underwriters of these investments in Iran's energy sector.

Iran's economy is heavily dependent on oil and gas windfall profits, and this money is also used to fund terrorism and its nuclear program. This bill is a crucial part of continuing sanctions efforts, both by the U.S. and the international community.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, as cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

This legislation corrects and clarifies a serious misinterpretation by the Supreme Court when it ruled earlier this year in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

In that 5-4 decision, the majority ruled that Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, AL, did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The court determined a victim of pay discrimination must file a charge within 180 days of the employer's decision to pay someone less for an unlawfully discriminatory reason, such as race, sex, religion, etc.

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, the widely accepted rule in employment discrimination law was that every discriminatory paycheck was a new violation that restarts the 180-day clock.

H.R. 2831 restores the law prior to the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision, by clarifying that the clock for filing a discrimination charge starts when a discriminatory pay decision or practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the pay decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the pay decision or practice, including whenever she receives a discriminatory paycheck.

The Supreme Court must not be able to roll back workers' rights in one ruling. Congress must pass this legislation to ensure workers are protected and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2831.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3074, the FY08 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

I want to thank the Chairman Obey, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this piece of legislation.

This bill will keep our communities safe by providing increased funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services Grants Program and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants Program.

Both of these programs assist our law enforcement agencies by providing grants for the hiring of additional police officers.

The CJS Appropriations bill also provides assistance for the Office on Violence Against Women.

The COPS program, Byrne Justice Assistance Program, and the Office on Violence Against Women would not have been severely under funded in the President's budget and I commend the committee for their work to fund these vital programs.

This bill also contains vital funding for two projects in my district: the Houston YMCA of Greater Houston's Apartment Outreach Project and the Harris County Integrated In-Car Mobile Technology Project.

The YMCA's Apartment Outreach Project will provide for staffing and supply costs for this program which combats youth crime and gang activity in Houston's apartment complexes.

The Harris County Integrated In-Car Mobile Technology Project will provide county sheriff officers with mobile data computers to link with license plate recognition technology.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide funding for several projects that I strongly support.

These projects would have provided funding for the Harris County, TX to acquire a 10 acre tract of land for the Buffalo Bayou Partnership plan to redevelop the bayou and funding for Houston Community College to purchase equipment for training programs conducted by its Public Safety Institute.

While it is impossible to fund all of the projects that we request, I believe that these programs need federal funding.