Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Bush removed the executive ban on offshore drilling. After the announcement was made, crude oil futures plunged. Prices fell $6.44 in the biggest one- day drop since the Gulf War. The next day, prices dropped another $4.50 to $134. This is not a coincidence.

The Democratic majority says it will take years to produce oil from offshore drilling and that it won't affect energy prices.

If Congress lifts the ban on offshore drilling, we will continue to see oil prices fall. Energy traders do take government policies into account. Deciding to develop our American energy resources can immediately lower the cost per barrel of oil and can provide relief at the gas pump.

Democratic Party leaders should heed the will of the American people and should schedule a vote to increase our American energy supply.

Mr. Speaker, the New York Times and the Washington Post are two influential national newspapers. Their articles are reprinted in hundreds of other publications, and television newscasts often repeat their stories.

I was curious how the Times and the Post were treating the two major party presidential candidates, so I looked at their front page coverage. The results may be of interest to voters who expect fair and objective reporting.

From June 28 through July 14, the papers wrote far more stories about Senator Obama than Senator McCain. And while most of the 15 articles about Senator Obama were positive, not a single one of the nine articles about Senator McCain was positive. That is a huge slant in favor of Senator Obama.

Surely voters deserve balanced coverage of the presidential candidates. And surely the media has a responsibility to provide it.

Mr. Speaker, Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's program ``Reliable Sources,'' has strongly criticized the media's coverage of Senator Barack Obama's breaking his promise that he would accept public campaign funds.

Last Sunday, Kurtz argued: ``All of these liberal commentators who have always supported campaign finance reform, getting big money out of politics, many of them are defending Obama. And I have to think the press is cutting him a break here.''

Kurtz concluded the segment by saying, ``If George W. Bush had done this, blown off public financing as he considered doing during the 2004 campaign, there would be howls in the media about one candidate trying to buy an election.''

A recent poll found that, by more than a 3-to-1 margin, voters believe the media favors Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain. The media should report the facts, not slant the news.

Madam Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities Act, enacted almost 18 years ago, removed many physical barriers disabled people faced in their daily lives. It also helped remove the mental barriers that often prevented non-disabled Americans from looking beyond wheel chairs and walking canes and seeing disabled Americans as the friends and coworkers they are.

When the ADA was originally enacted in 1990, it was the result of bipartisan efforts in Congress. So I am pleased that various interested parties have been able to reach agreement on statutory language amending the ADA.

I support the compromise and believe it was reached in good faith. However, I do have some concerns regarding how the courts will interpret the legislative language we will consider today.

So let me express what I believe to be the nature and import of this legislation.

First, the common understanding in Congress is that this legislation would simply restore the original intent of the ADA by bringing the statutory text in line with the legislative history of the original

Mr. Speaker, a new survey has found that 68 percent of all voters believe that reporters try to help their favorite candidate win elections. Just 17 percent believe that reporters offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. And by more than a 3-1 margin, voters believe the media is behind Senator Barack Obama rather than Senator John McCain.

The survey also found that 76 percent of voters believe the media have too much power and too much influence over elections. And skepticism about the media cuts across income, racial, gender, and age demographics.

Americans are right to be skeptical, and should brace themselves for the most one-sided coverage of a Presidential race that we have ever seen. We need to encourage the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession. Only then can we restore Americans' faith in news reporting.

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

Madam Speaker, after nearly a year of delays and months of negotiations, the House today will finally vote on compromise legislation that gives our intelligence community the tools that it needs to protect America. I join my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, and Chairman Reyes, as an original cosponsor of this compromise bill.

America's enemies take on many forms, terrorist groups, foreign governments and spies who all pose serious threat to America and its allies. Last August, Congress passed the Protect America Act which provided a temporary solution to the problem. The PAA expired in February. As a result, our intelligence community could not gather two- thirds of the foreign intelligence they needed to protect American lives.

From day one, we insisted that any legislation passed by Congress must not interfere with our fundamental ability to collect foreign intelligence. This legislation accomplishes that goal. H.R. 6304 does not extend constitutional protections to foreign terrorists and other foreign targets overseas. The bill does allow the intelligence community to target a foreign person overseas without a court order if critical intelligence would be lost or not collected in a timely manner.

We insisted that any legislation passed by Congress include strong liability protections for telecommunications carriers that assisted the government following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as protections for their assistance in the future. H.R. 6304 provides these important protections.

We insisted that Congress enact long-term FISA legislation. The bill we have before us today will not sunset until the end of 2012. This compromise legislation also provides strong civil liberties protections for Americans both within the United States and abroad. And it mandates congressional oversight and detailed reports to the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees and requires a review by the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies. This compromise is long overdue. It is supported by both the Department of Justice and the intelligence community.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record:

June 19, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear-Madam Speaker: This letter presents the views of the

Administration on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (``FISA'') Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304). The

bill would modernize FISA to reflect changes in

communications technology since the Act was first passed 30

years ago. The amendments would provide the Intelligence

Community with the tools it needs to collect the foreign

intelligence necessary to secure our Nation while protecting

the civil liberties of Americans. The bill would also provide

the necessary legal protections for those companies sued

because they are believed to have helped the Government

prevent terrorist attacks in the aftermath of September 11.

Because this bill accomplishes these two goals essential to

any effort to modernize FISA, we strongly support passage of

this bill and will recommend that the President sign it.

Last August, Congress took an important step toward

modernizing FlSA by enacting the Protect America Act of 2007.

That Act allowed us temporarily to close intelligence gaps by

enabling our intelligence professionals to collect, without

having to first obtain a court order, foreign intelligence

information from targets overseas. The Act has enabled us to

gather significant intelligence critical to protecting our

Nation. It has also been implemented in a responsible way,

subject to extensive executive, congressional, and judicial

oversight in order to protect the country in a manner

consistent with safeguarding Americans' civil liberties.

Since passage of the Act, the Administration has worked

closely with Congress to address the need for long-term FISA

modernization. This joint effort has involved compromises on

both sides, but we believe that it has resulted in a strong

bill that will place the Nation's foreign intelligence effort

in this area on a firm, long-term foundation. Below, we have

set forth our views on certain important provisions of H.R.

6304.

i. title i--foreign intelligence surveillance

Title I of H.R. 6304 contains key authorities that would

ensure that our intelligence agencies have the tools they

need to collect vital foreign intelligence information and

would provide significant safeguards for the civil liberties

of Americans.

Court Approval. With respect to authorizations for foreign

intelligence surveillance directed at foreign targets outside

the United States, the bill provides that the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) would review

certifications made by the Attorney General and the Director

of NationaI Intelligence relating to these acquisitions, the

reasonableness of the procedures used by the Intelligence

Community to ensure the targets are overseas, and the

minimization procedures used to protect the privacy of

Americans. The scope of the FISC's review is carefully and

rightly crafted to focus on aspects of the acquisition that

may affect the privacy rights of Americans so as not to

confer quasi-constitutional rights on foreign terrorists and

other foreign intelligence targets outside the United States.

We have been clear that any satisfactory bill could not

require individual court orders to target non-United States

persons outside the United States, nor could a bill establish

a court-approval mechanism that would cause the Intelligence

Community to lose valuable foreign intelligence while

awaiting such approval. H.R. 6304 would do neither and would

retain for the Intelligence Community the speed and agility

that it needs to protect the Nation. The bill would establish

a schedule for court approval of certifications and

procedures relating to renewals of existing acquisition

authority. A critical feature of the H.R. 6304 would allow

existing acquisitions, which were the subject of court review

under the Protect America Act or will be the subject of such

review under the H.R. 6304, to continue pending court review.

With respect to new acquisitions, absent exigent

circumstances, Court review of new procedures and

certifications would take place before the Government begins

the acquisition. The exigent circumstances exception is

critical to allowing the Intelligence Community to respond

swiftly to changing circumstances when the Attorney General

and the Director of National Intelligence determine that

intelligence may be lost or not timely acquired. Such exigent

circumstances could arise in certain situations where an

unexpected gap has opened in our intelligence collection

efforts. Taken together, these provisions would enable the

Intelligence Community to keep closed the intelligence gaps

that existed before the passage of the Protect America Act

and ensure that it will have the opportunity to collect

critical foreign intelligence information in the future.

Exclusive means. H.R. 6304 contains an exclusive means

provision that goes beyond the exclusive means provision that

was passed as part of FISA. As we have previously stated, we

believe that the provision will complicate the ability of

Congress to pass, in an emergency situation, a law to

authorize immediate collection of communications in the

aftermath of an attack or in response to a grave threat to

the national security. Unlike other versions of this

provision, however, the one in this bill would not restrict

the authority of the Government to conduct necessary

surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in

a way that would harm national security.

Oversight and Protections for the Civil Liberties of

Americans. H.R. 6304 contains numerous provisions that

protect the civil liberties of Americans and allow for

extensive executive, congressional, and judicial oversight of

the use of the authorities. The bill would require the

Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to

conduct semiannual assessments of compliance with targeting

procedures and minimization procedures and to submit those

assessments to the FISC and to Congress. The FISC and

Congress would also receive annual reviews relating to those

acquisitions prepared by the heads of agencies that use the

authorities contained in the bill. Congress would receive

reviews from the Inspectors General of these agencies and of

the Department of Justice regarding compliance with the

provisions of the bill. In addition, the bill would require

the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report at

least semiannually concerning the implementation of the

authorities provided by the bill and would expand the

categories of FISA-related court documents that the

Government must provide to the congressional intelligence

and judiciary committees.

Title I also includes provisions that would protect the

civil liberties of Americans. For instance, the bill would

require for the first time that a court order be obtained to

conduct foreign intelligence surveillance outside the United

States of an American abroad. Historically, Executive Branch

procedures guided the conduct of surveillance of a U.S.

person overseas, such as when a U.S. person acts as an agent

of a foreign power, e.g., spying on behalf of a foreign

government. Given the complexity of extending judicial review

to activities outside the United States, these provisions

were carefully crafted with Congress to ensure that such

review can be accomplished while preserving the necessary

flexibility for intelligence operations. Other provisions of

the bill address concerns that some voiced about the Protect

America Act, such as clarifying that the Government cannot

``reverse target'' without a court order and requiring that

the Attorney General establish guidelines to prevent this

from occurring. We believe that, taken together, these

provisions will allow for ample oversight of the use of these

new authorities and ensure that the privacy and civil

liberties of Americans are well protected.

ii. title ii--protections for electronic communications service

providers

Title II of the bill contains, among other provisions,

vital protections for electronic communications service

providers who assist the Intelligence Community's efforts to

protect the Nation from terrorism and other foreign

intelligence threats. Title II would provide liability

protection related to future assistance while ensuring the

protection of sources and methods. Importantly, the bill

would also provide the necessary legal protection for those

companies who are sued only because they are believed to have

helped the Government with communications intelligence

activities in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The framework contained in the bill for obtaining

retroactive liability protection is narrowly tailored. An

action must be dismissed if the Attorney General certifies to

the district court in which the action is pending that

either: (i) the electronic communications service provider

did not provide the assistance; or (ii) the assistance was

provided in the wake of the September 11 attack and was the

subject of a written request or series of requests from a

senior Government official indicating that the activity was

authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The

district court would be required to review this certification

before dismissing the action, and the provision allows for

the participation of the parties to the lawsuit in a manner

consistent with the protection of classified information. The

liability protection provision does not extend to the

Government or to Government officials and it does not

immunize any criminal conduct.

Providing this liability protection is critical to the

Nation's security. As the Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence recognized, ``the intelligence community cannot

obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from

these companies.'' That committee also recognized that

companies in the future may be less willing to assist the

Government if they face the threat of private lawsuits each

time they are believed to have provided assistance. Finally,

allowing litigation over these matters risks the disclosure

of highly classified information regarding intelligence

sources and methods. As we have stated on many occasions, it

is critical that any long-term FISA modernization legislation

contain an effective liability protection provision. H.R.

6304 contains just such a provision and for this reason, as

well as those expressed with respect to Title I above, we

strongly support its passage.

III. Title III--Review of Previous Actions

Title III would require the Inspectors General of the

Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National

Intelligence, and of certain elements of the Intelligence

Community to review certain communications surveillance

activities, including the Terrorist Surveillance Program

described by the President. Although improvements have been

made over prior versions of this provision, we believe, as we

have written before, that it is unnecessary in light of the

Inspector General reviews previously completed, those already

underway, and the congressional intelligence and judiciary

committee oversight already conducted. Nevertheless, we do

not believe that, as currently drafted, the provision would

create unacceptable operational concerns. The bill contains

important provisions to make clear that such reviews should

not duplicate reviews already conducted by Inspectors

General.

IV. Title IV--Other Provisions

Title IV contains important provisions that will ensure

that the transition between the current authorities and the

authorities provided in this bill will not have a detrimental

effect on intelligence operations.

Title IV also states that the authorities in the bill

sunset at the end of 2012. We have long favored permanent

modernization of FISA. The Intelligence Community operates

more effectively when the rules governing our intelligence

professionals' ability to track our enemies are firmly

established. Stability of law also allows the Intelligence

Community to invest resources appropriately. Congress has

extensively debated and considered the need to modernize FISA

since 2006, a process that has involved numerous hearings,

briefings, and floor debates. The process has been valuable

and necessary, but it has also involved the discussion in

open settings of extraordinary information dealing with

sensitive intelligence operations. Every time we repeat this

process it risks exposing our intelligence sources and

methods to our adversaries. Although we would prefer that

H.R. 6304 contain no sunset, a sunset in 2012 is

significantly longer than others that were proposed and it is

long enough to avoid impairing the effectiveness of

intelligence operations.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this

crucial bill. We reiterate our sincere appreciation to the

Congress for working with us on H.R. 6304, a long-term FISA

modernization bill that will strengthen the Nation's

intelligence capabilities while respecting and protecting the

constitutional rights of Americans. We strongly support its

prompt passage.

Sincerely,

Michael B. Mukasey,

Attorney General.

J.M. McConnell,

Director of National Intelligence.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who is the distinguished Republican leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6304 may well be one of the most important pieces of legislation we pass this Congress.

For 4 months America has been more vulnerable to attacks by our enemies, because of the refusal by some to bring a commonsense bill to the floor to help the Intelligence Community protect Americans.

Many of us would have preferred the bill passed by the Senate. Although this bill may not be ideal, it does represent a compromise between House and Senate Republicans and Democrats. This compromise preserves our ability to conduct a strong, effective foreign intelligence program.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Defense, Air Force RDT&E (R-1 Line #18).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas Research Institute.

Address of Requesting Entity: 9063 Bees Cave Road, Austin, Texas 78732.

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 for the Air Force's ``Improved Inspection Reliability for Optimized Maintenance Program.'' Regularly scheduled nondestructive inspection (NDI) and maintenance of Air Force aircraft requires that these key assets are removed from service for extended periods of time in addition to routine maintenance issues. This program will develop and validate model-based approaches to the measurement of inspection reliability, and data mining methods to assure continued performance over time in Air Force field and depot inspections. This will result in improved confidence in the reliability of NDI to assess damage without costly and time-consuming maintenance will increase availability and reduce maintenance costs over current practices. This one time program of $2M will use $1.7M for the development and testing of the systems and the remaining $300K will be used for required reports. As the Air Force is scheduled to decrease in manpower over the FYDP it is critical that those in the Air Force will have the tools and equipment to do complete their jobs. This project fully supports the 2008 Air Force Strategic Plan which calls for ``Smart Operations across the total Air Force'' and specifically calls for ``Efficient processes free up resources for recapitalization and modernization, increase the availability of our aircraft by reducing the time they are in Depot''--This effort is termed Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century (AFSO21).

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Defense, Army RDTE (R-1 Line #133).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Applied Physical Electronics, LLC.

Address of Requesting Entity: 5208 Electric Avenue, Spicewood, Texas 78669.

Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to produce technology to support efforts against terrorist activities, to fund two endowed professors from the University of Texas for antenna design support and for signal and image processing, to acquire key capital laboratory equipment, and to hire 12 highly skilled professional engineers, as well as supporting staff. The UT professors will be funded to continue in their efforts to help design compact antenna structures, as well as the development of algorithms necessary for detecting and identifying explosives and controlling electronics used with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The necessary equipment and additional staff will further the development of APELC's technology into systems deployed for defense against IEDs and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), with the ultimate objective being the utilization of APELC's technology as integral components of future applicable DoD systems, including MDA, Army, Air Force, DARPA and the Navy.

Description of Matching Funds: APELC is close to securing matching funds from a U.S. prime contractor in the form of a 3 year teaming agreement. The amount is expected to be approximately 1:3 match to the dollars requested. The matching funding will be used to move APELC's technology into deployable systems for field use. Furthermore, the principals of APELC continue investing in the company, and in the form of facility improvement to better facilitate technology development.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Defense, Army RDT&E (R-1 Line #30).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Address of Requesting Entity: 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900.

Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to: Establish the National Center for Trauma Research, which will be the primary site for trauma research in the US; this will be accomplished through federal and non-federal funding; expand clinical research that benefits the nation's civilian and military trauma patient population, focusing on survival rates, pre-hospital interventions and surgical techniques; potential studies include wound healing, hemorrhage control with dressing, traumatic brain injury; establish telecommunications technology that connects the three trauma centers and Burn Center, necessary to coordinate disaster/bioterrorism response and also useful on a daily basis so that medical education opportunities at any facility are available across our system; develop a regional ICU Registry to parallel the current Regional Trauma Registry; coupling the data available in both allows researchers to study the entire patient episode, from pre-hospital to discharge and outcome; and support the infrastructure needed to accomplish these goals, given that during the same period new revenue streams from physician fee-for-service billing will partially replace the need for federal funding. NTI is directly leading to better care for combat casualties. Today military surgeons and nurses are continuing to be trained at NTI facilities prior to their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 550 critically burned soldiers have been treated in San Antonio. The NTI is playing a critical role in our nation's battlefield medical response effort and helping to improve outcomes for these brave men and women.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Defense, Air Force RDT&E (R-1 Line #8), 0602102F Materials.

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

Address of Requesting Entity: 1 University Station C2200, Austin, TX 78712.

Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to establish a research and educational 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. This project will increase the manpower, manufacturing technology, and know-how available to support quick response, high-technology precision manufacturing and will provide an important competitive advantage for U.S. producers using Intelligent Manufacturing. Texas and Ohio rank 2nd and 3rd in terms of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., with the three states employing 23 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing workforce. Many key defense industries are located in these states and all three campuses have strong ties to the defense laboratories, defense manufacturing, and critical commercial manufacturing entities (aerospace, electronics, energy, and others).

Mr. Speaker, this week NBC News aired an interview with President Bush in which it removed key statements from the President's response to a question about diplomatic relations with Iran.

While some editing is to be expected, in this case NBC misrepresented the President's response so that it appeared he agreed with the premise of the question when, in fact, he explicitly disputed it.

The White House says NBC's ``deceitful editing'' was intended to perpetuate a ``media-manufactured storyline'' about Iran.

The American people deserve to know the President's complete statements on major foreign policy issues. We rely on journalists to provide this information through fair and impartial reporting. The American people rightfully expect the media to give them all the facts, not just a slanted version.

In a few days, thousands of police officers from around the country will travel to Washington, DC for National Police Week.

This occasion provides Congress with the opportunity to honor those who have given their lives to protect our families, constituents, and communities.

In my district, ``The Memorial Wall'' stands in the San Antonio Police Academy's courtyard and lists the names of those forty-eight officers who have sacrificed their lives while fighting to keep San Antonio's neighborhoods safe and crime-free for our children.

We can honor their legacies and the lives of other police officers by bringing legislation to the floor that will help Federal, State and local law enforcement officials combat crime.

For example, the bill Congressman Forbes and I introduced, H.R. 3156, the ``Violent Crime Control Act of 2007,'' would do just that.

Why is the Democratic leadership in Congress stalling crime legislation?

Madam Speaker, today I want to congratulate the 2008 Service Academy appointees from the 21st Congressional District. The following individuals have accepted academy appointments:

Harrison Michael Green, Believers Academy, Air Force Academy; Blair William Kessler, Boerne High School, Air Force Academy; Robert Francis Belz, Health Careers High School, Air Force Academy; Lucas Samuel Johnson, Boerne High School, Air Force Academy; Philip Nicholas Valenzo, MacArthur High School, Air Force Academy; David Kirby Ford, Antonian College Preparatory High School, Military Academy; Nicholas Enrique Ocegueda, New Braunfels High School/US Military Prep School, Military Academy; Thomas Reagan Schiller, Vista Ridge High School, Military Academy; Raymond Anthony Gonzales II, Reagan High School, Military Academy; Karen Elaine Gilkey, MacArthur High School, Merchant Marine Academy; and Padraig G. O'Hara, Fredericksburg High School, Merchant Marine Academy.

Madam Speaker, during a telephone town meeting last night, I asked my constituents, ``Do you think the media are fair and objective in their news coverage?'' Ninety-one percent of the almost 400 respondents said the media are not fair, and only 7 percent said that they are fair.

This is an amazing result but not a surprising one, since slanted coverage pervades much of the news Americans get every day.

One of the greatest threats America faces is a biased media. If the American people don't get the facts, they can't make good decisions. And if they can't make good decisions, we won't have a democracy.

The national media need to let the American people make up their own minds, not tell them what to think.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to recognize Chairman Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Howard Coble of the subcommittee, each of whom I have enjoyed working with in developing and advancing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when many Americans are facing a slowing economy and increasing costs of food and fuel, it is imperative that Congress put aside any differences we may have and work together to promote the interests of U.S. entrepreneurs and industry.

Over the past 25 years, perhaps no group of industries has contributed more to the tremendous and sustained growth in our economy than those who rely on strong patent, trademark and copyright protections.

American intellectual property industries, including entertainment, high-tech and pharmaceutical industries, account for over half of all U.S. exports, represent 40 percent of the country's economic growth and employ 18 million American workers.

American technology, entertainment and productivity-based enterprises serve as the cornerstone of our economic and export strength.

Because of the important role IP industries play in our economy, we cannot take these innovations, or their creativity and investment required to bring them to life, for granted.

Unfortunately, the tremendous success of these innovators, creators and rights-holders has made them prime targets for thieves who seek out items protected by patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret designation. These thieves not only steal the creations of others, but also reap the monetary benefits by reproducing and distributing the products themselves.

And the losses attributed to counterfeiting and piracy affect more than the inventor. According to the U.S. Government, American businesses lose approximately $250 billion each year to pirated and counterfeited goods.

The theft of intellectual property has also cost nearly 750,000 Americans their jobs. Given the current state of the economy, preventing these crimes and enforcing IP laws must be a top priority for the Federal Government.

H.R. 4279, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, which is also known as PRO-IP, is a measure designed to respond directly to these challenges.

Specifically, the bill strengthens our laws against counterfeiting and piracy; provides new resources to key agencies involved in the enforcement of IP rights; and mandates a new and unprecedented level of coordination and leadership on IP enforcement issues from the White House.

Mr. Speaker, the incentive to innovate and the ability to profit from the creation of new intellectual property cannot be sustained without enforcing the rights that protect the ownership of such valuable, intangible property.

And while our government agencies are doing more today to protect intellectual property than ever before, the reality is that we must do much more. We must make it increasingly difficult, and costly, for counterfeiters and traffickers, some of whom are connected to organized crime, to steal and profit from American innovations.

Because intellectual property is such an important asset for both the inventor and the economy as a whole, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that IP enforcement is made a permanent priority of every administration.

By supporting the PRO-IP bill, the House will send a clear message that there is a bipartisan commitment to ensure the next President and succeeding administrations have the resources, organizations and strategies required to protect our vital national and economic interests.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 4279.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and the former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his earlier very generous comments.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following extraneous material for the Record:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2008.

Re support H.R. 4279, the PRO-IP Act.

Dear Colleague: We want to alert all Congressional Caucus

on Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention

Members that tomorrow the House will consider H.R. 4279, the

Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual

Property Act of 2007 (PRO IP Act) under suspension of the

rules. As a caucus dedicated to enforcing IP rights, it is

not only critical that our Members support this legislation,

but also make an effort to educate other Members about the

value of protecting American IP.

It has become increasingly clear that IP-based industries

are the key to the future competitiveness and economic

prosperity of the United States. They currently account for

between $5-5.5 trillion of the U.S. gross domestic product

and this sector is responsible for 40% of the nation's

economic growth. It is therefore imperative that our

government protect IP industries from criminal networks that

engage in counterfeiting and piracy, which cost U.S.

businesses $250 billion annually and have caused the loss of

750,000 American jobs.

Unfortunately, the counterfeiting and piracy problem will

continue to worsen without strong, resolute action by

Congress. The PRO IP Act addresses this disturbing trend by

strengthening civil and criminal IP laws

to deter offenders and also provides increased government

resources and coordination to enforce Americans' IP rights in

the U.S. and around the world.

Given the extent of the counterfeiting and piracy problem

and its impact on U.S. economic security, jobs, and consumer

health and safety, it is not surprising that H.R. 4279 is

supported by an array of businesses, trade associations and

organized labor groups.

We urge you to support this legislation.

If you have any questions about the Congressional Caucus on

Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention please

feel free to contact the following Member Offices Rep. Robert

Wexler (Ellen McLaren, 202-225-3001), Rep. Mary Bono Mack

(Paul Cancienne, 202-225-5330), Rep. Tom Feeney (D. Cameron

Smith, 202-225-2706), or Rep. Adam Smith (Jonathan Pawlow,

202-225-8901).

Sincerely,

Robert Wexler,

Member of Congress.

Tom Feeney,

Member of Congress.

Mary Bono Mack,

Member of Congress.

Adam Smith,

Member of Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.