Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our country rises to its potential when we support NATO, especially when an ally asks for help.

In August, the missile threat to our allies grew. Russia invaded Georgia and fired over a dozen ballistic missiles at her people. And Iran also tested its first space-launched rocket. In response, our Polish allies signed an agreement calling for a U.S. missile defense base. It will not only defend Europe, but also us.

Poland is a good ally, having sent 18,000 troops to Iraq, covering five provinces, and now surging support for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. But in July, the House gutted funding for the base in Poland. Without a Polish agreement, the House cut $400 million. But now that agreement has been signed. Poland's foreign minister has asked for U.S. support, especially after Russia's President Putin threatened both Poland and Ukraine.

Tomorrow I will offer a defense appropriations amendment to refund the cuts made against Poland. If the lessons of the last century are clear, we know that America has fewer problems later if we support a friend like Poland now.

Madam Speaker, please let the record show that Representative Dave Reichert was an original cosponsor of the Apollo Energy Independence Act, H.R. 6385, and was integral to the introduction of this legislation. Congressman Reichert was left off of the original cosponsor list due to administrative error.

Madam Speaker, we all know there is a growing Iranian threat, focused mostly on the people of Israel.

Earlier this year, Jane Harman joined my bipartisan letter with 70 Members of Congress calling for the U.S. to extend our full ballistic missile defenses to protect Israel.

Last night, the United States announced that we would make this key commitment. Secretary Gates told Defense Minister Barak that the first step will happen soon. America's most powerful radar, the X-Band, will soon defend Israel.

This is a historic step that sends a powerful message to Iran: A future attack on Israel will likely fail. Our two democracies are sticking together to ensure the safety of free peoples, even in the Middle East.

Yesterday's decision by America's defenders makes deterrence, diplomacy, and peace a much more likely future for the people of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I co-authored this resolution with Rob Andrews as a call to action for the safety of the Baha'i faithful.

Never have followers of a more peaceful or gentle creed faced a more cruel and unjust tormenter. Founded in the mid-19th century in Persia, the Baha'i faith now extends to every country, including our own, but its faithful are most numerous in the place of its origin, now the modern day Iran.

The European Parliament has spoken out on this issue, and so we now add our voice as supporters of international human rights and the home of many Baha'i faithful here in America.

We have looked at a terrible situation unfolding in Iran. While Iranian Baha'is have suffered for many decades, their repression has grown significantly in the past few years. In 2006, Iran's Armed Forces Command headquarters ordered their Ministry of Information and the Revolutionary Guard and the police to identify all members of the Baha'i faith in Iran and to begin to monitor their activities.

In that same year, we saw the largest round-up of Baha'is. The Iranian Interior Ministry ordered provincial officials to cautiously and carefully monitor and then begin to manage all Baha'i activities. The Central Security Office of Iran's Ministry of Science, Research and Technology ordered 81 Iranian universities to expel any student discovered of being a Baha'i.

In 2007, the situation worsened. More than two-thirds of Baha'is enrolled in universities were expelled once they were identified. Police entered Baha'i homes and businesses to collect details on family members. Twenty-five industries were ordered to deny licenses to Baha'is, employers were pressured to fire Baha'i employees, and banks were told to refuse loans to Baha'i-owned businesses. As we heard before, Baha'i cemeteries were also destroyed.

In November of 2007, three Baha'i youths, Ms. Raha Sabet, Mr. Sasan Taqva and Ms. Haleh Roohi, were all detained for educating underprivileged children. They were later sentenced to 4 years in prison for this offense. The following month, the Iranian Parliament published a draft Islamic penal code requiring the death penalty for all apostates, a term that strictly applies to Baha'is and anyone who converts away from rigid Islam.

On May 14, 2008, seven members of the National Baha'i Coordinating Group were arrested. This is reminiscent of a mass disappearance and assumed murder of all members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is in Iran back in August of 1980. The seven arrested in May are still being held without any charge or access to attorneys. And in just the last 2 weeks, a number of Baha'i families were targeted with acts of arson.

This is government-sponsored persecution. And we in the Congress should not be silent as Iran sets up the mechanism to ethnically cleanse its Baha'i minority, totaling over 250,000 human beings.

This bipartisan resolution, which I introduced with Congressman Andrews, condemns the Government of Iran for its persistent repression of Baha'is and lack of due process afforded to this minority. Our resolution calls upon Iran to immediately release three Baha'i youths and to reject the draft Islamic penal code requiring the death penalty for all apostates.

Mr. Speaker, my district is also home to the headquarters of the North American Assembly of Baha'is. The son of the faith's founder laid the cornerstone on the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette, Illinois--now basically a de facto symbol of the North Shore and our commitment to diversity and tolerance. Would that this view be shared by the Iranian Government.

For the life of me, I do not understand why they attack Baha'is. The Baha'i faith teaches that Moses and Jesus and Mohammed are all respected teachers who added to the faith of our times. The Baha'is embody acceptance and tolerance and accommodation. They have a faith which renders them incapable of being a threat to a government, so it is up to us to speak for them. It's up to us to hold up a mirror to the Iranian Government to show it as a vicious and cruel state.

We have seen this movie before, but they have worn other uniforms in other countries. It is my hope that we can make this call to action to join with the European Parliament. We can help change the ending of this flick so that hundreds of thousands of Baha'is may one day be able to sleep well in future days knowing that the great democracies from across the seas in Europe and America watch over them.

I urge the adoption of this Kirk-Andrews resolution and mightily thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, Ranking Member Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Chabot, for helping to bring this before America's Parliament and calling real attention to help avert what could be a new crime of the century.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, 23 years as a staff member, I heard from WHO that AIDS was not an epidemic based in New York, San Francisco, or Haiti, as we thought back in 1985, but instead was an epidemic that raged in Zaire for years.

I got my then boss, John Porter, and Democratic Congressman Bob Mrazek to begin the foreign AIDS program. We were told by the leaders of the Appropriations Committee that we could not do this, but we did. We started with just a $25 million funding level, and as recently as 1999, I had a tough time even getting members to show up for a hearing on this subject. I feel a bit like a country music singer who worked in every honky-tonk for years before hitting the big time. But this bill is the big time. It's the largest investment in health of another country from just one country, the United States of America. The original legislation put too many congressional restrictions on this program. This frees up those restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes us in the right direction by freeing up restrictions because we knew even back in 1985 that to save the most lives this program should be run by doctors and not politicians.

Now, 23 years ago John Porter, Bob Mrazek, and I had no idea how large and successful this program would be. My only wish is the head of the Harvard Public School of Health, our first director of this early program, Dr. Jonathan Mann, could be with us. Dr. Mann was killed in a tragic airline accident, but I wish he could see us now.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, especially because it helps my constituents fight high gas prices.

It also resolves a political problem in my State. Under Governor Rod Blagojevich, our State is about to lose $4.5 billion in Federal highway funds. After 3 years under this highway fund, Illinois has failed to match any major Federal money. Supporters of total gridlock in Springfield told the reporters ``Don't worry, the Federal fund is broke.'' But it is not broke. This bill fixes that problem, and it does so in a bipartisan way.

Now our attention should focus on our totally incompetent State government that is locked in a Shakespearean war between the Democratic Governor and our Democratic State legislature.

The highway fund is not broke, and this bill fixes the problem. What should now be fixed is our State government. At a 15 percent approval rating for the Governor, the only path is up, and the best way to do that is not to let $4.5 billion in Federal highway money for Illinois lapse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon Egypt to demonstrate it is a force for tolerance in the Arab world by releasing Kareem Amer from prison.

While other prisoners of conscience languish in Egyptian jails, the most troubling case is that of a young human rights blogger, Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman. Kareem Amer, as he is known on the blogosphere, was sentenced to 4 years in prison in February 2007 solely for what he wrote on his blog--condemning Islamic extremism and the treatment of women.

Tomorrow, Egypt celebrates Revolution Day, a holiday during which the Egyptian President customarily releases prisoners. I strongly urge President Mubarak to release Kareem Amer, who now has served 17 months of his sentence.

Egypt is one of the largest recipients of U.S. taxpayer aid, and we should ensure that the partners of ours of this magnitude are also dedicated to the freedom of expression. The release of Kareem Amer, the first blogger arrested in the Arab world simply for what he wrote on his blog, would demonstrate Egypt's commitment to Internet freedom and to human rights.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, successful counterterror campaigns teach that to win, you must attack both terrorists and their money.

Through our congressional partisan lens, the Iraq war is sometimes described as the ``bad war'' while Afghanistan is described as the ``good war.'' Our partisan lens does not allow us to recognize any good news from Iraq, and also blocks bad news from Afghanistan. But in Afghanistan, we see that the Taliban is back, funded by billions from the sale of heroin.

Last month, security situations in Afghanistan worsened, and the Taliban set new records for intensity, scope and frequency of their attacks. The numbers of districts under stress, the number of district centers attacked, and the number of roadside car bombs and suicide bombs all dramatically increased. In total, the death toll in June alone numbered over 40 NATO casualties, including 27 Americans, representing the highest number killed in

any single month in 7 years of conflict in Afghanistan.

According to open-source reporting on NATO-Taliban fire fights, the Taliban has not run out of people, ammunition or supplies. And NATO ground forces did not win every battle, a new and troubling development.

For many years, Afghanistan has become the world's leading producer of heroin, responsible for roughly 92 percent of the world's supply. But the U.N. now reports that in 2008, Afghanistan has become the top producer of hashish as well. Money from heroin, and now profits from hashish, total hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. In sum, the Taliban's drug profits may equal the operations budget of General McKiernan and his NATO army. This amendment will help focus the broader intelligence community on the clear nexus between narcotics and terrorism.

The hot issue yesterday was a surge in troops to Afghanistan backed by both Senators Obama and McCain. I would sound a note of caution, though, that without aerial spraying and other counterdrug programs that have worked in Pakistan and Colombia, such an Afghan move would only accelerate violence between two now very well-funded opponents.

To turn the rising Taliban tide, we must now effectively move against heroin, and now hashish, in the narcostate that is now Afghanistan. This amendment will commission a National Intelligence Estimate to look at the nexus between drug profits and terrorism.

We all note the record of the past. In 2001, the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, claimed to have eradicated the entire heroin crop of Afghanistan. That is what his PR agents wanted you to know. What they did not want you to know is Mullah Omar had stockpiled 300 tons of opium paste in warehouses south of Kandahar in an effort similar to what the Hunt brothers did with the silver market, trying to corner the market in opium and heroin.

In 2002, after coalition troops moved to replace the Taliban plan, our Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zal Khalilzad, convinced the new President, Hamid Karzai, to be against aerial spraying, saying that it would recall memories of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That single move crippled counternarcotic programs in that country. Without aerial spraying, just to spray the leader's field, as has been done in Pakistan and Colombia, heroin production rose from no provinces in 2001, to 29 of 34 provinces today.

Such a rise in drug production led to enormous profits. And when asked the question, who is the chief financier of the Taliban, and partially of al Qaeda, the leading counternarcotics adviser to President Hamid Karzai told me it was Haji Bashir Noorzai, the banker to the Taliban.

In a very successful operation by the DEA, Haji Bashir Noorzai was lured first to the U.A.E., and then to New York City, where he was indicted in the Southern District of New York and is currently incarcerated. It was a great triumph for the United States, putting Haji Bashir Noorzai on the cover of Time magazine and underscoring the important contribution that the Drug Enforcement Agency can add to the intelligence community.

At the time, DEA was not part of the intelligence community. By action of the last Congress, we brought DEA into the intelligence community and supplied them with new intelligence collection assets to operate in Afghanistan. It is because DEA is in, that with their intelligence, this amendment should pass.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, successful counterterror programs teach that to win, you must attack both terrorists and their money. Through Congress' partisan lens, Iraq is the bad war, while Afghanistan is the good war. Our partisan lens will not recognize good news from Iraq or bad news from Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban is back, funded by billions from heroin. The U.N. reports that in 2008, Afghanistan is now also the top producer of hashish. Money from heroin and now hashish total hundreds of millions, if not billions.

In sum, the Taliban's drug profits now may equal the operations budget of General McKiernan and his NATO Army.

The hot issue today is a possible surge of troops to Afghanistan. I will sound a note of caution that without aerial spraying and other counterdrug programs that worked in Colombia, such an Afghan move will only accelerate violence between two very well-funded opponents.

To turn the rising Taliban tide, we must attack both heroin and hashish in the narco-state that is Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, with the increasing number of cross-border attacks in Afghanistan that are coming from the Waziristan region of Pakistan, it is more important than ever to develop a complete picture of where al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorists are hiding and especially of how they are funded.

Last month, the Defense Department finally recognized what many of us in the Congress have been saying for years. The report states: ``Narcotics-related activities are fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan and, if left unchecked, threaten the long-term stability of the country and the surrounding region.'' It continues: ``The emerging nexus between narcotics traffickers and the insurgency is clear. Narcotics traffickers provide revenue and arms to the Taliban while the Taliban provides protection to growers and traffickers and keep the government from interfering with their activities.'' In short, the Taliban has become a fully functioning, South Asian narco-terrorist organization, protecting the source of 92 percent of the world's opium.

Production is so high now that the price is dropping after years of record crops. Never one to ignore market forces, Afghan drug kingpins are now expanding into new illicit markets, and they have become the major supplier of the global cannabis and hashish markets.

Now, Morocco used to be the traditional main source for hashish in the world, but that is rapidly changing. Morocco has been marginalized in favor of Afghanistan. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Morocco used to be the source of 31 percent of the world's hashish, but by 2006, the number dwindled to just 18 percent.

In contrast, the U.N. now reports that cannabis cultivation in Afghanistan has more than doubled since 2004. In 2004, 30,000 hectares were under cultivation. In 2007, that number had risen to 70,000, much of which is protected and nurtured by the Taliban as their new source of income.

U.N. figures also show that cannabis cultivation is surging in Taliban strongholds, including in the Kandahar, Uruzgan, Paktika, Zabol, and Helmand Provinces. If the Great Plains are the breadbasket of America, then these Afghan Provinces make up the production heartland of the international narcotics trade.

The U.N. report also notes that, in these southern provinces, all of the farmers growing poppy and now cannabis pay taxes of, roughly, 10 percent of revenues to antigovernment elements, including to the Taliban and to al Qaeda. Taliban presence is highest in the provinces with the greatest drug production, and violence follows wherever the Taliban is present.

In the heroin heartland of the Helmand Province, the bloodshed is dramatically higher than in all other Afghan provinces. Militants launch an attack every 32 hours in Helmand, compared to just one attack every 3 or 4 days in the rest of the country or just one attack a week in Kabul.

The shift demonstrates that it's time for the United States and for our NATO allies to take a stronger stand against the narcotics trade of Afghanistan. Even the Defense Department now acknowledges a clear link between drug trafficking and terrorist financing, a concept that used to be very controversial in Afghanistan, but that is now clear.

Of course, in Colombia, we learned that drugs and terrorism must be fought simultaneously. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must take the lessons learned in Colombia to understand that counterterrorism programs will not work unless there is also an effective counternarcotics program to eliminate the Taliban's source of money.

Mr. Speaker, while partisan feelings in the House surround the mission in Iraq, the challenges of the Afghan mission are overshadowed. The Afghan war is sometimes described as the ``good war'' or as the ``bipartisan war'' or as the ``war that our allies support.'' It is certainly true that our forces in Afghanistan enjoy stronger support from the American people and from our allies overseas. While we have a NATO command in Afghanistan, our strong allied support for this mission should not blind us to the growing problems and dangers emerging for our troops.

The reality is this: Heroin has financed the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and they have now found a new source of money--hashish and cannabis--which provide, in our estimate, hundreds of millions of dollars to finance terror. The lessons of FARC's decline in Colombia are clear: To wipe out terror, you have to attack its income. In both Colombia and Afghanistan, that income comes from narcotics.

Mr. Speaker, hours ago Iran fired nine long-range missiles, including the improved Shahab-III that can hit the State of Israel. It is time for the United States to offer full ballistic missile defenses for Israel.

Democracies are best when they stick together. We joined 10 years ago with the U.S. Army and Israeli military to build the medium-range Arrow missile defense system. While good, it offers Israel only a defense in the last minute. Three years ago we gave Israel ``Eyes in the Sky,'' early warning data that gave her warning time an increase from 1 minute to 11 minutes.

Now, in the face of the rapidly growing Iranian threat, the G8 should think about sanctions, like a gasoline quarantine because Iran is totally dependent on half its gas from foreign tankers, most insured by Lloyds of London, and we can work with the British on that.

But most importantly, we should follow the direction of 70 Democrats and Republicans in the Kirk-Harman letter to offer full ballistic missile defenses for Israel. Our defenses have five times the range of Israel's and can do the most to lower the rising tensions in the Middle East.

Madam Speaker, in the past 10 years, the price of crude oil has risen by more than 400 percent, accounting for much of the nearly 200 percent increase in gasoline prices during that time. America should have spent the past decade investing in renewable energy and infrastructure, but we instead remain the number one importer of oil. Foreign oil accounts for 23.5 percent of United States energy consumption, the largest component of our energy profile. To meet its needs, the U.S. spends over $100 billion on foreign oil, helping to sustain corrupt political systems and state terrorism. This will continue to persist as long as we are dependent on oil, as nearly two- thirds of proved world oil reserves reside in countries considered ``not free'' by leading human rights organizations.

America's dependence on oil is a threat to our national security, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Forty-five years ago, President Kennedy pledged to send man to the moon. We need a similar ``moon shot'' program to end our dependence on foreign oil. The bill I stand here to introduce, the Apollo Energy Independence Act, taps the greatest asset of the United States, Yankee ingenuity and free markets, to boost alternative vehicles and increase renewable energies to get off foreign oil. By cutting funding for low- priority programs, we can fund a massive effort to end our dependence on the Middle East.

The Apollo Energy Independence Act first and foremost permanently extends investment tax credits for renewable energy such as wind; closed-loop biomass; open-loop biomass; geothermal; small irrigation; hydropower; landfill gas; marine power; trash combustion facilities; solar energy property; fuel cell property; microturbines; and nuclear energy. The bill also permanently extends a number of energy efficiency tax incentives.

Each Congress, lawmakers scramble at the last minute to renew these effective incentives, then shortsightedly extend them for just a short period. This has undoubtedly stifled the growth of our renewable energy industry. Some studies estimate that renewable energy could supply up to 37 percent of our electricity needs by 2030, resulting in $700 billion in economic activity and 5 million new U.S. jobs by 2025. Yet in years which the production tax credit is set to expire, investments significantly

decline. In the wind energy sector alone, investments drop an average 80 percent every other year when the credits expire. In order to realize our full renewable potential, it is absolutely essential that we provide long-term incentives to engender enough market confidence to generate sustained investment.

If the proposals established in the Apollo Energy Independence Act are implemented, renewable energy use could increase by more than 320 percent and comprise the largest segment of U.S. energy use. Foreign oil use would plummet by more than 730 percent, based on estimates from the National Hydrogen Association (NHA), the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The Apollo Energy Independence Act also establishes a number of permanent tax incentives to purchase and produce advanced vehicle technologies and alternative fuels, such as cellulosic and hydrogen fuel. The legislation also permanently extends the hybrid tax credit, increases it by 50 percent and eliminates the obstructive limitation. Since current law limits the hybrid tax credit to just the first 60,000 vehicles, the full credit was available for the most popular vehicles for just 9 months after its establishment. The quarter in which the credit began to phase out, Toyota saw its hybrid vehicle sales decline by nearly 30 percent. My legislation repeals this limit to facilitate the constant proliferation of hybrid vehicles.

In order to spur the development and deployment of even more advanced vehicles, we establish an advanced vehicle technology credit for plug- in electric drive, fuel cell and flexible fuel vehicles. But our failure to fully deploy alternative fuels and vehicles is not simply a lack of development, it also stems from a lack of proper infrastructure. My legislation increases and makes permanent the alternative fueling property credit. It also provides a steady funding stream, via Corporate Average Fuel Economy penalties, to the Department of Energy's Clean Cities Initiative, which establishes local public- private partnerships to find alternative fueling infrastructure solutions to reduce our oil consumption.

Americans currently import 12 million barrels of oil daily. The policies of the Apollo Act could decrease foreign oil consumption by up to 10 million barrels per day by 2030, according to a study commissioned by the NHA. At today's crude oil prices, this would save America over $500 billion annually.

The bill establishes a number of other measures to help consumers reduce their energy and gasoline costs, including providing market incentives to boost public transportation use, reducing costly boutique fuels, providing grants for green school improvements and eliminating ethanol tariffs.

To fund this effort, the legislation cuts Federal funding for congressional earmarks and agriculture subsidies while consolidating a number of lower priority Government functions. By spurring new energy technology, resulting spin-offs promise to generate additional economic growth and jobs. According to NASA, since 1976 more than 1,500 technologies emerged from the space program, creating thousands of new jobs and industries.

The United States spent $19.5 billion to realize one of her most prestigious accomplishments--landing on the moon. We should invest in a similar national effort that will be equally important for the sustainability of our society and could have even far more reaching and long-term benefits than the Apollo program. I hope my colleagues will join Representatives Judy Biggert, Christopher Shays and me in taking the first step toward achieving this goal and support the Apollo Energy Independence Act.

Madam Chairman, as the gas prices continue to rise, the most effective and immediate way to offer relief is to provide incentives for mass transit use. According to a study published by the American Public Transportation Association, public transportation use saves an annual 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, almost 4 million gallons per day. Factoring in the national average of gas at $4 a gallon, it saves consumers nearly $16 million a day in gas costs.

Now, I support our public transportation system, and I'm pleased to support an extensive grant program to help expand transit use across the country. But I am disappointed in this bill because it only requires that Federal employees be offered transit benefits. While I support expanding the current transit benefit program, all Americans should have this benefit.

Now, more than a month ago, Congressmen Lipinski and Biggert and I introduced bipartisan legislation, the Creating Opportunities to Motivate Mass-transit Utilization to Encourage Ridership Act, the Commuter Act of 2008. Our legislation offers employers a 50 percent tax credit for all transit benefits provided to employees. And under its provisions, employees would receive up to $1,380 in free mass-transit funds this year, with the employer receiving a $690 tax credit.

According to Forbes, the average gasoline costs in the ten worst commuter cities is $6.35 per day. Should businesses take advantage of this incentive, they would save their employees $1,600 per year. As family budgets tighten, an extra $1,600, or if there's two commuters, $3,200 would really ease burdens of health care and education. Such a benefit should also include Americans who are not lucky enough to have a Federal job.

I support H.R. 6052, but I'm surprised that this bill stands for the principle that if the taxpayer already pays your salary, we will help you more. But what if you're not lucky enough to have a government-paid position? Under this bill, you're out of luck. But under our bipartisan Commuter Act, you would have this benefit, too.

To help commuters, we should pass the bipartisan Commute Act to help all communities to really lower the gas bill of the United States and not just offer assistance to people already paid by the Feds.

If the gentleman will yield.

The gentleman is a very good chairman of the Transportation Committee. I know he wants to go in the right direction. I just wish we had gotten exactly where he wants to go a little faster today, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, in June of 2007, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and toy company RC2 announced the recall of 1.5 million various Thomas & Friends wooden railway toys because they contained dangerous amounts of lead.

Lead poisoning causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, anemia, loss of appetite and abdominal pain, irritability, fatigue, constipation, difficulty sleeping, headaches, and coma. Of course, it can even be fatal. The toys on recall were made in China and retailed throughout our country.

Just about every family with young kids in America knows Thomas the Tank Engine well. And that's why I stand here this evening.

In 2004 the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 121 United States product recalls. By 2007 that number had fallen to 83. Meanwhile, the commission recorded 148 recalls of products from China. But last year Chinese recalls totaled 287.

Now, last July I joined with Congressman Rick Larsen, the co-Chair with me of the United States China Working Group, in introducing H.R. 3100, the bipartisan Import Safety Act of 2007, to increase penalties for willful violators of Federal regulations on imported goods and increase our commitment to overseas inspections by the FDA and the commission. Our effort brought needed attention to this critical issue, and the legislation that we are discussing today, H.R. 4040, included provisions to increase penalties for violators.

Last August Congressman Larsen and I led a delegation to China for intense discussions on product safety. We met with the Vice Minister Wei at China's General Administration For Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. We told him that we would not stop until China allowed the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to deploy United States product safety officers to China. When we returned, we made good on our promise. After months of work and intense consultations with the State Department, the FDA, the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and the commission, we are pleased to report that we now can announce the FDA will be deploying eight full-time United States product safety officers to China later this year.

Just a few hours ago, Congressman Larsen and I met with Mr. Christopher Hickey, who will be America's incoming FDA country director for China. We will continue working with our colleagues to ensure that Mr. Hickey has all of the resources he requires to get his work done and keep families safe. We particularly stressed on him the importance of having a letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services giving him as country director power to stop a dangerous shipment from being unloaded in a U.S. port if, in his view as a country director, he feels that Americans could be at risk. We feel that this letter will give him important powers and negotiating leverage to make sure that he has access where needed on behalf of the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure that Americans are safe.

At a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services in March of this year, I pressed Chairman Nord to follow FDA's lead and immediately deploy United States product safety officers from the commission to China. After weeks of intense follow-up discussions, we are pleased to have the commission's commitment to send its first full- time American product safety officer to Beijing. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that will fund this effort, our understanding is that the startup costs for this effort will total $310,000 with reoccurring costs of $550,000 per year to support the commission's deployment to China.

I want to thank our ambassador to the People's Republic of China, Sandy Randt, for working with us to secure the physical space in Beijing and Shanghai and Guangzhou to accommodate these critical deployments, and staffers from the Kirk and Larsen offices on behalf of the China Working Group did inspect those facilities just a few months ago.

Mr. Speaker, on December 19 of last year, the House passed H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, by a unanimous 407-0 vote. This House came together on a bipartisan basis and defined a children's product as a consumer product designated or intended for children, and here's the key phrase, ``up to age 12.''

It would mean that toys for kids up to age 12 would be subject to lead testing. Now our colleagues in the Senate took up a bill and amended this definition and lowered the age requirement to just 7 years.

I take this action tonight on behalf of Americans like Ryan Fischer, age 3, who is now recovering from lead poisoning. Ryan's mother, Beth, came to the Congress to highlight the danger that she faced, among other Americans, including the toys of Ryan's 8-year-old brother that contained lead but would not be covered under the Senate bill. The toy in question in this case was a figure from a Nickelodeon character, Diego, that was among the 17 pounds of toys that had high lead levels in the Fischer home.

Today, I rise to offer what I think is a commonsense motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4040 to insist on the House definition of a children's product over what the Senate chose.

Now, earlier this evening, I logged onto Etoys.com, a very popular Web site for children's toys. When I clicked on toys for children ages 9 to 12, I found 21 products in the Thomas and Friends line available for sale.

Did our colleagues in the Senate think that dangerous toys coming from China could only harm kids below 8 years of age? If so, the Senate would be out of touch and is not listening to the concerns of many American families.

On May 15, 2008, Linda Ginzel, the cofounder of Kids in Danger, called on conferees to adopt the House definition of a children's product. Linda knows what it's like to lose a child from an unsafe product. In Linda's words, ``Kids in Danger especially urges the conferees to include the definition of children's products that go up to age 12. Stopping at age 7 would effectively stop protecting children in the second grade.'' I agree with Linda, as I think do most Americans. The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with her as well.

On November 6, 2007, Dr. Dana Best testified before the Congress on behalf of the AAP, issuing the following statement, ``The AAP further recommended that children's products be defined as one used by children under the age of 12 years in order to provide a standard that protects most children throughout periods of rapid brain development.''

In her later testimony, Dr. Best went on to say, ``The AAP further appreciates the fact that this legislation requires lead testing in products designed or intended for use by or with children up to age 12 years. Children's brains develop rapidly throughout childhood, and significant damage would occur from lead exposure at any point during this time. This provision represents a vital protection for child health.''

Now, for some reason, our colleagues in the Senate disagreed with Kids in Danger. Our colleagues in the Senate disagreed with the American Academy of Pediatrics and, in my judgment, the

common sense of the American people. For some reason, our colleagues in the Senate may have never logged on to Etoys.com to find out that products recalled less than 1 year ago because of dangerous lead content targeted children between the ages of 9 and 12.

Mr. Speaker, we should not allow toy manufacturers to stop protecting American children once they hit the second grade.

Mr. Speaker, legislation of this type has now been under consideration in the Congress for almost a year. We passed this very legislation in December. We went to conference on this bill over 4 weeks ago. As we work tonight, it is only 4 months until the Christmas shopping season goes into high gear. Likewise, Hanukkah begins 4 days before Christmas.

Time is quickly running out to send a very clear signal by this Congress in this month that lead standards in toys will not just be a recommendation of major retailers, but will have the force of law and will apply to products for children age 12 and down.

In my view, this is a commonsense, bipartisan issue that the House should insist on as it rapidly concludes its conference. We should maximize protections for our Nation's children.

In this effort, I want to thank Will Carty from Mr. Barton's staff for helping us out on this; Brian Diffell from Mr. Blunt's staff for this important motion today; and my key staffers, Richard Goldberg and Patrick Magnuson, for their assistance and work on this effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense motion to instruct, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. His State has gone through enough, and I am glad for the attention and time he has spent on this issue.

I think most Americans know with regard to Thomas and other faulty products from China, we have known about this problem for a year, and that the House of Representatives has passed completely bipartisan legislation on this subject 7 months ago. We have been in conference for 4 weeks now.

Quite frankly, our colleagues in the Senate made a mistake by making the protections cover only toys from zero to age 7. We risk having a situation in which parents who do not follow the rigid declarations of what is available on the labeling on the box may make a mistake, and we do not offer protections under the Senate bill; or, that older brothers and sisters may have toys available which clearly fall outside the Senate definition but would come clearly inside the House definition. That is why I think this is a very important motion to instruct.

I think this calls attention to this issue for a piece of legislation which should be rapidly finished to send a clear signal to the holiday- buying public. I think it gently corrects our colleagues in the other body that they made a mistake and they should back down to the House's position.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4040.

The form of my motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4040 be instructed to

insist on the provisions contained in the House bill with

regard to the definition of ``children's product''.