Floor Statements

I thank the Speaker and the leaders, the floor managers on this provision. I want to thank first of all the ranking member, Lamar Smith; the Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, Zoe Lofgren; and in particular, my friend, Chairman Nick Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee because we have all worked together in making important refinements to the bill. There was a great deal of cooperation.

As it is now clear, what we are dealing with now is the fact that the minimum wage question, the immigration standards, and the taxes to the islands are of great consequence. I commend all of my colleagues here this afternoon for the tremendous work that has occurred.

Labor unions and human rights groups have long called attention to these abuses. And both the Clinton and Bush administration Justice Departments have brought prosecutions under the 13th amendment.

I do also want to commend this administration for the excellent work they have done in this regard.

The decision in the 1976 Covenant establishing the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to leave decisions on minimum wages, immigration standards, and

taxes to the Islands has had tragic consequences.

Wide-open guestworker programs, and utter lack of basic labor protections, turned the Northern Marianas into a haven for sweatshops. But modern slavery didn't just occur by day, in the garment factories. It also occurred by night, as cruel brothel owners used deceit and brutality to gratify the demand for prostitutes.

Labor unions and human rights groups have long called attention to these abuses, and both the Clinton and Bush Administration Justice Departments have brought prosecutions under the Thirteenth Amendment against some of the most notorious offenders. But these efforts have been blunted at every turn by the factory owners and their high-paid lobbyists.

A more fundamental effort is clearly needed, and long overdue, and this legislation will finally provide it. It brings the Commonwealth under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with a balanced approach that will help the Islands through the transition. Workers in the Islands will no longer be kept in the shadows, where they have been too readily prey to abuse.

We can see how this effort is already having a result. Just this weekend on Saipan, as many as 15,000 workers and their supporters marched for unity and justice. Fifteen thousand marched on an island of only 60,000 people. We owe it to them to act.

The fundamental immigration policy and human freedom issues at stake are of obvious importance to the Judiciary Committee, and I deeply appreciate the openness of the Natural Resources Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Rahall, in working with us on important refinements to the bill.

Immigration Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren and I have also had tremendous help from Ranking Member Lamar Smith, in making these improvements in a bipartisan fashion. Finally, I would like to thank the Administration for its constructive role in bringing us to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This agreement with the Senate builds on the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act passed this summer. The ambitious legislation before us today, which includes wide-ranging solutions from 10 House committees, invests in the future of America and puts our nation on a path towards energy independence. It will strengthen national security, lower energy costs, grow our economy, create new jobs, and begin to reduce the threat of global warming.

With this legislation, Congress is taking groundbreaking steps to address the crisis of climate change. The bill will increase the efficiency of our vehicles. It makes an historic commitment to American-grown biofuels and requires that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources. The legislation strengthens energy efficiency for a wide range of products, appliances, lighting and buildings. It also repeals tax breaks for big oil companies, and invests that money in clean renewable energy and new American technologies. Not only will these measures reduce our dependence on foreign oil and grow our economy, they will also save consumers billions of dollars.

The Energy Independence and Security Act includes several provisions that will strengthen our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. I am particularly pleased about the compromise that was reached on fuel economy standards, raising standards for new cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill ensures that this fuel economy standard will be reached, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring that we keep American manufacturing jobs and continue domestic production of smaller vehicles. I want to applaud Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dingell for reaching an agreement that is supported by both environmentalists and the automobile industry.

The legislation before us today also reduces our dependence on foreign oil. The initiative includes a historic commitment to American biofuels that will fuel our cars and trucks. It includes critical environmental safeguards to ensure that the growth of homegrown fuels helps to reduce carbon emissions and does not degrade water or air quality or harm our lands and public health. The plan establishes a plug-in hybrid/electric vehicle tax credit for individuals and encourages the domestic development and production of advanced technology vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. It also includes tax provisions totaling approximately $21 billion--which includes the repeal of about $13 billion in tax subsidies for Big Oil.

The Energy Independence and Security Act will help lower energy costs by promoting cleaner energy, greater efficiency, and smarter technology. It requires utility companies to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources--such as wind power, biomass, wave, tidal, geothermal and solar--by 2020. The bill includes landmark energy efficiency provisions that will save consumers and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars on energy costs by requiring more energy efficient appliances, such as dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators and freezers. It requires improved commercial and federal building energy efficiency and assists consumers in improving the efficiency of their homes. The bill also strengthens and extends existing renewable energy tax credits, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas and trash combustion, while creating new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy, as well as supporting research on solar, geothermal, and marine renewable energy.

The energy bill will help create new American jobs and reduce the threat of global warming. The landmark fuel efficiency standard, renewable electricity standard and energy efficiency provisions will not only save consumers and businesses money, but will also significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, this package creates an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train a quality workforce for ``green'' collar jobs. These investments in renewable energy could create 3 million green jobs over 10 years. The bill helps small businesses lead the way in renewable energy by increasing loan limits for purchasing energy efficient technologies. It rewards entrepreneurship in the energy sector by increasing investment in small firms developing renewable energy solutions. This initiative also takes aggressive steps on carbon capture and sequestration to come up with a cleaner way to use coal.

For too long, our country has lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in recognizing and taking action to address the climate change crisis. Global warming endangers all of us, but threatens to have the most devastating impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our nation is the richest in the world and one of the largest contributors to global warming, yet, until today, it has not made any substantial efforts towards addressing the problem. I am proud to join with my colleagues as we at long last put America on the path to becoming part of the solution.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (``PRO IP'') Act of 2007, legislation that highlights the importance of intellectual property enforcement by making several changes to substantive civil and criminal laws; providing for more efficient and directed coordination efforts among the various agencies; and allocating more resources towards enforcement efforts. I am joined by Representatives Berman, Smith, Schiff, Feeney, Issa, Chabot, Cohen, Keller, Jackson-Lee and Goodlatte.

The objectives and content of this legislation are supported by a broad range of interests. Many unions and guilds, such as the Teamsters, Directors Guild of America, SEIU, AFTRA, Unite Here, AFM, Laborers, OPEN, IATSE, and others, have sent letters in support of comprehensive IP enforcement legislation, in general, and more specifically, of many of the provisions contained in this bill. On the industry side, the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, which represents 500 companies and trade associations, from the Motor Equipment Manufacturing Association and PHARMA to NBC Universal and Cleveland Golf, issued a June 2007 set of legislative objectives that are largely captured in this bill.

This legislation is an important and necessary step in the fight to maintain our competitive edge in a global marketplace. By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society.

The need for this legislation is clear. Counterfeiting and piracy costs the global economy between $500 and $600 billion a year in lost sales. That's around 5 to 7 percent of global trade. It costs the United States between $200 and $250 billion a year in lost sales, including 750,000 jobs.

And it's not just about money. Counterfeiting and piracy can place human lives at risk. As counterfeiting proliferates in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, aircraft, and auto parts, the harm can be a matter of life and death. For example, the World Health Organization estimates that the prevalence of counterfeit pharmaceuticals ranges from less than 1 percent in developed countries to over 30 percent in developing countries, and over 50 percent of counterfeit pharmaceuticals are obtained from illicit websites. The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest estimates that counterfeit drug commerce will grow 13 percent annually through 2010, nearly twice the rate of legitimate pharmaceuticals. As we read stories about people being harmed by counterfeit toothpaste, toys, or drugs, we see the real effects of these practices on American lives.

This legislation attempts to address these intellectual property offenses in a broad and encompassing manner. It does not take only one approach toward bolstering our intellectual property laws but rather tackles the challenges in several ways. First, Titles I and II strengthen the substantive civil and criminal laws relating to copyright and trademark infringement. For example, the legislation address several issues related to registration of a copyright and the manner in which damages are calculated for certain claims of infringement, as well as tackling some of the problems that occur at our Nation's borders and harmonizing the various forfeiture laws for the different intellectual property offenses.

Second, Title III of the legislation establishes the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, USIPER, in the Executive Office of the President, to handle nationwide and international coordination of intellectual property enforcement efforts. This legislation provides that the USIPER, together with an interagency Intellectual Property Advisory Committee, composed of every federal agency with expertise in either Intellectual Property protection or enforcement, will generate a joint strategic plan to marshal the disparate resources and expertise of United States enforcement efforts and coordinate and consolidate these efforts.

Third, Title IV provides for the appointment of intellectual property attaches to work with foreign countries in their efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy. The attaches will be responsible for coordinating training and technical assistance programs within the host country.

Finally, Title V of the legislation raises the level of intellectual property enforcement coordination within the Department of Justice by placing the functions of the existing Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section related to enforcement of intellectual property laws and trade secrets under the auspices of a new Intellectual Property Division, and also transfers the International Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinators to this new Division. This section of the bill also provides for additional law enforcement resources, including local law enforcement grants and additional CHIPS and dedicated FBI personnel, and requires DOJ to provide an annual report of its efforts in intellectual property enforcement. Finally, the bill promotes transparency in the prosecutorial process by directing the DOJ to review and consider modifying their standards for accepting or declining prosecution of the intellectual property laws, including procedures for advising complainants and victims of intellectual property crimes.

If the United States is to maintain its position in the increasingly competitive global economy, we must fulfill our obligation to American intellectual property rights holders and ensure that their inventions, creations, writings, and discoveries are not stolen without effective recourse. This comprehensive piece of legislation goes a long way toward protecting that creativity and ingenuity that is vital to the U.S. economy.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I mistakenly voted against H. Res. 37, providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 710, with amendments. In fact, I support this critical legislation, which would make paired kidney donation legal and allow organizations like the United Network for Organ Sharing to track eligibility for paired donation.

I voted for passage of the original bill, H.R. 710, The Charlie Norwood Living Organ Donation Act, on March 7, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3791) to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, 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, including extraneous material, on the bill under consideration.

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

Members of the House, this measure, H.R. 3791, called the SAFE Act, will improve the ability of our law enforcement officers to investigate offenses involving child pornography and the exploitation of children by the Internet.

Under current law, Internet service providers are required to file a report to the cyber tip line of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children when the provider learns of child pornography. The center serves as a clearinghouse for leads and sends the reports to law enforcement agencies around the United States and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Unfortunately though, many Internet companies are unaware of these obligations, and the law is unclear as to the precise information that is required to be reported to the center. This bill addresses the aforementioned problems.

First, it facilitates the reporting of child pornography from Internet service providers to the center by clarifying the information that must be reported. Then it specifies the data that must be maintained by the reporting company for law enforcement purposes. And finally, it provides certain liability waivers for the center and Internet service providers for their roles in dealing with child pornography as required by law. Therefore, H.R. 3791 makes clear the precise reporting obligations of Internet providers and, in this way, will facilitate the investigation and prosecution of child pornography and other crimes against children that involve the Internet. I think this is an important measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize again Nick Lampson of Texas for the great work he has done in this area. I yield him as much time as he may consume.

But I do want to mention Steve Chabot of the Judiciary Committee, who has worked with us all in the creation of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1759) to establish guidelines and incentives for States to establish arsonist registries and to require the Attorney General to establish a national arsonist registry and notification program, 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 include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, according to the United States Fire Administration, arson is the leading cause of fire in the United States and annually results in over 2,000 injuries, more than 400 deaths, and $1.5 billion in property damage. Even more problematic is the fact that arson is one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute. Only 16 percent of intentionally set fires result in arrests, and only 2 percent result in conviction.

Although arson causes significant losses in lives and property each year, there is no national registry requiring convicted arsonists to notify law enforcement of their residence, place of employment, or other information that would aid law enforcement in identifying offenders with a demonstrated disposition for committing arson offenses, and that's precisely what H.R. 1759 does. We respond to several aspects of the serious concerns presented by arson.

To aid law enforcement in identifying criminal activity related to arson, we established the National Arson Registry, a comprehensive nationwide network of registry databases developed by the Attorney General that tracks convicted arsonists.

The bill also requires jurisdictions to create arson registries and mandates that convicted arsonists register in each jurisdiction in which he or she resides, is an employee, or is a student at an educational institution.

And finally, the bill requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to coordinate the various databases through the National Arson Registry and make the information available to law enforcement agencies. Armed with this information, law enforcement authorities will be able to solve many more arson crimes than they are able to now. Knowing that they're registered with and known to local authorities may deter convicted arsonists from committing new arson.

This bill rightly enjoys broad bipartisan support. I commend my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee,

Lamar Smith and the floor manager of the bill, and urge that we support legislation whose time has come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee from California, Mr. Adam Schiff, and would grant him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Crime Committee on the Judiciary, my good friend Bobby Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I would close by holding out my hand of cooperation to my chairman of the Crime Subcommittee because I know he has been working carefully with the leaders of this bill and we have accepted some of his recommendations, and it will be my pleasure to make sure that we consider the points that he has made here this afternoon.

So with that I am very pleased to urge the support of this measure that's before us. I think it is important and timely and will be very constructive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 826) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the hanging of nooses is a horrible act when used for the purpose of intimidation and which under certain circumstances can be a criminal act that should be thoroughly investigated by Federal law enforcement authorities and that any criminal violations should be vigorously prosecuted.

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

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

Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of House Resolution 826, a resolution condemning the hanging of nooses for the purpose of intimidation, violence, and other criminal purposes.

Unfortunately, consideration of this resolution comes at a critical time for our Nation. Many of us had thought the hanging of a noose, a symbol of racial violence, hate, and intimidation down through history was a practice relegated to our past. Since September, however, there have been reports of approximately 50 noose-hanging incidents across this country. It's no coincidence that these disturbing incidents follow in the shadow of the Jena Six case, which documents continuing racial inequity in our Nation even into this century.

As we all know, a hanging noose symbolizes lynching, one of the most shameful, terror-ridden, racial crimes in our history and which, sadly, can be traced back to the very founding time of the United States.

First used to punish African slaves as early as the 17th century, the practice of lynching was commonplace until, I'm sorry to report, as late as 1968. Between 1882 and 1962, nearly 5,000 people, most of them African Americans, were lynched in our country.

There appears to be a resurgence in the hanging of nooses for intimidation or other racist purposes. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, has filed more than 30 lawsuits for hanging nooses in the workplace since the year 2001. The commission observed ``a disturbing national trend of increased racial harassment cases involving hangman's nooses in the workplace.''

In October, a noose was found hanging, of all places, in the Nassau County New York police headquarters locker room. Last month, hanging ropes were found in the United States Coast Guard Academy in the bag of an African American cadet and in the office of a diversity trainer.

Noose incidents are also occurring with disturbing frequency in schools throughout our country. At Louisiana's Jena High School, nooses were hung from a tree that white students had regarded as their exclusive domain for socializing after African Americans sat under the tree. This sparked similar incidents in schools across our Nation. In New York City, an African American professor at Columbia University found a noose hanging on her office door. In North Carolina, four nooses were found hanging at various locations at High Point Andrews High School. Universities in Maryland, Delaware and Indiana have reported noose incidents in recent months. In my own State of Michigan, nooses were hung on the Central Michigan University campus weeks after anti-Muslim pamphlets had been distributed.

As this resolution calls upon Federal authorities to investigate noose incidents, I am heartened to note the Justice Department's efforts to address this problem. At an oversight hearing on the Jena 6 incident held earlier by the Judiciary Committee, the Department stated it viewed such noose hangings as possible violations of Federal civil rights law.

I commend my colleague from the State of Texas, our new Member, Al Green, who for his leadership on this issue should be really commended as an important contribution that he has made. And I would like to acknowledge the Judiciary Committee's members on both sides of the aisle who helped advance this resolution with their active support. The Committee on the Constitution chairman, Jerrold Nadler; the Crime Committee chairman, Bobby Scott; also our stellar members from North Carolina, Mel Watt; and from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee; from California, Maxine Waters; Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin; Georgia, Hank Johnson; Tennessee, Steve Cohen; Wisconsin, James Sensenbrenner; and Texas, Louie Gohmert. These and many others have been very helpful in laying the groundwork for us to come together to hearten not just the people in this country but our law enforcement agencies, particularly the Department of Justice, in trying to reduce and indeed eliminate this unfortunate system of hate that is spreading, unfortunately, in our country.

I think we can head it off, and I hope with the passage of House Resolution 826 that will be, in fact, accomplished.

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

Could I ask my colleague, the floor manager (Mr. Forbes), I would like to ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes more on each side if that would be agreeable with the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we have 5 additional minutes added to each side.

I thank my colleague the floor manager and my friends on the other side.

I am privileged now to recognize the gentleman from Texas, who came to

me with this idea, Mr. Al Green, and I will yield him 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to call my dear friend and newest member to the Congressional Black Caucus, Laura Richardson, to speak, and I recognize her for 2\1/2\ minutes.

The Chair is pleased to recognize the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee, who has graced us with her presence in my district recently, and we yield her 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the former Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and we would grant him 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to call upon the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Honorable Joe Baca of California, and I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Steve Cohen, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. William Jefferson, who has worked very hard on matters of racial justice across his career in the Congress, and I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague, the floor manager, that I have only one final speaker. We will be concluded. So if you would like to yield back, we would finish up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I yield finally to the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, a distinguished lawyer, prosecutor, judge, and now a chairman in the House of Representatives, to close for us.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 888) to amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, to allow the prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances.

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.

Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. It was in response to Nazi Germany's policy of systematic murder. The Convention, to which the United States is a signatory, established genocide as an international crime which signatory nations undertake to prevent and punish. It's the duty that we address in the Genocide Accountability Act before us at this moment.

We must remember that genocide affects all humanity, not just the direct victims, and not just the perpetrators, but all those who stand by and by their inaction allow those horrible acts to take place. These are the lessons of the Holocaust, of Cambodia, of Bosnia and, more recently, of Rwanda. In Rwanda, we shrugged our shoulders and waited until 800,000 people were killed before we were willing to call that atrocity by its rightful name, genocide.

Sadly, even after Rwanda, the world has mostly stood by while yet another genocide has unfolded before our eyes. The genocide in Darfur has thus far claimed 200,000 lives, and maybe going up to as many as 400,000 lives. Two and a half million people have been displaced as a result of the conflict in Darfur. Both President Bush and Congress have correctly described the situation in Darfur as genocide.

As history repeats itself in Darfur, it seems that we have to learn to say the right things about these atrocities, but too often we cannot seem to muster the consensus and strength of will in the United States and the international community to make our deeds match our words. Along with an increased United Nations peacekeeping force, and a long- term political agreement among its many factions, we need to explore every avenue available to stop this massacre from continuing and prevent similar ones in the future.

The Genocide Accountability Act is an effort to ensure that our United States laws provide adequate authority to prosecute acts of genocide. We should not have a situation where perpetrators of genocide are allowed to enter the United States and use this country as a safe haven from prosecution. What an untenable thought.

But under current law, genocide is only a crime if it's committed within the United States or by a United States national outside of the United States. In contrast, the laws of torture, material support for terrorism, terrorism financing, hostage taking, and many other Federal crimes allow for extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes committed outside the United States by non-United States nationals.

So there's a gap in the law. This has led to real-life consequences. I understand that the Justice Department has identified individuals who have participated in the Rwandan and the Bosnian genocides and who have entered the United States under false pretenses. Under current law, these individuals can be deported but they can't be arrested or prosecuted for committing genocide.

And so we bring to you on the floor today a measure to allow us to do more than send them off to another country, not knowing whether they will ever be prosecuted. This measure will allow us to bring them to justice. Amending our laws to allow for vigorous prosecution of genocide is a first, a small, but very, very important step toward ending the impunity under which those who commit genocide currently operate.

I am so proud of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who have worked with us on this: Lamar Smith; the floor manager for the Republicans, Mr. Forbes; and many others. We must remember that it cannot be the last step, this measure. If we are going to fulfill our role as the beacon in the world for basic human rights and freedom from persecution, we must continue to develop the humble legislative beginning that we have begun today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary on the Democratic side, Mr. Howard Berman.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee has played an enormously important role in the measure before us, and I am pleased to recognize Chairman Bobby Scott for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a distinguished member of Judiciary, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

I want to close by observing that the Judiciary Committee has handled four measures on the floor this afternoon, and I have enjoyed the full, unstinting cooperation of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes). I want to thank him very much for it. And I appreciate the kinds of issues that we have handled here on this day in the House of Representatives. They are issues of local and global import that I think reflect in a very complimentary sense upon the things that can be accomplished in the Congress when we put our best efforts and bring our most cooperative spirits to the table. And so I thank all of the speakers on both sides of the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, I rise to yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, although we passed

the constitutional amendment against slavery in 1865, slavery still exists, not just in the world, but in the United States of America. And so we begin an examination of H.R. 3887, commending the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Republicans and Democrats, and commending those members of the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, that have come together today to pass under suspension H.R. 3887.

Slavery is a social, ugly circumstance that still controls and guides the destiny of so many people in this country. It is important that the 13th amendment's guarantee of freedom operates, whether it involves forced prostitution, whether it operates in farms or sweat shops, or in domestic service.

Mr. Speaker, if you could have heard the powerful testimony that was given by our witnesses on this bill. It shocked me. People were forced to live and work under conditions of fear and terror that was extended to their parents. A young woman, who couldn't even use her real name in the committee, told about the trafficking of human beings inside of America, in the City of Detroit, where this club was using her to commit all kinds of acts and raise huge amounts of money at the same time. As one of the television shows on NBC showed yesterday morning, guess what? There is more money being taken out of prostitution in America than in the drug industry. Drugs come number two to prostitution and involuntary servitude.

This is what brings all of us to the floor today. I am very proud of these two committees in the House that are dealing with new enforcement tools to combat modern-day slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their services, or by brutal street pimps who coerce and keep under their domain these women, young women, at that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment here to respond to concerns to that an aspect of this bill, that it will somehow federalize prostitution. That is not the case. That is not what we are trying to do. The sex slavery offense, renamed ``aggravated sex trafficking,'' still captures cases of coercion that implicate the 13th amendment. The new ``sex trafficking offenses'' improves the Mann Act to allow prosecution of pimps who affect commerce but don't actually cross State lines.

This new tool should not diminish other anti-slavery efforts or the fight against child exploitation. We expect it to be used consistently with the principles of Federal prosecution that defer to local authority as appropriate. We want the States to control the prosecution of this offense.

There is no place in today's America for slavery. And for that reason, H.R. 3887 is critically important, because it puts new potency in the Thirteenth Amendment's guarantee of freedom: whether on farms or sweatshops, in domestic service or forced prostitution.

In a recent hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, we heard moving and powerful testimony from a young woman who has further inspired us to work together to bring this bill to the floor, to draw the line against modern slavery.

The bravery of that young woman, her story, and her willingness to speak on behalf of all victims of human trafficking, are an example for all of us, and a call to action for us to meet again our Nation's ongoing mission to deliver on the promise of freedom that has been enshrined in our Constitution since the Civil War.

The Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude and slavery is as important and basic a civil right today as it was at the time of Emancipation. Its promise of freedom is a sacred trust, written in the suffering of all of those who have been held in bondage. As a country, we owe it to them to never stop fighting for freedom.

This bill is named in honor of William Wilberforce, the famous English antislavery legislator of the Nineteenth Century.

It will equip our law enforcers with tough new enforcement tools to combat modern slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their servants, or by brutal pimps.

It will protect immigrants and U.S. citizens alike within our country, and provide law enforcement training and victim protections overseas as well.

I would like to take a minute to respond to concerns that aspects of the bill could somehow ``federalize'' all prostitution and pimping. This is not the case.

The servitude offense--which the bill renames ``aggravated sex trafficking''--still captures only those prostitution offenses that implicate a liberty interest under the 13th amendment because they involve coercion.

The new ``compelled service'' crime allows more flexibility in proving enslavement.

And the crime entitled ``sex trafficking'' improves the Mann Act to allow prosecution of pimps whose activities affect interstate commerce, not just those who actually cross a State line.

It is not our intent to redirect resources away from child exploitation, terrorism, or other important law enforcement, or to depart from the principles of federal prosecution that defer to local prosecutions where possible and serve as a ``backstop'' to catch the worst of the worst.

This approach maintains the structure and definitions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and builds upon the good work of the Civil Rights Division and its antitrafficking task forces around the country. As was noted in yesterday's New York Times, these Federal and State task forces are vigorously confronting modern slavery in forced prostitution and forced labor alike.

We expect those efforts to continue, and now to intensify with these additional enforcement tools. This bill brings law enforcement officials and service providers together, to punish traffickers and to protect victims and their families. And it provides critical immigration mechanisms to protect children and other vulnerable people.

In the 1800s, escaped slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth spoke out against chattel slavery. Their voices, and the voices and efforts of many others, led to a constitutional commitment that everyone in this country would be forevermore free from slavery and involuntary servitude.

The young woman who testified before our committee did not allow her enslavement and incarceration to silence her either. She became a voice not only for herself, but for other victims of slavery in its various forms, many of whom remain in bondage.

We owe it to her, and to the millions who continue under the oppression of modern slavery and involuntary servitude, to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, who has worked with us in a highly cooperative way.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) first dusted off the 13th amendment of the Constitution in 1999, but it is the present chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has brought this incredibly important constitutional amendment, enacted in 1865, into real live use, and I am proud to recognize the chairman of that committee for 2\1/4\ minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Wilberforce bill, tracks the definitions in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of the year 2000, builds upon the good work of the civil rights division within the Department of Justice and its anti-trafficking task forces around the country which vigorously confront modern-day slavery which does exist in forced prostitution and forced labor alike. We expect these efforts to continue, and we will monitor them with great scrutiny.

In the 1800s, escaped slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, who came out of this brutal experience in America, spoke out against chattel slavery. Their voices and the voices of many others led to a constitutional commitment that everyone in this country would be forevermore free from bondage.

The young lady who testified with an assumed name before the Judiciary Committee did not allow her suffering to silence her. And neither will our voices be silenced. We urge that this bill pass, hopefully unanimously, from the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, legislation to combat abusive practices and improve oversight of the mortgage industry.

The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 will reform mortgage practices in three areas. First, the bill will establish a Federal duty of care, prohibit steering, and call for licensing and registration of mortgage originators, including brokers and bank loan officers. Second, the new legislation will set a minimum standard for all mortgages which states that borrowers must have a reasonable ability to repay. Third, the legislation attaches limited liability to secondary market securitizers who package and sell interest in home mortgage loans outside of these standards. However, individual investors in these securities would not be liable. Finally, the bill expands and enhances consumer protections for ``high-cost loans'' under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act and includes important protections for renters of foreclosed homes.

Passage of H.R. 3915 could potentially help hundreds of thousands of homeowners across this Nation who are facing home foreclosures, and need more flexible terms in paying back their mortgages given that we are experiencing increased job layoffs; especially in Detroit and the State of Michigan. According to the Michigan Association of Realtors, the State of Michigan is in deep systematic recession. The auto industry has lost tens of thousands of jobs in the past few years, and there are more cuts to come.

In fact, Michigan saw 11,554 new foreclosures filings in February 2007. That put one of every 366 Michigan households at risk of losing a home because of missed mortgage payments. The Wayne County/Detroit area reported 6,653 new foreclosures in January of 2007, more than twice the number reported in December 2007. That amounts to one new filing for every 124 households. H.R. 3915 would create a more progressive and equitable home mortgage loan policy that will help scores of working families across this Nation and Michigan keep their homes; and prevent them from becoming homeless. This legislation will address the ongoing practice of routing unsuspecting borrowers into loans that are not appropriate for their needs and that they can't afford. H.R. 3915 will also stop the practice of creative loan financing by unscrupulous brokers who may unnecessarily increase the fees and costs to write the loan.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called the housing downtown ``the most significant current risk to the U.S. economy.'' Last week Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the situation will get worse before it gets better. Many believe that faulty mortgage lending practices have precipitated this credit crisis, and that the situation will get worse before it gets better. Therefore, I believe that this legislative remedy is a much needed remedy in a time of crisis.

I want to thank my friend Chairman Barney Frank and my Republican colleagues for their bipartisan work to create an outstanding piece of legislation that moves us in a proactive direction. In conclusion, let me say that this comprehensive bill brings sweeping and much-needed changes to the mortgage market. It will reform many of the flaws in the current system that has led to the mortgage foreclosure crisis. The American people have asked us to provide the tools and oversight necessary to address this crisis and we have been able to achieve that goal. I whole heartedly give my complete support to this legislation. It is my belief that this bill reflects the principles of the Democratic Party which historically has ensured that the Federal Government will provide a safety net and protection for working families in a time of need.

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 H.R. 3773.

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

Members of the House, the RESTORE Act dealing with FISA addresses the needs of the intelligence community for flexibility in dealing with modern communications networks.

It received the most careful scrutiny and consideration by this Committee on the Judiciary, as well as by the Intelligence Committee, chaired by Chairman Reyes, to ensure that it meets every concern our intelligence agencies have raised, every single one of them, and does so consistent with the rules of law, our Constitution, and our values.

Let's begin this discussion this evening by clearing up a few things that the bill will not do. The RESTORE Act will never require our intelligence agencies to stop listening to the bad guys. Never. Special emergency provisions allow us to listen first and get the warrant after the fact, if it's needed. No one will ever have to stop listening to a terrorist plotting an attack. I hope I don't hear that raised on the floor this evening.

The RESTORE Act will not make our intelligence agencies have to get thousands of warrants for terrorists outside the country. It will not do that. Instead, a basket authorization will permit surveillance of an entire foreign terrorist organization. This is the most effective way to target Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other threats to our country and our citizens.

The RESTORE Act does not give the government free rein to listen to Americans. As has always been the case under FISA, this bill requires that the government get a warrant to target an American; any American. We have also a manager's amendment, which continues to promote the goals of intelligence flexibility with appropriate oversight, while safeguarding our security and our liberty. It makes clear that the protections of the act will not inhibit gathering intelligence against present dangers, such as Osama bin Laden, or threats to our troops in the field.

It does provide guidelines to make it easier to determine when the significant purpose of the surveillance act is to acquire information on a United States person and a FISA warrant is needed. It provides important safeguards on dissemination of information about individual Americans when it's acquired under the RESTORE Act's more flexible structure. Specifically, an SES-level manager will review such dissemination on a particularized basis.

Importantly, the RESTORE Act has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the government in conducting unlawful surveillance on Americans. I am sorry to report to you that the other body has a measure that does give that retroactive immunity. The RESTORE Act now on the floor has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the government in unlawful surveillance on Americans.

Until we receive the information, the data, the letters that we have requested to know what they have done, information we have been waiting for more than 10 months for, we can't even begin to responsibly consider such a request. So as of now, it's out. No retroactive immunity.

The legislation that we have before us now is a much-needed start to restoring our system of checks and balances, preserving our liberty, and ensuring that our government has the tools they legitimately need to combat terrorism. We got pressed up against the wall in August. It's not going to happen again. There's a 6-month run on the present measure before us. Before we get pushed up against the holidays, we are saying, Let's do it now.

We have had a tremendous working relationship with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, and his staff and my staff. Majority and minority have been working

closely together to bring to you a commonsense and balanced piece of legislation that does what we set out to do, and that is to preserve our liberties and make sure we have effective security. We want our intelligence agencies strong, but we want to bring the FISA Court back into the picture, and we do in the measure before us.

Six years ago, the administration unilaterally chose to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens without court review. That decision has--to be charitable--created a legal and political quagmire. Officials resigned, the program was riddled with errors, it was shut down for several weeks, officials rushed to the hospital to ask a sick man to reauthorize it over his deputy's objections, and vital prosecutorial resources were diverted. Most importantly, our own citizens questioned wheher their own government was operating within the confines of the law.

Two months ago, when that scheme appeared to be breaking down, the administration forced Congress to accept an equally flawed statute. This new law gutted the power of the FISA court. It granted the administration broad new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the U.S., including physical searches of our homes, computers, offices and medical records. The law contained no meaningful oversight whatsoever.

The legislation before us today seeks to once again strike the appropriate balance between needed government authority and our precious rights and liberties. It tells the government they need no warrant when foreign agents communicate with other foreigners. It reiterates that warrants are needed when Americans are being targeted. The bill also allows the interception of communications of foreign targets who may communicate with U.S. persons. However, it insists that procedures be in place--approved by the FISA court--to insure that no American is being targeted, and that his or her privacy is protected.

The bill also provides for several critical safeguards. We include periodic audits by the Inspector General, we narrow the scope of the authority to protect against threats to our national security, and we protect the privacy of Americans traveling abroad. We also sunset the legislation in December 2009.

The RESTORE Act, which has received careful consideration by the Judiciary Committee and by the Intelligence Committee, addresses the needs of the intelligence community for flexibility and the ability to deal with modern communications networks.

It meets every concern that our intelligence agencies have raised and does so consistent with the rule of law, our Constitution, and our values.

Let me be clear on a few things this bill will NOT do:

The RESTORE Act will never require our intelligence agencies to stop listening to the bad guys. Never. There are emergency provisions and the ability to get a warrant after the fact. No one will ever have to stop listening to a terrorist plotting an attack.

It will not make our intelligence agencies get thousands of warrants for terrorists outside of the country. Instead, they can get a basket authorization to surveil the entire foreign terrorist organization. This is the most effective way to target Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other threats.

The RESTORE Act does not give the government free rein to listen in to Americans. As has always been the case under FISA, this bill requires the government to get a warrant if it wants to target an American.

The Managers' Amendment also reflects the RESTORE Act's goals of intelligence flexibility and oversight, while ensuring both safety and civil liberties. It makes it clear that the protections of the Act will not inhibit gathering intelligence against present dangers, such as Osama bin Laden or threats to our troops in the field. It provides guidelines to flesh out what should be considered when determining whether a significant purpose of collection is to acquire information about a U.S. person, such that a FISA warrant would be required.

The Manager's Amendment also provides important safeguards on dissemination of information about individual Americans when it is acquired under the RESTORE Act's more flexible structure. Dissemination of U.S. person communications acquired under the RESTORE Act's basket authorities can only happen when an SES-Ievel supervisor determines that the identity of that person is needed to understand or assess the importance of the foreign intelligence, and to protect the national security of the United States. This is not a blanket authorization to unmask everyone intercepted, but must be done on a person-by-person basis.

Importantly, the bill has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers. Until we receive the underlying documents relating to their conduct from the administration--and we have been waiting for more than ten months--we cannot even begin to consider this request. Sending a small set of the documents to a subcommittee of the other body does not begin to meet this test.

There is one of the grave concerns about the Protect America Act that bears mention as we consider the RESTORE Act. The Protect America Act was overbroad in the types of entities from which the government could compel information, reaching into business or medical records or libraries. We have narrowed the scope of the acquisitions in the RESTORE Act to ensure that the government can only seek information under the ``basket authorizations'' from telecommunications service providers and related companies.

I share the concern of our library community that believes their mission and the chance to bring knowledge and freedom of expression abroad will be diminished if the U.S. government can indiscriminately monitor American libraries when they serve foreign users. This is not a hypothetical concern in an age of distance learning. While a library certainly is not the same kind of ``communications service provider'' as AOL or AT&T, it may allow patrons to access the internet, to send emails, and to conduct research on-line, so it literally ``provides'' these communications services to patrons. The Judiciary Committee report indicates that these now-standard library services do not make them ``telecommunications service providers'' for a 105B or 105C acquisition, but let me be clear--nothing in the bill is intended to leave libraries outside of the protections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The legislation before us today is a much needed start to restoring our system of checks and balances, to preserving our precious liberties, and to insuring that our government has all the tools they legitimately need to combat terrorism. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense and balanced legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a very effective member of our committee, Mr. Schiff of California, as well as the gentleman Mr. Flake of Arizona, and I would yield them 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by my friend from California's comments, but I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of the Judiciary Committee, for 1\1/4\ minutes.

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

Would the former Attorney General of California yield?

That is why I seek to have you yield to me, sir.

Osama bin Laden is never going to have any rights superior to any citizen.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we understand that Mr. Lungren in his dramatic presentation about the cumbersomeness and the protections that we are affording bin Laden almost begs the question here.

We have been on this bill for several times. We have got a carve-out here. Nothing prevents conducting lawful surveillance that is necessary to, one, prevent Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda or any other terrorists, Mr. Lungren, or any ally of those persons from receiving any of these protections. We can operate against them without giving them any rights, and I think you must know that by now.

I can't give you time. I have got less than anybody here. No. I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield the balance of our

time on our side to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order, and I object to waiving the reading of the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I do not insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, here we are again at another one of these so-called motions to recommit. Approach them with great care. I strongly oppose this motion.

The minority has just made it clear that they are not seeking to change the bill; they are seeking to kill the bill. The tactic is getting pretty old in the House of Representatives. If they wanted to vote on their proposal today, they would have used the word, doesn't everybody know it now, ``forthwith,'' as I have suggested. But they have refused under well-established House rules and precedents.

Other words do not have that effect, even if they sound like they should. The minority used the word ``promptly.'' It's no accident that they chose that word. The authors of this motion know full well the effect of choosing this word, and so do we. That is why they chose it. They wanted to send the bill back to the graveyard, which is what will happen if this motion is adopted.

I would now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

I thank the chairman.

I am really moved by the sudden concern for immigration rights that the other side has begun to display, to my surprise.

I yield now to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3773, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, cross-references, punctuation, and indentation, and to make other technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan ``Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act of 2007,'' along with Representatives Smith, Scott, Forbes, and Sanchez. This bill will provide new tools to federal prosecutors to combat identity theft and other computer crimes. I am pleased that Representatives Smith, Scott and Forbes, who have been valuable partners in combating the growing problem of identity theft for many years, have joined me in introducing this important criminal bill.

The Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act takes several important steps to protect Americans from the growing and evolving threat of identity theft and other cybercrimes. First, to better protect American consumers, our bill provides the victims of identity theft with the ability to seek restitution in federal court for the loss of time and money spent restoring their credit and remedying the harms of identity theft, so that identity theft victims can be made whole.

Second, because identity theft schemes are much more sophisticated in today's digital era, our bill also expands the scope of the federal identity theft statutes so that the law keeps up with the available technology. To address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes that involve computers located within the same state, our bill also eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a computer's information must be stolen through an interstate or foreign communication in order to federally prosecute this crime.

Lastly, our bill strengthens consumer privacy by requiring companies to give rapid notice of breaches to law enforcement. The bill makes it a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison to knowingly fail to report breaches to the appropriate authorities. The bill also requires agencies to prepare privacy impact assessments for proposed and final rules that pertain to the collection, maintenance, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable information from 10 or more individuals. With limited exceptions, such assessments must be made available to the public for comment.

The Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act is a good, bipartisan measure to help combat the growing threat of identity theft and other cybercrimes. This balanced bill protects the privacy rights of consumers, the interests of business and the legitimate needs of law enforcement. Similarly, I hope that the other Committees of jurisdiction will take up and report out legislation that will protect consumers from ID theft through data security obligations and strong requirements that consumers be notified when the security of their personal information is compromised. Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Representatives who have joined me in introducing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Head Start has been the premiere early childhood education program in the United States since 1965. Since that time, it has benefited 20 million children and families and has become one of the cornerstones of this country's efforts to close the achievement gap, combat poverty, and provide all Americans with the opportunity to thrive. By passing the conference report to H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, we will reinvigorate Head Start and help more children arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed.

The fact is that quality education and early engagement, from both parents and teachers, are essential for our kids' success. Recent findings from the congressionally mandated impact study found that after less than 1 year, Head Start narrowed the achievement gap by 45 percent in pre-reading skills and 28 percent in prewriting skills. Another large study found that Head Start graduates continue to gain ground after they leave the program. Furthermore, Head Start graduates are less likely to need special education services, to be left back a grade or to get into trouble with the law. They are more likely to go on to college and to have professional careers.

This bipartisan reauthorization improves teacher and classroom quality, strengthens Head Start's focus on school readiness, expands access to Head Start for more children, ensures that centers are well- run, boosts coordination between Head Start and State and local programs, and improves comprehensive services that help children by helping their families.

I commend and thank Congressmen Kildee, Castle, and Chairman Miller for their leadership on this critical legislation. Head Start has proven its self as a strong and effective program. The growth and success of millions of American children and families is living proof. We have a responsibility to embrace their success, support it, and strengthen it for years to come. I know that my colleagues will join me in sending this critical reauthorization to ensure the Head Start program meets its full potential.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to passing a funding bill that has a positive economic impact on our Nation, none is more important than the fiscal year appropriation for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.

America's transportation system is being stretched beyond its capacity. Both public and private usage of highways, transit, and aviation systems are increasing at rates far outpacing infrastructure investment. A decaying surface transportation system costs the U.S. economy $78 billion annually in lost time and fuel while congestion adds significant pollution to the air, and substandard roads claim thousands of lives every year.

By investing $40 billion in the Nation's highway system for construction of new roads, repairs and improvements and $1 billion to address deficient bridges across America, H.R. 3074 honors the commitments to capital investment in highway and public transportation infrastructure made by Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and will not increase the Federal budget deficit.

This bill also addresses many of our Nation's pressing housing needs, at a time when we are facing a housing crisis that has directly impacted millions of American homeowners and millions more as the effects have rippled through the U.S. and world economy. National estimates indicate that as many as 2.5 million mortgages will reset to higher interest rates in the near future.

The fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban Development also addresses the plight of homeless veterans. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. By providing $75 million in housing vouchers to homeless veterans, we are beginning to address this problem by providing safe, affordable, permanent housing access to 7,500 of our homeless veterans.

Another housing program strongly supported by my constituents that this bill funds is the Section 8 Project Based Vouchers. If passed the conference report will allocate $6.4 billion, $405 million above 2007 and $568 million above the President's request, to provide affordable housing to 1.3 million low- and very low-income families and individuals, two-thirds of whom are elderly or disabled.

When we pass this bill today and send it to the President, the House of Representatives will be addressing the important challenges of keeping our Nation's transportation system safe and strong, ensuring that every American has adequate shelter, and doing so in a way that strengthens the economy.