Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, this extension does nothing more than contribute uncertainty to our intelligence community and put our foreign surveillance activities at risk. We have a bill we can pass right now. Yesterday, the Senate approved its bipartisan FISA bill by an overwhelming majority of 68-29. The Senate bill addresses the concerns of our intelligence community and has strong bipartisan support.

The intelligence community needs a long-term fix to gaps in our intelligence laws now, not 21 days from now. What message does it send that we lack confidence in our intelligence community? Why are we making ourselves vulnerable to those who want to hurt us? Spies and terrorists don't operate by deadlines and sunsets. Neither should our intelligence laws.

We cannot allow the Protect America Act to expire and return to the status quo, unable to begin any new foreign surveillance. The time to act is now. Another extension represents a failure by the House Democratic majority to protect the American people.

We should reject this extension and urge the Democratic leadership to allow the House to consider the Senate bill, which has majority support in the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who has some instructive math to share with us.

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

Madam Speaker, I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democratic majority is insisting on a procedural objection to block consideration of this motion to recommit. This motion substitutes the bipartisan bill passed yesterday by the Senate 68-29 to improve FISA, a bill that would dramatically improve our national security. It is sad to see the Democratic majority put procedure over substance when it comes to protecting Americans from terrorists.

There is nothing more germane to the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible. Therefore, I would ask the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up or down vote on the bipartisan Senate reform bill. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his point of order and allow us to take a vote on a bill supported by both parties in the Senate, the administration, and many Democrats in the House.

Again, I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit. We need to stop playing procedural games with our national security and take a vote now on the Senate-passed bill to improve FISA.

Madam Speaker, I move to appeal the Speaker's ruling.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Americans say voters should be required to show photo identification before voting, according to a new Fox 5-Washington Times-Rasmussen survey. But not one major newspaper, aside from the Washington Times, featured those poll results.

Instead, the national media have portrayed the voter ID issue as unpopular with voters. To the contrary, the new survey found strong bipartisan support for voter ID, including 63 percent of Democrats and Independents, as well as over three-fourths of Republicans.

Clearly, voter ID has broad support among Americans. It's unfortunate you'll never hear about it from the major media.

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

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly support H.R. 5104, which extends the Protect America Act for 2 weeks.

Last year, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, notified Congress about a dangerous loophole in our ability to collect intelligence information overseas. Director McConnell estimated that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications. Congress passed the Protect America Act last August to close this loophole. Unfortunately, the legislation contained an arbitrary 6-month sunset and is currently set to expire this Friday.

After 6 months of waiting, the Democratic majority is now coming perilously close to threatening the safety of every American. But rather than pass a long-term fix to the terrorist loophole, the Democratic majority wants another extension. The White House promised to veto the 30-day extension that the majority was going to bring to the floor yesterday. Today's bill represents a compromise for only a 2- week extension.

The truth is we do not need any temporary extension. In fact, there is a bipartisan bill that we can and should pass today. The Senate Intelligence Committee already has approved a bill to close the terrorist loophole and provide liability protection to the telecommunication companies. That is being blocked by the Democratic majority.

As the deadline draws near, the urgent needs of the intelligence community must be addressed. This is no time for partisanship. This is a time for responsible action.

Any bill must include two critical provisions. First, Congress has the responsibility to enact long-term legislation that allows intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on foreign targets without a court order. A U.S. Army intelligence officer in Iraq should not have to contact a Federal judge in Washington to conduct surveillance on Iraqi insurgents.

Second, Congress must provide liability protection to U.S. telecommunication companies that responded to government requests for information following the terrorist attacks of September 11. Close to 40 frivolous lawsuits against the telephone companies already have been filed. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of meritless lawsuits.

Terrorists have not placed an expiration date on their plots to destroy the American way of life. Congress should not put an expiration date on our intelligence community's ability to protect our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who is the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). He is a former chairman, now ranking member of the National Security Subcommittee of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee. He is also a senior Republican member of the Homeland Security Committee as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). He is the ranking member of the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

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

The Senate Intelligence Committee has already approved a bipartisan bill to replace the Protect America Act. It contains important provisions to help the intelligence committee gather foreign surveillance and provides liability protection to telecommunications

companies that assisted the government after the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The Democratic majority has a duty to end political gamesmanship with America's national security and immediately pass legislation that gives our intelligence community the tools they need to protect us.

Madam Speaker, given the rapidly approaching Friday deadline, today I ask that my colleagues support a temporary extension; but, of course, that's with the understanding that we come back immediately and pass a good bill that is long term, that gives liability protection to the telephone companies, and that doesn't force us to get a court order to listen to Osama bin Laden when he makes a cell phone call from a cave in Pakistan to initiate attacks on the United States.

I hope that any bill that we consider in the coming days will have those provisions in them.

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

Madam Speaker, the national media continue to devote a disproportionate amount of news coverage to the Democratic Presidential campaign.

For example, on the day before the Republican primary in Michigan, NBC's Today Show gave almost 7 minutes to the race between Democrat Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, compared to about 30 seconds to the close Republican race.

NBC isn't the only network giving more coverage to the Democratic campaign. The January 7 edition of ABC's Good Morning America devoted almost 15 minutes of coverage to analyzing the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Just 30 seconds were given to the Republican side.

We must continue to encourage the media to report with fairness rather than partiality. Only then can the American people get the balanced coverage of this important Presidential campaign that they need and deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I support House Resolution 852 and commend the sponsor of this legislation, my friend and Texas colleague, Representative Ted Poe, for his dedication and commitment to this issue.

The goal of this resolution is to raise awareness and encourage prevention of stalking by establishing January 2008 as National Stalking Awareness Month.

Stalking, conduct intended to instill fear in a victim, is a crime that occurs in every State in our Nation. Stalkers pursue and harass victims and, in some cases, use the Internet to cyberstalk victims. Cyberstalkers can systematically flood their target's e-mail inbox with obscene, hateful, or threatening messages.

Cyberstalkers may also assume the identity of their victim and post information, fictitious or not, to solicit unwanted responses from others. Although cyberstalking does not involve physical contact with the victim, it is still a serious crime. The widespread use of the Internet and the ease with which hackers can find personal information has made this form of stalking more accessible.

According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, over 1 million women and almost 400,000 men are stalked each year in the United States. In fact, most victims, 77 percent of women and 64 percent of men, know their stalkers. These statistics are a jarring reminder of the scope and seriousness of this crime.

By establishing January 2008 as National Stalking Awareness Month, Congress educates Americans about stalking, recognizes and applauds law enforcement officials and victim service providers for their efforts to combat stalking, and increases awareness of services available to stalking victims.

Madam Speaker, I urge colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I recognize my colleague and friend from Texas, the author of this resolution, Mr. Poe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Royce) who is the original author of the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who is a senior distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3992, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act.

This legislation addresses the unique challenges that mentally ill offenders create for our criminal justice system.

I commend Chairman Conyers, subcommittee Chairman Scott, subcommittee ranking member Gohmert, and the many advocacy groups for their dedication and hard work to address this problem.

Madam Speaker, 16 percent of the prison or jail population, or over 1 million prisoners, have a serious mental illness. The Los Angeles County Jail and New York City's Rikers Island Jail house more people with mental illnesses than the largest psychiatric inpatient facilities in the United States. The problem is more than one-fifth of jails have no access to any mental health services at all.

Many criminal justice agencies are unprepared to address the treatment and needs of individuals with mental illness. Jails and prisons require extra staff and treatment resources for inmates with mental illness. In addition, mentally ill offenders can be affected psychologically by incarceration.

H.R. 3992 represents an innovative and new approach to the challenge of mentally ill criminal offenders. This legislation is an important step toward treating mentally ill offenders in a humane and appropriate way.

H.R. 3992 reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, which encourages early intervention for individuals with mental illness, reauthorizes the mental health courts program, and maximizes alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders with mental illness.

The legislation also encourages training on mental health and substance abuse issues, establishes new 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, related service providers, and governmental partners.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3971, the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007, and commend Chairman Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott, and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Gohmert for their commitment to this bipartisan legislation.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 directed the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect data on deaths that occur in the process of arrest or during transfer after arrest, as well as deaths that occur in jails and prisons.

H.R. 3971 reauthorizes this data collection program and directs the Attorney General to commission a study to determine how to reduce deaths in custody and to examine the relationship between deaths in custody and the management of jail and prison facilities.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that between 2001 and 2005 there were 15,308 State prisoner deaths. The bureau also reports that there were 5,935 local prisoner deaths and 43 juvenile deaths between 2000 and 2005.

Half of all State prisoner deaths are the result of heart disease and cancer. Two-thirds involved inmates age 45 or older, and another two- thirds are the result of medical problems that were present at the time of admission.

Although illness-related deaths have slightly increased in recent years, the homicide and suicide rates in State prisons have dramatically decreased over the last 25 years. That is positive news, but we still need to collect data to monitor these trends.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a Sacred Heart University poll released this month found that less than 20 percent of those surveyed believed news media reporting. Almost nine out of 10 Americans believe that the news media attempt to influence public opinion, and about the same number

think the media attempt to influence public policies.

Fewer than one in three Americans give the media positive rating for ``keeping any personal bias out of stories, fairness, presenting and even balance of views, and presenting negative and positive views equally.'' By four-to-one margins, Americans see the New York Times and National Public Radio as having a liberal bias, and by a three-to-one margin, Americans see journalists and broadcasters as having a liberal bias.

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, a study by Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism has reaffirmed what many of us have long observed: Media coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates has been far more abundant and favorable than coverage of Republican Presidential candidates.

The study found that 49 percent of all stories involved Democratic candidates, while just 31 percent involved Republican candidates. In addition, Democratic Presidential candidates received twice as much favorable coverage as Republicans, and Hillary Clinton drew nearly twice as much media coverage as any Republican nominee.

Until we hold journalists to the highest standards of their profession, unfair reporting will continue to influence elections and undermine our democracy.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) not only for yielding me time, but also for his favorable mention a few minutes ago when he was speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007.

This legislation gives the public more information and better insight into the workings of the government by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, called FOIA. FOIA performs a vital check and balance on the Federal branch. It protects our open system of government and ensures that the government responds as it should to the American people. Unfortunately, the process for obtaining information is overly burdensome and Federal agencies have become less and less responsive to the requests for information. This deters citizens from obtaining information to which they are entitled.

Taxpayers should have the opportunity to obtain information from the Federal Government quickly and easily. This legislation contains several provisions similar to those in a bill I introduced last March. These include provisions regarding recovery of attorneys' fees, penalties for agencies that do not comply within the specified FOIA time limits, and additional agency reporting requirements.

I am pleased that the bill under consideration today creates a more open government without threatening national security or invading personal privacy. The ability to obtain records from the Federal Government is one of the fundamental rights of the American people. When the government closes the doors on information, the people cannot monitor their government. Democracy is based on the people's right to know. That is why I support the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill rightly makes it easier for citizens to get answers to their requests for information, and that's why I hope all of my colleagues will support it.

Madam Speaker, Henry Hyde was a giant in Congress. His articulateness, diplomacy and knowledge was evident to all. He sat on the Judiciary Committee from when he was first elected in 1975 and served 6 years as the Committee's Chairman. It was a privilege to serve with him.

Vivid memories of my years in Congress center on comments Henry Hyde made on and off the floor. He was a person of conviction, but never a partisan for partisan's sake. He was one of those rare individuals that when he spoke on the House floor, was listened to with respect because of his way with words and his sincerity.

We will miss him but he will be in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, the deplorable crime of human trafficking exploits the innocent while it promotes illegal immigration.

The legislation we are considering today builds upon the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. That historic legislation combated the trafficking of persons into the sex trade and slavery in the United States and countries around the world through the prosecution of traffickers and through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking.

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Claims Subcommittee in 2000, I worked closely with the sponsors of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to ensure that it protected victims of trafficking without encouraging the smuggling of illegal immigrants.

The legislation created a new nonimmigrant T visa for victims of severe forms of trafficking who have cooperated with U.S. law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers.

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act judiciously expands on the immigration provisions of the 2000 Act and also adds reasonable protections for unaccompanied alien minors apprehended by our immigration officers.

When I reviewed the original bill, my goal was to modify certain provisions that I was concerned would encourage illegal immigration and immigration fraud and leave us vulnerable to dangerous juveniles.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers and Chairwoman Lofgren for addressing those concerns.

I also want to thank Chairman Conyers for addressing my concerns with the criminal provisions of the original bill.

The bill now lessens the burden on prosecutors to prove that criminals forced victims to work in sweatshops or as prostitutes.

I do remain concerned about increasing the Federal role in prosecuting cases involving pimping and pandering. These crimes are traditionally prosecuted at the State and local level and I believe that Federal jurisdiction is unnecessary. However, I will not oppose this bill on that basis.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for politics and partisanship. But there are in fact important issues that transcend politics. The security of our Nation outweighs politics, especially when our country is at war.

One of the finest moments of bipartisanship in Washington came after one of the darkest days in our history. On the evening of September 11, 2001, Members of Congress stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of the Capitol as a symbol of strength and unity in response to the terrorist attacks. In that moment, we stood together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans resolved to protect our Nation. However, as we stand here today, that same spirit of bipartisanship we shared on 9/11 no longer exists.

We began in August to address a very specific and very urgent issue facing our intelligence community. We learned from the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was outdated for today's technology. But the bill we are considering today does not modernize FISA; it weakens it. Why, after 30 years of lawful foreign intelligence collection, does the Democratic majority suddenly object to a law that their party originally enacted in 1978? Why make it harder to gather intelligence on terrorists after 9/11 than before?

Now, after only a few hours' notice, we are considering the RESTORE Act, which actually restores little. Rather, it undermines our national security and increases the risk of a future terrorist attack on our country. It prevents our intelligence community from gathering critical intelligence information. It ignores the need for legal protection for communications companies that assist law enforcement and intelligence officials. We are at war with terrorists who spend every day plotting attacks against us. Our intelligence community needs to detect and disrupt these plots. To deny this ability could have catastrophic consequences.

Admiral McConnell testified in great detail before the Judiciary Committee about the specific needs of the intelligence community and the need to reform FISA. Admiral McConnell's recommendations are ignored, unfortunately, in the RESTORE Act. Instead, it requires the intelligence community to obtain FISA court orders for all communications of persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. FISA has never applied to persons outside of the United States.

Under the RESTORE Act, FISA court orders will be required for the first time ever for thousands of overseas terrorist targets. Also, section 18 of the

manager's amendment is bluntly titled: ``No Rights Under the RESTORE Act for Undocumented Aliens.'' That is what it says. But the practical effect of the RESTORE Act will be to allow unregulated, warrantless wiretapping of illegal immigrants in the United States. Is this really what the Democratic majority intends?

Finally, the RESTORE Act omits any liability protection for telephone companies and other carriers that assisted the government after September 11, 2001. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of harassing lawsuits. Communications technology has changed since 1978. We can no longer gather foreign intelligence without the assistance of private communications companies. Extending commonsense liability protection to communication providers who acted in good faith to protect the United States from another terrorist attack is completely appropriate. If we fail to provide this protection, we risk losing the future cooperation of communication providers in gathering foreign intelligence.

Democrats made a promise to the American people in 2006 that Members of Congress would put aside politics and work together to find bipartisan solutions to issues facing the American people. That promise has apparently been broken.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) who is the senior member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

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

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit says ``promptly,'' because the bill needs to go back to committee immediately. Members were given almost no notice of what was going to be in this bill. There are many questions remaining about the text because it has not gone through the regular committee process.

This motion addresses a major problem created by the manager's amendment. Under existing law, court orders are required to conduct certain surveillance of illegal immigrants within the United States. Section 18 of the manager's amendment strips away any rights that illegal immigrants have under FISA, stating clearly that there will be ``no rights under the RESTORE Act for undocumented aliens.''

If that is really what the Democratic leadership wants to do, then we should ensure that the legislation does not treat terrorists more favorably than illegal immigrants. To fix this problem, the motion adds ``state sponsors of terrorism and their agents'' to section 18

to ensure that they are treated equally. There is no reason that the law should provide greater protection to terrorists than to illegal immigrants.

Also, the motion preserves the ability of our intelligence community to conduct surveillance of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and other terrorist organizations to protect America from an imminent terrorist attack. When faced with a life-or- death situation, a ticking bomb, an imminent threat of attack, do we really want to subject intelligence agents to unnecessary legal hurdles in order to protect our country?

The RESTORE Act hinders our intelligence community's ability to collect foreign intelligence needed to prevent al Qaeda and other terrorists from attacking our country. It requires the government to obtain court orders to conduct surveillance of overseas terrorists. The implication of this requirement, Mr. Speaker, could be catastrophic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Second Chance Act of 2007.'' I commend Chairman Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott, along with Ranking Member Mr. Forbes, and Representatives Chris Cannon, Danny Davis, Howard Coble, and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones for their commitment to the issue of prisoner re-entry.

I also want to thank Minority Whip Roy Blunt for his tireless dedication to this legislation. Congressman Blunt and his staff devoted countless hours to bicameral and bipartisan negotiations to reach a consensus on this important legislation. The new bill, which is modeled on prior versions, is an excellent example of bipartisan cooperation on important criminal justice matters.

This bill represents a common sense approach to addressing the problems posed by prisoner reentry.

President Bush stated in his 2004 State of the Union address: ``We know from long experience that if [former prisoners] can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison. . . . America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.''

The Second Chance Act of 2007 implements the President's initiative.

I believe in tough enforcement of our criminal laws. Public safety is essential to a free society, and criminals must be aggressively prosecuted and incarcerated to protect our communities. However, once criminals are incarcerated, we have an obligation to make sure they are rehabilitated and treated humanely.

The Second Chance Act creates a framework of strategic policy innovations to provide effective re-entry services.

The demand for innovative solutions is obvious--it is conservatively estimated that approximately 650,000 inmates will be released from State prisons in the next year. In the absence of action, 67 percent of these individuals will be rearrested and over half will return to prison in the 3 years following their release from prison. States are being crushed by an overwhelming financial burden of correctional costs.

We need to help State and local governments implement innovative programs to ease the transition for offenders, to bring families together once again, and to make sure that offenders get the necessary support so that they can truly have a second chance to live a law- abiding life.

Successful reentry protects those who might otherwise be crime victims. It also improve the likelihood that individuals released from prison, jail or juvenile detention facilities can pay fines, fees, restitution, and provide family support.

The Second Chance Act expands existing demonstration programs to improve coordination among service providers, supervision services and re-entry task forces, and between State substance abuse agencies and criminal justice agencies. The Act also strengthens reentry services and authorizes grants to operate State and local reentry courts, and to establish local re-entry task forces to develop comprehensive reentry plans during each phase of transition--from incarceration, to transitional housing, to release in the community.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that we are considering a bill to extend the Internet tax moratorium another 7 years. With only 2 days left until the moratorium expires, it's high time that Congress passes this important legislation and gets it to the President's desk for his signature.

Two weeks ago, the House approved H.R. 3678, a bill to extend the Internet tax moratorium for 4 years. I supported

this legislation because it accomplished several positive things. For example, it clarified the definition of Internet access to ensure that States do not tax Internet access, including the acquisition of transmission capabilities.

However, I was disappointed that it did not permanently ban taxes on Internet access and e-commerce and that the House Democratic leadership refused to allow a vote on permanency, even though over 240 Members are cosponsors of a permanent extension.

Today, by passing H.R. 3678 with the Senate amendments, we are taking a step in the right direction. This legislation extends the moratorium for 7 years, almost doubling what the House approved only 2 weeks ago.

The Senate amendments to H.R. 3678 also made several other important changes to the law. The Senate extended the coverage of the moratorium to all e-mail, regardless of whether it was bundled with Internet access. With respect to the original grandfathered States, the Senate added a new ``use it or lose it'' provision that says that if one of those States repeals or otherwise does not enforce its tax on Internet access, it loses its grandfather protections.

I think these are good changes to the original House-passed bill, and I am happy to support them.

By extending the ban on Internet access taxes for a longer period of time, we give businesses the certainty they need to spend billions of dollars to construct, maintain and update the broadband Internet infrastructure throughout the country.

This legislation will help keep the cost of Internet access down so that all individuals can continue to use the great informational tool that is the Internet.

While I'm disappointed that we're not making the ban permanent, which has wide support in the House, we are certainly moving in the right direction by passing H.R. 3678 today.

Hundreds of companies and groups, including AOL, Apple, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, Comcast, eBay, Electronic Industries Alliance, Level 3 Communications, the National Association of Manufacturers, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, National Taxpayers Union, Sprint/Nextel, Time Warner Communications, T-Mobile, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Telecom Association, U.S. Internet Industry Association, Verizon, Yahoo, the Business Software Alliance, and the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership, among many, many others, have, in fact, called for a permanent ban on Internet access taxes.

While H.R. 3678 doesn't get us all the way to the goal line, it is a step forward that will benefit the economy and the consumer.

Madam Speaker, if we are going to have a healthy economy in America, if we are going to continue to create jobs, if we're going to continue to enjoy a high standard of living, if we are going to continue to increase productivity, we have to do everything we can to encourage and help the high-tech industry.

To that end, I support H.R. 3678, but I still would like to see Congress pass a permanent moratorium.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the principal Republican sponsor of the permanent ban on Internet taxes.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) who is a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and also ranking member of that committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

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

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