Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member for their bipartisan spirit on this bill. It was an honor and I was proud to be a conferee to this report.

This is not a perfect bill. We raised concerns at the conference regarding the 100 percent screening for cargo containers, and I don't believe that's a realistic assessment. However, there were enough exceptions to give the Secretary flexibility that I felt comfortable.

Also, the Visa Waiver Program which the terrorists have exploited. However, under this bill, those provisions will be strengthened.

But nearly 6 years after the attacks of September 11, I believe it is now time to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, but I want to focus my remarks at this moment on a unique opportunity we had with this bill and with the conference to address a gaping loophole in our national security, and that is regarding the FISA statute and FISA reform bill.

When I worked in the Justice Department, I worked on national security wiretaps, or FISAs as they were referred to. I believe that intelligence is our first line of defense in this war on terror, and the 9/11 Commission recognized this when they said there were systematic problems with covering communications of potential terrorists.

Just recently, Director McConnell wrote a letter to Chairman Reyes of the Intelligence Committee, and I think it's important to know what he said. He said: ``Our Nation faces an intelligence `gap,' a situation in which

our intelligence community everyday is `missing a significant portion of what we should be getting' in order to protect the American people.

``Under FISA today, `we are significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States.' ''

As the head of the Nation's intelligence community, he says that, ``I am obligated to provide warning of threats of terrorist activity and I have deep concern of the current threat situation.''

Indeed, the National Intelligence Estimate, recently published, concluded that our Nation faces a determined al Qaeda.

``If we are to stay a step ahead of the terrorists and protect the American people,'' he says, ``I firmly believe that we need to be able to use our capabilities to collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas without the requirements imposed by an out-of-date FISA statute.

``Simply put,'' he says, ``in a significant number of cases,'' this is the Director of National Intelligence, ``we are in the unfortunate position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas.''

He says, ``It is essential that the administration and Congress work together and without delay to close the current intelligence gap by amending the FISA statute.''

I will say that every day we waste by not amending the statute and closing this gaping loophole in our national intelligence law, every day we take a risk of another attack on the United States, and I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to get this done before we go home for the August recess.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary leader, public servant and person, Mr. Phlemon Thomas Wright, known to his friends as ``P.T.'' After 34 years of outstanding service to the American people, P.T., currently the acting deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) US-VISIT program, is retiring from the Federal Government.

P.T.'s retirement is a great loss to DHS. At the same time, his many years of dedicated service are a true testament to his commitment to protecting our country.

His most recent work with the US-VISIT program has made this initiative one of the great successes in our efforts to strengthen American homeland security. It is now the world's most innovative and integrated biometrics-based program. This is in no small part due to leaders like Mr. Wright. Through his oversight and management of day- to-day operations, the program remained focused on accomplishing its overall mission objectives and successfully deployed biometric screening capabilities to all U.S. air, sea and land border ports of entry.

US-VISIT's operational success has depended in large part on the program's ability to educate international travelers. When the program began, there was great concern about the potential effects that this biometric screening would have on the flow of travel into our country. Now, because of the program's success and the outreach of leaders like P.T., many who were early critics are now ardent supports of the program.

Mr. Wright understood that active engagement with border stakeholders was critical in creating a foundation of trust and familiarity upon which to build positive long-term relationships. He tirelessly traveled Southwest border communities, including many in the Lone Star State, to inform and educate border constituents as US-VISIT expanded to cover a wide array of border management developments and initiatives. P.T.'s in-depth knowledge of the land border environment made him a credible voice. His candor and conviction won him respect with border community leaders. And most importantly, P.T. gave border communities a voice in Washington as US-VISIT rolled out.

In addition to his outreach efforts along our borders, P.T. has traveled across the world to demonstrate the advantages of biometrics as a powerful tool to improve the integrity of our immigration and border management system, to make us safer, and to facilitate legitimate travel and trade. Thanks to leaders like P.T., US-VISIT is on a path to continue to be a world leader in the innovative use of biometrics for identity management, transforming the world into a place in which legitimate international travel is convenient, predictable and secure, and frankly difficult, unpredictable and intimidating for those traveling for the wrong reasons.

P.T. Wright began his career with the former U.S. Customs Service in 1973, and he has served with distinction in a number of key positions at the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security. In his management roles with U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; El Paso, Texas; Nogales, Arizona; and Washington, DC, P.T. was intricately involved in the development of customs policies for cargo examination and processing, drug interdiction and traveler processing.

It is fitting that P.T.'s accomplishments and leadership were recognized last year with the prestigious Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive for his extraordinary contributions to our Nation's welfare and security during his extensive U.S. border management career.

Mr. Wright has done more than manage government operations successfully; he has become beloved by his colleagues within US-VISIT and throughout the Federal Government. His sincerity, infectious sense of humor, and leadership will be missed. He leaves some big, Texas- sized shoes behind to be filled. I commend P.T for his commitment to excellence and his dedication to our country, and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say, as a former Justice Department official who worked on national security, wiretaps or FISAs, I can think of no more important issues facing this country and this Congress than the modernization of the FISA statute. And I hope and I plead with my colleagues to support this measure.

I rise today to bring to the House's attention an issue dealing with changes to NASA's account structure required by H.R. 3093 and the challenges this provision will impose on NASA.

Title III of this bill increases the number of appropriations accounts that fund NASA from three to seven, and it requires conversion to this new structure in fiscal year 2008. Implementing this change will impose a tremendous burden on NASA's accounting system, at an unknown cost, and it's unclear what the net advantage of such a structural change, what that would be.

The current structure with three accounts coupled with customary congressional direction contained in the committee report language provides the agency unambiguous guidance regarding spending levels of the program, project, and in some cases at the activity level.

Since 2001, NASA has been implementing a new software package to standardize its accounting and financial software across all 11 of its centers, and at the same time NASA has been putting in place a new means of allocating overhead costs. These efforts have not yet been completed, and to now direct the agency to reformat its basic accounting system is especially burdensome and complex. It may also force the agency to reevaluate the manner in which it calculates overhead rates.

In a letter addressed to the House Appropriations leadership last month on the account structure change, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin stated that ``it would have a severe and extensive impact upon NASA's financial system'' and ``would make maintaining NASA's ability to execute in full cost exceedingly complex.''

H.R. 3093 also directs NASA to implement the account structure change in 2008, a task that NASA says it simply cannot do in the time permitted.

So I strongly urge the committee leadership to reflect carefully on the concerns raised by Administrator Griffin and to work with NASA in the weeks ahead to reach an agreement on a budget structure that allows for greater transparency without undermining NASA's current accounting system.

I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work and for the resources provided to NASA in this bill.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment in support of teacher training for deaf and blind children.

Madam Chair, the Department of Education has provided funding from within its special education national activities account aimed at children who are both deaf and blind, commonly referred to as ``deafblindness.'' This money trains teachers who have such children in their classes on how to educate and include them in daily classroom activities. This modest $12 million program has not received an increase in nearly two decades.

Today over 110,000 people rely on this important program. Expanding this program will allow us to identify more children in need and increase the number of on-site technical assistance personnel.

This amendment simply increases the Special Education National Activities Account to provide the DeafBlindness program with a modest but necessary increase.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

That's an offer I would be remiss to refuse, and I will accept the offer.

I thank the chairman.

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

Offered By: Mr. McCaul of Texas

Amendment No. 21: Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Page 84, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 84, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding me this time.

Here we are once again. I feel like we have done this before. Once again, I rise in opposition to the Democratic leadership's latest attempt to politicize the war, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against defeat in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the debate in this Chamber over the future of Iraq and the best course of action has been passionate and divisive, and each Member of this House has their own opinion. Yet the one thing we should be united on is our end goal and result. That should be the same: a democratic and stable Iraq.

The Democratic majority has chosen to use this month of July, as they have

attempted several times already this year, to hold a series of votes to withdrawal our troops and force a premature end to Iraq's pursuit of freedom and democracy.

We have to ask: What would happen if we withdrawal immediately? When we talk to the experts in the region, the leaders in these governments and key stakeholders in the region, they will tell you it will be a fireball in the Middle East. It will create a vacuum, a safe haven for al Qaeda. Iran will swoop in and take over. They, the key nations in the region, are quite frankly terrified of this action, and they tell us that privately.

I believe that we can cannot afford that course of action. The Democrats have chosen this course not because it is in the national interest of this country but rather because they believe it provides them with good talking points to use back home. I submit they are mistaken.

In my view, Americans are tired and frustrated with the partisan squabbling over the war which has done nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. Putting politics above our national interest while the men and women of our military are fighting overseas is simply unacceptable.

In a time of war, politics should end at the water's edge.

There is another way forward. I and others have introduced the Iraq Study Group recommendations Implementation Act of 2007. This legislation is bipartisan. It is a comprehensive set of recommendations, a plan of action to succeed in Iraq, a plan which matches our military might with political solutions, with economic solutions and with a diplomatic surge which can bring peace and stability to the troubled nation. This bill has gained strength by those who recognize that moving forward in a unified way still exists in the Congress.

The Iraq Study Group report offers a consensus policy that the vast majority of Americans support. The sponsors of the Democrat withdrawal bill that we are debating here today, however, have decided that even though the surge only came into effect 3 weeks ago, that it's already failed and we need to question it and throw it out.

They further decided that we should declare defeat immediately and not wait for General Petraeus to come to Congress and give us his firsthand report. This rush to judgment, this rush to action on their part makes it clear that they have not reached an informed decision but, rather, a political one.

Throughout the course of our American history, we've answered the call for freedom, and we, Mr. Speaker, I submit are at our greatest when we are united as a Nation; at our worst when we are divided.

We should unite behind the ideals which helped achieve victory against the threats to our very way of life, such as the victories against the Third Reich, such as the threats by the Soviet empire and the victory against the Soviet Union.

Today, the greatest threat is the threat of terrorism, and the conflict in Iraq poses one of the greatest challenges to the American experience. We must unite, or we will surely fail.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment offered by Mr. Wolf of Virginia to restore $158 million to this bill for democracy, governance, rule of law and human rights programs. In addition, it will fund nonproliferation and anti-terrorist programs.

Mr. Chairman, the debate in this Chamber over the future of Iraq and the best course of action has been passionate and divisive. Each Member of this House has their own opinion, yet the one thing we should be united on is that our end goal should be the same, a secure and stable Iraq.

Unfortunately, this bill predetermines failure by cutting off all funds to important democracy-building programs in Iraq. The majority has chosen to use this bill, as they have attempted several times already this year, to force a premature end to Iraq's pursuit of freedom and democracy. This will only lead to chaos and instability in the region.

As a consultant to the Iraq Study Group, along with Mr. Wolf of Virginia, we introduced a bipartisan bill, the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007 which provides a comprehensive set of recommendations and a plan of action to succeed in Iraq. Included in these recommendations are suggestions for funding democracy, governance and rule of law, all the items that are funded by this amendment.

This bill has garnered 52 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, who have recognized the potential we have by implementing these recommendations together and moving forward as a united Congress. If we allow this bill to pass without the money for building an Iraq democracy, we condemn our mission to failure and declare that the sacrifices we made over the past several years were in vain. It will also squander any opportunity we have to give the Iraq Study Group recommendations a chance to succeed.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Wolf amendment.

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

I thank the chairman.

I rise today to offer an amendment that will partially restore the administration's funding request for the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account in the FY08 State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This amendment would add $30 million to the account, halfway between the committee funding level and the President's request. This is a bipartisan amendment. I would like to thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Cuellar, for his support as an author and cosponsor.

Earlier this month I attended the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Group in Austin, Texas, and for 3 days we talked about issues important to the United States and Mexico. The major topic discussed was the issue of increasing violence and lawlessness along the U.S.-Mexico border. The drug cartels have taken control over northern Mexico and law enforcement has become corrupt and ineffective. Since his inauguration earlier this year, President Calderon has begun a renewed effort to reestablish law enforcement's control over his country and their borders. However, the drug kingpins are ruthless in their efforts to retain control and the Mexican Government's law enforcement capabilities are sorely outdated. Just recently, the drug cartels brazenly ordered the assassination of a Mexican state legislator.

I would like to take a moment to commend Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf for including $27.5 million in the bill for this effort and for recognizing in the report language of the bill the need to address this problem which so devastatingly impacts our southern border, our national security and the citizens of this country. However, I believe that additional funding would go a long way to eradicating the drug cartels.

The offset in this amendment is a $30 million reduction in the contributions to the international organization's account. I believe it's a worthwhile transfer of funds that will benefit not only our border with Mexico but also our counterdrug efforts worldwide. One of the most important international peacekeeping efforts today should be on the southern border against the violent criminal enterprise of the narcotraffickers.

The cartels control the corridor routes into this country, exporting drugs and human trafficking across our southern border. The intersection between these criminal enterprises and potential terrorists could be deadly. In the post-9/11 world, we can no longer continue to ignore this threat.

At a time when the newly elected Mexican Government has stepped forward and made a commitment to reform its law enforcement and combat the drug cartels, it is important that we provide as much funding and resources as possible to the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement program.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

I will consider withdrawing the amendment. I would like to get a few assurances from the gentlelady, if I may, and that is that this funding would be directed primarily, would be targeted towards the problem at the U.S.-Mexico border with the drug cartels who have controlled these corridors that I mentioned.

If I could just add, my subcommittee on Homeland Security issued this report on the border last conference confirming the threat. This was given to President Calderon by Secretary Chertoff.

He understands this. I have met with the Mexican Congress. They understand it. Our State Department actually does understand this. While they may not ask overtly, they really could use these funds to confront this threat.

I would ask, in exchange for withdrawing, that we try to come as close as possible to the number I have requested and that that money be directed towards the threat that Mr. Cuellar and I see so often down in a border State.

Mr. Chairman, with those assurances, I will withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. McCaul of Texas

Amendment No. 47: Page 9, line 23, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

Page 52, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In response to the issues raised, the DNDO has reached an agreement in principle with State and local stakeholders, and it is about 95 percent there. I submit we cannot wait another year for the appropriations cycle to take place.

This amendment is important. It restores $40 million to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. The lack of these funds threatens to delay the completion of the radiation portal monitor program and significantly impair the implementation of securing the cities initiative. Both of these initiatives aim to strengthen the Nation's defenses against a terror attack by a nuclear device or a radioactive ``dirty bomb.''

There is no doubt that the risks are real. We know that nuclear terrorism is the number one threat facing our country and that the economic costs associated with a dirty bomb could reach about $1 trillion. We know that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network have been attempting to acquire a nuclear bomb. We also know that hundreds of tons of the necessary ingredients of nuclear weapons are dangerously insecure all over the world. There have been numerous documented cases of theft of weapons-grade nuclear material.

But nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable, and we should be spending Homeland Security dollars on preventing what could be a catastrophic attack against the United States. Twenty million dollars of the cuts to the DNDO comes out of the radiation portal monitor program. It would delay the completion of these until the year 2013. Acquisition of systems for five ports of entry, including the Port of Houston in my home State of Texas, would be delayed, and this means that more unscreened cargo would get into this country.

Such a delay is unacceptable. And the best deterrence against terrorism is to disrupt the ability of terrorists to do what they want to do, and that is to kill Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2638, as currently written, prohibits the use of funds for additional unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, until the Customs and Border Patrol informs the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that their use is cost-effective. I submit today that they are worth every penny. My amendment would strike that provision which would otherwise be protected by the rule.

These eyes of the sky bring exceptional operational capabilities to the table. They can stay airborne for 30 to 40 hours and can carry state-of-the-art technology through day and night cameras, radar tracking systems, and other surveillance tools.

UAVs working the borders have flown over 2,000 hours and aided in the arrests of nearly 3,900 illegal immigrants and the seizure of over 13,000 pounds of marijuana.

UAVs are not in sufficient quantities to provide economies of scale and, as such, will always be more expensive to operate than a pilot in a small aircraft. But, Mr. Chairman, cost is not the only consideration.

On March 20, 2007, a UAV detected and tracked six illegal aliens trying to cross the southern border. When border officials arrived on the scene, they seized 395 pounds of marijuana and arrested all six. Among the six was a fugitive wanted in Kings County, Washington, on charges of third-degree rape of a child.

We should be providing our border authorities with more technology and tools. We talked a lot about the fence but this is the technology piece. More technology and tools, not less. Had a UAV not detected the entry of those illegal immigrants, how many more children may have been victimized by sexual predators?

I think this is an important piece to our overall security of the border, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, let me simply just say we obviously do not have enough manpower down at the border. These ``eyes in the skies,'' as we call them, provide the surveillance technology that is just absolutely critical to surveilling the border to stop this flood of illegal immigration and potential terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, section 531 prohibits the implementation of MAX-HR. MAX-HR is the human resources program that allows DHS wide latitude in personnel matters such as transferring workers to areas where they may be needed during a national emergency. Congress gave the Department this ability so that it could move quickly to protect the country from terrorist threats.

While some authority is currently under judicial review, the bill as currently written would enjoin the entire program until courts decide.

If this section were to pass as written, it would result in an action that is not consistent with the purposes of Homeland Security.

My amendment would strike section 531 of this bill and allow current regulations to continue until the courts make their final judgment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I respect the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, but I would say I believe it's important that we let the courts decide this matter. It's under judicial review, just a small part of the human resources program at the Department of Homeland Security.

I think it would be a tremendous mistake for us in the Congress, as a separate branch of government, to essentially enjoin, essentially enjoin the executive branch in the human resource program that has combined 22 agencies, developed the human resources program that has been efficient in many respects, only because the courts have enjoined a very small portion. Again, let's let the courts decide this issue, and let's let the rest of the program go forward.

I know that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to move the Department into a more unionized system that is not merit based. My view is that that would cripple our ability to respond in emergency situations. That was the view of the Congress at the time that we developed the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the view of this Congressman at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. I also rise as a former Federal prosecutor who prosecuted, under the Federal firearms statute, gun cases.

I want to commend Chairman Dingell, Congresswoman McCarthy, and the National Rifle Association for reaching what I consider to be a good result on a bill that, in my view, is necessary.

It has been illegal for various individuals to purchase firearms for many years, illegal aliens, mentally defective individuals, those using illegal drugs, and people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. But for too long, in my experience and many of my colleagues whom I worked with in the Justice Department, the system, the background check system was not accurate. The information was not fully put into the system. In my view, if we are going to have a background check system, we ought to do it right. So let's get the system right.

I think that is what this bill does. It gets the system right. It provides the Federal funding necessary to get the

system right. And at the same time, it protects law-abiding citizens, those who are law abiding who want to purchase firearms. It protects their second amendment rights, and it keeps guns out of the hands of the bad guys.

I prosecuted cases under the Exile Program, which was a program sponsored by the National Rifle Association, and what we found was that it was bad guys that possessed firearms that caused the crime in this country. And we found when we locked up the bad guys who possessed these firearms that the crime rate actually went down.

So with that, I, again, give my support to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I too am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I was also a Federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, and I also serve on the Ethics Committee. I would respectfully submit that we are not muddling up the process but rather trying to restore ethics and integrity to the process and to this institution.

In my view, this is Congress at its worst. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have created a secret slush fund with billions in secret earmarks hidden from public scrutiny. This comes on the heels of many broken promises that we heard, promises such as from Speaker Pelosi: ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks.''

The majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said: ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of the night.''

Yet that is exactly what is occurring in this body. CNN, not exactly a conservative think tank, actually said that the Democrats promised reform and it is not happening: ``The `anti-earmark reforms' are just for show. Mere window dressing.'' This process signals a retreat in the secret dealings and a guarantee of fiscal and ethical abuse. Earmarks should always be open to public vetting, full debate, and floor challenge, as we attempted to do in the last Congress.

Now, Mr. Obey and the Democrats are stuck between the pork and those campaign promises that they made. And so those promises are given away. The majority wants this Congress to operate behind closed doors in dark corridors where the precept of Justice Brandeis that ``sunlight is the best disinfectant'' is hardly known. The powerful impact of public debate and a free press are critical features of an American democracy and they are missing, Mr. Chairman. They are missing here today in this Congress.

Secrecy creates a breeding ground for corruption. Openness is an important part of ensuring that government officials are acting in the best interest of the public and that the citizens are not being manipulated by special interest groups.

Here we have one man, one man and an unelected staff, determining the power of the purse for the United States Congress, acting on behalf of 435 Members elected by the United States. Yet we have one man to make all the decisions about the spending for the United States Government. This is not, I submit, a democracy. This is a monarchy.

And to quote James Cooper: ``A monarchy is the most expensive of all forms of government, the regal state requiring a costly parade, and he who depends on his own power to rule must strengthen that power by bribing the active and enterprising whom he cannot intimidate.

``A nation is truly corrupt, when, after having, by degrees lost its character and liberty, it slides from democracy into aristocracy for monarchy; this is the death of the political body . . . ''

Someone said: ``The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of democracy should be the weapon of openness.'' That is what we are trying to achieve here today.

I will close with a quote from Lord Byron, and I think he sums up this debate better than any quote I have heard when he said: ``The Cardinal is at his wit's end; it is true that he had not far to go.''

Offered By: Mr. McCaul of Texas

Amendment No. 98: Page 17, strike the proviso beginning on

line 2.

Offered By: Mr. McCaul of Texas

Amendment No. 99: Strike section 531 (page 69, beginning at

line 4).

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

I want to first thank Mr. Lipinski and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their strong support of this bill, which I introduced in the last Congress; and I'm pleased to see it get to the House floor in this Congress.

The National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report echoed the call of many in the academic and business community for greater need to recruit and develop scientific and engineering talent to work on solving problems of national need.

Like many Members of Congress, I'm concerned about America's dependence on foreign sources of energy. Our reliance on imported energy only serves to increase our vulnerability to both external events and the actions of regimes that are, in many cases, openly hostile to the interests of the United States. One of the ways we can reduce the need for energy imports is to use our energy more efficiently.

Buildings consume more energy than any other sector of the economy, including industry and transportation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, American buildings consume 39 percent of our Nation's primary energy and 70 percent of electricity. However, energy efficient building practices are not being fully utilized, in

part because of a lack of awareness about energy efficient technologies and design practices among building professionals.

That is why I introduced the Green Energy Education Act. This legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to partner with the National Science Foundation to support graduate education and curriculum development to advance DOE's broad energy technology development mission. Working through NSF, DOE will help develop the next generation of engineers and architects to produce buildings incorporating the latest in energy efficient technologies.

In order to reduce the likelihood of duplicative and wasteful programs, this bill also allows the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to combine their efforts to find workable solutions to the issues surrounding building efficiency that then can be transferred to the marketplace.

Specifically, H.R. 1716 will authorize DOE's Office of Science and applied energy technology programs to contribute funds to the NSF's successful Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program, which is already doing great work in this area.

This bill also authorizes the DOE to contribute to NSF's curriculum development activities in order to improve the ability of engineers and architects to design and construct more efficient and durable buildings.

I urge my colleagues to support this important step towards increasing America's energy independence.

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

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