Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would point out to our colleagues that the action just described in my view is not necessary.

I rise in support of the rule, the underlying bill, and in strong support for ending our combat mission in Iraq and redirecting our efforts towards stability in the region, including Iraq, but also in trouble spots like Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Let me make three points.

First, based on firsthand experience from my fourth visit to Iraq just weeks ago, Baghdad is not safer. True, we have worked successfully with tribal leaders against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, but the major population center, Baghdad, the focus of our military surge, is not turning around. Progress will not be made by a continuation of our combat mission.

Second, the Skelton bill mirrors a companion bill in the other body which has impressive bipartisan support. I urge Republicans to support this measure, and know that some will do so.

The message our constituents want to hear is that 290 of us, a veto- proof bipartisan majority, insist on a responsible end to our combat mission in Iraq beginning now with passage of this bill.

Third, though I feel Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's use of the words ``gut feeling'' was unwise, I share

the view that our country could be attacked at any time. Al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan and expanded its reach throughout North Africa. Homegrown cells in England and elsewhere are increasing, and our assumption must be that they are here as well.

Low-tech, low-scale vehicle-borne attacks are, sadly, not hard to execute. At a minimum, those, and attacks on soft targets like our mass transit systems, may be in our near future.

DHS, FBI and our exceptionally talented local police departments are working overtime, though their ranks are depleted and their equipment and they are surged in Iraq. But 100 percent protection is impossible.

Mr. Speaker, this is where our attention must be, and our resources. Pass the Skelton bill.

Mr. Speaker, providing health insurance to those working their way out of welfare is vitally important. However, pairing a program that actually helps American families with one that extends funding for abstinence-only education is truly insulting. To stay healthy, our adolescents must receive accurate information about protecting themselves from sexually transmitted infection. Federal funding should not be squandered on programs that are not medically accurate or scientifically proven to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy. This is especially true as we struggle to find funding to provide American youth with health insurance. Our children deserve better than this.

Politics often requires compromises. But make no mistake; my vote is a vote for working families, and not against proven programs to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. The Transitional Medical Assistance program will require future extensions, and I will continue to fight for programs that provide real information and protection for our children.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina and me.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis and me. We've offered it to every appropriations bill so far and it's been accepted by voice vote to every appropriations bill so far. We're hopeful that the excellent chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee will accept it in this case.

I do want to commend him, by the way, for putting a superb bill on the House floor, especially in support of the arts and several other projects that I consider very significant.

At any rate, our amendment, bipartisan amendment, asks the government to set an example for the rest of the country by purchasing energy- efficient light bulbs. Existing law requires Federal agencies to buy products that meet Department of Energy, Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program standards. This amendment adds teeth and says that no fund shall be expended unless this occurs.

Mr. Chairman, it takes about 18 seconds to change a light bulb. In 18 seconds, each of us can change our energy future by changing that light bulb to one of these Energy Star or energy-efficient light bulbs. I'm sure that my co-author, Mr. Upton, will offer more specifics on this right now.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield to Mr. Upton.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking minority member and my partner, Mr. Upton, for our work together. This is a good example of the Federal Government setting a good example and a bipartisanship working in this House. I'm very pleased to be a part of it.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and commend him for the role that he is playing on a bipartisan basis to assure that existing standards, the ENERGY STAR standards and the Federal Energy Management Program standards are adhered to. This effort that we're making on every appropriations bill will ensure that our practice complies with our law.

I agree with him that CFLs offer much more efficiency. There are also LEDs. And hopefully the incandescent bulb makers in America will adjust their own manufacturing so that they produce efficient light bulbs as well.

Another bill that we're all cosponsoring that's pending in the Energy Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce will provide incentives to U.S. manufacturers to produce more efficient lighting and set proper goals.

Finally, I want to say that bipartisanship has been hailed all morning. It takes 270 Members of Congress and 60 Members of the Senate and hopefully one willing President to change the light bulb policy, and I think we're proceeding that way this morning.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We do have language in our bill that I just described, the one pending in the Energy and Commerce Committee to exempt historical lighting from the new goals. Hopefully we can invent light bulbs for historical lighting that are more efficient too, but we're trying to be reasonable here.

In response to earlier comments by Mr. Peterson, the goal is to help the domestic industry be able to produce efficient lighting. And the goal is also to set tough enough standards so that we save the enormous amount of energy that Mr. Upton was just mentioning.

Madam Chairman, I did not mention earlier and would like to say that the Speaker's initiative, her Green Initiative, does also address this issue of trying to move away from inefficient incandescent bulbs. One more time, our goal would be to make incandescent bulbs, as well as other bulbs, more efficient.

We are not choosing winners in this effort. But surely, everyone must understand that it takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb. This is something all of us can do quite quickly, except you have to comply with the House procedures that we just heard about.

I am very excited about the notion that we are setting an example in this House and in this Congress about more efficient lighting.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope there is no one opposed. I offer this amendment with Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina in order to help the government set an example for the rest of the country by purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs.

Mr. Chairman, existing law requires Federal agencies to buy products that meet Department of Energy, Energy Star or Federal Energy Management program standards. This amendment adds teeth to that standard, stating that no funds may be used to purchase any light bulb that does not meet it. Identical language has already been adopted in prior appropriations bills. Our intention is to offer this amendment as the Upton-Harman amendment on the next appropriations bill and to continue this until we are through the appropriations cycle.

Our bottom line is: The Federal Government must set the example. This is already the law, but it needs to be the practice as well.

Let me close with the fact that incandescent bulbs, which are used by most Americans, are 10 percent efficient. This sounds like Congress. I think our goal ought to be much greater efficiency here in this body, and much greater efficiency with respect to the lighting that we use. It takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb. It will take more time than that to change Congress. But it is my hope that this amendment will pass attached to every appropriations bill.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Chairman, those of us who lived through the brown- outs and rolling black-outs during the California energy crisis remember well how difficult the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was to deal with, and it pains me to vote for a national policy that I hope will not need to be used.

However, after carefully reviewing the issue, I do not see a better alternative. My vote is a vote to keep the lights on in Southern California.

Offered By: Ms. Harman

Amendment No. 20: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 409. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have

the ``ENERGY STAR'' designation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to resume my service on the Telecom Subcommittee in this Congress.

I also rise in strong support of the Truth in Caller ID Act, which will prevent acts of identity theft and billions of dollars in consumer losses each year.

I would like to engage the bill's sponsor, Mr. Engel, in a brief colloquy to clarify the effect this bill has on other laws relating to national security and law enforcement. The relevant section reads: ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or prohibit any investigative, protective or intelligence activities performed in connection with official duties, and in accordance with all applicable laws, by a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State or a political subdivision of a State, or by an intelligence agency of the United States.''

I'd like to ask the author what the meaning of this language is.

I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. Lawfully authorized national security and law enforcement activities are critical in this era of terror. Legislation designed to improve our Nation's safety and security, like the Truth in Caller ID Act, should not inadvertently impair them, nor should it expand them. This carefully crafted bill, in my view, strikes the right balance. And I would like to commend the author, Mr. Engel, Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Upton for their diligent work. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding to me and commend him for his continued service both on the Intelligence Committee and on the Rules Committee.

As you heard, I served the past 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, the last 4 as ranking member. I loved that opportunity, and I remain passionate about the issues. I believe that there is nothing more central to our roles in Congress than to keep our country safe. And that committee has crucial jurisdiction.

I would respectfully disagree with the comments of the last speaker, Mrs. Wilson. I have been briefed longer than she has on how the so- called NSA program operates. I believed then and I believe now that it can and must fully comply with FISA, a law that has been modernized 12 times since 9/11 through changes we have made which I supported in the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of H.R. 2082. In my current role as Chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee, I continue to review intelligence reports and to talk to our key security professionals. And, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. We have surged our intelligence resources into Iraq, where they are necessarily focused on the tactical needs of warfighters. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has gained strength and is inspiring new cells worldwide. We have taken our eye off the ball. That ball is al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, we should all be worried that terrorist cells are here in the United States, right now, waiting for the right moment to strike. We have yet to develop a truly effective system for sharing time-sensitive intelligence about terror plots with first responders, whom I would like to believe could be first preventers.

Even at the Federal level, a variety of data bases, classifications, and pseudo-classification systems could still, 5\1/2\ years after 9/11, prevent us from connecting the dots. We have yet to develop an adequate strategy to counter radicalization in our prisons and in our communities. The events at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, earlier this week are the latest example. And we have not yet broken into the inner circle of the senior al Qaeda leadership even though we have been at this for more than 5 years. These problems are urgent as we could be attacked at any time.

I recently reviewed the classified annex to this bill and continue to pay special attention to our technical satellite programs. Changes to these programs cannot be discussed in an unclassified setting such as this; but I want to reiterate my long-held view that the women and men who build these systems constitute a major strategic asset of the United States. Rocket scientists do not grow on trees, and we must keep them highly trained and highly motivated. Without their help, we could literally lose our ability to see, hear, and communicate.

Finally, I strongly support the effort to develop a National Intelligence Estimate on climate change. Changes in our climate will affect critical resources such as water, food, and arable land, as we are seeing now in Darfur and in many parts of Africa. Droughts affect the stability of governments, and the stability of governments is one of the key things we need to know about through our intelligence. This isn't bugs and bunnies, or even Bugs Bunny. It is survival or destruction. And if we make responsible moves now, our grandchildren will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, by supporting this legislation, the Congress stands with the extraordinary women and men of our intelligence community who often serve in austere locations on unaccompanied assignments. I am one of the few here who know these people and know where they serve. I say to them, our Nation owes you our gratitude; hopefully, this bill provides the support and tools you need as well as honors your sacrifice.

I urge support of the rule. I urge support of the underlying legislation, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his leadership as chairman of the committee.

Madam Chair, I spoke earlier during the rule about the specifics in this bill, a bill I strongly support. But as the debate closes, I thought I might offer just two thoughts from my vantage point as someone who has served on this committee for so long and who passionately cares about the issues.

The first is I believe al Qaeda is here and waiting to attack us. I believe America is in danger, and if we don't get our intelligence right both internationally and domestically, we will be attacked. We will fail to prevent or disrupt the harm that is coming our way. That is why it is so critical that we pass the best bill that we can.

My second point is that I have never seen, and I have sat through these debates for many years, the kind of partisanship we are now seeing in debate on the intelligence authorization bill. It breaks my heart.

And if there is someone out there in an austere, unaccompanied post watching C-SPAN, if C-SPAN is available, and looking at this debate, that person must wonder: Why can't Congress come together and protect America at a time of urgent need? And I have to say, I am wondering, too. It is very disappointing to see the partisanship. It is very disappointing to hear that members I served with are going to oppose this bill. I hope they will reconsider. It is very important to reach consensus and pass the strongest bill possible.

Mr. Chairman, as the majority leader pointed out several minutes ago, yesterday the FBI arrested six men following a 15-month investigation. The charges are that, inspired by al Qaeda, they were bent on taking out as many soldiers as possible at Fort Dix using semiautomatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades. Three of them were in this country illegally. The other three were American citizens. All lived unremarkable lives and seemed well integrated into their communities. Even their next-door neighbors had no reason to suspect that they were actually the vanguard of a new breed of terrorist.

In Torrance, California, in my congressional district, four members of a prison-based jihadist cell await trial on charges of conspiring to wage war against the U.S. Government through terrorism, kill members of the Armed Forces, and murder foreign officials.

Mr. Chairman, this is our future. Protecting the homeland, preventing and disrupting the next terrorist attack is the primary responsibility of the Homeland Security Committee, and I congratulate Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for putting together this authorization bill.

The bill strengthens homeland security by expanding on successful ideas like fusion centers and strengthening our infrastructure.

Many in this Chamber are focused on our broken Iraq policy. So am I. But I also worry that, while we are consumed with the Iraq debate, al Qaeda and its friends are successfully expanding and adapting in ways that are long-term, global and enormously dangerous. Al Qaeda has proven that the brand is ``portable.'' Its embrace of low-tech, unspectacular operations makes it much harder to stop.

Why haven't we been attacked here? Some say al Qaeda is waiting to exceed the lethality of 9/11. But if the U.S. is perceived as weaker and bogged down in Iraq and if terrorists are scaling down attacks, an attack or series of near-simultaneous attacks here seems inevitable.

The Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, which I chair, is focused on the threat of homegrown terrorism and improving ways to disrupt and prevent the next attack. If the terrorists are here, the activities of that subcommittee are critical.

This bill helps us build our intelligence competence. It strengthens parts of the budget that are underfunded and authorizes crucial activities. Vote ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, the September 11th terrorist attacks posed a defining challenge for the United States. Our Nation was savagely attacked; our peace and prosperity threatened. A swift and decisive response was necessary.

Many of us offered to work with the Administration to come up with a legal framework to guide that response. One that offered the flexibility needed to meet the challenges posed by al Qaida and 21st century terrorism, but also respected human rights and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the Administration went its own way and failed to establish a widely accepted legal foundation for its actions. We are all now paying the price.

Nowhere are the problems created by the White House's myopic approach more apparent than at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I have visited Gitmo three times.

Each time, I asked hard questions about how the men detained there were being treated, how long they would be held there, and what efforts were being made to ensure that the innocent were released. By the third visit, it became very clear that I was getting the run-around.

The truth was that the Administration was adrift in what I call the ``fog of law.'' Guantanamo was built on a legal fiction. The Administration claimed the authority to detain any person it deemed appropriate, to deny that person the protections of U.S. and international law, and to do so indefinitely--so long as that person was held outside U.S. soil.

The claim was extraordinary, and the Administration seemed unconcerned that it was without sound legal parameters to guide its actions.

At Gitmo, the Administration effectively discarded the procedures that we have used for centuries--in civilian and military tribunals alike--to separate the innocent from the guilty and ensure fair punishment for those that deserve it.

Hundreds of men were detained at Guantanamo for years, without access to an independent court in which to argue their innocence, without access to the evidence against them, and without protection of the Geneva Conventions.

These are rights that the United States has long pressed developing countries to adopt, arguing that they are fundamental to any just legal system.

It should be no surprise that the Administration's ad hoc procedures appear to have resulted in the improper detention of many individuals whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or having the wrong name.

The Supreme Court brought the curtain down on the Guantanamo legal fiction in its Hamdan decision.

And now it is time for the Congress to act.

Madam Speaker, the United States is engaged in a long struggle against al Qaida and other jihadist terror organizations. These groups are successfully exploiting the antipathy that many in the Arab world-- and, increasingly, not just the Arab world--feel toward the West, and toward America in particular.

In order to erode al Qaida's appeal and dry up its recruiting base, we have to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation of would-be terrorists.

Guantanamo has become a liability. The real and perceived injustices occurring there have given our enemies an easy example of our failures and alleged ill intent. The prison is so widely viewed as illegitimate, so plainly inconsistent with America's proud legal traditions; it has become a stinging symbol of our tarnished standing abroad.

Defense Secretary Gates has admitted as much, arguing the facility should be closed because its ``taint'' would render any trials held there illegitimate in the eyes of the world.

I agree with Secretary Gates. It is time to shut the prison down.

That is why I am proud to introduce, together with my friend and member of the Armed Services Committee Mr. Abercrombie, legislation to require the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Senator Feinstein has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

The bill requires the President to close the facility within one year of enactment, and gives him a range of choices for dealing with the detainees. These options include transfer to a detainee's country of origin (so long as that country provides certain assurances regarding treatment of the detainee); transfer to a facility in the United States to be tried before military or civilian authorities (like the first 1993 World Trade Center bombers and John Walker Lindh); transfer to a qualified international tribunal; or, if appropriate, outright release.

Make no mistake: this legislation is not about setting terrorists free. Many of those held at Gitmo are the worst of the worst--hard-core haters who cannot be rehabilitated. This legislation is about being true to America's most fundamental values and legal norms.

Closing Guantanamo alone will not heal American's moral black eye. But it is a necessary first step.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Dr. Kouichi R. Tanaka for his important contributions to the field of medicine and medical education.

Dr. Tanaka was born in Fresno, California where he lived on a grape farm with his parents and three siblings. In July, 1942, he and his family were placed in an internment camp in Poston, Arizona. Despite the lack of books and appropriate educational facilities, Dr. Tanaka pursued his dream of becoming a physician.

He would go on to earn a Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Medicine degree with high distinction from Wayne State University, serve in the United States Army, and become a resident in medicine and fellow in pathology and hematology.

Dr. Tanaka began his academic career at the UCLA School of Medicine in 1957 and joined the faculty at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in 1961 as chief of the Division of Hematology. He would also serve as associate chair of the Department of Medicine, acting chair of the Department of Medicine, director of the Hematology Research Laboratory, program director, Professor of Medicine, and playa key role in training over 450 internal medicine physicians during the past 46 years. In addition, Dr. Tanaka has written nearly 300 research publications, leading to important contributions in the study of erythrocyte metabolism and to the understanding of hemolytic disorders.

Dr. Tanaka has received many awards and held many positions of distinction. He was President of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society at Wayne State University School of Medicine and founding associate editor of the American Journal of Hematology. He was awarded the Distinguished Alumni Award from Wayne State University School of Medicine; the Sherman M. Mellinkoff Faculty Award at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; and the Laureate Award of the American College of Physicians Southern California Region 1. He is the first Japanese American elected to the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the Association of American Physicians. He was ACP Governor for Southern California Region I, was awarded Mastership in the American College of Physicians, and was presented with the 1999 UCLA Medical Alumni Association Distinguished Service Award. In 2004, he was selected to the inaugural class of ``LA BioMed Legends''.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to share how proud I am to have Dr. Tanaka working in my district's most important biomedical research institute, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

Madam Speaker, in my office is a wonderful photograph of Juanita and I, arms raised in victory, It was taken as I announced my intention to run for Governor of California in 1998. She was right there, and I was clearly buoyed by her presence. Our friendship was forged in that tough campaign, and it remained strong.

Juanita was a popular and highly regarded Member of this House. Those are not easy things to achieve in a very competitive workplace, so it is worth asking how she did it.

First, she was a loyal friend. Once she decided to endorse or support you, she never flinched--no matter how hot the heat. And second, she was a pro. She had a clear idea of what legislators can do, and she worked hard.

The results are obvious. Juanita Millender-McDonald served California's 37th congressional district well.

When she came to Congress, she decided to add ``Millender'' to her name in order to honor her mother. Surely she honored her mother. But she also honored her constituents--and this Congress.

A good friend, superb colleague and class act, Juanita, you will be missed.

Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing & Terrorism Risk Assessment, today I am introducing the bipartisan Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Ranking Member Dave Reichert joins me as co- author of this bill.

April 19th marks the 12th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which claimed 168 lives and injured over 800. Only September 11, 2001, eclipses that dark day as the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

My own district in California has not been spared from the threat of homegrown terrorism. An episode there offers a chilling illustration of the type of domestic threat we face. In the spring of 2005, four men-- three U.S. citizens and one Pakistani national residing legally in this country--finalized plans for a series of gas station robberies intended to finance terrorist attacks around Los Angeles. Their kill targets were U.S. military bases and recruiting stations, the Israeli Consulate, synagogues filled with worshipers on Jewish holy days, and the El Al ticket counter at LAX.

The indictment alleges the men were pawns of an inmate at Folsom Prison who had embraced radical Islam after being incarcerated and founded the militant prison gang ``Assembly of Authentic Islam.'' One of them was radicalized by the inmate while doing time at Folsom; his accomplices were recruited from a local mosque and had no criminal records.

The men engaged in a spree of 11 armed gas station robberies until their arrest by local police in July 2005. A subsequent search of their apartment uncovered jihadist literature, bulletproof vests and a list of potential targets. Local police promptly contacted the FBI, which led to a major investigation involving more than 200 agents, Los Angeles police detectives, and counterterrorism officials.

The suspects now await trail, and are charged with conspiring to wage war against the U.S. government through terrorism; kill members of the Armed Forces; and murder foreign officials.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that ``radicalization is a global problem that must be addressed through focused efforts targeting its root causes.'' This legislation does just that. It would establish a grant program to provide funds to the States to foster badly needed vertical information sharing down to the local level. It would create a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism to examine the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of homegrown terrorism and to propose solutions. It would require Homeland Security officials to learn from other nations that have experienced their own Oklahoma City tragedies. And, perhaps most importantly, it would ensure that our cherished civil liberties, the protections and safeguards guaranteed by our Constitution, are protected.

We urge its enactment.

Madam Speaker, today, Senator Feinstein in the Senate and I are introducing legislation permitting a simple administrative fix that will improve education outcomes for thousands of students in my congressional district.

Imagine, Madam Speaker, sitting at a desk, attempting to memorize a verse or tackle a tough math problem as jet planes roar overhead every few minutes. Every hour. Every day.

That is the situation for the children of Lennox, a mostly working class community that lies just east of LAX, in the airport's flight path. Lennox was added to my district in 2000, and I have worked hard to help the children there get a quality education.

In 1980, Lennox School District and the city of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit concerning aircraft movements over Lennox schools. Lennox gave the city an easement that allowed planes carrying up to 40 million passengers per year to fly overhead, and the city paid Lennox approximately $2.5 million.

In the years since, air traffic over Lennox schools has significantly increased. As a result, many of the schools are now like bunkers, half underground with no windows. Others have all their windows boarded up.

In February of 2005, Lennox and Los Angeles World Airports, LAWA, settled a second lawsuit, to which Inglewood School District was also a party. Under this settlement, LAWA agreed to provide Lennox and Inglewood with more than $110 million in noise mitigation funds over 10 years.

However, the FAA has interpreted the 1980 agreement and Federal law to prevent payment of the funds under the 2005 agreement. A legislative solution is the only way that these funds can be released.

Our bill is narrowly tailored to allow LAWA to release the funds it promised to Lennox and Inglewood in the 2005 agreement. The bill is identical to legislation that I introduced in the last Congress, H.R. 6285, which was drafted with the assistance of the FAA, Lennox School District, and LAWA. Importantly, the funds in question are airport funds, not Federal tax dollars, and our bill would not require new Federal spending.

These children deserve a quality education, and this bill will ensure that they get one. I urge its swift passage.