Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, the African National Congress has played a significant role in history. Nelson Mandela and the ANC for many years fought against the unjust apartheid system in South Africa.

Through a largely peaceful transfer of power, apartheid is a thing of the past and South Africa now has a representative democratic government. Many ANC officials are now, in fact, officials of South Africa's government.

South Africa provides hope that genuine reconciliation between historically opposed groups can, in fact, be achieved. However, real terrorist acts were committed as part of the struggle against apartheid. There were deadly bombings of civilians. There were so- called ``necklacings'' in which car tires were put around persons' necks and set on fire.

I am pleased that the bill's sponsors, Mr. Berman, Ms. Lofgren and Chairman Conyers, were willing to ensure that this bill will provide appropriate relief for the African National Congress without excusing the perpetrators of terrorist or criminal acts.

First, the ANC is added to the list of organizations not considered terrorist

organizations for immigration purposes. Such a list was created to shield certain organizations from the broad reach of the Immigration Act of 1990.

Under the 1990 legislation, any guerilla group would find itself under the definition of a terrorist organization. The groups currently on the exempt list include the Hmong, who fought alongside U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War, and groups that are fighting against the repressive Burmese Government today. It is understandable that the ANC be added to that list.

Second, the administration is granted the authority to waive the criminal grounds of inadmissibility with respect to aliens for activities undertaken in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa. Congress already granted the administration waiver authority for the terrorism-related grounds in last year's omnibus spending bill.

Third, the bill contains a sense of Congress that the administration should immediately exercise ``in appropriate instances'' the authority granted under the bill to waive grounds of inadmissibility for the anti-apartheid activities of aliens who are current or former officials of the Government of South Africa. I am confident that any administration will use this power wisely.

Finally, the bill directs the administration to ensure that government databases used to determine admissibility to the U.S. be updated to reflect any waivers granted.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Again, I want to thank Chairman Berman and Chairman Conyers and Chairman Lofgren for working in good faith to address concerns with the bill as it was introduced.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that it's always nice when the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and I can agree on immigration issues, as we did in this particular instance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad we are considering this timely legislation tonight, H.R. 1777, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2008. I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his tireless efforts in promoting this legislation, and also for his leadership, because if it were not for his leadership, we would not be here tonight considering this important bill. It was good working with him and I appreciate the success that he has had in getting us to this point. This issue has long been of interest to me personally as well. I also sponsored the bill that extended the exemption in 1997 and 2001.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need. These schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of that group of schools. In the 1950s to the late 1980s, the practice continued.

In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges. After extensive litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree in 1991 that all but ended the practice. In 1992, Congress passed the first exemption to the antitrust laws for these colleges as part of the Higher Education Amendments. That temporary exemption codified the settlement and allowed colleges to provide aid on the basis of need only, to use common criteria to determine need, to use a common financial aid application form, and to allow the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party.

In 1994, Congress extended this exemption as section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act. Congress has extended the exemption twice since 1994, in 1997 and 2001. Twenty-seven schools currently are members of the so-called Presidents' Group which utilizes this antitrust exemption. Several other colleges, including Yale and Harvard, participate as advisory members of the group. This exemption expires on September 30, 2008.

Common treatment of these types of issues makes sense and, to my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. In fact, a recent GAO study of the exemption found that there had been no abuse of the exemption and stated that there had not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the exemption. The Antitrust Modernization Commission studied this exemption and found that it provides ``limited immunity for limited conduct.'' That is, it is narrowly tailored to meet its goals of promoting access to need-based financial aid.

This bill would make the exemption passed in 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2001 permanent. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption itself. The need-based financial aid system serves worthy goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of the colleges involved because of the limited financial means of his or her family. This bill helps protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions.

Mr. Speaker, the last time the House considered a permanent extension of this antitrust exemption, it passed by a vote of 414-0. The bill is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the Presidents' Group. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Mr. Delahunt for his work on this legislation and for getting us to the point where it is being considered tonight.

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, according to the Department of Justice, one person is assaulted in the United States every 7.2 seconds, raped every 2.7 minutes and murdered every 31 minutes. That means that in the last hour, 500 Americans will have been assaulted, 22 raped and 2 murdered. Congress can and must do more to protect American families and keep our communities safe.

In this Congress, Republicans have introduced over 100 bills to help Federal, State and local law enforcement officials combat crime. To date, though, only three have been considered.

As we recognize National Crime Victims' Rights Week, Congress should do more than just honor the victims. Let's help law enforcement officials shield an innocent person from assault, protect a woman from rape and save a life.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, for yielding.

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

However, I have also long been concerned about the high level of fraud that has been evident in this visa program. Like Mr. King, I feel regulations can only go so far in preventing fraud and we do need additional statutory changes in the program.

The Office of Fraud Detection and National Security at the Department of Homeland Security has conducted a Fraud Benefit Assessment. It found that of 220 religious worker visa cases selected at random, 33 percent had ``a finding of fraud,'' the highest of any visa program.

Fraud involves everything from bogus churches and bogus jobs to ``religious workers'' who are found driving taxis soon after they arrive here.

So I especially appreciate the steps that the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, has taken to address these concerns. She agreed that we would extend the expiring religious worker green cards for 7 years as long as the Department of Homeland Security issues long-needed regulations to address some types of fraud. In addition, she agreed to have the Inspector General complete a report on the effectiveness of the anti-fraud regulations. The Inspector General also will conduct an audit to determine to what extent religious workers continue to work for the religious institutions that sponsor them.

Madam Speaker, although the bill does not contain all of the provisions I would have liked, I want to express my thanks to Ms. Zoe Lofgren for her comity in drafting this legislation, which I support.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his generous comments a while ago, and I certainly appreciated working with him on this bill as well.

Performing arts organizations use O and P visas to bring many talented foreign artists to our country to perform

before American audiences. Despite the fact that the Immigration Nationality Act provides that the Department of Homeland Security shall adjudicate O and P visas within 14 days, adjudication of up to 180 days has been reported. These long delays create the risk that performances involving international artists must be cancelled, creating high economic risks to arts institutions and the local economies they support.

Henry Fogel, President of the American Symphony Orchestra League, has stated that, ``nonprofit arts organizations confront long waits and uncertainty in gaining approval for visa petitions for foreign guest artists. This degree of uncertainty can prove too risky for many performing arts organizations and is having a direct impact on their ability to present foreign guest artists. Orchestras must sell tickets in advance, creating a financial obligation to their audiences. Performances are date, time and location specific, and the nature of scheduling, booking and confirming highly sought after guest soloists and performing groups requires that the timing of the visa process be efficient and reliable.''

The INA does provide that the Department of Homeland Security can charge a fee of $1,000 to provide premium processing for employment- based visa petitions, adjudication within 15 days. However, many nonprofit arts organizations cannot afford to pay this extra amount either because they are a small, cash-strapped institution, or because they sponsor many foreign artists over a year's time. The Arts Required Timely Service, ARTS, Act provides that if a nonprofit organization's petition for an O visa or for a P visa is not adjudicated within 30 days, it will receive premium processing free of charge.

I support this bill. And I want to thank the chairman and Mr. Berman for their bipartisan amendment in committee that clarified that only arts organizations that are qualified as tax exempt under 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code can receive the fee waiver, and that organizations petitioning for athletes do not qualify for this waiver.

Mr. King, the gentleman from Iowa and the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, offered a number of amendments in the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill. For example, one provided that only small and nonprofit arts organizations should be eligible for the fee waiver. These amendments would have, in fact, improved the bill. Unfortunately, they were not adopted.

On the whole, however, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the chairman that I will not take advantage of his yielding back the time. I do, however, yield 4 minutes to Mr. King, the gentleman from Iowa, the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) who, like Mr. King, is a member of the Immigration Subcommittee. He will be our last speaker.

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

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

This bill commemorates the 40th anniversary of the tragic assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leader of a historic, nonviolent revolution in the U.S. Over the course of his life he fought for equal justice and led the Nation towards racial harmony.

While advancing this great movement, Dr. King's home was bombed, and he was subjected to relentless personal and physical abuse. Despite this violence, Dr. King responded in peace

with strong conviction and sound reason. And as a preacher, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement of peace could have survived in the face of such violence without the power of religious inspiration behind it.

From 1957 to 1968, Dr. King traveled over 6 million miles and spoke over 2,500 times about justice and equal freedom under the law.

On August 28, 1963, Dr. King led a peaceful march of 250,000 people through the streets of Washington, D.C. And it is here, in this city, where he delivered a speech that spoke for all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin. In his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King called the march the ``greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation,'' and he was right.

``I have a dream,'' he said, ``that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.''

Dr. King not only lived the American dream, but he opened that same door of opportunity for millions of Americans. He lived for the causes of justice and equality.

On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his hotel room in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. King was assassinated. But a single vicious act could not extinguish Dr. King's legacy, which endures to this day. And America is a better, freer Nation because of his legacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers at this time. I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

This debate today is not about Republican or Democratic arguments. It is not about right or left ideology. It is simply about protecting our country, and it is about protecting American lives. This might be a good time to recall the story of the American soldiers who were killed in Iraq last May. When the U.S. military discovered that the soldiers had been kidnapped by terrorists, they launched a full scale search and rescue mission.

In the early hours of the operation, U.S. intelligence officials on the ground discovered a lead that required immediate electronic surveillance of telephone conversations. But the terrorist loophole, which requires a court order from Washington before conducting surveillance on a foreign target, prevented our intelligence officials from gathering information from almost 10 hours.

The body of one of the soldiers was later found in the Euphrates River. The terrorists claim to have executed the other two soldiers.

We will never know if that information could have saved the lives of our soldiers. But we do know that the terrorist loophole tied our hands then and perhaps is costing us lives now.

Prior to enactment of the Protect America Act, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, warned Congress that our intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications. Three weeks ago, the Protect America Act expired, and our intelligence community lost the tools they need to monitor terrorists overseas and protect Americans here at home. We may never recover the foreign intelligence lost because of Congress's inaction.

This intelligence might have given us information about terrorist plots or foreign espionage. I hope these missed opportunities will not lead to a terrorist attack in the United States or in other countries that could have been prevented.

We are now 27 days late and much intelligence short because of the Democratic leadership's refusal to consider the bipartisan Senate bill. If they had brought it to the floor 3 weeks ago, it would have passed easily; and America would be safer today. But rather than modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Democrat majority's bill actually weakens it.

First, the Democrats' bill requires a court order before the government can begin surveillance of a foreign terrorist overseas. FISA has never required a court order to target foreigners overseas. As we saw in May, this causes significant delays in gathering foreign intelligence, placing Americans at risk.

Second, the Democrats' bill denies giving immunity to telecommunications providers who assisted the government following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The past

and future cooperation of these companies is essential to our national security.

Ninety-eight percent of America's communications technology is owned by private sector companies. We cannot conduct foreign surveillance without them. But if we continue to subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits, we risk losing their cooperation in the future. In fact, this bill is so flawed that the President has promised to veto it. Even more, Senator Reid, the Democratic majority leader, acknowledges that this legislation will never pass in the Senate.

Congress can and must do better than this bill. Our liberties, our security, and the future of our Nation depend on it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this fatally flawed piece of legislation, and I ask the Democratic majority to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the House floor for a vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, not enough attention is given to what the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General think about this piece of legislation; and in order to serve that purpose, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is not only on the Judiciary Committee but also the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul), who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), whom we wish were a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this might be a good time to read excerpts from a letter to the Speaker. This letter was written 2 days ago by the Attorney General and by the Director of National Intelligence, and I think Members and the American people are going to be very interested in what these two individuals had to say.

They expressed particular concern about requiring prior court approval to gather foreign intelligence from foreign targets located overseas.

The letter says: ``Congress did not include such a requirement when it passed the original FISA statute, and with good reason. These foreign targets have no right to any court review of such surveillance under our Constitution. We know from experience that requiring prior court approval is a formula for delay. Thus, this framework would impede vital foreign intelligence collection and put the Nation at unnecessary and greater risk.''

They conclude about this bill that it does not provide the intelligence community the tools it needs to collect effectively foreign intelligence information vital for the security of the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, what else do we need to hear? Members need to know this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

FISA Fix For Lawyers

National Security: Wiretap law is supposed to protect the

U.S. by discovering and foiling terrorist operations.

Congressional Democrats seem to think its purpose is to line

the pockets of their trial lawyer supporters.

House Democrats want to enact a terrorist surveillance law

that puts lawyers' fees before the safety of Americans. It's

a bill so skewed that its passage on a vote scheduled for

Thursday was questionable even to Democrats in the majority.

At issue is the help given by telecom companies such as

AT&T and Verizon in monitoring the telephone and Internet

communications of suspected terrorists with contacts within

the U.S.

Those heroic firms have saved hundreds, if not thousands,

of innocent lives with their cooperation in helping to obtain

information that allowed law enforcement to prevent post-9/ll

attacks.

Congressional Democrats steadfastly refuse to protect those

firms from lawsuits backed by the American Civil Liberties

Union. Their message to those patriotic companies seems to

be:

You helped President Bush succeed at something we wanted to

destroy him over, so now that we control Congress we're going

to give you your well-deserved comeuppance.

The ACLU issued a statement expressing delight over the

House Democrats' new bill and was also pleased that the

Democrats would let the authorization to track terrorists

expire in only two years--as if there is any realistic chance

that the global war on terror could be behind us by then.

A permanent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could

always be revisited or repealed by Congress, yet Speaker

Nancy Pelosi's Democrats insist on a FISA sunset provision.

The group said it is ``also heartened by the role retained

by the FISA court in overseeing the program,'' an allusion to

the fact that under the Democrats' bill, any and all domestic

surveillance for anti-terrorism purposes would have to first

get the approval of the special FISA courts--a state of

affairs that the president has emphatically stated places the

nation at risk.

Moreover, it is a state of affairs under which the country

is vulnerable today, because the Democratic Congress let FISA

expire nearly a month ago.

The Senate's FISA revision provides retroactive protection

from lawsuits to the telecom firms. If nothing is done, they

could conceivably be liable for hundreds of millions of

dollars--which would be some thanks for helping to protect

Americans from al-Qaida.

House Democrats instead would give only ``prospective

liability protection for telecom companies that assist with

lawful surveillance'', according to a statement from House

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

One of the bill's proposed procedures apparently would be

for the firms to tell the judge state secrets as part of

their defense

while the ACLU lawyers and other plaintiff attorneys are out

of the room.

But the ACLU's strategy in trying to destroy our

government's ability to monitor terrorist communications has

been to take their cases to federal courts in different

regions--in effect, judge shopping.

Because the House Democrats' FISA bill would, as the ACLU

puts it, keep ``the courthouse door open,'' chances are that

they would be able to find judges only too happy to make the

telecom firms pay multimillion-dollar awards. The only just

solution is for Congress to grant those firms full

retroactive immunity.

As Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Heritage

Foundation, ``those who assist the government in tracking

terrorists should not be punished with lawsuits . . . it's

not even proper to confirm whether any given company provided

assistance.'' He added: ``In some situations, there is no

alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector.''

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that trial

lawyers contributed some $85 million to Democratic candidates

in the 2006 election cycle. Obviously, Democrats believe

letting those legal parasites feed off patriotic companies

who have saved countless American lives is what is expected

of them in return.

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

I want to thank my friend from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to recognize the dedication and focus that Representative Capuano, the chairman of the Ethics Task Force, has demonstrated throughout this process. We know the best of intentions underly his desire and the desire of all Ethics Task Force members to enhance the integrity of the House of Representatives.

While this proposal is marginally improved over the first proposal, it still contains flaws that make it defective. The fundamental flaw of the proposal is that it fails to reform the House Ethics Committee itself. The creation of another ethics entity would be an admission of the failure of the Ethics Committee.

Americans rightly feel the ethics process simply does not work. They do not know when ethics investigations are started; they do not know the status of those investigations, and they do not know whether a partisan deadlock

has resulted in stalling an investigation forever. Americans need this knowledge, and that can only come through reforms to the Ethics Committee itself that will produce more bipartisanship and greater transparency. But the proposal before us simply adds another layer of bureaucracy on top of an already broken system. It creates an entirely new entity that invites yet more partisanship under clearly undemocratic procedures.

This country and the House of Representatives is founded on the principle of rule by majority; yet this proposal allows ethics inquiries to be initiated upon the request of only two out of the six board members. Furthermore, the proposal requires ethics investigations to go forward even when majority support among the board members cannot be obtained. This is undemocratic.

The resolution before us today is different from the original resolution and includes several changes. One amendment to the resolution now provides that the Speaker and minority leader will each nominate three members of the board with the concurrence of the other. Even under such a system, three board members will have been selected by the leader of a partisan political party.

Another amendment would provide that an investigation be terminated unless three board members affirmatively voted to proceed with an investigation. But if one board member nominated by the Speaker and one board member nominated by the minority leader agreed to initiate an investigation, but upon further review either board member decides the matter should be dismissed, the investigation can still proceed with the support of only those board members nominated either by the Speaker or the minority leader.

Not only does this resolution retain the undemocratic nature of the resolution, it also allows investigations to go forward on a purely partisan 3-3 vote. This is an open invitation to a partisan free-for- all. As a recent editorial in Roll Call stated bluntly, ``We don't deny it's a gamble.''

Under this proposal, many Members who deserve better could have their reputations unfairly diminished. A recent editorial in The Hill newspaper entitled ``Leaking Ethics'' focused on this point. It said, ``All it takes is one source to say the Ethics Committee may launch a probe into a Member and that lawmaker's reputation will be forever damaged whether he or she is guilty or innocent.''

Whether this resolution passes or not, Congress will survive. But if it passes, Members should know there is an obvious danger the ethics process will become even more partisan and that innocent Members will be hurt.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule on the resolution which invites partisanship, undermines democracy, and poses unacceptable risk.

First of all, I thank my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the Government Reform Committee, for yielding me time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for bringing this bill to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor Cyndi Taylor Krier, a distinguished public servant who has spent more than a quarter of a century in local, State and Federal public office in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

Cyndi Krier began her public service career when she became the first woman from Bexar County elected to the Texas senate. She represented Bexar County in the State senate from 1985 to 1992, serving on the Finance, Education, Jurisprudence, and Natural Resources Committees. She then became the first woman elected Bexar County judge. She served as county judge from 1992 to 2001, representing more than 1.4 million people in the San Antonio metropolitan area.

Cyndi Krier also was a regent for the University of Texas system from 2001 to 2007, overseeing the University of Texas' nine academic and six health campuses, and serving as vice chairman of the board and as chairman of the academic affairs committee.

Cyndi Krier's family has strong ties to the United States Postal Service. Her grandfather served as postmaster in Dinero, Texas, until his death in 1956, and was succeeded by her grandmother, who served as postmaster for more than 20 years. Her mother served the United States Postal Service in Beeville, Texas, for more than 30 years as a clerk, rural route delivery person, and civil service examiner.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of a good friend, Cyndi Taylor Krier, by supporting H.R. 4774, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, as the Cyndi Taylor Krier Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, again, it gives me great pleasure to have introduced this bill and to see it considered by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I support better health care being made available for the mentally ill. Americans should have the freedom to choose health care plans that offer mental health benefits.

I also support the passage of H.R. 1424, the ``Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007,'' because this legislation represents a step forward in the mental health care debate.

However, I believe the House bill goes too far by limiting physicians' ability to refer patients to physician-owned hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals play an important role in providing high quality care to patients. These facilities should not be penalized for offering accessible health care to so many individuals.

In addition, this legislation requires any plan that provides mental health or substance-related disorder benefits to offer coverage for all disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The list of disorders encompassed by this legislation is too broad and could be used by some individuals to take advantage of the health care system.

H.R. 1424 also will not allow employers to have discretion over the benefit coverage decisions for their employees. It instead imposes a mandate that requires employers to cover all conditions listed in the DSM-IV. This mandate likely will increase health insurance costs.

I am hopeful that if this legislation goes to a Conference Committee, the House will adopt much of the language contained in the Senate version of the bill, S. 558, the ``Mental Health Parity Act.'' The Senate bill represents a compromise between the mental health and business communities.

The Senate legislation provides employer discretion by allowing employers to determine which mental health conditions should be covered under their plan and does not include language that penalizes physician-owned hospitals.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this important issue and to making sure we have an improved bill at the end of the process.

Mr. Speaker, today is day 11 without the Protect America Act and so our Nation continues to be at greater risk of attack from terrorists.

Yesterday I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee to attach the Senate-passed FISA bill to H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. House Democrats once again refused to bring this commonsense, bipartisan bill to the floor for a straight up-or-down vote.

Last year, Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, warned Congress that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications, further endangering American lives. Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close this loophole for terrorists.

The Senate, working with the administration, drafted legislation to modernize FISA and give our intelligence agencies a long-term law under which they could operate. It has been 2 weeks since the Senate overwhelmingly approved their bill by a vote of 68-29. We should vote on it immediately to better protect American lives.

Mr. Speaker, I also oppose H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. H.R. 5351 contains some beneficial provisions, such as creating incentives to make energy efficiency improvements to new and existing homes and extending tax credits to encourage the production of alternative forms of energy. But while it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry.

According to the Department of Energy, in 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6 percent of the U.S. domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58 percent of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life.

Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy.

The answer to lowering gas prices and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is not to remove $17.6 billion in tax incentives from the oil and gas industry. The answer is to utilize our domestic resources, including ANWR.

According to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, ``ANWR would supply every drop of petroleum for Florida for 29 years, New York for 34 years, California for 16 years, or New Hampshire for 315 years.'' It could also supply Washington, D.C. for 1,710 years.

The answer is also to build new refineries and to develop more nuclear energy, as most European and Asian countries have already done. But no

new major refinery has been built in the United States in the past 15 years. And no new nuclear facility has received a construction license in the United States for 30 years, even though safe technology is now available.

Mr. Speaker, instead of penalizing the oil and gas industry, Congress should pass real energy reform, expand domestic exploration of oil and gas, build more refineries, and construct more nuclear facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority's decision to ignore the requests of our intelligence community has endangered our national security. Why do House Democrats refuse to give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect American lives?

A strong bipartisan bill passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29. The bill also was supported by the administration, the intelligence community, as well as the majority of Members of the House. Yet the Democrats' leaders refused to bring the bill up for a vote.

Congress has no greater responsibility than to ensure that our intelligence-gathering laws are strong and our Nation is safe from future attacks. Let's hope, for the sake of our country, the Democratic leaders will decide before it's too late to pass the bipartisan Senate bill.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, once again, the Democratic majority is insisting on a procedural objection to block consideration of the Senate-passed FISA modernization bill. This motion to recommit adds the bipartisan bill passed 2 weeks ago by the Senate, 68-29.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing more germane to the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible.

Now I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate reform bill.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.

Yesterday, House Democrats said that Congress does not have enough time to pass critical FISA modernization legislation to keep America safe from foreign terrorists. Today, we are wasting Congress' time on an issue that does nothing to make our Nation safer. Clearly, the Democratic majority is out of touch with the needs of our intelligence community and is placing Americans' lives at risk.

On the eve of the expiration of critical intelligence legislation, the House Democratic majority has chosen to put extreme partisanship ahead of our country's safety. Apparently, the Democratic majority cares more about the alleged steroid use of a few baseball players and the personnel decisions of the White House than they do about promoting national security.

Last year, Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, warned Congress that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications, endangering Americans' lives. Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close this terrorist loophole.

Now House Democrats are going to let the Protect America Act expire. If the act expires, we will return to the status quo, unable to begin any new foreign intelligence surveillance without a court order and risk losing two-thirds of all foreign intelligence.

Today we find ourselves at two very dangerous thresholds: first, expiration of legislation vital to this Nation's national security, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House Democratic majority has let this legislation lapse without even allowing a straight up-or- down vote on the bipartisan Senate bill approved earlier this week by a vote of 68-29. Instead of reauthorizing FISA, the Democratic majority chooses to take us to another threshold, that of a needless constitutional confrontation in the courts over the dismissal of a handful of United States Attorneys.

We know that the President has the authority to dismiss U.S. Attorneys. We know that his executive privilege claims are consistent with those made by previous Presidents for decades. We know that by tilting at the executive privilege windmill we risk severely undermining the very oversight authority we would want to protect. But most of all, we know that reauthorization of FISA is infinitely more important than this spat over executive privilege.

Once again, we see why Congress' approval rating is at an historic low. It's

because the Democratic majority engages in extreme partisanship and ignores the people's business.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5349, which extends the Protect America Act for 21 days. Another extension is unacceptable and unnecessary.

Last August, Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close a dangerous loophole in our ability to collect foreign intelligence. The Democratic majority insisted on an arbitrary 6-month sunset. But instead of using that time wisely, they ignored the needs of our intelligence community and passed a partisan, unworkable bill, the RESTORE Act. Then, 2 weeks ago, the House Democratic majority insisted on another extension. Again they squandered the last 2 weeks. Now House Democrats want more time. But their time is up.

We know from Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, that before Congress enacted the Protect America Act, the intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications, endangering American lives.

Some in Congress are willing to let the Protect America Act expire because ongoing surveillance under the act can continue for up to a year. This might be acceptable if the terrorist threat also expired this weekend, but it doesn't. If the act expires, we will return to the status quo, unable to begin any new foreign intelligence surveillance without a court order, again threatening America's counterterrorism efforts.

Another extension represents a failure by the House Democratic majority to protect the American people. The Senate understands this. The intelligence community needs a long-term bill to fix gaps in our intelligence laws, not a 21-day extension.

The Senate bill addresses the concerns of our intelligence community and has strong bipartisan support. But House Democrats are at war with themselves and at odds with the American people. House Democrats disagree with the Senate Democrats and House Democrats disagree among themselves. One group wants to approve the bipartisan Senate bill and another opposes it.

Americans are tired of this kind of partisanship in Washington. Now we have partisanship within partisanship within the Democratic Party. House Democrats disagree among themselves, disagree with Democrats in the Senate, and oppose a bipartisan bill that passed yesterday with overwhelming support by a vote of 68-29.

The House Democratic leadership is like a clock that runs backwards. They keep going in counterclockwise circles to the left. Unfortunately, we can't turn the clock back on terrorists. We must act to gather intelligence on terrorists and prevent another attack.

Why do we keep delaying our ability to protect American lives? Another extension represents a failure to act, a failure to lead, and a failure to protect our country. It doesn't take long to do what is right. Let's stop the stalling and pass the bipartisan Senate bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this extension and urge the Democratic leadership to allow the House to consider the bipartisan Senate bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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