Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call for the passage of H.R. 4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Act.'' The war in Iraq cannot be won through the use of military force or another troop surge. The majority of the American people do not support the war in Iraq; a recent study stated that nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose the war. Since the war began in 2003, 3,859 brave U.S. troops have died in Iraq. In 2007 the death toll has already reached 860 soldiers who have lost their lives, making it the worst year yet for the American military in Iraq. Currently, 28,400 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq since the war began with 12,750 suffering injuries so serious they were prevented from returning to duty.

President Bush's failed Iraq policies offer a war with no end in sight. There is no progress on political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Just this week, it was reported that the U.S. effort to organize nearly 70,000 local Sunni fighters to solidify security gains in Iraq is facing severe political and logistical challenges as the central government resists in incorporating them into the Iraqi police and army. Last month, the Shiite political alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the U.S. military to halt the recruitments of Sunnis.

The bill in the house tonight will require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal completion of redeployment by December 15, 2008. It will require a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat to force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations. H.R. 4156 will prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped. The legislation also calls for an extension to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture. The bill will also provide to meet the immediate need of our troops, but defers consideration of the remainder of the President's nearly $200 billion request. At the current rate of expenditure, the additional funds will last 4 months.

Many insist that American troops cannot leave Iraq until we have achieved victory; and democracy has been established. History has shown us that civil wars and insurgencies are ended only through rigorous diplomacy, economic development, and national reconciliation between former enemies; not by a troop surge and an endless war. Diplomacy works, and now more then ever is the time to implement the recommendations of the Baker Hamilton Commission, and call for a regional peace summit in the Middle East.

Let's bring all parties who are involved in the conflict to the peace table, so they can begin to resolve their differences. If international diplomacy ended the intractable conflicts in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the conflict between Israel and Egypt, and Rwanda; then international diplomacy can work in Iraq. Once we begin the strategic withdrawal of U.S. troops out of Iraq, and show the Iraqi people we do not wish to occupy their country, then and only then can we begin the real possibility of having an effective international peace conference.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1593) to reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the community in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to

improve reentry planning and implementation, 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 and on H.R. 3461.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as the prison population has grown over the past two decades, so has the number of prisoners completing their sentencing and returning to the general population. More than half a million, some 650,000 men and women, are leaving the Federal and State prisons each year. While the vast majority of the prisoners are committed to abiding by the law and becoming productive members of society, they often encounter the same pressures, the same environment, the same temptations that they faced before prison, and with insufficient resources to assist them in dealing with those pressures and temptations, sometimes, despite their best intentions at the time of release, too many of them commit new crimes and end up back in prison. More than two-thirds of them are arrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release. This exacts a terrible cost in financial terms as well as in human terms.

Congress has been very active over the years in strengthening our criminal laws and our investigative and prosecutorial tools against crime. The bipartisan legislation we are considering today, aptly named the Second Chance Act, complements those efforts by helping give ex- offenders the tools they need to stay out of trouble. It's a very commonsense piece of legislation and it recognizes that too many ex- offenders lack the education, job skills and stable living arrangements, the substance abuse treatment and health services that they need to successfully reintegrate into our society.

Many have trouble finding a job and some have trouble holding a job. Many move straight from their prison cell to a homeless shelter. Many entered prison with alcohol and drug habits, and the pull remains hard to resist once they reemerge in our society. Many are physically or mentally disabled. Some have chronic disease; others need psychological treatment. Many left spouses and young children behind when they entered prison. While these family relationships can be of tremendous value in helping an ex- offender build a stable life outside prison, it can be very difficult to rekindle these ties after a long and painful absence.

The Second Chance Act will help provide these men and women with the education, training, counseling and other support needed to help them obtain and hold steady jobs; to kick their drug and alcohol habits, if they have one; address medical and dental needs; rebuild their families; and deal with the many other challenges that they face in their efforts to successfully rejoin society. These kinds of programs have been tested on a smaller scale, to be sure, where they have already made a measurable difference in reducing recidivism. The Second Chance Act builds on these efforts in a measured but significant way to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and help ex-offenders lead productive and law-abiding lives.

We have the support of current and former chairmen and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and the crime subcommittee, chaired by Bobby Scott of Virginia, as well as a wide range of national, State and local law enforcement and rehabilitative organizations.

I submit for the Record a new section-by-section analysis reflecting some of the revisions to the bill reported in response to suggestions by members of the Committee on the Judiciary. I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration in their support of this measure.

Changes to Second Chance Act of 2007 (Reported Version to Suspension

Version)

Added Rule of Construction to confirm Act does not create a

right or entitlement to assistance or services, and to

promote transfer of programs to programs not funded under

this Act.

Reduced number of new Federal programs from 18 to 10 by

consolidating or eliminating programs.

Reduce authorized spending from $427 million to $330

million over two fiscal years.

Reduced permissible uses under reauthorized reentry

demonstration programs from 21 to 9.

Added measurable goals for programs--reducing recidivism

rate by 50 percent over 5 years, and 10 percent over 2 years.

Prohibited Bureau of Prisons from Preventing Access to

Chapel Library Materials.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are the day after Veterans Day. We come back in comity and goodwill. We are trying to finish off the last week before the Thanksgiving recess. And I want Judge Louie Gohmert, my dear friend from Texas, to understand as much as I can explain to him about the reservations that he has raised thus far.

I want him to know this is not a partisan bill at all and that the changes that have been made to the bill were made before Friday when you examined it. So if you were examining this measure on Friday, that is the last, that is all she wrote, because we haven't been in since then.

So, please understand that, first of all, this is a bipartisan bill. We had the hearings. We had a markup in which you participated rather actively. We had a record vote. We went to the Rules Committee. Everything is working I think very smoothly, according to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott, and the author of this bill for three Congresses, Congressman Danny Davis of Illinois.

Please know that we have been working on this bill. You are right, it has been through a lot of changes. The changes started before you graced us with your presence in the Judiciary Committee as a very important member of it. We have been working on this all the time. We think it is in an improved state.

I would just like you to know that we have 212 organizations, and because we are on a rather fast schedule here this afternoon, I won't bother you with them, but none of them are political. They are all community organizations. They are all organizations concerned with the reentry of people who have served their time and are now coming out.

We are trying to deal, Judge Gohmert, with this huge problem of people returning from their terms in prison. They come out and sometimes in my State, I hate to say this, they don't even have a bus ticket or a suit of new clothing to get to where they are supposed to be going. Many of them don't know where they are going. It is that dislocation that creates the situation of so many of them returning back.

One of the most distressing things I ever heard when I was visiting one of these places is that the guard tells the exiting prisoner, former prisoner who serves his term, ``I'll see you when you get back.'' Nothing tells the story more than I know there is nothing for you out in society. You're not trained for anything, you're not fit for anything, there are no jobs for you, so you're going to go back into your old ways and we're going to get you back in our clutches again. What we are trying to do, Judge Gohmert, is to change that. I know in your court you have seen your share of this kind of process even in Texas.

So I urge you to join with us in trying to be as constructive as you normally are, to help make everybody understand that we are trying to make

rehabilitation mean something besides just the phrase used in the criminal justice system.

Of course.

Absolutely, yes, it was.

You're welcome.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am being told that we have been working with the minority in Judiciary on an ongoing basis, and I just wonder if you are aware that four of your changes in particular have been accepted and incorporated into the measure that is before us now?

I will bring them out for you and be happy to show them to you.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you find we are making progress; that is very encouraging. How much time do you think we would need to arrive at a point where your observations about the bill and the needed improvement and our position would intersect so we could get it before the body?

I yield to the gentleman.

How about tomorrow? If I gave you 24 hours, what would happen differently?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize the distinguished whip of the majority, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), for 2 minutes, and maybe within his comments he can help us frame some kind of time line.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize now the author of this bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). We said it started three Congresses ago, but Danny Davis started it many years before three Congresses ago, and I am proud to yield 2 minutes to him.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Member from Ohio, a former jurist and prosecutor herself, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to yield to Gwen Moore, the gentlelady from Wisconsin, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to close the debate on our side to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been not just a trial lawyer but has been before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.

I'm hoping that the discussion and the presentation by my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, does not indicate that he is opposed to the substance of this measure and that his remarks were generated around the process, the procedure, because I'm sure he worked on the Adam Walsh bill, and here, to me, is another important step forward on that. And so we look forward to his continued support.

Now, with reference to process, that's a little bit more sensitive issue, because, you know me, I don't like to bring up things that sound partisan. But you guys avoided more process in the Judiciary Committee than we ever have in the 110th Congress. So I've got a long record of it.

But we don't want to get off the track here. This isn't about process. But I've got some not-complimentary statistics about the way we've operated in the past. And I've had good relationships with all the Republican, it almost seems like forever, chairmen of the Judiciary Committee that have preceded us for this last 12 years.

But what our floor manager Debbie Wasserman Schultz is talking about now is something for which there can be no disagreement. We've got to get these Internet sex predators out of business. And that's what this measure does. It does it well. I don't know how much more benefited anybody would be if we had gone any different direction.

We're under a little duress now. We've got measures on top of measures. The scheduling is getting horrific. But I commend the gentlelady and the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle that have worked with her in pursuance of this legislation to get it to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 719) to require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, 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.

Members of the House, H.R. 719, the KIDS Act, addresses the problems of convicted sex offenders infiltrating the Internet to contact and prey on minors.

You've heard about this problem before under the measure that has just passed the House. We are all familiar with the problem. There is not a parent who is not concerned that through the Internet a sex offender may attempt to contact a child for criminal, vicious sex purposes.

The KIDS Act addresses this problem in three ways: It authorizes funding for the Federal Probation and Pretrial Office to enhance the agency's ability to monitor the computer use by convicted Federal sex offenders. In particular, it authorizes funding to evaluate and purchase Internet filtering and monitoring systems to better enable probation officers to monitor the computer use of sex offenders. This is very important. This should help ensure that if an offender violates the terms of release as to Internet use, the violation will be discovered so the offender's release can be promptly revoked.

The next thing we do here is codify the current practice of some sentencing judges by specifically authorizing a court to require as a condition of probation that a convicted sex offender cooperate with the installation of Internet filtering and monitoring systems.

Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to consider increased penalties for sex crimes committed over the Internet where the defendant lied about his age or concealed identity as a sex offender.

This measure before us now adds a new criminal provision to reach those who set up ``virtual money systems'' to facilitate the trafficking of child pornography over the Internet. There's no simple way of keeping the Internet out of the hands of those who would use it for these and other sinister purposes. Nonetheless, the KIDS Act goes a long way toward addressing the problem of Internet sex predation by enhancing supervision of convicted sex offenders and increasing penalties for these crimes.

I can't imagine anyone in this House on either side of the aisle not supporting a measure such as this.

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

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

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for the hard work that he has put in on this measure. We appreciate the cooperation that we've had in the course of this. And of course we yield to no one in recognizing him as the Congress' foremost expert on the Internet, and thus his being involved in this kind of legislation for quite a few years.

Earlier versions of this bill required registration of online identifiers of sex offenders. And as the gentleman knows, a sex offender can change his user name and IP address in about two seconds, so we didn't feel that was particularly helpful. We thought monitoring sex offenders before they ever got on the Internet was a better way to go, and we're glad that we've been able to reach some closure with him on that subject.

Now, on the criminal provisions, I want to tactfully suggest that we've got a better way here in this bill, and I think most of the lawyers and those who followed this shall agree with us. There is no point in overburdening prosecutors. What we've done with reference to criminal provisions is that the practice of grooming, where sex predators lie about their age on the Internet to entice minors into sexual activity, obviously is horrific and widespread, but the other approach would have required prosecutors to prove a new and separate offense in order to get a higher sentence for offenses involving grooming. We didn't think that would be the better way to proceed.

Under the minority approach, a prosecutor would have had to prove all the elements of this new crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, I think, unnecessary and probably a very high burden to reach, given that there exists in criminal law a law against enticement that covers grooming activity. And so the approach we finally settled on directs the sentencing commission to provide tougher sentences for predatory behavior that involves grooming.

And you don't get the chairman of this committee talking about tougher sentencing on very many things around here; this is one that I can support without qualification.

So what we've done is deal with a serious problem of grooming and get to the same place as other approaches that have been suggested to us in what we believe, from a criminal justice point of view, is far more efficient. And with the new provisions that would fight financial facilitation of child pornography, we think we've got a bill. And we thank Mr. Pomeroy for helping us get there.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have the final closing speaker, Mr. Pomeroy, to whom I will yield the balance of our 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. 4120) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for more effective prosecution of cases involving child pornography, and for other purposes.

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 bill under consideration.

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

Members of the committee, H.R. 4120, the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, addresses a truly unfortunate and, in my view, wrongly decided decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. Schaefer.

Now, while the defendant was found to be in the possession of child pornography, the court nevertheless reversed his conviction because it concluded that the statute required, and the government had failed to prove, that the contraband had actually crossed State lines. This statute in question makes it illegal to possess child pornography ``in commerce.''

The court held that this phrase, ``in commerce,'' meant that Congress intended that the contraband had to actually cross State lines. Had the statute instead used the phrase ``in or affecting interstate commerce,'' the court held, the conviction would have been upheld, as that phrase is well understood as reflecting Congress' intent to use the full reach of its constitutional commerce clause power.

H.R. 4120 makes clear that the Congress intends that the prohibitions against child pornography reach the full extent of its constitutional authority. And as hearings in the Judiciary Committee hearing demonstrated, the child pornography business is no respecter of national or international borders. Even conduct that may appear to be wholly localized in its manifestation can nevertheless have an unmistakable effect in interstate commerce.

So let there be no mistake that Congress intends to use its full commerce clause authority to reach activities concluded by this odious business. And we want to make it so clear that even the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals cannot be mistaken by that.

And so I urge my colleagues to fully support this bill, as I expect that they will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to again extend my compliments and express my gratefulness to the gentleman from Virginia for his support on this measure. And as usual, he points out perhaps small items that only a person with his experience would want to bring to the attention of the Members of the House.

The author of this bill is Nancy Boyda of Kansas, our distinguished colleague, to whom I am proud to yield as much time as she may consume.

I couldn't agree with the gentleman more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

I thank the author (Mrs. Boyda) and her Republican cosponsor.

I return the balance of our time. There are no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4134) to direct the Attorney General to provide grants for Internet crime prevention education programs.

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

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

Members of the House, there are many ways to address criminal behavior on the Internet as reflected by the measures that we have already passed this afternoon. Without question, it is critical that Internet sex offenders be identified, arrested, prosecuted and punished as the law provides.

Nevertheless, Internet safety must begin with prevention, especially with our children. They must be taught how to use the Internet safely and how to avoid Internet behavior that puts them at risk. So H.R. 4134 authorizes that the Department of Justice administer grants for the purpose of teaching our children Internet safety.

This is an excellent measure that deserves our support. I commend the chairman of our fifth committee in Judiciary, Linda Sanchez of California, for her leadership on this very critical issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of our subcommittee and the author of this measure, Linda Sanchez of California, for as much time as she may consume.

I have no further speakers, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4136) to amend title 18 of the United States Code to clarify the scope of the child pornography laws 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, H.R. 4136, the Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography Act, addresses two gaps in the criminal statutes that punish those who trade in, profit from, and create the market for child pornography. First, the bill provides that those who launder proceeds from the business of child pornography may be charged with money laundering. This is obviously common sense, and a provision supported by the Department of Justice.

Then, it clarifies the definition of possession in the child pornography laws so that knowingly accessing child pornography on the Internet with intent to view it constitutes possession, even if the user does not download or otherwise save the images. Some defendants have claimed that they did not intend to possess the images, even when they clearly intended to view them, and some courts have said the reach of the statute is unclear in this regard. This measure removes any ambiguity from the law.

We are grateful to Chris Carney, our colleague from Pennsylvania, who has authored this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to get the support and concurrence of the gentleman from Virginia on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time and thank the floor manager for his excellent work on all these measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, the middle class is the economic backbone of America. But they are increasingly under pressure due to rising costs in housing, healthcare, and education. To make matters worse, the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, will reach a significant percentage of them this coming fiscal year. The Congress needs to act. Today, we will vote on H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would ensure that no additional taxpayers pay the AMT this year while also extending popular tax credits and deductions that expire at the end of the year.

The Congress created the AMT in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest were not finding loopholes in the tax code and thus avoiding paying any taxes at all. However, because the AMT was not adjusted for inflation and the tax itself has significantly grown in recent years, it will affect a large percentage of the middle class. Unless the bill is enacted, 23 million middle income Americans, who were never intended to be subjected to this tax, will be taxed at a higher rate than before.

I am pleased to support my friend, Representative Charles Rangel, who wrote this revenue neutral bill. H.R. 3996 will extend and expand many popular tax credits and deductions such as the mortgage insurance deduction, the child tax credit, small business investment write-offs, a deduction for teachers who use their own money to buy classroom materials, and the additional property tax deduction, which will benefit at least 30 million Americans. Furthermore, it will exclude phantom income deduction from discharged home mortgages, and will also prevent the Internal Revenue Service from entering into private debt collection contracts.

Of course, any large tax reform necessarily entails some hard choices. Recent economic growth has been enjoyed disproportionately by the top one percent of Americans, who also continue to benefit from loopholes in the tax code. This bill will take a step towards ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share by increasing taxes on private equity managers, who actually pay lower taxes on carried interest, and on multinational corporations who offshore their businesses for the express purpose of tax avoidance.

It is simply unfair for 23 million hard-working middle income Americans to pay additional taxes while many wealthy private equity and hedge fund managers enjoy a much lower rate of taxation. H.R. 3996, restores America's tradition of progressive taxation. What we are doing here today is a fair and reasonable tax increase on the highest income earners in the country, who can easily afford it, to benefit millions of working families.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise against H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. Southeast Michigan has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs due to unfair free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. Unfortunately, H.R. 3688 follows in the steps of these lopsided trade deals.

Advocates of today's legislation will insist that there are strong labor and environmental standards. However, members of the Peruvian Congress were working to pass a robust General Labor Law and now it will be tabled for a substantially weaker labor law issued by President Garcia. Furthermore, given President Bush's track record on lack of enforcement of current U.S. law, I cannot be persuaded that many of the labor provisions will be enforced. Unbalanced trade has led to a race to the bottom which has lowered job quality and wages for U.S. workers and H.R. 3688 will further encourage this push for cheap labor.

This bill is also bad for Peruvians. More than three million Peruvians may lose their jobs from U.S. exports and may drive many rural farmers into the illegal cocoa trade. H.R. 3688 will limit Peruvian access to health care. Specifically, by approving this free trade agreement, drug companies will obtain five years of data exclusivity, or monopoly rights for pharmaceutical manufacturers in both countries, which will increase the price of medicine, delay the entry of new drugs, and restrict competition in this market. As a result, millions of Peruvians will be at risk of losing life saving drugs. Furthermore, if Peru chooses to replace its current private Social Security system with its previous public system, then this bill may open the door to allow private foreign investors to file suit at international tribunals.

Madam Speaker, a recent poll indicated that the majority of Americans oppose the concept of free trade. It is no surprise that dozens of labor, environment, human rights, and religious organizations have opposed this bill because it is bad for both the United States and Peru. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, colleagues, appropriations bills are moral statements. They document the direction that we as a Congress desire our Nation to go. With our vote on H.R. 3043 today, we once again have an opportunity to show Americans that the 110th Congress is committed to taking our Nation in a New Direction--putting the needs of the American people first and making long-delayed investments in our future.

Unfortunately, this commitment to improving the lives of our soldiers, veterans and ordinary Americans seems not to be shared by the President. The Administration apparently feels that while it is necessary to spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, the Federal Year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill is just $9.8 billion too expensive and needs to be vetoed. He believes that an extra $10 billion to provide grants to low-income children for after school programs, increasing the purchasing power of Pell Grants, fund job training programs for dislocated workers and helping families facing rising energy prices with the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is just wasteful spending.

The President, in an attempt to burnish his credentials as a bona fide fiscal conservative, now seems to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I wonder where this conservatism was from 2001 through 2006, when the Republican-led Congress went on a deficit financed spending spree with our national treasury taking the United States from a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus to a $2 trillion, 10-year deficit.

By passing H.R. 3043, which combines the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education FY 08 Appropriations bill and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs FY 08 Appropriations bill, we will be making the largest investment in veterans' health care in history and making long overdue investments in education, worker safety and health care for our citizens.

If the President is truly concerned with how his legacy will read, I urge him to listen to the overwhelming bi-partisan majority in Congress that supports H.R. 3043. Mr. Bush, help us reverse the sharp rise in college costs that continue to be a barrier to millions of low- and middle-income students by increasing the Pell Grant from $4,050 to $4,435. Help us increase access to Head Start programs so that more disadvantaged children have access to preschool. Provide a 10.1 percent increase for community health centers, an increase that will serve an additional 1 million uninsured people. Stand with the strong bipartisan majority that passed both these bills this summer. Mr. President, approve this bill and help us make America stronger.

Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, the House agreed nearly unanimously to pass H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act. Most significantly, that bill would extend the Internet tax moratorium and grandfather protections for 4 years, clarify the treatment of gross receipts taxes, and revise the definition of Internet access.

As my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Congressman Watt, stated on the floor that day, the House bill was ``an excellent example of what can occur when we work together--on both sides of the aisle--to deal with highly complex issues.''

Our bipartisan legislation was supported by industry groups such as the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition, as well as by various government organizations like the National Governors Association, the Federation of Tax Administrators, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. It was also supported by a wide range of labor and union groups. And with that broad support, the House passed H.R. 3678 by a vote of 405-2.

The Senate has returned the bill to us with some amendments, and so now we are considering it again. There are four changes:

First, the Senate version extends the moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access, with the grandfather protections, for 7 years, until November 1, 2014, rather than the 4 years in the House bill.

Second, the Senate version gives 7 months for certain States to adjust to a phase-out of additional grandfather protection they have been claiming.

Third, the Senate version expands the definition of Internet access to prohibit taxation of certain services which are fee-based, not packaged with Internet access, and offered from sources other than providers of Internet access.

Fourth, the Senate version prohibits a State from reimposing Internet access taxes under a grandfather clause if the State had eliminated those taxes more than 2 years ago.

While these lengthier time periods, expanded definitions, and tighter restrictions on the States go beyond where the House drew the line, I believe the new line is within reasonable bounds, and responds to many of the same considerations that motivated the House in crafting the version passed 2 weeks ago.

Like the House bill, the Senate version is designed to allow businesses sufficient time to plan, ensure that consumers continue to benefit from tax-free access to the Internet during this period, while enabling Congress to revisit the moratorium in light of developments in the States or in technology--as Congress had done each time it has extended the original moratorium--in 2001, 2004 and in this bill.

The Senate version remains true to the essential goals of the House bill, including our refinements to the definition of Internet access and our decision to provide a temporary extension of the moratorium. Like the House bill, it is designed to minimize adverse effects on State and local government revenue, to treat businesses fairly, and to keep Internet access affordable to consumers.

Nonetheless, we must be mindful of the potential misinterpretation of the new definition of Internet access. Therefore, I state our intent in revising the definition. H.R. 3678:

Alters the current definition of ``Internet access'' by making it clear that the prohibition on State and local taxation extends to that portion of a service that connects a user to the Internet and enables a user to navigate the Internet for the purpose of gaining access to the content, information and services that are available over the Internet (section 1105(5)(A) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act as amended by this bill). This new definition eliminates existing language that could have been interpreted to allow an Internet service provider to bundle content, information, and services that might otherwise be taxable with Internet access and claim that the entire package is exempt.

Preserves in subparagraph B of the new definition of Internet access changes made to the definition in the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (P.L. 108-435) regarding the taxation of certain telecommunications. The language is modified in this bill only as to form to fit the new definition of Internet access as contained in this bill. The provision is intended to insure that all technologies used to access the Internet (e.g. cable, satellite, wireless, DSL, etc.) and the components used to provide the access are subject to the moratorium and protected from taxation by State and local governments. As noted in the Committee Report accompanying the bill that ultimately became Pub. L. No. 108-435 (Senate Report 108-155, 108th Congress, 1st Session, p. 4), the definition ``is not meant to affect States and local taxation of traditional telecommunications services and other services that are not used to provide Internet access. For example, the moratorium does not allow an Internet access provider to claim or to seek immunity from State or local taxes for the provision of other services--such as cable television programming--that are separate from Internet access. Nor does the moratorium exempt telecommunications services provided over the same facilities that are not used to provide Internet access.''

Clarifies in subparagraph C that services incidental to and provided with a connection to the Internet are not taxable. Such services are generally offered for free and provide the user with basic services to make the Internet functional for the user.

Addresses in subparagraph D concerns that the existing definition allows goods or services that are used or delivered over the Internet to become subject to the moratorium if they are offered as a package with Internet access. In 2004, concerns about the bundling provision led to a specific exception from the moratorium for voice-over- internet-protocol services. This section defines the VOIP exception of the current law as one of the services that is specifically excluded from Internet access and makes it clear that neither VOIP nor any other good or service that uses the Internet is subject to the moratorium. Since VOIP is specifically excluded from the definition of Internet access, the existing exception for VOIP was removed as redundant.

Includes in the new definition in subparagraph E certain services that would be subject to the moratorium under subparagraph C if offered with a service described in subparagraph A, are part of the moratorium even though they are fee-based and offered separately from a service described in subparagraph A. The list of services under this subparagraph is meant to be limited and exhaustive.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3678 as amended by the Senate remains a good, strong bill that provides much needed clarity to the communications and Internet industries, and strikes an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of States and local governments while helping keep Internet access affordable.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill as the Senate has sent it back to us.

Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence on October 29, 2007; unfortunately my airline flight was delayed. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today.

``Yea'' on H.R. 3224--Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007, Representative Salazar--Transportation and Infrastructure.

``Yea'' on H.R. 573--Recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes, Representative Moran (VA)--Foreign Affairs.

``Yea'' on H.R. 747--Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali, Representative Wilson (SC)-- Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, today we recognize the ongoing loss of life occurring in Darfur. I would like to restate my unconditional support and commitment to advancing peace and security for the people of Darfur. I implore my colleagues in Congress to join me in urging the Sudanese government to take decisive action to address this tragedy. This quite simply is a matter of Life and Death and as the destruction of hope and possibilities continues to erode away at a people who are calling out for help. These atrocities continue to mount in the Sudan as our Administration continues to pump billions of dollars into Iraq and redirects greatly needed resources away from this unnecessary tragedy. The conflict in Sudan began as a genocide against tribes of small farmers in its Darfur region over five years ago. Militia groups have slaughtered an estimated 400,000 people and driven 2.5 million people from their homes. There has been an increase in civilian killings and large scale attacks in Darfur. The rape and torture of women and children remains a constant concern on a daily basis. Thousands have moved to displacement camps which contain their own level of violence with guns being readily available and tensions in Darfur continuing to grow every day. The African Union peace keeping troops who have put up a courageous fight have lacked the proper resources and manpower needed to contain the growing threat. Equipped only with light weapons, they are no match for the heavily armed rebels. They are undermanned and outgunned and in desperate need of advanced weapons and helicopters to properly engage with the Militia.

In May, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel called Darfur ``the capital of suffering.'' He called on all of us to ``tell the victims they are not alone.'' Violence continues in Darfur, as the Sudanese government attacked two internally displaced camps in the past week. On October 19, the Militia attacked the Kalma refugee camp, the largest in Darfur. Additionally, on Oct. 22, the Hamidiya camp near the town of Zalengei was attacked in a series of clashes between government troops and rebel groups. The killings of African Union peacekeepers and World Food Programme contract drivers combined with detentions of humanitarian workers in the conflict-ridden Darfur region of western Sudan are just a few examples of a deteriorating situation, which is prompting increased anxiety by those affected by the ongoing crisis, as well as by those responding to the emergency. From June until late August, the United Nations reported, an estimated 55,000 new persons had been displaced in the region--bringing the total number of those uprooted this year to some 250,000. In all, the UN estimates, 2.2 million of Darfur's 6.4 million people have been displaced, and four million are now dependent on some form of humanitarian assistance.

While almost everyone involved in Darfur policy agrees that an African Union peacekeeping force of just 7,000 troops is not up to the task, the United States has refused to send troops and, despite promises of reinforcements, has yet to secure many additional troops from other countries. At the same time, it has been unable to broker a diplomatic resolution that might ease the violence. There is no doubt that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility. Congress and the Administration must support legislation to address this most pressing human rights issue. We must move beyond the rhetoric and take action to save the lives of the people who are struggling each day with this horrific conflict. We must leave politics aside and support legislation such as H. Res. 573, which recognizes and commends the efforts of U.S. advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening crisis in Darfur; We must also support H. Res. 740, which condemns the brutal attack on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur one month ago today. This violent act, carried out by rebels, took the lives of 10 peacekeepers--seven Nigerians and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana; and finally H. Res. 726, a resolution calling on the President and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against the most innocent of Darfur's victims--young girls and women.

We must continue to provide security and support for the courageous humanitarian workers, who risk their lives daily. Their commitment to this struggle has been exemplarily in the face of danger. We must also take this opportunity to unite and stop these crimes against humanity. We can not allow our past failures to identify genocide in places such as in Rwanda, Bosnia, and elsewhere to exist ever again.

Madam Speaker, today the House votes yet again on legislation that never should have been a subject of controversy: a bill that provides health care for our Nation's children. When we debated overriding the President's veto of the original SCHIP bill last week, most House Republicans offered excuses for denying children health care based on a series of misrepresentations and distortions of the facts. Today the bill's opponents have no more excuses to hide behind. We have consulted with Republicans who want to support this bill and have amended it to address their concerns. It should now be clear to all that the real reason some continue to oppose SCHIP is because they oppose universal health care for all Americans.

Republicans voting no on last week's veto override offered four reasons for their unwillingness to support health coverage for America's children. These concerns had, in fact, already been addressed in the original bill, but now we have dealt with them even more explicitly.

Republicans argued that the bill did not focus enough on covering poor children. I find this particular objection rather ironic, since the same Republicans who used this argument rarely support legislation designed to help the poor. But, it is not surprising that they would use disingenuous tactics to block health care for children. For them, anything goes when it comes to stopping Americans from getting the radical idea that the government should guarantee this basic human right. This revised bill addresses those arguments by mandating that SCHIP eligibility will be capped at families earning 300 percent of the federal poverty level, around $60,000 for a family of four, and by offering bonus payments to States for enrolling the lowest income children into Medicaid.

Opponents of health care for children contended that the original bill provided coverage to illegal immigrants. In reality, this bill denied coverage to all immigrants, even legal ones, explicitly stating that illegal immigrants were ineligible. But these facts did not hinder the Republicans from making their false claim. We have now clarified our intent that illegal immigrants will not be covered by requiring that applicants for SCHIP provide their Social Security number, which must be verified by the Social Security Administration.

Republicans opposed the original bill because it allowed States to use the funding to cover adults. For them, a person's right to health care ends at age 18. I would disagree, but in any case this bill now phases out any adults covered under SCHIP over a 1-year period, instead of the 2-year period under the original bill.

Finally, further changes have been made to clarify that this legislation is designed to minimize children moving from private insurance to SCHIP, also known as ``crowd-out.'' I am a critic of private health insurance, with its costly and unnecessary administrative, waste, advertising and profits, but this bill should allay any concern that a government health plan, with its much lower overhead costs and more comprehensive coverage, would diminish the role of private insurance companies. We will actually allow States to subsidize people to buy private coverage under this bill to prevent them from moving to government coverage.

The President and his supporters are now left with only one argument for opposing this bill: that it costs too much. The original House- passed version authorized an additional $50 billion for SCHIP over 5 years; our compromise with the Senate brought the total down to $35 billion. This additional funding will ensure that SCHIP will cover 10 million children who otherwise would not have access to health care. The President began this debate by offering to add only $5 billion, which would have resulted in 800,000 children currently covered by SCHIP losing their coverage. He is now saying that he's willing to go to up to $20 billion, but no more. I would like the President to explain to the American people how he can afford $12 billion for a single month in Iraq but can't seem to find $35 billion over 5 years to give our children health care. Supporters of the contention that we can't afford this bill either care more about war than children, or are simply not serious.

Now that the Republicans' stated reasons for opposing this legislation have been addressed, one wonders what is actually motivating those who will continue to vote no. I believe that the President and his supporters continue to oppose this legislation because they are afraid. They are afraid of SCHIP because it demonstrates that health care guaranteed by the government is workable, it is affordable, and it is popular. They worry that if SCHIP is expanded, even more Americans will begin to demand that the government guarantee health care to all our citizens, not just to poor children. After all, every other industrialized nation does so, while spending less than we do and while achieving better health outcomes for its citizens. These Republicans apparently intend to use every means at their disposal to ensure that health care in this country remains a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than a right guaranteed to all.

Madam Speaker, today's vote raises a moral question. Simply put: will we, as a nation, take responsibility for ensuring that our children have the health care they need? Any other issue raised in this debate, particularly given the revisions to the bill, is an obfuscation meant to hide the fact that the party claiming the mantle of ``family values'' is in fact unwilling to back that slogan with substance. There is only one vote today that truly supports America's families. It is a vote in favor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to a great American. CPT Richard Macon was not only a hero to this country, but an example of how true tenacity can overcome any obstacle. Richard Macon, a prestigious Tuskegee Airmen and one of this country's most skilled pilots, taught us that determination and commitment have the ability to help one achieve his/her dreams. Captain Macon also taught us that even the ugly head of discrimination and institutional racism cannot suppress the enduring American spirit which keeps this country a leader in the world.

Macon, with a bachelor's degree in mathematics, joined the Army Air Forces in 1943 and graduated from the segregated flying school for black airmen at Tuskegee, AL, to become a fighter pilot. Lt. Macon served as a replacement pilot with the 99th Fighter Squadron and had 16 successful missions to his credit. On August 12, 1944, he was strafing ground targets over southern France when his P-51 Mustang was hit by ground fire while escorting bombers over a German radar station. His plane was flipped upside down at treetop level and the right wing separated. Macon learned that his plane had crashed into a building used by the Germans as a headquarters, killing 40 German officers and soldiers. Macon's neck was broken and the lower

part of his body was temporarily paralyzed. Narrowly missing being shot by a firing squad, he became a war prisoner for more than 9 months. Captain Macon is quoted as saying, ``It was the greatest feeling in the world, seeing them tear down the swastika and raising the stars and stripes.'' That feeling was tempered when he returned home on a troop ship at Boston Harbor. There he was greeted by the grim reality that African Americans still had a long way to go. At the end of the gangplank were two directional signs: white go this way and colored go this way,'' he said. ``Uh huh, the war is just starting.'' Captain Macon's decorations include the Air Medal, Presidential Citation and Purple Heart. He retired with the rank of Captain.

Macon's life itself is a lesson in how to succeed but Richard Macon's desire to teach others led him to acquire a master's degree and join the ranks of public education, teaching at the high school level at Northern High School and progressing to the level of principal and personnel administration in his later years. He was a truly caring person who enjoyed helping others and believed in education as a means of bettering oneself. We will remember him as an officer, a gentleman, a teacher, and a leader amongst men of greatness.