Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the first amendment before us, and in strong opposition to the second.

It is unfortunate that we have come to this point today. This House has already passed two supplemental war funding bills that would set in motion the change of course in Iraq that the American people have demanded of us. The first was vetoed by the President; the second failed in the Senate. Last week, Democratic leaders met with the President and offered to drop all domestic items in the supplemental if the administration would accept meaningful benchmarks and timelines for ending our involvement in that civil war. He refused.

We are now left with the Senate-passed plan, which gives the President the funds he requested, accompanied by a much weaker set of benchmarks than those passed by the House. Some have cited the inclusion of these benchmarks as a step toward ending 6 years of Congressional blank checks for the President's war. While these benchmarks may be a step in the right direction, they are too small of a step. I will vote against the second amendment we are considering today.

However, I will support amendment No. 1 to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206. This measure will provide emergency funding to address critical needs here at home. It includes additional funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program to prevent many thousands of poor children and some of their parents from losing health coverage, as well as increased spending for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery. It also provides more funding for our veterans' health needs, with additional funding set aside specifically to address traumatic brain injury, one of the most common and devastating injuries our soldiers are suffering in Iraq. The amendment also codifies the raise in the minimum wage that the House originally passed during the First 100 Hours of the 110th Congress. The value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level in more than 30 years, and raising it will provide much-needed help to many of America's financially-strapped working families.

I find it unconscionable that the President and some Congressional Republicans have derided these provisions as ``pork.'' Each of these issues is an emergency in its own right and rises to the level of inclusion in this emergency spending bill. I am proud to support them.

In September, as these funds expire, the Congress will once again have to decide what course of action to take on this war. The rule we passed for consideration of this bill requires that before we vote on another supplemental bill in the fall, we must vote on whether the funds appropriated therein be limited to the safe redeployment of our troops on a responsible timetable. It is my hope that when these votes occur in September, many more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have come to their senses and realized that the civil war in Iraq cannot be ended by further American military involvement. I am confident that if the American people continue to voice their strong opposition to the President's failed policy in Iraq, enough Republicans will join with us to override future vetoes and end this misbegotten war.

Madam Speaker, I rise to call attention to the lifetime artistic achievements of singer Gloria Lynne, an outstanding vocalist whose unique style and sound has blurred the distinctions among pop, jazz, and blues.

Born Gloria Alleyne in the Harlem section of New York City on November 23, 1931, Gloria Lynne compensated for a bleak domestic life of poverty by absorbing everything she could of the city's vibrant night life. Exposed to gospel music at a young age by her mother, Lynne quickly graduated from singing at home to singing in the local African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church's choir. However, it was Lynne's first place performance at the Apollo Theater's Amateur Night, at the age of 15, which introduced America to her unique and impressive ability to tell stories that leaves audiences spellbound.

Twelve years later, in 1958, after singing with groups like the Dell- Tones and Enchanters, Ms. Lynne signed with Everest Records and began her solo career. This marked the beginning of her most prolific period: between 1958 and 1963 she cut 10 records and had hits with ``I Wish You Love'' (a song she virtually made a standard) and ``I'm Glad There Is You.'' ``I Wish You Love'' not only became a signature song for Lynne, it sold in the millions and was the first song to become a hit on the jazz, rhythm & blues and pop music charts at the same time. Her popularity during this time enabled her to work with many of jazz's greatest masters, teaming up with musicians like Ray Charles, Billy Eckstine, Ella Fitzgerald, Quincy Jones, Harry Belafonte and others, as well as co-writing ``Watermelon Man'' with Herbie Hancock and ``All Day Long'' with Kenny Burrell.

Gloria Lynne continues to perform before enthusiastic audiences. She was a special honoree at the Apollo's 2006 Amateur Night Celebration and recently performed to sold-out crowds at Dizzy's Coca Cola Room at New York's Lincoln Center for 5 consecutive nights. Ms. Lynne performed before a standing-room-only audience in May 2005 in Washington, DC at the 1,200-seat Historic Lincoln Theater in Washington, DC as part of Jazz in Southwest. She performed at the Kennedy Center's Women in Jazz Festival in 2003; and also in 2003, she received the National Treasure A ward from the Seasoned Citizens Theatre Organization. She has been inducted into the National Black Sports & Entertainment Hall of Fame. She is also the recipient of The Rhythm & Blues Foundation's Pioneer Award in honor of her lasting contributions to the music world. In 1996, she received the International Women of Jazz Award. On April 7, 2007, she received the Living Legend Award from the State of Pennsylvania.

Teaming up with her son, Richard Alleyne, a writer and producer, Lynne also helps run their production company, Family Bread Music, Inc.

On May 23, 2007, Ms. Lynne will be returning to Washington, DC. to receive a tribute from the Southwest Renaissance Development Corporation for her contributions to jazz. I am pleased to take this opportunity to add my voice to theirs and congratulate Gloria Lynne on her long and fruitful career. I wish her many more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1525) to amend title 18, United States Code, to discourage spyware, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Software and electronic communications are increasingly being used by criminals to invade individuals and businesses' computers without authorization. These practices undermine consumer confidence in the integrity and security of the Internet itself. Two particularly egregious examples involve the use of spyware and phishing scams.

Spyware is a form of software that helps gather information about an individual or organization without their knowledge. It also can be used to take control of someone else's computer and surreptitiously send information stored in that computer, such as the individual's personal information and passwords, to another entity where it can then be redirected for criminal purposes, including fraud, larceny, theft or other cybercrimes.

According to a survey last year by the FBI, computer security practitioners say that spyware is among the most critical threats to the security of our Nation's computer systems.

Phishing is another form of cybercrime. It is a scheme by which a criminal creates a Web site or sends e-mails that copy a well-known, legitimate business in an attempt to deceive Internet users into revealing personal information. Through phishing, for example, a criminal can trick an Internet user into revealing his bank account numbers or passwords.

Pharming is a version of phishing, and that involves the fraudulent use of domain names. In pharming, hijackers hijack a legitimate Web site's domain site and redirect traffic intended for the Web site to their own Web site where users may unknowingly provide personal information to the hacker.

This measure before us, H.R. 1525, aims to put a stop to these kinds of crimes that invade our privacy. It amends title 18 of the United States Code to impose criminal penalties, including up to 5 years in prison, on those who intentionally engage in spyware-related behavior in furtherance of other Federal criminal offenses.

Another thing the bill does is impose fines and imprisonment up to 2 years for anyone who engages in such practices with the intent to defraud or injure a person.

Finally, this measure authorizes $10 million per each fiscal year, 2008 through 2011, to help the Department of Justice combat these crimes.

I want to lift up the names of two of our Judiciary Committee members, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California, and of course, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, both of whom have put this legislation together and shepherded it through the hearing and the processes of the Judiciary Committee. I'd like to commend them for hard, effective work in developing and moving this bill on a bipartisan basis.

This is a targeted measure, ladies and gentlemen, that protects consumers by providing appropriately strong penalties for egregious behavior. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, is the principal mover of this bill, and I'm pleased now to yield her as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important measure. We are finally dealing with those spyware crimes that invade our financial privacy, and I commend all of the actors on the Judiciary Committee that played a role in bringing this to our attention. Mr. Ric Keller has done an excellent job as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1615) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Members of the House, when a laser is aimed at an aircraft cockpit, particularly at the critical stage of take-off or landing, it presents an imminent threat to aviation security and passenger safety. This has now been increasingly recognized, and we propose to do something about it today.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, laser illuminations can temporarily disorient or even disable a pilot during critical stages of flight. And in some cases, a laser might also cause permanent physical injury to the pilot.

Since 1990 the FAA has reported more than 400 of these kinds of incidents. The rash of incidents involving laser beams is compounded by the concern that the low cost of hand-held laser devices could lead to even more incidents of these kinds happening in the future.

So the measure before us today responds to the problem by amending title 18 of our United States Code to impose criminal penalties on someone who knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft or in its flight path within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. The criminal penalties include imprisonment of up to 5 years and fines.

So I again extend a hand of thanks to Chairman Bobby Scott of the Crime Subcommittee for expeditiously moving this bill forward. And I also commend the sponsor of this legislation, Ric Keller, who is floor manager today, the gentleman from Florida, for his leadership on addressing the danger that lasers can pose to aircraft.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume merely to thank the leaders of this measure, Messrs. Scott and Keller, for moving. For once we've got in front of a problem before something has gone wrong and have a tragedy in the air that would send us rushing back to the floor to pass this very measure that we are passing today, I hope.

Mr. Speaker, it is out of that pride that I thank everyone on the Judiciary Committee that played a role in this matter. And as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter whether it is a prank or whether it is sabotage, this prospective law gets the word out to everybody that these laser beams are dangerous when being flashed on planes or pilots in the air. The catastrophe is unthinkable.

I congratulate my colleagues, and I ask the Members to join all of us in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 214) to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe this measure, Senate bill 214, as an important one that will restore historical checks and balances to the process by which interim U.S. attorneys are appointed. It will repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor to the recent termination of at least nine talented and experienced United States attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments.

The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still coming to light. It is a process being given much attention by the Committee on the Judiciary. But much of the information is well known, and is also considerably troubling. One U.S. attorney was fired to make way for a political operative who endeared himself to Mr. Karl Rove doing opposition research in the Republican National Committee. Others were apparently fired because they were not sufficiently partisan in the way they used these powers to investigate and prosecute alleged voting fraud. Now, I don't need to tell anybody in this body how important voting is to the democratic process.

These reports are particularly troubling because of the awesome power the United States attorneys, 93 of them in total, are entrusted with. They seek convictions. They negotiate plea agreements. They can send citizens to prison for years. They can tarnish reputations. They can destroy careers with the mere disclosure that a person is under criminal investigation. We, in this country, must have full confidence that these powers are exercised with complete integrity and free from improper political influence. Unfortunately, sometimes this is not the case.

These troubling circumstances that have been revealed were made possible by an obscure provision, quietly and secretly slipped into the PATRIOT reauthorization conference report in March of last year at the behest of the Justice Department's top political appointments, to enable them to appoint interim temporary U.S. attorneys without the customary safeguard of Senate confirmation.

Mr. Speaker, what this measure does is restore the checks and balances that have historically provided a critical safeguard against politicization of the Department of Justice and the United States attorneys, limiting the Attorney General's interim appointments to 120 days only, then allowing the district court for that district to appoint a U.S. attorney until the vacancy is filled, with Senate confirmation required, as historically has been the case.

Now, Members of the House, we have already passed similar legislation. While I would prefer to see our version enacted into law, we are taking up the Senate-passed version in order to expedite the enactment of this important step in restoring legal safeguards against the abuse of executive power to politicize the Federal prosecutorial function in the Department of Justice.

I wanted to single out my colleague from California, Howard Berman, a senior member of the committee, for his role in fashioning not only the original version, but the one that we have before you to agree upon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce and give as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Howard Berman.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) a subcommittee chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that our colleague from the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, would be able to join us in this debate because he worked very diligently with Mr. Berman and Ms. Lofgren.

Mr. Speaker, while United States attorneys owe their appointments to the President, once they are appointed, their enforcement decisions must be unquestionably above politics. This is an irony that exists, but it is something that must be zealously complied with if we are to have a law enforcement system that can be regarded as faithful to the Constitution and to the laws of the land and to protect the American people.

The Senate confirmation in an open and public process is one way we safeguard against politicizing the prosecutors in the Department of Justice. That safeguard was severely compromised by the secret change in section 546. What we will do now is restore that safeguard and honor the system of checks and balances.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this important consideration.

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. 2264) to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, topping even the 1981 spike in price that had stood as the record high for 26 years. According to the Energy Information Administration, the nationwide price of unleaded regular gas hit $3.22 a gallon, 11.5 cents higher than last week's price. In Michigan, it is even higher than that.

Today's record-breaking price, one in an unending series of continuous price hikes over the past month, is hurting Americans in their pocketbooks, and we have got to do something about it. Retailers across the Nation are saying that soaring gas prices are prompting consumers to cut back on their shopping trips and their purchases.

We are told this won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either. The AAA forecasts that more record prices are probably on the way, especially as the summer begins, which is usually the busiest driving season of the year.

In Michigan, gas prices have reached their highest levels ever at $3.27 a gallon. Michigan is now the third most expensive State for gasoline in the country, behind California and the State of Illinois.

Last week, in an effort to help address this crisis, the House Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Task Force examined the OPEC cartel and its impact on the price of gas. OPEC accounts for two-thirds of the world's oil reserves and more than 40 percent of the world's oil production, but, even more significantly, OPEC oil exports represent 70 percent of all the oil traded internationally.

You know what that means. This affords OPEC, obviously, considerable control over the global market. Its net oil export revenues should reach nearly $395 billion in this year alone, and its influence on the oil market is dominant, especially when it decides to increase or reduce the levels of production.

For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy, and that is what I call it, a conspiracy, has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, the administration has done little or nothing to stop this.

So now the time has come. It is time for us to do something to point them in the right direction. We have got to get ahold of this economic crisis. The cries are rising up in every congressional district in the Nation, so your Committee on the Judiciary has produced H.R. 2264, with the help of Mr. Chabot and Mr. Keller and other Members, to make clear that the oil cartel nations that are colluding to limit crude oil production as a means of fixing its price is illegal under United States law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct.

It clarifies and reaffirms the law in several critical respects:

First, it exempts OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the extent those governments are engaged in price fixing and other anticompetitive activities.

Second, H.R. 2264 makes clear that the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine does not in any way prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments, and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws.

Third, it explicitly authorizes the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits in Federal court against oil cartel members.

Ladies and gentlemen, we, on behalf of the American people, have had enough. These price rises are not something that we have to merely humbly drive into the gas station and look at the new, increased cost. We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas without any recourse whatsoever. We can do something about it to combat this blatantly anticompetitive, anticonsumer behavior, and we are.

I urge Members to carefully consider the legislation that is now being debated on the House floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) whose State has been most affected by the subject matter we are here on the floor considering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished Judiciary member from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, may I close with this observation. It was in 1978 that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers sued OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, but the case was rejected because the Court said that OPEC could not be prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign immunity protection clause it claimed for its member states.

I'm here to announce on the floor, as modestly as I can, that that decision was in error. Government-owned companies that engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines, and so what we do in this measure is that we don't start a lawsuit against OPEC. We merely authorize for the first time by law the Department of Justice to, when in their good judgment they choose to be able to do that.

These high prices facilitated by OPEC serve to transfer wealth from Western consumers to petroleum producers, and I have this on the very conservative words of the Heritage Foundation itself. I will insert this in the Record at this point.

[From The Heritage Foundation, May 21, 2007]

Time for Congress To Lift OPEC's Immunity

(By Ariel Cohen)

This week, the House is likely to pass the No Oil Producing

and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007 (NOPEC, H.R. 2264). This

bill, sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and

Steve Chabot (R-OH), would allow the federal government to

sue the Organization for Petroleum Exporting States (OPEC)

for antitrust violations. Similar legislation (S. 879) is

pending in the Senate, sponsored by Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI)

and Arlen Spector (R-PA). At a time when oil prices are

climbing to ever-higher levels, fighting OPEC's

anticompetitive practices would be a welcome first step

towards reestablishing the free market in this strategically

important sector. This is long overdue and points the way

toward a second step: allowing private antitrust suits

against OPEC.

The Intolerable Status Quo. Since its inception in 1960,

OPEC, which is dominated by Persian Gulf producers, has

successfully restricted its member states' petroleum

production, artificially distorting the world's oil supply to

line its members' pockets. Member states' production quotas

are determined at semi-annual meetings of members' petroleum

ministers and are at times changed through telephone

consultations. Several times, this supply-fixing strategy has

brought devastation to the U.S. and global economies:

In 1973, OPEC's actions in response to U.S. support for

Israel, which was attacked in the Yom Kippur War, resulted in

a worldwide economic recession that lasted from 1974 to 1980.

In 1980, OPEC's failure to increase production in the face

of the Iranian revolution resulted in historically high oil

prices of $81 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).

In 1990, OPEC refused to increase production sufficiently

to keep prices stable as Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait.

Lately, OPEC's resistance to add productive capacity has

sent oil prices to $70 a barrel, once again endangering

economic growth worldwide.

The cartel's operations ensure that its members' oil and

gas economies remain insulated from foreign investment flows.

Members of OPEC have not worked to enhance the rule of law

and property rights and have imposed severe restrictions to

prevent foreign investors from owning upstream production

assets (oil fields and pipelines). This is a testament to the

cartel's de facto monopoly over the petroleum market. Indeed,

the only serious challenge to the organization came in 1978

when a U.S. non-profit labor association, the International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), sued

OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in IAM v. OPEC. But the

case was rejected in 1981 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. OPEC, the court affirmed, could not be

prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign

immunity protection it claimed for its member states.

That decision was wrong. Government-owned companies that

engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign

immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines.

High oil prices, which OPEC facilitates, serve to transfer

wealth from Western consumers to petroleum producers. This

wealth transfer funds terrorism through individual oil wealth

and government-controlled ``non-profit'' foundations. It also

permits hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on

radical Islamist education in madrassahs (Islamic religious

academies).

Furthermore, the oil-cash glut in the Gulf states and

elsewhere empowers resistance to much-needed economic reform

in oil-producing countries. State subsidies for everything

from health care to industry to bloated bureaucracy continue

unabated, funded by Western consumers.

Congress Gets Into Action. Growing concerns over energy

prices have prompted Congress to examine the legal hurdles

that prevent the United States from defending its economic

and national security interests.

In the early part of 2005, a group of senators led by

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) introduced the ``No Oil Producing

and Exporting Cartels Act'' (S. 555), known as NOPEC, to

amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting

cartels illegal.

The bill has now returned the Senate calendar. The House

and Senate now have a unique opportunity to:

Join forces in defending American businesses and consumers.

NOPEC would send a strong and long-overdue signal to OPEC oil

barons that they must stop limiting production and investment

access.

Allow private suits against OPEC. If OPEC is to be reined

in, individuals and companies that it has damaged must also

be allowed to bring suits against the cartel. As the

International Association of Machinists (IAM) v. OPEC made

clear, Congress must amend the Sherman Act to allow these

suits. Reform should not begin and with the DeWine-Kohl

legislation.

Conclusion. The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act

of 2007 would place much needed pressure on OPEC. It is time

for the cartel to cease its monopolistic practices. Otherwise

the American People can expect more of the same from OPEC--

insufficient production and higher energy bills.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of passage of H.R. 1427, ``The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act.''

I believe this legislation is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide cities across the country with desperately needed federal funding so they can construct or renovate housing stock for working families on public housing waiting lists, homeless veterans, homeless Katrina victims, and homeless working families.

I believe that passage of this legislation is a ``historic'' moment in this Congress, and makes me proud to be a member of this body.

In Detroit, there are thousands of working individuals and families living in homeless shelters or staying with friends and extended family members because they cannot afford the skyrocketing costs of private market housing.

We have a homeless shelter in Detroit where hundreds of veterans live each year, and most are working minimum wage jobs, or work in low to moderate wage employment.

It is a moral outrage that soldiers who have fought in wars and served their country honorably come home to cities like Detroit, only to find out that they cannot afford an apartment or a home.

This bill will help reduce these problems, and provide decent affordable housing to more veterans and working families without raising taxes.

It will also help victims of Katrina who are currently living in hotels or homeless shelters in other cities to return to the Gulf Coast, or remain where they are, because there will be expanded housing opportunities due to passage of H.R. 1427.

Passage of ``The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act'' will provide billions of dollars to cash-starved cities across the Nation to successfully build new affordable housing units for working families by utilizing existing non-profit housing developers, public housing agencies, and for-profit housing developers.

Passage of H.R. 1427 will help hundreds of thousands of Americans across this Nation who are currently on waiting lists for public housing to be able to get out of homeless shelters and into homes or apartments, since there will now be more federal funding for affordable housing production.

If America is ever to be a great Nation, we must ensure that all Americans, as a basic human right, have decent and affordable housing. Passage of H.R. 1427 will get our Nation on the road to having a real national affordable housing policy, which we currently do not have.

The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, shamefully has one million homeless children, and over 40 percent of those living in homeless shelters are working in jobs. Our current affordable housing problem is building more homeless shelters where there is a lack of affordable housing.

I ask this question Mr. Chairman. How many Members of Congress would want to come home after a hard day's work, and sleep in a homeless shelter? Probably nobody! We need affordable housing for all now.

I urge this body to pass H.R. 1427 with all deliberate speed.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. After years of rising deficits and draconian Republican budgets, the vote on the Budget Conference Report finally puts us on the right course. The Democratic budget will take America in a new direction by funding national priorities such as health care services, educational programs, and veterans services while providing middle class tax assistance. The Democratic budget rejects the Administration's attempts to cut funding to many social programs that support American children and families such as State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), Pell grants, Medicare, and Medicaid. This forward looking budget will help all Americans progress towards social and economic security.

The Democratic budget will also provide tax relief for middle-income workers and will extend popular tax credits such as the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and more deductions for state and local sales taxes.

After our troops have defended our great country, we need to give our servicemen and veterans the best possible health care. The budget provides sufficient funds to treat traumatic injuries and improve health care facilities for veterans, as well as to treat the more than twenty-six thousand service members who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding measures to veterans healthcare is a well deserved and necessary expense providing $3.6 billion above the President's proposal.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans have economic concerns, and are seeking leadership from us, the people's House, the United States Congress. After six years of misplaced priorities, the Democratic budget resolution seeks to provide services and support that are essential to the well-being of the American people; millions who are hard working tax paying citizens that deserve some well justified and reasonable assistance. This legislation is clearly the people's budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of passage of H.R. 1427, ``The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act.''

I believe this legislation is one of the most cost effective ways to provide cities across the country with desperately needed federal funding so they can construct, or renovate housing stock for working families on public housing waiting lists, homeless veterans, homeless Katrina victims, and homeless working families.

I believe that passage of this legislation is a ``historic'' moment in this Congress, and makes me proud to be a member of this body.

In Detroit, there are thousands of working individuals and families living in homeless shelters or staying with friends and extended family members because they can not afford the skyrocketing costs of private market housing.

We have a homeless shelter in Detroit where hundreds of veterans live each year, and most are working minimum wage jobs, or work in low to moderate wage employment.

It is a moral outrage that soldiers who have fought in wars and served their country honorably come home to cities like Detroit, only to find out that they can not afford an apartment or a home.

This bill will help reduce these problems, and provide decent affordable housing to more veterans and working families without raising taxes.

It will also help victims of Katrina who are currently living in hotels or homeless shelters in other cities to return to the Gulf Coast, or remain where they are, because there will be expanded housing opportunities due to passage of H.R. 1427.

Passage of ``The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act'' will provide billions of dollars to cash starved cities across the Nation to successfully build new affordable housing units for working families by utilizing existing non-profit housing developers, public housing agencies, and for-profit housing developers.

Passage of H.R. 1427 will help hundreds of thousands of Americans across this Nation who are currently on waiting lists for public housing to be able to get out of homeless shelters and into homes or apartments, since there will now be more federal funding for affordable housing production.

Passage of ``The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act'' will provide $600 million per year to cash starved cities across the Nation and could create approximately 8,000 new affordable housing units for working families by utilizing existing non-profit housing developers, public housing agencies, and for-profit housing developers.

If America is ever to be a great nation, we must ensure that all Americans, as a basic human right, have decent and affordable housing. Passage of H.R. 1427 will get our Nation on the road to having a real national affordable housing policy; which we currently do not have.

The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, shamefully has one million homeless children, and over 40% of those living in homeless shelters are working in jobs. Our current affordable housing problem is building more homeless shelters where there is a lack of affordable housing.

I ask this question, Mr. Chairman. How many Members of Congress would want to come home after a hard day's work, and sleep in a homeless shelter? Probably nobody! We need affordable housing for all now.

I urge this body to pass H.R. 1427 with all deliberate speed.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan, Bart Stupak, for all that he has done with our committee, and with the Republicans on the subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee who worked so well on this.

I rise of course in support of H.R. 692 to honor fallen men and women who gave their lives to our Nation while on duty in the armed services.

As a veteran myself, I can appreciate this bill as much as anyone in the House. This 22-year-old soldier for whom the bill was named came from Bart Stupak's district, and gave his life on July 8, 2006. He was killed by an improvised explosive device that detonated near his vehicle during combat operations in Iraq.

This measure before us simply amends current law to add heroes like Specialist Micks to the list of persons in whose honor the flag may be flown at half-staff. It specifies that a Governor's proclamation ordering the flag to be flown at half-staff, consistent with this measure, would apply to all Federal installations and facilities in the State.

Over the last 4 years, at least 10 soldiers from Mr. Stupak's district have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the national flags on some Federal buildings were not lowered in their honor, to the dismay of the family members and friends of these brave soldiers.

So the measure ensures that our Nation's fallen military heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our Nation are appropriately honored and acknowledged.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 916) to provide for loan repayment for prosecutors and public defenders, as amended.

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

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

I am proud to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and rise in strong support of H.R. 916 because our Nation's criminal justice system depends on the hard work and commitment of the men and women who serve as prosecutors and defenders; yet the ability of the public sector to attract qualified individuals and to retain experienced attorneys is increasingly becoming more compromised.

As many of us know, recent law school graduates are often burdened with overwhelming student education loans. The amount of their debt can effectively preclude a young attorney from choosing to practice in the public sector, and with the median salary for an associate in private practice now many times the median salary of a State prosecutor, public-spirited attorneys who owe extensive student loans have a very hard time deciding that they can afford to work in our criminal justice system.

In Wayne County, Michigan, our county prosecutor Ms. Kym Worthy, a veteran trial lawyer before she assumed the position, has come to me repeatedly asking for help in this area.

So this measure addresses the critical problem by directing the Attorney General to establish a loan repayment assistance program for an individual who agrees to remain employed for at least 3 years as either a State or local criminal prosecutor or as a State, local or Federal public defender for criminal cases.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the floor manager of this bill, and to thank him for the helpful compromises that he led in working out the bipartisan support of this bill. I thank you.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and that is to describe the wide spectrum of legal support for this measure: the National District Attorneys Association, the American Bar Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and many others.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to introduce a gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as much time as he may consume, Mr. John Spratt.

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

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

I would bring to the attention of our membership a communication from the National Conference of Chief Justices at the State level in support of Federal legislation to create incentives to law students to participate in public service occupations after graduations.

The 109th Congress considered legislation designed to encourage qualified individuals to enter in and continue employment for at least 3 years as criminal prosecutors and public defenders by means of providing the United States Government payment of a portion of that individual student loan for each year of such employment.

Whereas the 110th Congress is also likely to consider legislation to assist the repayment of student loans of qualified individuals who commit to employment as prosecutors and public defenders, therefore, the Association of American Law Schools, Equal Justice Works, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and the American Bar Association have expressed support for the above-described legislation, and the lawyers to engage in civil and legal services to enhance access by justice, by low-income persons rendered valuable public service that is comparable to that provided by criminal prosecutors and public defenders.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Conference of Chief Justices hereby urges the Congress to adopt legislation to give financial incentives to law school graduates to commit to sustained public service as prosecutors and public defenders.

Therefore, the conference additionally encourages Congress to develop and adopt separate legislation providing similar relief for qualified individuals who engage in employment as civil, legal aid attorneys, adopted as proposed by the Government Affairs Committee and the Professionalism and Competence Committee of the Conference of Chief Justices on February 7 in the year 2007.

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to recognize former judge Louie Gohmert of the Judiciary Committee for 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his contribution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1700) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join 102 cosponsors, including a dozen members of the House Judiciary Committee, in supporting this legislation.

During the 1990s, the crime rate for all categories of crime and in all parts of the United States fell dramatically. For example, homicide rates in 2001 plunged 43 percent from their peak in 1991, reaching their lowest level in 35 years.

Now, there are many potential explanations offered regarding the dramatic and unexpected drop in the rate of violent crime during the 1990s. One popular explanation is the Nation's sustained economic growth during the days of the Clinton administration.

But researchers often point to one other explanation: the creation of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services in 1994, the COPS bill; and the subsequent infusion of more than $7.6 billion in grants into State and local law enforcement communities to hire police officers and promote community policing as an effective strategy to prevent crime. The bill before us reinvigorates the COPS crime fighting program in several important respects.

First, it establishes hiring grants for community policing officers, anti-terror officers, and school resource officers. It also reauthorizes ``Troops-to-COPS'' grants to hire former members of the Armed Forces in particular as career law enforcement officers. And it also authorizes a ``Community Prosecutors Program'' to pay for community prosecuting programs, including those that assign prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic areas or to address counter- terrorism and related problems.

Finally, it authorizes ``Technology Grants'' to State and local law enforcement agencies to help them refocus some of their activities from reacting to crime to preventing it. Crime prevention has now come back into vogue.

So this legislation, because of its long and successful prior experience, has been endorsed by key law enforcement groups: the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National League of Cities.

I am proud to indicate their strong support for this measure, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support to a bill whose restoration is more than deserved.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California, Diane Watson.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this measure, Mr. Weiner of New York, whose confidence I have so much of this afternoon, notwithstanding that there are eight other speakers, because of his persevering commitment to reinstituting this community policing bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to play good cop in this because I want to commend those Republicans who are going to vote for this measure for joining us. Look, it doesn't matter when you come on board. It's that your thoughtfulness in helping us craft a bipartisan bill was exceedingly important, and I personally am indebted to you for that.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Eddie Bernice Johnson has supported this bill from its inception, and so I recognize the gentlelady from Dallas, Texas, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the chairman from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield one-quarter of a minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened here today is very important in terms of developing a justice system that will operate at a very fundamental and basic level, the police level. It doesn't correct the lack of prosecution that has been raised by the gentleman from Virginia. It doesn't correct many parts of the justice system that we on the committee plan to go into. But I think there is a unanimity on both sides of the aisle for restoring a very important community program that has justified itself, and it is in that spirit that I want to commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their important work that they have done in beginning to restore the program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New York, Anthony Weiner, whose perseverance has led us to the floor here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, there are very few instances where I have had a Member of Congress persist in the search for justice with the same zeal as my friend from North Carolina, and I commend you.

I recall that I had an opportunity to meet the widow of the slain officer, and I have talked to the gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott, chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and his ranking member about the importance that we pursue at the earliest possible moment a complete and total investigation and hearing about the matter that the gentleman and other colleagues that have now joined you have persisted in.

I congratulate you, and recommit publicly once again to our search and pursuit of justice, because if we don't protect our border agents and law enforcement officials generally, I can only shudder to think how the safety of this country will deteriorate.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support for H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act and join my colleagues in efforts to ensure that small businesses are given a fair opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. I recognize that government agencies have recently been bundling hundreds of small contracts into single mega-contracts, which are awarded to only the largest contractors.

H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, will un- bundle many of these contracts and level the playing field for small businesses. The bill addresses the major problems that have resulted in limited opportunities for small businesses in the Federal marketplace. The bill ensures that more contracting opportunities are available to small firms, fights fraud in the contracting process and raises the Federal small business government-wide contracting goal. H.R. 1873 implements changes that will remove a number of the barriers facing entrepreneurs in accessing Federal contracts, creating a more level playing field for this Nation's 26 million small businesses.

I want to thank Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez for bringing this legislation to the committee and to the floor. The Detroit region's 420,000 small businesses account for 99.2 percent of all firms; this includes almost 300,000 sole proprietors. Small businesses with employees other than themselves employ 915,000 people or 47 percent of the region's employees. While big businesses have consolidated a large portion of their services and number of employees they hire, small business has helped mitigate the pain with modest but steady employment gains. The continued growth in the small business sector, especially in the formation of fair contracting for the diverse population not only in Detroit, but throughout Michigan, will create much-needed jobs and assist in the diversification of our region's economy.

By law, Federal organizations are required to support small businesses. However, contract bundling has resulted in less small business participation in Federal contracts. It is essential to help remove the barriers blocking small businesses from entering the nearly $400 billion per year Federal marketplace.

I believe in the value of small businesses as the number one job creators in this country and strongly support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2001'' (``NOPEC''), legislation that would effectively force OPEC to begin pricing in a competitive, free market manner or face the possibility of being prosecuted for civil or criminal antitrust violations. This legislation will establish that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear such a case based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. I am joined by Representatives Chabot and Lofgren, as original cosponsors of this bill.

For the past year, American consumers have paid exorbitant prices at the pump, as gas prices have hit their highest levels since the first gulf war. For the past several months, oil prices have remained stubbornly high, sitting above $65 at the end of last week. Since January of this year, oil prices have climbed more than 20 percent, driving gasoline prices in the United States to record levels while producing budget surpluses in nations like Saudi Arabia. And as of May 8, 2007, the average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline was $3.036, just 2 cents short of the record high reached in September 2005 after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast.

The group of 12 nations comprising OPEC represent the classic definition of a cartel, and they hold all the cards when it comes to oil and gas prices. OPEC accounts for two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, and over 40 percent of the world's oil production. Most significantly, OPEC's oil exports represent about 70 percent of the oil traded internationally. This affords them considerable control over the global market. Its net oil export revenues should reach nearly $395 billion this year, and its influence on the oil market is dominant, especially when it decides to reduce or increase its levels of production.

The OPEC nations have for years conspired to drive up prices of imported crude oil, gouging American consumers. Their price-fixing and supply-limiting conspiracy is a clear violation of U.S. antitrust laws, yet we have no recourse for action against these nations. The international oil cartel continues to avoid accountability, shielding itself behind the veil of sovereign immunity by claiming that its actions are ``governmental activity''--which is protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA''), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1602 et seq.-- rather than ``commercial activity.''

This legislation, the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'' (``NOPEC''), is simple and effective.

It exempts OPEC and other nations from the provisions of FSIA to the extent those governments are engaged in price-fixing and other anticompetitive activities with regard to pricing, production and distribution of petroleum products.

It makes clear that the so-called ``Act of State'' doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws.

It authorizes lawsuits in U.S. Federal court against oil cartel members by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

We do not have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas without any recourse; we can do something to combat this conspiracy among oil-rich nations. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.