Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5690) to exempt the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or events, provide relief for certain members of the African National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and incorporate extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Members of the House, the African National Congress is a rare example of an oppressed people fighting for their freedom and then leading a successful and peaceful transition to a modern nation. The fight went on for years, underground and in exile, against the morally bankrupt apartheid system in South Africa. And once they prevailed, their response to gaining political power was not retribution and reprisals, but truth and reconciliation.

Notwithstanding this peaceful transition, the United States had not gotten around to giving ANC leaders the opportunity to enter this country because certain provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act currently require us to consider them still as terrorists.

After the attacks on 9/11, Congress sought to exclude and remove terrorists from the United States by strengthening the terrorism bars in our immigration laws. In doing so, however, we inadvertently covered groups and individuals whom we did not intend to, including allies and even victims of terrorism. These bars have been used against the brave men and women who fought side by side with United States forces in Southeast Asia. They've been used against those who used armed resistance to defend themselves against brutal and repressive regimes, such as those in Cuba and Burma. They've even been used against women who were raped and enslaved by armed militia in Liberia. And as we recognize today, they've been used against members of the African National Congress, including the great leader, Nelson Mandela. This has had profound effects, preventing us from protecting vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers and resulting in embarrassing denials of visas for Nelson Mandela himself and other foreign heads of state.

We all know how Mr. Mandela and other ANC leaders suffered unjust incarceration for decades at the hands of the apartheid regime. We know how the apartheid regime labeled its opponents as terrorists, as communists, and anything else they could invent to accuse them of that was negative in an attempt to deflect criticism of their own institutions of repression and racial separation. And yet these people who steadfastly fought for freedom and chose a path for peace once they came to power are now blocked from entry to the United States. And so that's where this measure comes in.

Congress has begun to take corrective action, and last year were removed a number of freedom-fighting groups from treatment as terrorist organizations. Today, we do the same for the ANC and its members. In addition to specifying that the ANC is not on the list of terrorist organizations under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the bill would also give discretionary authority to Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to admit individuals regardless of activities undertaken in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa.

Finally, the bill would require the Secretary of State, in coordination with other agencies, to ensure that government databases are updated so that they are consistent with the exemptions provided in the bill.

I'd like to thank committee chairman of the Judiciary, Howard Berman, but also in his capacity as the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and in memoriam, I'd like to remember the chairman that preceded Mr. Berman, Tom Lantos, for their work on this bill. I would like to insert into the Record at this point an exchange of letters between our two committees.

And thanks again to the ranking member from Texas, Lamar Smith, whose bipartisan discussions have enabled us to reach this point. This is a noncontroversial bill that repairs something that should have been taken care of earlier. It closes the books on the evils of apartheid. And so I'm very proud to bring this to the floor with the Members that I have mentioned.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2008.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill,

H.R. 5690, legislation to exempt the African National

Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization for

certain acts or events, provide relief for certain members of

the African National Congress regarding admissibility, and

for other purposes, which I introduced earlier this year. The

bill contains provisions within the Rule X jurisdiction of

the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and was referred to the

Committee when introduced.

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important

legislation and clear it for the President, I am willing to

waive this Committee's right mark up this bill. I do so with

the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill,

the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not waive any future

jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in

the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction.

I would ask that you place this letter into the

Congressional Record when the Committee has H.R. 5690 under

consideration.

Sincerely,

Howard L. Berman,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to recognize the subcommittee chairman from whence this bill came, and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has worked with Steve King. And I suggest that there may be a codel going to this part of the globe, and I would certainly like to invite the distinguished gentleman Mr. King to consider joining us on such a codel.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 3\1/2\ minutes.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the gentlewoman from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee), who for many years worked as chief of staff with our former colleague Ron Dellums on this subject. So in her capacity as a Member of Congress and former staffer, she has stayed on the course for all of these years, and I yield her such time as she may consume.

I thank the gentlelady, Barbara Lee, of Oakland, California, for closing our statement.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' and I rise to remind the Chamber of the worsening health care crisis that we face as a Nation, and propose a solution to one of the biggest challenges of the 21st Century facing us.

Lack of health insurance often denies necessary medical care. Forty seven million Americans are uninsured. This problem is not limited to the poor or the unemployed. Researchers have estimated that about four- fifths of the uninsured are either employed or members of a family with an employed adult.

As well, there are an additional 50 million Americans who are underinsured; that is, they have coverage that would not protect them from catastrophic medical expenses. Simply put, an increasing number of Americans lack adequate health insurance because they and their employers simply cannot afford it.

Despite the challenges of the war in Iraq and the slumping economy, we all agree that the uninsured need to be covered. Even the health insurance companies have their own plan for covering the uninsured. I'm glad that we're on the same page, after all these years.

The real question we face is, how do we go about covering the uninsured? And how do we ensure that every American has access to quality medical care when they need it?

I strongly believe in a single-payer national health insurance, an approach that has been too often marginalized in debates on this issue, even though it has been successfully employed in almost every industrial nation except our own.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress to consider single-payer, not only as a viable option to cover the uninsured, but as the preferred solution to fix our broken health care system. And make no mistake about it, it is in very bad shape.

According to a January 2007 article in the Journal of Health Affairs, France, Japan and Australia rated best, and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions, in 19 leading industrialized nations.

The article revealed that if the United States health care system performed as well as those top three countries, there'd be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States each year.

Equally disturbing, the Institute of Medicine reports that 20,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of having no health insurance. How can we, in the Congress, who receive fairly decent health care, tell 47 million uninsured Americans that they cannot have access to health care?

With the knowledge that 20,000 Americans die each year without health insurance, how can we, in Congress, who do have health insurance, not place universal health care as a front burner issue in this chamber?

This is a moral challenge that we all must pick up. And incrementalism will not work. Expanding a broken system or fixing parts of it will not work. We must approach the health care solution the same way a physician approaches the treatment of disease. Doctors do not employ treatments only because they are easy or feasible. They choose evidence-based solutions based upon peer-reviewed research in order to employ the most state-of-the-art care available. And so I propose we take the same approach to crafting a universal health care plan.

So today, I ask the following question: What further disaster must befall us before we face the crisis of the uninsured and the underinsured?

How many more people must die due to the inability to receive care in the world's healthiest Nation before we, in Congress, take action and create a truly universal health care system?

For those who believe that we are not ready to have a universal health care system, and must delay the formation of a comprehensive, national health insurance program, I ask you to consider the following evidence that demonstrates why we can ill afford delaying action on a universal health care system.

Health care horror stories are cases in which the result is so tragic that it shocks the conscience. We hear about them almost every day, in the newspapers, magazines, the Internet, television, radio, personal encounters with our friends and neighbors.

In the movie ``Sicko'' we, as a Nation, saw firsthand how even those with health insurance suffer under the current, for profit, employer- based private health insurance system.

In my office, I receive scores of health care horror stories each month, and have binders in my office of health care tragedies that we have collected over the last 8 years. In fact, when Michael Moore was doing research for ``Sicko'' he received 25,000 health care horror stories himself, after he made an appeal for those horror stories on his website.

I'd like to read a health care horror story sent to us by Adrienne Campbell from Michigan, a story, that, unfortunately, millions of Americans who are underinsured or uninsured can relate to. Here's her story.

My sister, who is 22 years old right now, was diagnosed with cervical cancer, the same cancer I had at the same age. She graduated from college back in December, so she is off my dad's insurance.

Jobs are hard to find here in Michigan, so she's working two part- time jobs, and neither of them provide insurance for part-time workers.

She has to go through what I did, but instead of actually being able to get medical treatment right away, then having to pay for it, she has to put off until she and the hospital can work out a payment plan. They told her the soonest they might be able to perform the surgery will be in April.

We've been calling around seeking other options. She's at Stage 4. I was at Stage 2, when I went through my ordeal, so she's in much worse condition than I was; which worries me.

This is unacceptable. It's like I am living my horror all over again, only this is my sister. This is why we have

to fight. We have to shake things up this election year.

There's nothing you can do for my sister at this point, except keep her in your prayers, and I hope that she can get surgery soon. But, for those women who may get cervical cancer down the road, let's fight for universal health care so they don't have to go through the money worries.

I love my sister, Victoria, or as my daughter calls her, Aunt Gickie, because she can't say Vickie.

Please, just keep her in your prayers and thoughts. Thanks for letting me vent. I love her too much to see this happen to her.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a health care system in this country. What exists is a fragmented, nonsystem of health care. It's a wasteful and inefficient patchwork of different plans and schemes that allow too many people to fall between the cracks.

The complexity of this nonsystem is what makes it unsustainable. Private health insurers are in the business to make a profit. Make no mistake about it. In fact, the real problem is that insurance companies are not as much in the business to provide care as they are in the business to deny care. They keep profits up by avoiding high risk patients, limiting the coverage of those they do insure, and passing costs back to patients through copayments and deductibles.

They deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including such costly diseases as athletes foot and yeast infections.

They employ an army of adjusters who go through mountains of paperwork, all mostly working to figure out a way to deny a claim. We have the story of insurance company whistleblower, Dr. Linda Pino, who tells us she was paid a bonus on how many claims that she could deny, and threatened with demotion if she authorized payment on more claims than her peers.

These practices are harmful. They're expensive. All those adjusters and paperwork cost a lot of money. Add to that insurance costs the insurance company's spending on advertising, huge executive salaries, and profits for shareholders, and the result is an average overhead of 15 cents on the dollar. Compare that with Medicare's overhead which is between 2 and 3 cents.

The complexity of this nonsystem not only leads to gaps in coverage and navigating nightmares, but it's underscored by the duplicity and waste created by the multitude of health insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, who's been on this plan for--several Congresses ago he was and is the original co-founder and original signer with me to this bill. He's worked relentlessly in the Congress and across the country in making it clear that we're working on a system that some day is going to bring so much joy and benefit to the millions of Americans in this country. He's a fearless, dedicated, articulate leader, and I would now yield to my colleague, Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague that I am so flattered that he remembers the days when we started out with just a few Members. We're up somewhere about 90 now and growing every week, every month. More and more people are joining us. And in addition, there are growing numbers of medical professionals, doctors, researchers, health care experts, who are all recognizing how important what you have said is in terms of how we move out of the situation that we're in.

Your description of the pain and suffering of so many of our citizens because of the lack of health care leads to situations so horrible that they truly shock the conscious.

Thank you, Congressman Kucinich.

And as our numbers grow in the Congress, you know that the American people have already indicated in policy after policy that they want a universal health care plan. Many are willing to even pay more to get it, but they don't have to. And this is a labor of love which I am so proud that nearly 100 of our colleagues are now working with us.

And I yield again to the gentleman.

In addition, we are creating a system of preventive health care. We are creating a system in which people, when they initially get sick, can go to a doctor instead of being forced to go to emergency rooms where they get temporary treatment, and then they're back at home or on the streets again. We will make the country healthier. And national health care is an ambition that is very much related to national security. So I'm pleased that all of these things can occur with the consideration of House Resolution 676.

In the last 10 years, the cost of health care to businesses has increased 140 percent. We need an efficient universal health care system that protects American businesses from skyrocketing health care costs so that, as a Nation, we can remain competitive in the global marketplace.

The rising cost of health care in this country has played a significant role in the current economic climate, specifically with regard to the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries. Between 2000 and 2007, United States health premiums have risen 98 percent, while wages have only increased by 23 percent. The average family health insurance plan now costs more than the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker.

Our fractured non-system of health care is crippling our economy. But don't take my word for it, just ask the United Automobile Workers and the AFL-CIO, or even the automobile makers themselves. Health care has become such a central issue for General Motors that Economists magazine only partly

in jest called the company a pension hedge fund wand health insurance business that happens to make cars.

Ford and General Motors pay nearly $1,500 in health care costs for each vehicle they produce, while BMW pays $450 in Germany, and Honda only $150 per vehicle in Japan.

A General Motors executive told former Senator Tom Daschle, a proponent of universal health care, that the high cost of health care is the single largest impediment to creating more jobs in the United States. An IBM executive, Senior Vice President for Human Resources Mr. J. Randall McDonald, recently predicted that 5 years from now this problem will have to be cured or the competitiveness of the United States will be drastically impacted.

Small business employees are one of the fastest growing segments of the uninsured and now comprise about one-fifth of the total uninsured population. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius told the New York Times, ``Affordable coverage for small business owners and self-employed individuals is probably the biggest challenge that we have in Kansas and most states.''

Incredibly, one-fifth of working age Americans, both insured and uninsured, have medical debt that they are paying off over time. More than two-fifths of these people owe $2,000 or more. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, accounting for half of the personal bankruptcies. If unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country, then how can we in good conscience delay any longer in Congress to create a truly universal health care system?

High deductibles in private health insurance plans are another barrier to consistent care. Eleven million people with health insurance have per-person deductibles of $1,000 or more. One recent study found that 44 percent of adults with deductibles of $1,000 or more did not fill a prescription, declined to see a specialist, skipped a recommended test or treatment, or didn't see a doctor when they had a serious medical problem.

There are additional sums spent by hospitals and doctor's offices to deal with each insurance company's rules, regulations, and forms to fill out. After a number of our satellite industries take a cut, we're looking at up to 50 cents on the dollar being spent on administration, marketing and profits. All this is money we could be spending on health care.

Drug prices in this country are about 60 percent higher than prices in Canada or Britain, and this is not because Big Pharma is doing so much research and development. In fact, data from the pharmaceutical companies' own annual reports show that they spend almost three times as much working on marketing and administrative costs as they do on research and development.

It is not because American companies are carrying the burden of doing research and development for the rest of the world. Drug companies in the European Union put out about the same number of new products each year that American companies do. And our drug industry's research and development gets huge taxpayer subsidies from government-supported research done by the National Institutes of Health and American universities. In fact, only a very small percentage of the new drugs produced in America are in fact innovative developments. Most are varieties of old drugs developed simply to extend patent protections so that they can keep on charging those high, excessive prices.

The reason drugs cost more in America than anywhere else boils down to a single factor: Profit. The drug companies have the highest profit margins of all American corporations. Their profits as a percent of sales run about 19 percent, compared to a median of about 5 percent for Fortune 500 companies.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are concerned about the direction in which our economy is heading. As we spiral headlong toward a recession, if we're not already in one, both large corporations and small businesses have to make difficult decisions to keep their business afloat. For most Americans, the loss of employment means the loss of health insurance.

The bottom line: If we can streamline the operations of the health care system by decreasing wasteful overhead and appropriately allocating funds, we can not only ensure the coverage of everybody in the United States, but we can provide for true health care. And that is an important point; coverage does not equal care.

My plan, H.R. 676, is simple. And its simplicity is the very thing that will allow it to succeed where others will fail. Many of the plans generally add an individual mandate and even more insurance options. Others suggest financial mechanisms like tax credits or savings accounts. These other plans will not guarantee coverage that is universal, affordable or comprehensive. They fail to do anything to decrease administrative costs or complexity, in fact, they add to it. They can't control costs, and so ultimately they will be unsustainable.

Now, I began from the premise that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege, a basic human right. This is the consensus opinion of the international community, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other documents.

I also believe that government has a fundamental role to play in guaranteeing this right to each and all of its citizens. This is the view of the other industrialized nations, all of which have single payer health care systems that cover all their people, cost far less than ours and, sadly, get more and better results in terms of health outcomes.

I believe that health care must not be a market commodity. The market dictates that one's ability to consume a particular product is constrained by one's ability to pay for it. This approach may be feasible when one is talking about buying hamburgers or tennis shoes, but it is unacceptable when it comes to health care. Our access to health services should be determined by only one thing, what our doctor thinks we need. Profit should not be a factor.

Let me clarify: I do not advocate socialized or government-run health care, such as the National Health Service in Great Britain. I propose a plan that is publicly financed, but privately delivered, like those in Germany or France or Taiwan.

The role of the government in the H.R. 676 proposal is limited to collecting revenues and disbursing payments to providers. Doctors, hospitals and clinics will continue to be run privately. I believe they will be required to operate as not-for-profit organizations.

In a single payer system, we could do just that. We will do just that. Revenues would flow into the system through an automatic payroll tax, very little paperwork required. Doctors would bill the government electronically and they would be reimbursed electronically, cutting out the middle man, and the savings would be tremendous.

Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and consultancies such as the Lewin Group consistently find that the savings under a single payer plan would be more than enough to cover all of the uninsured. So, in fact, it's possible to cover all Americans under a comprehensive health plan without spending any more money than we do now. We would just be more efficient with it.

The two other major drivers of health inflation are the increasing use of expensive prescription drugs and the proliferation of new and expensive medical technologies. A single payer system would address both these costs.

By leveraging the buying power of the Federal Government, we can negotiate huge discounts both for drugs and for other major drivers of health inflation such as medical technology. We can bring down the cost of medical technology by allocating it more efficiently. As it is, we have no organizing structure to manage the distribution of health care resources. The result is that we have a glut of medical imaging machines, specialists, and other medical services which are seen as generating the most potential profit for their owners; hospital A has one MRI machine, hospital B then feels it must have two MRI machines, and so on. To end up with MRI machines all over town standing vacant while we continue to spend enormous sums on acquiring more is unwise and impractical and should be ended.

Under a single payer system, we can distribute resources more efficiently so

that we are buying MRI machines based on the need for them, not based on how much profit they can generate for a particular hospital.

A regional board could determine, with the input of doctors and other providers, what number of machines would be appropriate for the population based on demographics and other factors.

Allow an explanation of how a single-payer system under H.R. 676 would work. Existing public health care spending, including government spending for Medicare and Medicaid, would continue, but it would flow into a single trust fund. We would add a payroll tax of about 3.3 percent each to workers and employers. In addition to the 1.45 percent Medicare tax, the total health care tax would be 4.75 percent. This is cheaper than what the private health insurance companies charge; so families and businesses will be spending less than what they are spending now if they have insurance.

We also get revenue from other sources like one quarter of 1 percent tax on certain stock and bond transactions. All these revenue sources add up to more than enough to cover current spending. But just in case there are additional expenses in a particular year, we also authorize an annual appropriation.

Revenue flows from the Federal trust fund into the accounts of the currently existing Medicare regions. Reimbursement is then negotiated with doctors and other providers at the regional level, with current levels being the starting point. Doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, while hospitals and other large institutions are paid with monthly lump sums known as global budgets based on current expenditures. Global budgets are cost-control mechanisms that are very effective in other single-payer systems.

Every American would receive a national health insurance card at birth or would be able to apply for one at the post office or other government facility. The application form is limited to 2 pages. Everyone living in the United States would be eligible. All medical necessary services would be covered, including inpatient and outpatient care, mental health care, dental care, and prescription drugs. Patients can go to the doctor or health care provider of their choice.

Private insurance companies are prohibited from duplicating the coverage provided under the plan. They may still offer coverage for nonmedically necessary services, such as cosmetic surgery. They are not prohibited from being hired by the government to do billing services, but overhead costs would be strictly regulated.

This plan relies on the existing Medicare infrastructure for administration. There is no ``new government bureaucracy.'' In fact, there will be far less bureaucracy in health care after the role of the insurance companies has been limited.

Just to let you know, there are nationally recognized health economists and physicians who believe that if we spent more efficiently the money we are already currently spending on health care, then we would cover every American with quality and affordable health insurance right now through a privately delivered, public financed, single-payer system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill cosponsored by Representative Bill Delahunt and Ranking Member Lamar Smith. H.R. 1777, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2007,'' removes the current sunset attached to an exemption in the antitrust laws that permits schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in making their determinations.

The exemption also allows for agreement on the use of a common aid application form and for the exchange of student financial information through a third party.

In 1992, Congress passed a similar temporary exemption, which was first extended in 1994, then again extended in 1997, and once again extended in 2001. The exemption passed in 2001 expires later this year. During the years of its operation, we have been able to witness and evaluate the exemption, and we have found that it seems to be working.

The need-based financial aid system makes financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. The schools have been concerned that without this exemption, they would be required to compete--through financial aid awards--for the very top students, which could result in a system in which the very top students receive an excess of the available aid while the rest of the applicant pool receives less or none at all. Ultimately, such a system could undermine the principles of need-based aid and need-blind admissions.

Because the exemption has thus far appeared warranted, I support H.R. 1777 and hope that it will continue to protect need-based aid and need- blind admissions, and preserve the opportunity for all students to attend one of the Nation's most prestigious schools.

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of Equal Pay Day, which was yesterday, April 22, 2008. Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men's and women's wages. The day, observed on a Tuesday in April, symbolizes how far into the year a woman must work, on average, to earn as much as a man earned the previous year. Because women earn less, on average, than men, they must work longer for the same amount of pay. In other words, the average American woman must work 16 months to earn what a man did in 12. The wage gap is even greater for most women of color.

President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, but the wage gap between men and women has been closing at a very slow rate. In 1963, women who worked full-time, year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In 2006, women earned 77 cents to the dollar.

The wage gap exists, in part, because many women and people of color are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. More than half of all women workers hold sales, clerical and service jobs. Studies show that the more an occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays. Part of the wage gap results from differences in education, experience or time in the workforce. But a significant portion cannot be explained by any of those factors; it is attributable to discrimination. In other words, certain jobs pay less because they are held by women and people of color.

Democrats are taking action to address the wage gap. The House has already passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restores basic protections against pay discrimination by rectifying the May 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court decision that overturned precedent and made it much more difficult for workers to pursue pay discrimination claims. The Senate is scheduled to consider this legislation this week. The House is also considering the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing more effective remedies to women who are not being paid equal wages for doing equal work. I strongly support both of these measures.

Equal pay is not simply a women's issue, but a family issue. The wage gap hurts everyone--husbands, wives, children, and parents--because it lowers family incomes that pay for essentials: groceries, energy bills, doctors' visits and child care. Furthermore, 41 percent of women supply their families' sole source of income.

It is estimated that if we do nothing, it will take until 2057 to close the pay gap. To force women and their families to wait nearly another 50 years to receive equal pay for equal work is absolutely unacceptable. I pledge to continue the fight for pay equity until all Americans, regardless of gender or race, receive equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Speaker, as Americans mark Earth Day, they can also mark the new direction Congress has begun to reverse the failed energy policies of the past, committing instead to clean, and renewable energy for the future. It may have taken the president almost 8 years to acknowledge global warming, but this is a problem that Congress did not wait to address.

Congress passed the historic and bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to begin to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, respond to the global warming crisis, grow our economy, and lower energy costs. The Act will save 5.3 billion metric tons in energy- related CO2 emissions from 2008-2030 and reduce oil consumption by 2.4 million barrels a day--almost a 25 percent reduction over today's usage.

The Congress has taken the steps the current Administration has failed to take. It pleases me that on this Earth Day in 2008 we can acknowledge and celebrate the positive direction we are taking in addressing our energy use, climate change, and its impact on our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act. This important bipartisan bill extends a moratorium until April 1, 2009 on seven Administration-imposed Medicaid regulations that if implemented, would severely reduce Federal Medicaid funding.

Without the moratorium, Medicaid funding to States for vital programs and services would be cut by $18 billion over the next 5 years. These cuts include restrictions on Medicaid payments for graduate medical education (GME), rehabilitation services, and outpatient hospital services, among other services.

It would be irresponsible to think about cutting funding to academic medical centers and residency training programs when we currently face a shortage of physicians. If these cuts were allowed to go into effect, we would be unable to provide necessary medical services to many people who depend upon Medicaid. Constantly cutting funds to the very services which keep our fragmented, non-system of health care afloat is inhumane and nonsensical.

The tactic of underfunding Federal programs in an attempt to undermine their effectiveness demonstrates the Administration's lack of commitment to the programs that faithfully and effectively serve the American people.

Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 5613 is simply a necessity. We must halt the underfunding of important Medicaid programs. I wholeheartedly support the passage of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act.

Madam Chairman, today I rise to support H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Federal Student Loans Act of 2008. As current turmoil in the U.S. financial markets make obtaining and affording student loans more and more difficult, today we take an affirmative step to relieve that pressure on students and families by providing greater access to Federal loans. This legislation: reduces borrowers' reliance on costlier private college loans and encourage responsible borrowing; gives parent borrowers more time to begin paying off their Federal PLUS college loans; helps struggling homeowners pay for college; provides the U.S. Secretary of Education additional tools to safeguard access to

student loans; and encourages Federal financial institutions to exercise their existing authorities to ensure borrowers have access to Federal loan funds in the upcoming academic year.

Here in Congress, we must ensure that access to higher education is as unfettered as possible. As our economy goes more and more global we have to assure that our future generation will be able to effectively compete on the world stage.

I strongly support this bi-partisan legislation that makes access to college more affordable thereby giving greater opportunities to many more to pursue the American dream. The Ensuring Continued Access to Federal Students Loans Act will achieve its goal at no additional cost to the government and with so much money being spent on building infrastructure in Iraq by the Executive branch it is encouraging to see the Congress show fiscal restraint and responsibility.

I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for their work and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor so families can receive relief before this coming August.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1095) recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and the 20th anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

House Resolution 1095 recognizes the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

On April 11, 1968, days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion or national origin. Twenty years later today, the law was expanded by the Fair Housing Amendments Act to include protections against discrimination based also on sexual orientation, familial status, and disability.

Many may not recall Dr. King's advocacy for fair housing, but he recognized the tremendous costs our society pays if patterns of segregated living continues, as it has.

While there is no question that the Fair Housing Act has become a powerful tool for advancing civil rights, there is much more to be done. For instance, most Americans still live in communities largely divided by race, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance.

An estimated 3.7 million people are discriminated against in housing transactions every single year. This number doesn't even include instances of discrimination against persons with disabilities, nor does it reflect discriminatory lending in insurance practices, planning and zoning, or other forms of profiling. We have so much more to do.

Enforcement is a key area where we need further improvement. For example, while 27,000 complaints of housing discrimination were filed with the Federal Government last year, Housing and Urban Development issued 31 charges, and the Justice Department filed 35 cases.

Landlords, real estate agents, lenders, insurance agents, and others know they face limited risk of prosecution for discrimination. Even those who are prosecuted often pay such a minor penalty that discrimination today becomes just another cost of doing business. It's no surprise that housing providers continue to discriminate and communities across our Nation sadly remain highly segregated.

The most recent manifestation of discrimination in housing is the current sub-prime foreclosure crisis, which presents some of the greatest fair housing and civil rights issues facing our Nation today. Fueled by reverse red-lining practices, the sub-prime foreclosure crisis is now causing extreme havoc for minority owners who were targeted for predatory home loans that stripped away their home equity and put their houses at risk of foreclosure. It's also affected financing markets all over the world.

If left unchecked, the foreclosure crisis threatens to wipe out many of the advances the country has made in the 40 years since the passage of the Fair Housing Act.

To be an effective tool in our fight against discrimination, the Fair Housing Act must be enforced, and we need to augment it with tough anti-predatory lending legislation, which is what I intend to do.

We should also enact legislation permitting bankruptcy judges to restructure home mortgages so deserving families can save their homes from foreclosure and, thereby, stem falling housing prices in communities all across our Nation.

After centuries of discrimination and denied opportunities, enactment of the Fair Housing Act 40 years ago marked a milestone in our Nation's efforts to achieve equal housing opportunities.

And so today, we celebrate the Fair Housing Act's 40th anniversary with, I hope, a renewed commitment to achieving and furthering its goals by supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member, for his great work on the matter.

And now I recognize the Reverend Al Green of Texas, the author of this idea, for 4 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mel Watt, for as much time as he may consume. And I note that, although the gentleman from Texas is not a minister, we may all agree that he is a good preacher.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the Honorable Maxine Waters of California for as much time as she may consume.

Madam Speaker, I recognize now the gentlewoman from Oakland, California, a valuable member of the House (Ms. Lee), for such time as she may consume.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5570) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the sunset in the special immigrant nonminister religious worker visa program, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Members of the House, this week we are honored by a visit from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and are reminded of the good work that people of faith do all around the world. I am pleased to bring before the House at this time the Religious Worker Visa Extension Act of 2008.

This measure would reauthorize the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program, which also allows non-minister religious workers to obtain special immigrant status in the United States so that they may do the work required of their faith. If we don't act, the program will sunset at the end of September of this year.

Non-minister religious workers are people of faith who are called to a vocation or who are in traditional religious occupations with a bona fide nonprofit religious organization in the United States. Examples of those called to a vocation include nuns, monks, and sisters. Examples of those in religious occupations include missionaries, counselors, translators, religious instructors, cantors, and other pastoral care providers.

The program provides up to 5,000 special immigrant visas per year that religious denominations or organizations in the United States may use to sponsor foreign nationals to perform religious service here. Once granted, this type of visa allows religious workers to immigrate permanently to the United States.

Since it was first enacted in 1990, the program has been extended four times, most recently in 2003. Working with the ranking member of our committee, Lamar Smith, we're making changes in the program for the first time to address potential fraudulent uses of the program. None other than our Immigration Subcommittee Chair, Zoe Lofgren of California, has led the way in fashioning these proposals.

First, the bill requires that the Department of Homeland Security issue regulations by December 31 of this year to eliminate or reduce any fraud in the program. Then it extends authorization for only 15 months if the Department of Homeland Security fails to issue those regulations. This would enable Congress to better consider other possible avenues to address possible or potential fraud in the program if that proves necessary. If the department does issue the regulations, the authorization is extended for 6 more years, for a total of a little over 7 years. Finally, the bill requires the Inspector General to report on the effectiveness of the regulations by September 30, 2010.

With these significant anti-fraud provisions we have worked together with our Republican colleagues to add, I am confident Congress will be equipped with the information it needs to determine whether further action to prevent fraud in the program is warranted. And if it is, we do not hesitate to take such appropriate action.

So I hope that we will receive unanimous support on this bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I recognize now the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), Chair of Immigration, without whose inordinate leadership we would not have been able to arrive at the accommodations and agreements that is in the bill that is now before us, and I yield to her such time as she may consume.

I would like now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, who has worked on immigration as long as anyone on our committee, and her industry and cooperation have been very effective in bringing us together this afternoon. And I yield her as much time as she may consume or as much time as I have left, whichever is the longest.

Thank you very much, Steve King, ranking member.

Am I getting from your remarks that you are implying that Protestants commit more abuse than Catholics in this particular program?

Did you say yes or no?

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield back my time if the other side has no further speakers.

Absolutely.

Madam Speaker, I return any unused time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the seven bills the House is considering on suspension today in conjunction with National Public Health Week. This week gives us an opportunity to reflect on the importance of quality public health programs in all of our lives--from effective childhood vaccination programs, to early screening programs for diseases, to ensuring that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care. These seven bills were all approved unanimously by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I expect they will get a similar level of support today from the full House.

H.R. 1198, The Early Hearing Detection & Intervention (EDHI) Act, was introduced by Rep. Lois Capps. Congresswoman Capps is a registered nurse (R.N.) who served for 20 years as a nurse and health advocate for the Santa Barbara School District. I want to commend her for continuing to advocate for the health of young Americans by authoring this legislation. H.R. 1198 will reauthorize this critical Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program, intended to identify and help infants with hearing loss, through FY 2013. It also expands screening and intervention services to include young children.

Children who are hard of hearing find it much more difficult than children who have normal hearing to learn vocabulary, grammar, word order, idiomatic expressions, and other aspects of verbal communication. It is estimated that approximately 391,000 school-aged children in the U.S. have unilateral hearing loss, and early detection of hearing problems is critical to developing and implementing effective treatment for these children. When EHDI was first authorized in 1999, only 3 percent of all babies were being screened for hearing loss at birth; today, 93 percent of babies are screened within one month of birth.

H.R. 2464, The Wakefield Act (Emergency Medical Services for Children) reauthorizes through FY 2011 and makes improvements in the Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program, which is designed to improve emergency medical services for children needing trauma or critical care. There are over 30 million child and teen visits annually to our nation's emergency rooms. And yet many emergency services are still designed for adults. Since the EMSC program was created 20 years ago, major improvements in emergency care for children have been realized. Injury-related deaths have dropped by 40 percent over that period of time.

H.R. 1237, The Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act, is designed to improve the analysis of tests for cervical cancer by ensuring that health care professionals who read tests for cervical cancer are skilled in today's medical technology. It modernizes the cervical cancer testing program by requiring continuing medical education for pathologists to assess their diagnostic skills and ensure they keep up with the latest practices. The program is modeled after a similar quality standards program for reading mammograms. The American Cancer Society predicted 11,150 women in the U.S. would be diagnosed with cervical cancer last year and 3,670 women would die from the disease. The way to cut down on the number of deaths is to ensure that all cervical cancer tests are read correctly.

S. 845, The Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act, was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent in August 2007. Nationally, 42 percent of all nursing home admissions take place as a direct result of geriatric falls. Fractures of the hip are relatively common in seniors and often lead to devastating consequences. Disability frequently results from persistent pain and limited physical mobility. Hip fractures are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality; approximately 15- 20% of patients die within one year of fracture. Most hip fractures occur in elderly individuals as a result of minimal trauma, such as a fall from standing height.

S. 845 launches a comprehensive preventative care program to reduce the number and

severity of falls by the elderly. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement directives to reduce falls, including improving the identification of seniors who have a high risk of falling; supporting education campaigns focused on reducing and preventing falls and educating health professionals about fall risk, assessment and prevention; and conducting research to reduce falls.

H.R. 2063, The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act, helps schools deal with food allergies among student populations. Nearly three million American children have food allergies. The danger of a life-threatening reaction from exposure to an allergen can be found beyond obvious places like the lunchroom. This danger also lurks in places where kids--and adults--wouldn't normally expect it, including field trips, school celebrations or special projects like arts and crafts.

Last year, the Congress appropriated $491,000 for the CDC to develop guidelines for schools regarding food allergies and anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction involving multiple organs). This bill requires HHS, in consultation with the Department of Education, to develop a policy for schools on appropriate management and emergency plans for children with food allergies and anaphylaxis. The policy would be provided to schools within one year after enactment, and schools could voluntarily implement the policy. The bill also authorizes HHS to award grants to local school districts to help them in implementing the policy.

S. 1858, The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on Dec. 13, 2007. This bill educates parents and health care providers about newborn health screening, improves follow-up care for infants with an illness detected through newborn screening, and helps states expand and improve their newborn screening programs. Incredible advances in medical technology have equipped us to better screen and treat infants for congenital, genetic and metabolic disorders that, if left untreated, could lead to severe disability and death. S. 1858 authorizes funding to help states expand and improve their programs. It also helps to ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening, so that tests are as accurate as possible and infants receive appropriate care.

The House Amendment to S. 793, The Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Act, was sponsored by Rep. Bill Pascrell. The House amendment was reported out by the Energy and Commerce Committee on March 13 and is similar to S. 793, which was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on December 11, 2007. The thousands of brain injury survivors who are returning home from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are joining the 5.3 million similarly afflicted Americans here at home. TBI is now the leading cause of death and disability among young Americans. The legislation would require the CDC to monitor brain injury incidence and create a reporting system to track the condition. It also directs CDC to study treatment techniques and NIH to conduct basic research to improve treatment. The House version renews through FY 1012 the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, which authorizes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to provide state grants for patients with traumatic brain injury to enter treatment and rehabilitation programs.

These bills make critical contributions to our nation's public health infrastructure, and I commend the House for considering them. I would like to add, however, that the single most important public health initiative the Congress could take would be to pass national health insurance legislation such as that proposed in my bill, H.R. 676, which was recently endorsed by the American Public Health Association. With a system of truly universal health care, there would no longer be any need to implement the stopgap, patchwork measures that we are so frequently obligated to consider.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 945) raising awareness and promoting education on the criminal justice system by establishing March 2008 as ``National Criminal Justice Month''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the measure before us calls attention to a critically important issue, the state of our Nation's criminal justice system. We do this by designating March as National Criminal Justice Month, because it will serve to raise awareness of the causes and consequences of crime, as well as our crime prevention efforts. It is a subject and an area that, for too long, we have not paid close attention to, and it is our feeling that this designation will have a great impact upon our work.

Millions of Americans have been victimized by crimes, and many millions more pass through our criminal justice system. We have more than 2 million Americans behind bars, I am sad to say. This means that almost one out of every 100 Americans is incarcerated. Among African American men between the ages of 20 and 34, one in nine are behind bars. What a tragedy. What a waste of human life and potential.

The New York Times observed, ``We have become a prison nation.''

[From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 2008]

Prison Nation

After three decades of explosive growth, the nation's

prison population has reached some grim milestones: More than

1 in 100 American adults are behind bars. One in nine black

men, ages 20 to 34, are serving time, as are 1 in 36 adult

Hispanic men.

Nationwide, the prison population hovers at almost 1.6

million, which surpasses all other countries for which there

are reliable figures. The 50 states last year spent about $44

billion in tax dollars on corrections, up from nearly $11

billion in 1987. Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan and

Oregon devote as much money or more to corrections as they do

to higher education.

These statistics, contained in a new report from the Pew

Center on the States, point to a terrible waste of money and

lives. They underscore the urgent challenge facing the

federal government and cash-strapped states to reduce their

overreliance on incarceration without sacrificing public

safety. The key, as some states are learning, is getting

smarter about distinguishing between violent criminals and

dangerous repeat offenders, who need a prison cell, and low-

risk offenders, who can be handled with effective community

supervision, electronic monitoring and mandatory drug

treatment programs, combined in some cases with shorter

sentences.

Persuading public officials to adopt a more rational, cost-

effective approach to prison policy is a daunting prospect,

however, not least because building and running jailhouses

has become a major industry.

Criminal behavior partly explains the size of the prison

population, but incarceration rates have continued to rise

while crime rates have fallen. Any effort to reduce the

prison population must consider the blunderbuss impact of

get-tough sentencing laws adopted across the United States

beginning in the 1970's. Many Americans have come to believe,

wrongly, that keeping an outsized chunk of the population

locked up is essential for sustaining a historic crime drop

since the 1990's.

In fact, the relationship between imprisonment and crime

control is murky. Some portion of the decline is attributable

to tough sentencing and release policies. But crime is also

affected by things like economic trends and employment and

drug-abuse rates. States that lagged behind the national

average in rising incarceration rates during the 1990's

actually experienced a steeper decline in crime rates than

states above the national average, according to the

Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group.

A rising number of states are broadening their criminal

sanctions with new options for low-risk offenders that are a

lot cheaper than incarceration but still protect the public

and hold offenders accountable. In New York, the crime rate

has continued to drop despite efforts to reduce the number of

nonviolent drug offenders in prison.

The Pew report spotlights policy changes in Texas and

Kansas that have started to reduce their outsized prison

populations and address recidivism by investing in ways to

improve the success rates for community supervision,

expanding treatment and diversion programs, and increasing

use of sanctions other than prison for minor parole and

probation violations. Recently, the Supreme Court and the

United States Sentencing Commission announced sensible

changes in the application of harsh mandatory minimum drug

sentences.

These are signs that the country may finally be waking up

to the fiscal and moral costs of bulging prisons.

Each year, we on all of our criminal justice systems spend more than $200 billion. The Pew Center Report states that Connecticut, Delaware, my own State of Michigan, Oregon, and Vermont spend as much or more money on corrections as they do on higher education. I think this is a disgraceful circumstance, and the policies of simply incarcerating increasing numbers of Americans without real opportunities for rehabilitation fail those who go through the criminal justice system, but, more than that, it hurts and diminishes every American.

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

Mr. Speaker, I only have a little bit more to add, and so I yield myself a little more time.

This measure is a good one even though it comes a little late. Some may have noticed that this is for a celebration in March, and this is April. The reason is that we couldn't get it on the schedule before now, but there were many celebrations in connection with this matter that occurred.

I want to commend the judge and distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee from Texas who is managing the bill for his personal comments that he has brought to this matter today. I can imagine the kinds of things that not only him but members of the judiciary across this country are seeing, heartbreaking incidents, circumstances and experiences.

There are so many people that are incarcerated, they are in prison because of nonviolent offenses, of sentencing procedures that are really out of the hands of the court. People think of the unlimited powers of the judiciary. Many times they are restricted in terms of what it is they can do and how they can handle the matters that come before their courts.

I am impressed that our colleague would tell us of some of the things that move him in his experience in the judiciary. Now I don't want to think that he was driven from the judiciary to the Congress because that is like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire; but I am happy that he serves on the committee with great distinction, and we always are pleased to be able to work together on these kinds of matters.

In that spirit, I urge the support of H. Res. 945.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1312) to expedite adjudication of employer petitions for aliens of extraordinary artistic ability, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, H.R. 1312 is a bipartisan measure intended to address the extended delays in visa processing faced by nonprofit arts organizations when they invite foreign artists to perform in the United States.

Hosting a performance by a foreign artist or arts group requires, obviously, a great deal of planning. And the host organization has to calendar the event, advertise it, and sell tickets far in advance. And these efforts are made with the expectation that the visa petitions filed by the guest performers will be adjudicated in time for their arrival in the United States. If their adjudication is delayed, it causes a tremendous disruption and has led some arts organizations in the world to stop engaging foreign artists altogether because they can't risk the expensive canceling of performers.

Performances by foreign artists give American audiences the opportunity to experience a variety of arts traditions. And when they're called off, it's not just the host organization and the audience that bears the cost, the cancelled show impacts the local economy as well.

Current law requires the Department of Homeland Security to process petitions for O and P visas within 2 weeks of receipt of a completed petition. And the Department has implemented a premium 15-day processing for a $1,000 fee, but when a visa is required to be processed in 14 days, it seems particularly unreasonable to ask a nonprofit entity to pay $1,000 for a 15-day service. So, what we do in this measure is strike a balance by giving the Department 30 days, more than twice the current processing time, and if the visa is not processed in 30 days and the petitioner is a nonprofit organization, the bill requires the Department to provide premium processing for no additional fee.

I'm happy to say that my colleagues, the former Judiciary Committee Chair, James Sensenbrenner, and the current ranking member, Lamar Smith of Texas, have tried and worked with us to arrive at a solution similar to the one laid out in this bill.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although there is great support for this bill, I have no other requests for time. And in full confidence and trust of the other side, I return the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, Steve King, for yielding to me.

In other words, you're recommending that we should have had a two- tier system, because there are some aspiring jazz performers in Europe who want to come over, and they have considerably less than $2 billion in accumulated assets.

Well, it's so uncharacteristic of you to want to sock the rich and not just charge everybody the same amount.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1061) commemorating the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and encouraging people of the United States to pause and remember the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1061.

I thank the Speaker, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this Friday, April 4, will mark the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination in 1968.

I note that, once again, our distinguished colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, has introduced a bipartisan House Resolution calling upon all Americans, on this anniversary, to pause and remember the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and I'd like to acknowledge the many members of the Judiciary Committee supporting this resolution, Lamar Smith, Gerald Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Bobby Scott, Keith Ellison, Steve Cohen and others.

Dr. King was not only our greatest civil rights leader, but he was also the person that personally has given me the political, philosophical undergirding to attempt to transfer his belief system into some of the objectives of the United States through the Congress. What a leader he was.

I shall be in Memphis this Friday celebrating, with the distinguished gentleman from New York, Harry Bellefonte, and many others, the work that he has done in trying to bring justice, understanding, full employment, an economic system, and end the war in this country and in this world.

He addressed, on the night before his assassination, the sanitation workers in Memphis at the Mason Temple. And I don't know about you, but it seemed to me that he had a premonition that he was spending the last days of his life on earth in this cause. He seemed to have projected his understanding of how fleeting his life may have been.

Of course, I'm also connected to Dr. King by his family, Coretta Scott King and their children, and of course, the unbelievably courageous Mrs. Rosa Parks, who later came to Detroit and honored my office by working there for many, many years.

And so I'm very pleased to join in with this re-examination and remembrance of our great leader, to me, one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. And so I'm proud to stand before you as the chairman of the Judiciary to bring this resolution forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield as much time as he may consume to the one person in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate that knew Martin King, Jr., better than any of us here. He's a distinguished civil rights leader in his own right, but he worked closely with Dr. King and the SCLC and SNCC and other civil rights organizations. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, for as much time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member, Mr. Smith.

I would like now to recognize Steve Cohen, our distinguished colleague from Memphis, Tennessee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. David Scott, and I recognize him for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable Elijah Cummings, who is not only an attorney but a person of deep religious persuasions, a leader in the church. He has worked continually in the area of civil rights, voter activity, and I yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's now my high privilege to recognize the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who many years ago had me bring to one of his meetings Rosa Parks, and that was the beginning of a very important relationship between Mrs. Parks and Steny Hoyer and myself.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1041, I call up the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1041, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we finally come to the point in time where we consider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and I am delighted to bring this measure to the floor.

I begin by observing that there are few rights that are more fundamental to our democracy than the right to have protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and there are few responsibilities that are more important than the government's protecting us from foreign threats. I submit that the measure before us does both of those and regards them as the two most important acts that we can pursue as responsible Members of the Congress. That conflict or tension goes to the very core of who we are as a Nation.

Now, for more than 30 years, we have relied on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to strike the appropriate balance between the government's need to protect our rights from foreign attack and our citizens' right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to have freedom of speech. The heart of that bargain was that the government could indeed use its awesome power of surveillance but only through independent court review. That's FISA since 1978.

Now, a few years ago, the administration unilaterally chose to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens without court review. And last August, when this scheme appeared to be breaking down, this administration pushed through a law that it had caused to be drafted that essentially transferred the power of independent review from the courts to the Attorney General of the United States. Today, we will be voting on legislation to restore that proper balance.

And so we present to you an uncomplicated consideration of a measure that has three titles. The first allows the government to obtain a single court order to approve surveillance against all members of any known terrorist group. It includes important safeguards to make sure that this power is not used to target innocent Americans.

The chairman of the Intelligence Committee has a lot more to say about that.

The second title deals with the difficult issue of how we make sure that those telecom carriers who assisted the government in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy are not placed in a position where they cannot defend themselves in court.

And then, finally, the last title provides an accounting of the highly controversial warrantless surveillance program. The administration tells us they have nothing to hide and the program was lawful in their program or its implementation. If that is the case, they should have nothing to fear from this blue ribbon commission that will be created by the enactment of the provision before us.

Now, we learned only yesterday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was continuing to misuse the authorities that we granted it under the PATRIOT Act 6 years ago to unlawfully obtain information about law-abiding Americans. Just yesterday. We learned 4 days ago that the National Security Agency was using its massive power to create a nationwide database of American citizens. Four days ago.

And so that's why I believe it important that we include the civil liberties safeguards set forth in the legislation today. We have been working very closely with the American Civil Liberties Union in that regard, and we have a half dozen other organizations that have fully endorsed the bill.

The legislation before us gives the administration and the agencies every tool they need to protect our Nation against terrorism, while at the same time protecting our own citizens' civil rights and liberties. I urge that we carefully examine the proposition before us.

And I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Jim Marshall of Georgia, who has worked with us on this month in and month out, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Of course.

Mr. Marshall, I couldn't put it any more appropriately myself.

I agree, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a coauthor of the bill before us today and the chairman of the Constitution Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I remind my two distinguished members of Judiciary, Mike Pence of Indianapolis and Steve Chabot of Ohio, that the reason we are not taking up the Senate provisions is that the House has a better idea, and we are coequal. They don't give us whatever they want.

The Chair is pleased now to recognize Bobby Scott of Virginia, chairman of the Crime Committee, for 2 minutes.

I wanted my friend Judge Gohmert to know that the reason we didn't get the bipartisanship that the other body did is that you guys boycotted our meetings. Your ranking member or leader could have sent anybody to our meetings, but you didn't come. So now you are complaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to recognize Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a valuable member of our Judiciary Committee, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee, Keith Ellison from Minnesota, for 1 minute.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), a former member of the Intelligence Committee. I wish I could give her more time.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to recognize Barbara Lee, but I want my dear friend from Michigan to know you cannot give retroactive immunity when you don't know what you're immunizing. That's the problem.

I turn now to the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, a distinguished civil rights fighter who has her own experiences, and we yield proudly to Barbara Lee of California for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining?

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has worked with us on this matter, is recognized for 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield everything but 1 minute to the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield the balance of our time to the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, whose legal expertise has held him in good stead over the months that we've worked on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.