Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, and I want to give credit to the gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Maloney, for taking the initiative for introducing this legislation and for advancing it to the point where we are considering it here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the House has considered this bill. The House passed an earlier version last July. The Senate recently passed this more streamlined version of H.R. 5057, which I hope our colleagues will support once again.

As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I joined Chairman Conyers as an original co-sponsor of this legislation, which was introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.

This bill reauthorizes a tremendously important program: the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Elimination Grant Program. H.R. 5057 reauthorizes the grant program through fiscal year 2014 at $151 million per year.

The Debbie Smith Program provides grants to state and local governments to reduce the DNA backlog of samples collected and entered into the national DNA database. The program, originally authorized in 2000, expires at the end of fiscal year 2009.

DNA has become an invaluable tool in identifying and convicting criminal suspects. At the same time, the increased use of DNA evidence in criminal prosecutions has also increased DNA collection and processing requests. The result is a substantial backlog in processing DNA evidence across the country.

Since 2000, DNA backlog grants live assisted state and local governments with the collection Of 2.5 million DNA samples from convicted offenders and arrestees for inclusion in the national DNA database. The backlog grants have also funded the testing of approximately 104,000 DNA cases between 2004 and 2007.

While the Debbie Smith program has been successful in reducing the backlog, there is still work to do. A 2003 Department of Justice report indicated that a backlog existed of 48,000 DNA samples. The current backlog is expected to be just as high.

Congress has a responsibility to assist states with investigating, prosecuting and punishing criminals and to provide justice for victims. The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act protects victims by providing Federal funding to process the DNA evidence needed to take violent criminals off the streets.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my Texas colleague, Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Speaker, the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act creates an Office of the

FBI Liaison within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This office will monitor the progress of naturalization applications filed by veterans and military personnel.

It will also monitor the progress of naturalization applications filed by spouses of active duty soldiers stationed abroad. And the Liaison Office will track the naturalization process for the soldiers and their spouses and children who are eligible for citizenship under the provisions that grant posthumous citizenship to military personnel who die in service to the country.

The intent behind the establishment of this Liaison Office is to address the delays that often occur in the processing of the necessary background checks for these categories of applicants.

The haste under which this bill was added to the suspension calendar precludes any meaningful assessment of the need for such an office. However, I do not object to measures that facilitate the processing of naturalization applications of those who have honorably served our country or their spouses and children.

This bill also requires USCIS to make a decision on these applications within 6 months of filing or, in circumstances in which that is not possible, to provide the reasons why. This is not an onerous burden since USCIS will still have the flexibility needed to be sure that all required security checks and eligibility criteria are met before granting citizenship.

In this Congress, we have already passed legislation to ease the processing of naturalization applications for our soldiers. The Kendall Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act became law on June 26th of this year. That law permits soldiers to use the fingerprints they provided at the time of enlistment for their background checks.

That law also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI to take steps to ensure that soldiers' naturalization applications are adjudicated within 180 days after the background checks have been completed. This bill furthers those goals.

The bill provides, but does not require, an earlier target date of 6 months after the filing of the application. But in cases in which that time frame cannot be met--even with the new FBI liaison office created under this bill--USCIS will need to explain why.

I have no objection to these measures, which are intended to ensure the timely adjudication of naturalization applications filed by those who have served our Nation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

First of all, I support this legislation and I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for his persistent efforts in promoting this legislation.

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, my Texas colleague described the merits of this legislation so well, I will simply make my prepared statement a part of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of 9-11, the American media has become increasingly alarmed over a phenomenon called ``libel tourism.'' The term refers to the subject of a critical news story suing the American author or reporter of the story in a plaintiff-friendly overseas forum.

This mostly occurs in the United Kingdom, since English libel and slander laws offer less protection to journalists compared to the U.S. system that features the protection offered by the First Amendment.

Persons identified in news stories as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers have brought some of the higher-profile suits. In fact, H.R. 6146 is a legislative response to a New York case in which a Saudi billionaire sued an American author in the UK for defamation, based on the author's allegations that he had subsidized terrorist activities.

What is the legal hook that allowed a British court to claim jurisdiction over the case? Twenty-three copies of the author's book detailing the billionaire's activities were purchased online in Great Britain.

The reporter chose not to appear before the court, which subsequently found her liable and ordered her to pay $225,000 in damages, apologize to the plaintiff, and destroy any remaining copies of the offending book.

Such a result is doubly troublesome. First, an author must worry about satisfying a judgment that would bankrupt most Americans. And second, an author must contend with the fall-out of being shunned by the publishing community.

This is not an imagined result. It is a real threat to anyone wishing to earn a living by reporting and commenting on controversial subjects. And it's an outcome incompatible with our constitutional history and its commitment to the free-flow of ideas and to the robust debate contemplated by the First Amendment.

H.R. 6146 combats libel tourism by proscribing enforcement of any foreign defamation case if it is not ``consistent with the First Amendment . . . .'' This proposal tracks U.S. case law, which holds that a foreign judgment will not be enforced in an American court if the foreign judgment is offensive to State or Federal law.

H.R. 6146 does not overreach. It constitutes a straightforward and sensible response to the practical legal problems caused by libel tourism by codifying a principle already reflected in U.S. law.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the primary authors of the bill, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Representatives Steve Cohen and Darrell Issa, for their hard work and persistence in addressing this important subject.

I also want to acknowledge our colleague, Representative Peter King, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, for his work on the issue.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6146.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of servicemembers serve with distinction and honor, and are never subjected to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But when disciplinary action is necessary, the UCMJ and the military justice system provide a high degree of protection for the accused. In many cases, these protections extend well beyond those provided by the civil justice system.

But from time to time, policymakers ought to review and contemplate proposals for change. I am told the particular section of the code this bill would amend has not been altered or subjected to a congressional review in a quarter of a century. And yet the bill before us proposes far-reaching and significant changes in terms of expanded appellate rights for servicemembers convicted of wrongdoing.

I would support consideration of this measure in the regular order. But the regular order requires a review and consideration of the relative merits of the legislation by subcommittee and committee members with subject matter expertise; a hearing with witnesses who can present expert testimony and offer guidance as to the necessity, effect and scope of any proposals in the bill; a markup or markups after notice to the public and the stakeholders most likely to be impacted by changes; and a committee report that is written and made available to the public and future Congresses that explains the intent and rationale of the proposed changes.

Regrettably, the committee and House leadership have decided to short-circuit the process and dispense with every single one of these steps. This is despite the fact that the bill was introduced by its sponsors and referred to the Courts Subcommittee, with no action, more than a year ago.

The regular order did not fare any better in the other body where the committee of jurisdiction took up the measure just 2 weeks ago and reported it without a hearing, a report, or any other substantial process or record.

Because of the haste with which this proposal is being considered, one might infer there are no questions that ought to be addressed or there are questions that might expose this bill as bad policy if Congress wasn't rushing to judgment.

The truth is when a similar measure was introduced last Congress, the general counsel of the Department of Defense raised major questions about the wisdom and necessity of that bill, as well as its likely impact on the department.

In a letter dated February 6, 2006, General Counsel William J. Haynes, II, wrote that the Department of Defense ``opposes the proposed legislation.''

He noted the department's view that ``there is demonstrable inequity that needs to be rectified''; that ``opening this additional avenue of Supreme Court appeal will require legal reviews and briefs from numerous counsel on the military departments' Government and Defense Appellate Divisions, the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, as well as within the Office of the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court,'' and that the legislation provides no ``clear safeguards'' to preclude the possible abuse by petitioners of this new avenue for appellate review.

I am particularly concerned by this last point as well as the fact that the bill is written to permit an appellant to repeal the case to the Supreme Court even when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has declined to review it on the merits, let alone to issue a final decision.

Unfortunately, by refusing to permit the subcommittee and committee members to study the issues and properly discharge their responsibilities, the House leadership is forcing Members to make assumptions without any evidence. Just as a court should not convict someone of an offense without due process and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, Members of Congress should not be placed in the position of changing long-standing policies without some formal process and actual consideration of the evidence for and against the proposal.

The Democratic leadership increasingly has resorted to extraordinary tactics to move legislation. In so doing, they do a disservice to the Members of the House and of the people we represent.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the unasked questions and lack of process compel me for the time being to oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

With the current antitrust exemption for need-based educational aid expiring on September 30, our timely action is necessary. Congressman Delahunt, the sponsor of this bill, has successfully guided it through Congress, and without his efforts, we might not have extended this extension before it expired.

I appreciate Mr. Delahunt's leadership because this issue has long been of interest to me. I was a sponsor of the bill that extended the exemption in 1997 and in 2001, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill as well.

The bills in 1997 and 2001 were like the bill that passed the House last April, a permanent extension of the moratorium. Both times, the Senate amended those bills, as they did again this year, to a term of years. This exemption originated because Congress disagreed with a suit brought by the Department of Justice against nine colleges for their efforts to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need. Twenty-seven colleges and universities currently are members of the 568 Presidents' Group, which utilizes this antitrust exemption.

They include Amherst College, Boston College, Brown University, Claremont McKenna College, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Davidson College, Duke University, Emory University, Georgetown University, Grinnell College, Haverford College, MIT, Middlebury College, Northwestern University, Pomona College, Rice University, Swarthmore College, the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt University, Wake Forest University, Wellesley College, Wesleyan University, and Williams College.

Several other colleges, including Yale and Harvard, participate as advisory members of this group.

To my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. In fact, a recent GAO study of the exemption found that there has been no abuse of the exemption, and it stated that there has not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the exemption.

This bill, as amended by the Senate, would extend the exemption for another 7 years. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption. I had hoped that Congress would have been able to extend the exemption permanently, but I'm aware that some in the Senate objected.

The need-based financial aid system serves a worthy goal that the antitrust laws do not adequately address--making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need.

No students who are otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of these schools because of the limited financial means of their families. This bill helps protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions. It has been noncontroversial in the past, and it is supported by a number of higher educational groups. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am happy to have played a part in the creation of the Religious Worker Immigrant Visa program in 1990. These visas enable American religious denominations, large and small, to benefit from committed religious workers from other countries.

Last April, the House passed legislation to extend the program for an additional 7 years. Senator Specter introduced legislation in the Senate to extend the program for 3 years. I support this bill today. However, it only reauthorizes the religious worker visa program for about 5 months.

Why such a short reauthorization?

Well, the reason is that some Democrats in the Senate are holding the reauthorization of another vital immigration program hostage. The E- Verify program provides tens of thousands of American employers who want to do the right thing with an effective tool to ensure that they are hiring a legal workforce.

The authorization for E-Verify expires in November, so the House passed a 5-year reauthorization by the overwhelming vote of 407-2. Unfortunately, Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass an extension of E-Verify for longer than 5 months. They refuse to pass a longer extension unless we accede to their demand to increase immigration to the United States by about a half a million people.

Such a demand goes against the clear preference of the American people who support current or reduced levels of immigration. It goes against the interest of American workers who compete with foreign workers for the same jobs, and it goes against the interest of American employers who want to count on E-Verify's being available to them for the long term.

This body is right to reject the demand of the Senate Democrats. Unfortunately, since they will only extend E-Verify for 5 months, we will only get a 5-month extension of the religious worker visa program. So we will need to address this issue again after the 111th Congress convenes next January.

I do appreciate the language in this bill that requires the Department of Homeland Security to expeditiously issue needed regulations to address fraud in the religious worker visa program. I have long been concerned about the high level of fraud that has been evident in this program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill extends a program that has successfully brought doctors to medically underserved areas in the U.S. The Conrad Program allows foreign doctors who have been here on exchange programs to stay at the conclusion of their residencies if they agree to practice medicine for at least 3 years in health professionals shortage areas.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

This bill extends a program that has successfully brought doctors to medically underserved areas in the U.S. The ``Conrad'' program allows foreign doctors who have been here on exchange programs to stay at the conclusion of their residencies if they agree to practice medicine for at least 3 years in health professional shortage areas.

In May the House passed legislation to extend the program for an additional 5 years. And Senator Specter introduced legislation in the Senate to also extend the program for 5 years. Our medically underserved communities deserve a long-term reauthorization of this program so that they can better plan for the future.

I support this bill today. However, it only reauthorizes the Conrad program for about 5 months. Why such a short reauthorization? Well, the reason is that the Democrats on the other side of the Capitol are holding the reauthorization of another vital immigration program hostage.

The E-Verify program provides tens of thousands of American employers who want to do the right thing with an effective way to ensure that they are hiring a legal workforce. The authorization for E-Verify expires in November, so the House passed a 5 year reauthorization by the overwhelming vote of 407 to 2.

Unfortunately, the Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass an extension of E-Verify for longer than 5 months. They refuse to pass a longer extension unless we accede to their demand to increase immigration to the U.S. by over 500,000 persons.

Such a demand goes against the clear preference of the American people who oppose an increase in immigration levels already at a record high. It goes against the interests of American workers in these unsettled economic times. And it goes against the interests of American employers, who want to count on E-Verify being available to them for the long term.

The House is right to reject the demand of the Senate Democrats. Unfortunately, since they will only extend E-Verify for 5 months, we will only get a five month extension of the Conrad program. Thus, we will need to address this issue again after the 111th Congress convenes next winter.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, and I will include my entire statement as part of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, teachers and students at Virginia Tech gathered to mark the 1-year anniversary of the campus shooting that killed 27 students and 5 faculty members. We now know that the shooter was a mentally-disturbed young man who was able to purchase two handguns. He brought those handguns to the campus and began a shooting spree that spanned several hours and occurred in both dorms and classrooms across campus.

Sadly, in February of this year, a gunman stormed a classroom at Northern Illinois University and opened fire, killing 5 students and wounding 16 others before killing himself.

In the wake of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University and a recent rash of violence in public schools across the country, it is appropriate for Congress to act to provide resources to schools and law enforcement officials to help protect our schools.

School and college campuses should be safe environments for students to learn. Today, campus security requires much more than ever before, including campus police, emergency alert systems, and emergency response plans.

H.R. 6838, the CAMPUS Safety Act, authorizes the Department of Justice to establish a National Center for Campus Public Safety to award grants to colleges and universities and other nonprofit organizations, provide education and training for campus public safety agencies, and promote research to improve the security of colleges and universities.

The center may coordinate with other Federal agencies to prevent and respond to natural disasters, incidents of campus violence, or other emergencies. The center may also promote the development of an effective behavioral health threat assessment to prevent campus violence.

It is my hope that through this legislation and other programs across the country, we can do our best to prevent violence on our college and university campuses.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 6838.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I'd call it a habit, but I find myself again agreeing with the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren.

This is a bill that has already passed the House in a similar form, I believe, last January.

I will include my entire statement in the Record.

I support S. 2304, the Mentally III 0ffender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act. The House passed companion legislation, H.R. 3992, last January.

This important legislation addresses the unique challenges that mentally ill offenders create for our criminal justice system. It is estimated that 16 percent of the prison or jail population in the country suffers from a serious mental illness.

More than one-fifth of jails have no access to any mental health services at all. Many criminal justice agencies are unprepared to meet the comprehensive treatment and needs of individuals with mental illness.

Jails and prisons require extra staff resources for inmates with mental illness. In addition, mentally ill offenders can be affected psychologically by incarceration differently than general population offenders.

H.R. 3992 reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act; encourages early intervention for individuals with mental illness; reauthorizes the mental health courts program; and maximizes diversion opportunities for nonviolent offenders with mental illness and co-occurring disorders.

The legislation also promotes training for treatment professionals on criminal justice processes and mental health and substance abuse issues; establishes State and local planning grants to address the needs of mentally ill offenders; and facilitates communication, collaboration, and the delivery of support services among justice professionals, treatment and related service providers.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 3569 is to implement noncontroversial administrative provisions that the Judicial Conference and the House Judiciary Committee believe are necessary to improve the operations of the Federal judiciary. These provisions will provide justice for the American people as well.

The Judicial Conference is the policy-making body of the Federal judiciary, and through its committee system, it evaluates court operations. The conference endorses all of the provisions in this bill, which the other body passed by unanimous consent.

S. 3569 affects a wide range of judicial branch programs and operations, including those pertaining to financial administration, process improvements, and personnel administration.

The House has passed five of the bills' provisions in previous Congresses.

The bill incorporates 18 separate items, including a section that eliminates the noticing and public drawing requirements for selecting names from jury wheels because the process is performed by computers; a section that adds magistrate judges to the list of circuit, district, and bankruptcy judges who may be summoned to attend circuit Judicial Conferences; a section that clarifies a court may bring individuals into court when they do not respond to a jury summons, thus eliminating non-meritorious challenges to an impaneled jury; a section that eliminates an obsolete provision in the Bankruptcy Code relating to the calculation of uniform percentage dollar adjustments; and a section that increases penalties for employers who retaliate against employees serving on jury duty.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3569 is necessary to improve the functioning of the U.S. courts which will ultimately benefit the country and the American people. This is a noncontroversial bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I want to point out that for the third consecutive time now, I have agreed with my colleague from California, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, in supporting this piece of legislation, specifically S. 3569.

I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply and say that I agree with the points made by the gentlewoman from California. They are excellent ones, and we might also add that in a bill like this like, so many bills that are considered by the House and that have been marked up and approved by the Judiciary Committee, sometimes we're talking about sort of arcane subject matter, and yet so much of what is incorporated in this bill and so much of what is part of many other bills do help the judicial process. They do help the American people get better justice. They either save the American people time or they make sure that there's a more ethical result as a result of the actions of the court, and in this particular bill, as a result of the actions of the juries themselves.

So bills like this may seem, at first glance, to either be somewhat technical or somewhat even incomprehensible, but at the bottom line they do improve the justice system of the United States, which can give everybody, I think, a sense of confidence that not only does the system work, but it works in this case in a bipartisan way since Members of both parties do support this legislation which improves the justice system.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California again if she would like.

Reclaiming my time, this being the end of the congressional session, with the expectation that we might well adjourn or go into recess tomorrow until next year, it's not often that we on the House floor can recognize the towns of our colleagues. And I would just like to say in this case that the gentlewoman from California, while she mentioned the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, which reminds me of her talents and her interests in high-tech issues, and she does represent a good part of Silicon Valley, so she comes by her talents and her expertise naturally.

But in addition to that, she was formerly, before coming to Congress, an immigration attorney. She happens to be chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee today, and so she brings to that subcommittee, as she does the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, a number of talents and skills that benefit the House as a whole and benefit the Judiciary Committee, in particular.

So I would just like to thank her for her work these last few years on those subjects and so many other subjects that she brings these skills to and has helped promote both on the floor and in the Judiciary Committee itself.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7084, the Webcasting Settlement Act of 2008, grants limited statutory authority to SoundExchange, the government designated entity responsible for disbursing webcasting royalties. Specifically, the bill gives SoundExchange the ability to enter into and negotiate agreements with webcasters for the performance of sound recordings over the Internet.

As background, the Copyright Royalty Board last year issued its final rate determination in a webcasting proceeding. That decision, which was the product of a lengthy and extensive adjudicatory process open to all parties, has withstood all legal challenges in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

In issuing its final ruling, the CRB established the market rates and terms for the performance of statutorily licensed Internet streamed music for a 5 year period that ends December 31, 2010.

Preferring voluntarily negotiated settlements to the continuation of adversarial legal proceedings, SoundExchange and representatives from both the commercial and noncommercial webcasting operators have been attempting to craft a compromise that might end this litigation and provide certainty to sound recording copyright owners and webcasters alike.

While progress has reportedly been made, the law does not permit a successfully negotiated agreement to be given effect after the CRB has issued its final ruling. To provide the needed flexibility, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 provides a limited window of time to enable the parties to try and reach a voluntary accord.

In supporting this legislation and approach, I believe it is particularly important that SoundExchange reach out and expand the number of webcasting representatives with whom they have been meeting. This will ensure all legitimate points of view are considered in negotiating settlements. This authority will accomplish little in the long run if the interests of the public and all significant stakeholders are not carefully weighed and reflected in the final agreements.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I note this proposal is similar to the manner in which Congress resolved a webcasting royalty dispute in 2002.

While there are significant differences between H.R. 7084 and the earlier law, this bill is needed at this time. If this authority is utilized properly, it will benefit the public.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7084.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his comments.

I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) who is now serving as the ranking member of the Administrative and Commercial Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

I too want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, for his service to this institution and to our country.

Chris Cannon has served, while he has been on the Judiciary Committee, both as the chairman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, and as ranking member, a position he holds right now.

The gentleman from Utah has brought to that position an incredible knowledge and expertise and commitment to so many issues that impacts so many Americans in this country today.

He has, in my judgment, that rare blend of a sense of humor and a seriousness of purpose that make him an ideal Member of Congress. Those talents and those skills and his dedication to Congress and to our country will be missed, but we look forward to staying in touch with him and wish him well in his next adventure.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: FEMA, Predisaster Mitigation.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of New Braunfels.

Address of Requesting Entity: 424 South Castell Avenue, New Braunfels, Texas 78130.

Description of Request: I have requested $360,000 for the City of New Braunfels Flood Mitigation Project. The funding would be used to complete Phase 1 of the project: the planning and engineering requirements for a flood mitigation project to alleviate persistent flooding at two road crossings of Blieders Creek on River Road in New Braunfels that affects the ability of emergency services to access areas of the City. Phase 1 will cost approximately $450,000. The city is prepared to provide $90,000, a 20% share, for Phase 1. The City has completed preliminary planning and is prepared to begin Phase 1 immediately with completion of this phase expected in 2010. The estimated cost of the full two-phase project is $3.4 million. Estimated completion timeframe for the total project is 18 to 24 months.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Department of the Army, Military Construction.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Sam Houston.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1206 Stanley Road, Suite A, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5001.

Description of Request: I have requested $96,000,000 for Fort Sam Houston. The funding would be used to construct a Trainee Barracks Complex. This project will provide a 1200 PN barracks, a Battalion Headquarters, Two Company Operation Buildings and a Central Energy Plant.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense Medical Program, TRICARE Management Activity, Military Construction, Defense-Wide.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Sam Houston.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1206 Stanley Road, Suite A, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5001.

Description of Request: I have requested $13,000,000 for Fort Sam Houston. The funding would be used to construct a medical instruction facility. This project provides general and applied instructional space, administrative space and automation-aided classroom space.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Navy RDT&E, PE 0604800N, Line 126, Joint Strike Fighter.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Albany Engineered Composites, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1281 N. Main Street, Boerne, Texas 78006.

Description of Request: I have requested $1,600,000 for JSF F-35B LiftFan Component Manufacturing at Albany Engineered Composites. The project will help ensure that the F-35B JSF Lift Fan meets critical weight and cost targets, and as such, ensure success of the F-35B Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) when it enters into production. It would incorporate cost saving component and assembly designs, alternate materials and manufacturing process improvements targeted to save 24% in production; weight saving design improvements that will result in up to 10% component weight savings; and implement lean manufacturing methods to ensure consistent quality and efficient process flow when the F-35B version of the JSF begins to transition to higher volume production in 2010-11. The funding will be as follows: 54% of the funding will be used for engineering labor, 13% for program management, 10% for direct labor, 9% for materials and material testing, and 14% for qualifications testing and customer technical support.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Air Force RDT&E, PE 0602102F, Line 8, F-1, Material.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Texas at Austin.

Address of Requesting Entity: FAC 400, 1 University Station G2700, P.O. Box 7397, Austin, Texas 78713-7397.

Description of Request: I have requested $1,200,000 for the Next Generation Manufacturing Processes project at the University of Texas at Austin. The proposed initiative will establish a research and education program for enhancing U.S. competitiveness in Intelligent Manufacturing. Intelligent Manufacturing requires the integration of physics-based models, state-of-the-art analysis and control, and advanced materials to develop the next generation of manufacturing processes and systems. The initial thrust will be on small lot and rapid response intelligent manufacturing that is critical to national defense, infrastructure, energy, medical products and other key areas of the U.S. manufacturing base. There are no other alternative sources of funding for this project. The university has, however, sought and received funding in support programs in specific related areas of research and development that provide significant leveraging for the requested funds.

Madam Speaker, it is not easy to find a news magazine without either Senator Obama on the cover or gratuitous attacks on Senator McCain and Governor Palin in its articles. For example, Newsweek magazine this week published an article suggesting that Governor Palin's faith in God makes her less qualified to be Vice President. That is an amazing lack of grace.

This marks the latest shot fired in the media's all-out assault on Governor Palin's campaign to become America's first woman Vice President. No wonder Americans, by a 10-to-1 margin, believe the media are trying to hurt Governor Palin, according to a Rasmussen poll.

Newsweek is the same magazine that has featured Senator Obama on its cover six times this year, compared to only three times for Senator McCain.

Americans need balanced coverage during this election, and should demand that the media provide it.

Mr. Speaker, in a shocking turn of events, Senator Obama is not the focus of Time magazine's cover story this week. Since the beginning of the Presidential campaign, Senator Obama has been featured on the cover of Time eight times, compared to only three times for Senator McCain.

This week's magazine cover has a small photo of Senator Obama with the caption that reads ``Anger Management: Why Obama is Keeping Cool.'' Also in this week's Time is a story titled ``The Lying Game,'' which accuses Senator McCain of negative campaign ads. Of course, the nonpartisan Wisconsin Advertising Project found that 77 percent of Senator Obama's recent ads have been negative, far more than Senator McCain's. But Time magazine omitted that crucial fact.

Time's cover stories and inside articles explain why Americans by a 5-1 margin believe the media are trying to help Senator Obama win the presidency. Clearly voters recognize biased reporting, and I hope will not be persuaded to support the media's favorite candidate.

Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press is one of the largest and most influential news organizations in the world. It serves thousands of newspapers, radio stations and TV outlets. Americans expect the AP to be fair and unbiased in its reporting. Unfortunately, all too often it has fallen short.

For example, a comparison of AP news stories following the announcement of each vice presidential running mate shows that while dozens of AP stories characterized Governor Sarah Palin as ``conservative,'' only three described Senator Biden as ``liberal,'' even though the National Journal ranked him as the third most liberal Member of the U.S. Senate.

This is one example of a much larger media slant problem. In interviews, articles and news analysis, the media have grilled one side and coddled the other. The American people want the media to apply the same rules to both political parties in this election.