Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, I send the appreciation of the Congress to those who have given San Francisco, as well as the world, the magnificent gift of the new California Academy of Sciences as it opens on September 27, 2008.

Generations of Bay Area residents have grown up with the Academy as a cultural treasure in Golden Gate Park, visiting as schoolchildren and then bringing their own children to this center of exploration and natural sciences education. Worn by earthquakes, age, and the love of so many children, its friends re-imagined the best possible version of this beloved institution.

How fortunate are we all that the Academy's board and leadership secured the talent and vision of the brilliant Italian architect Renzo Piano, who transformed this noted science museum into an architectural triumph and forward-looking example of energy-efficient design. The Academy also benefited greatly from the crusading spirit of former executive director Pat Kociolek, whose enthusiasm for a 21st century natural history center became infectious.

The California Academy of Sciences is home to the Steinhart Aquarium, Kimball Natural History Museum, Morrison Planetarium and world-class research and education programs. The magnificent new site boasts a four story living rainforest, an awe-inspiring corral reef ecosystem, a living roof of California native plants which is an engineering marvel of seven hills reflecting San Francisco's landscape. The Academy is committed to preserving natural habitats and protecting essential natural resources.

San Francisco prides itself on being a model for the Nation, indeed the world, when it comes to preserving our beautiful planet for future generations. Therefore, it is fitting that the California Academy of Sciences will be the greenest nature museum in the world and stands with the deYoung to make Golden Gate Park a destination of world-class museums.

This extraordinary renovation of the Academy benefited greatly from large private philanthropy, due in great part to the tireless work of the Academy's Board of Trustees, led by the task force of William Wilson, Martha Knopf, George Montgomery and Richard Bingham. the renovation also benefited from funding from the city and the state, and I am especially pleased my colleagues in Congress joined me to obtain $8 million in federal investment for this innovative project.

My five children, like so many others, spent endless hours exploring the boundless treasures of the academy. Now this magnificent new building will inspire and educate scores of children, scientists and environmental leaders to explore and protect our natural world. I am proud to represent this world-class, eco-friendly institution, and look forward to introducing my grandchildren to its wonders.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Robert J. McCarthy, an outstanding San Franciscan and an outstanding American, who passed away on Sunday, September 14th.

Bob grew up in New York, attending the prestigious Jesuit school Regis High School in Manhattan. He attended Santa Clara University where, as editor of the school newspaper, he met and fell in love with Suzanne Bazzano, a co-ed working as the paper's office manager. After graduating from law school at the University of Chicago, he and Suzanne returned to the Bay Area, living in San Francisco and raising five children.

Bob's legal career and involvement in politics took off when he joined the San Francisco District Attorney's office in the mid-70s. As Chief Deputy, he became friends with a newly elected supervisor, Dianne Feinstein, a relationship that would last 30 years.

At Feinstein's encouragement, Bob became general counsel to the local Democratic Party. His fundraising and people skills made him invaluable to countless campaigns in San Francisco. Members of the Board of Supervisors, Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and Presidential candidates relied on his generosity and counsel.

Over 25 years ago, McCarthy and restaurateur and political activist Angelo Quaranta started a tradition of Election Day luncheon, inviting all the elected officials, staff, commissioners, and other dignitaries in San Francisco. It is a place where rivalry ends and food and wine begins, and helps calm many a nervous candidate on Election Day.

In 1980, he formed with Lester Schwartz a general practice law firm which lasted until he died. Bob represented some of the largest developments in San Francisco. He was a generous donor to charities and served on the boards of numerous school, community, and religious organizations throughout the city. One of the highlights of his pro bono legal career was working to save the San Francisco Giants from being relocated to St. Petersburg, Florida.

I hope it is a comfort to his beloved wife Suzanne and his children Brendan, Matthew, Ryan, Margaret, and Bobby, and his many friends that so many mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

The following was printed in yesterday's Record and the end notes were inadvertently left off. The following is the statement in its entirety.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and his recognition of the fact that this legislation is indeed a compromise. It isn't the bill that any one of us would have written individually, but it brings us together in consensus. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the National Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall, for his extraordinary leadership on this bill.

This is a difficult bill because we all had to come from different directions on it, and we've come to agreement.

I want to also acknowledge the important work that was done by Gene Green, Congressman Gene Green of Texas; by George Miller, the Chair of the Education and Labor Committee; and John Dingell, the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, all of whom who are cochairs of this important legislation.

I would like to acknowledge Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee for the provisions from his bill in this bill, and Neil Abercrombie who really tried to bring as many of the provisions of the legislation he was cosponsoring into this legislation so that it really did reflect the thinking of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if not to get the support from both.

I also want to acknowledge Congresswoman Slaughter for her input. And Mr. Abercrombie has joined us. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. I'm pleased to acknowledge your great leadership on this, this step in the right direction with certainly more to come.

I want to remind our colleagues or inform, for those who may not have been born yet, that in 1973 during that energy crisis, President Nixon became the first President to call for American energy independence. In his 1974 State of the Union address, President Nixon said that the United States should ``not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.'' He promised energy independence within 6 years. That would be by 1980. In 1974, he had that vision.

President Nixon was the first to make such a call, but certainly not the last. Practically every national leader in the intervening 33 years has called for energy independence.

Today, this House of Representatives has the opportunity to take this country in a new direction on energy and make that energy independence happen. We have this opportunity with the comprehensive, I call it All American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.

The legislation we debate today is a bold step forward that will help us end our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our national security. And protecting the American people is our first responsibility, and so I list that first among the goals and the provisions of this legislation.

The legislation is a result of reasonable compromise that will put us on a path toward energy independence by expanding domestic supply of oil drilled offshore, and expanding domestic supply of energy by investing in renewable energy resources. It will protect consumers with strong action to lower the cost of energy and to protect taxpayers by making Big Oil pay for its fair share of our transition to a clean, renewable energy future.

It will ensure a clean, green energy future through energy efficiency and conservation. It will commit America to renewable energy and help create millions of good paying green jobs. It will do so by rearranging the financial relationship between the American people, their oil, and Big Oil.

Right now I think that the arrangement is a real rip-off of the American taxpayer and the American consumer. And so we say in this legislation to Big Oil, if you want to drill--and to others, but particularly to Big Oil--if you want to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf, let's talk about that.

We're in the position that we are today because for 8 years, President Bush has requested a moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.

In recent months, he reversed his policy. And this is a reversal not only of his policy but of decades of policy that had prohibited drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

So as a result of his lifting the moratorium on drilling, starting after September 30 at the end of this fiscal year, it will be possible for the U.S. Government to provide leases to companies to drill 3 miles--3 miles--off the coast of our coastal States with no consent from the States. It will be 3 miles, leases given by the Federal Government.

And that's why in order to remedy that, this legislation strikes a compromise and a balance by saying, yes, if you're going to drill offshore, it has to be 50 miles offshore and it has to have an opt-in by the State. The State has to agree that you can drill. The Federal Government can give leases to the private sector to drill 50 miles offshore.

And it also says the following in terms of the financial arrangement. Right now, the status quo, which is what some of our Republican friends want to perpetuate, the status quo is the following: the oil belongs to the American people, and yet Big Oil drills for that oil subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. At a time when Big Oil's enjoying record and historic profits, they still insist that the U.S. taxpayer subsidize their drilling and have had royalty holidays of paying the taxpayer for the taxpayers' oil which they have been drilling.

So what we're saying in this legislation is that day is over. Now if you want to drill, you're on your own. In the private sector, in the free market, you're on your own. The American people are not subsidizing that drilling. And, by the way, we want our share of the royalties. And lifting the subsidies and getting our royalties, including going back to the royalty holidays of the 1990s, by doing that we will be able to invest in America's energy future by using those funds to invest in renewable energy resources, whether it's wind or solar, biofuels, other clean alternatives.

We'll be able to use that money from that offshore drilling, by now finally getting the taxpayers' fair share, to invest and provide more support for LIHEAP, the low income heating initiative, so important to so many, many families in America and even more so in this time of economic uncertainty. And to invest in our lands and conservation fund, some of the provisions which were in the original bill that Mr. Abercrombie was supporting. So we took up some of the investments that he would make from the royalties that we would recoup and also from not providing subsidies to Big Oil.

Many of us have thought for a long time that there was something wrong with this relationship. Our oil, their profits, we subsidize, we don't get the full benefit of that. But it was only recently that we saw how wrong something was with that relationship. It tells us again and again why it is time for a new direction. And nothing demonstrates that more clearly, I think, than the recent scandal in the Bush Interior Department.

On the Republicans' watch, Interior Department officials accepted football tickets, ski trips, golf outings, and other favors in return for rigging contracts to benefit Big Oil. They engaged in illicit behavior that gives new meaning to the words ``cozy relationship'' between the Republicans and Big Oil.

These Republican officials, one of whom pled guilty just yesterday to corruption charges, were in charge of collecting billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas last year alone from companies allowed to drill on Federal lands and offshore. It just isn't right.

So when I said earlier that this was a rip, it's a rip and it's corrupt, and it must be changed. I think all Americans believe that it's time for an oil change in America.

The Democrats stand for that change. Democrats demand it. Republicans are demanding the status quo, but not all Republicans. Many have been involved, though they may not specifically approve of this particular bill, many of the provisions in this legislation were provisions advocated by Republicans in their bipartisan legislation with Mr. Abercrombie.

The status quo, as has been suggested by some, will not bring down the price at the pump. The status quo will not protect taxpayers from subsidizing Big Oil, and the status quo will certainly not make America energy independent. It's time for a new direction. It's time for us to set aside partisan politics on this issue. This should not be an issue on which we are divided.

The protection of our country by assuring energy independence, the creation of new jobs through a new energy green industry in our country with renewable energy resources, the assurance that we will never be in this position again because not only are we expanding the domestic supply of oil, but we are also investing in renewable and other alternatives; and also that, again, security, environmental protection, economic entrepreneurialship in this legislation and a moral responsibility to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuel, to do so in a way that reverses global warming, which in my view is a moral responsibility if you believe, and I think everyone does, that this beautiful planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it and preserve it in a way that is fair to all of the people who inhabit this planet. And in our case, we're talking about the American people.

So, again, this comprehensive energy package is a result of compromise in favor of sweeping and innovative solutions to America's energy future. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together to support a clean, renewable energy future by supporting this comprehensive legislation.

Once again, I salute all of those who participated in bringing us to this compromise: some intentionally, some by the basic work that they've been doing in the Congress for a long time and may not, again, support this legislation today but have put their stamp of approval on many of the provisions that they had suggested in other legislation and which we have been pleased to pick up where we had bipartisan agreement.

So I'm very excited about this. This is a very important day in our energy story for America. And I commend all who worked so hard, and so many people did. But we recognize it's only a first step. There are many more issues to be dealt with, more progress to be made, but we cannot wait for that to happen.

In the meantime, I'm pleased that in this legislation we have our legislation related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which, if the oil is released, which we have asked the President to do, will immediately bring down the price at the pump within 10 days instead of 10 years--which would be the length of time it would take to bring the price down for 2 cents. Two cents, 10 years; 10 days, our bill.

The President originally resisted. Now he says he may release from the SPR not because Congress asked but because Big Oil asked.

It's about time we got the leverage back to the American people, recognized our need to meet their needs, to protect the consumer and the taxpayer, to keep them safe with energy independence, to grow our economy through good green jobs, and to make sure that we never find ourselves in this situation by making investments in renewable energy resources.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in giving us this opportunity today, on September 11, to express our gratitude to our first responders, our sympathy to the families of 9/11, and our concern for the safety of the American people. I acknowledge his leadership role in this from his committee standpoint, but as a New Yorker who knows firsthand the horror of 9/11. So, thank you, Mr. Ackerman, for your leadership and for your commitment on this issue. I also thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for her leadership in bringing this to the floor as well.

When Abraham Lincoln was a very young man, not 30 years old, he made a speech in 1838, and in it he was talking about the history of our country and important events and how sometimes they are lost in the public memory. He referred to the ``silent artillery of time,'' sometimes referenced as ``harsh artillery of time,'' but nonetheless, the artillery of time to dull the memory of important events.

Certainly, that is a gift if the artillery of time dulls the pain of a terrible loss. But there's no artillery powerful enough to dull the memory of 9/11, what it did to our country, what it attempted to do to our country.

The courage of the families of 9/11, who turned their grief into strength, and arguing for better policy in terms of the 9/11 Commission and the enactment of its recommendations to make America safer, their grief through strength to action, has made America safer. We have more to do.

The silent artillery of time will never diminish the appreciation or the memory of the courage of our first responders, our police, our firemen, our emergency services people, the construction workers, who went in right away, risking their lives, so that they could save other lives. Some of them lost their lives.

The silent artillery of time will never, never dull the act of cowardice on the part of these terrorists. They don't care about life or buildings. They do care about instilling fear. That is their goal, the terrorists, to instill terror.

But they did not succeed in that regard, because New York rallied. This morning, we were at the Pentagon to see the families there, and their spirit, as the Pentagon Memorial was dedicated, and referencing what happened in Pennsylvania. The indomitable spirit of the American people is too strong a force for the terrorists to succeed with.

So, again, the silent artillery of time will never, ever have us forget what happened to our country on that day, and the hatred and cowardice that inspired it.

So, here we are today, 7 years later, saying once again to the families how sorry we are, thanking them for their courage, hoping for the best for them for their children and the future. Here we are today, 7 years later, saying to the first responders, Thank you very much.

But, as some others have said here, words are not enough. There are ways that we can put into action our appreciation, and that is to recognize the health needs of those who responded on that day and whose health problems linger to this day, and some that we won't even know about into the future.

We will never forget, no matter what, what they did to minimize the toll, the death toll that might have been. We always remember because we have constant reminders of it, as well the courage of these people on a day-to-day basis still across America keeping us safe.

On this day, it drives home what we always know, that our first responsibility as elected officials is to protect the American people, make them safe in their homes, neighborhoods, towns, and communities, and ensure their national security. That is something that we must do, working together, so that we can meet any threat to our security, wherever it may occur.

In that spirit, I want to acknowledge also the courage, patriotism, and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their sacrifices that they are making, and that their families are making, to keep America safe.

So with all the respect in the world for President Lincoln when he was a young man, talking about the silent artillery of time, his message reminds us that, again, time may lessen pain, but it will never diminish our memory of what happened on 9/11, the courage that followed, and the responsibility we have to keep the American people safe.

God bless those families. They have done so much for our country, fresh off their tragedy. God bless those families. With their courage, God truly blessed America.

I thank the gentleman.

I have watched with interest the debate this evening, and I am so proud of the work that you, Mr. Edwards, are doing on this issue to honor America's vets and, Congressman Wamp, you as well.

I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Committee for bringing up this important issue of our Filipino vets. For years we have been pleading our case. Mr. Obey has listened patiently and tried to find a way for us to meet the needs of these people who served our country so well, who helped achieve the victory.

Promises were made; promises were not kept. And I know it is not possible to do something this evening, but I wanted to come to the floor to associate myself with the remarks of our

distinguished chairman, Bob Filner, who has worked relentlessly, as we all know, persistently, on this important issue.

We recently had a visit from the President of the Philippines, where she was very interested in the progress of this issue.

So, again, I associate myself with Mr. Filner's impassioned plea on this subject. Thank you for your leadership for our veterans on an ongoing basis. I am very proud of the leadership of this subcommittee. Under the chairman's leadership, we have been able to give the biggest increase in veterans' health funding in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, and just recently in the supplemental we were able to have the GI Bill for our veterans, thank you to our veterans, and when they come home we send them to college. Now this bill goes even further.

So I thank you and Mr. Wamp, both of you, for your leadership on this subject, and yield back the time to the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and thank him for his leadership on behalf of our veterans, all of our veterans, and in this case at this moment our Filipino vets.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for bringing this legislation, salute him and the ranking member of the committee, Congresswoman

Ros-Lehtinen, for her ongoing persistent advocacy for human rights throughout the world. I thank you for you leadership as well, Mr. Berman, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today in strong support of this resolution calling on the Chinese government to end its human rights abuses in China and Tibet so that the Olympic Games can take place in an atmosphere that honors the Olympic traditions of freedom and openness.

I thank Chairman Berman again and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for bringing the resolution to the floor. With passage of this resolution, the House will speak with one voice about the conditions in China and Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games.

Madam Speaker, the Olympic charter states that the Olympics should promote ``a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.'' The reality is that human rights abuses committed by Chinese authorities are worsening in the weeks and months before the Olympics.

In exchange for the privilege of hosting the Olympic Games, the Chinese government made commitments on freedom of the press, human rights and on the environment. Many of these commitments have been violated repeatedly and blatantly. Both foreign and domestic journalists have been harassed, threatened and detained. Human rights defenders and activists have been arrested and imprisoned at an alarming rate in recent months.

The dialog between the Chinese government and the representatives of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, have gone nowhere. Thousands of peaceful Tibetans still languish in prisons in the aftermath of the protest that began in March. Chinese authorities have stepped up the so-called ``patriotic education'' campaigns that require Tibetan Buddhists, regardless of their true thoughts, to publicly denounce the Dalai Lama.

The violations of human rights do not end on China's borders. On the international front, the Chinese government continues to support the genocidal regime in Sudan and the military junta in Burma. Their actions run counter to our interests of promoting peace, stability and morality in the world. The situation in the Sudan would change drastically if the Chinese government would cooperate at the U.N. and send that message to the Sudanese government.

It is in this context that President Bush is traveling to China to attend the Olympic Games. To my knowledge, a sitting President of the United States has never attended an Olympics on foreign soil. That gives the President tremendous leverage with the Chinese government as he gives them tremendous face by attending the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.

I have no objection to the President attending the Olympic Games. I do hope, though, that with all of the face, for lack of a better word, that the Chinese government will receive by his participation in the opening ceremony, that he will take the opportunity to use his leverage to speak very forcefully to the Chinese regime, not only about human rights in China and Tibet, of course that is a top priority, but also about the barriers to U.S. products going into China, about the dangers that are foisted upon our children and the American people by the lack of safety and the production of food.

It is important for the body to know, and I am sure others have made the point, that the President recently met with some advocates for human rights in China and Tibet. I was very proud that they had the opportunity to meet with the President in the White House, and I thank the President for doing that.

But shortly after the President had the meeting, two of these people were detained on the way to a meeting with our colleagues, Congressman Smith and Congressman Wolf, Frank Wolf of Virginia.

So the message has to be, I think, clear to the Chinese government. We have concerns about jobs. We have concerns about U.S. jobs fleeing to China without opening of their markets to our products. We have concerns about human rights in China and Tibet. We want to work with the Chinese government to fight global warming. There are areas where we can have a level of cooperation.

But if we give them that level of respect by having the President of the United States be at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, it is important for the President, when he is there, to deliver a strong message of concerns that we have in our country.

I hope that we can have a brilliant future with China. Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf and I have been trying for over 20 years, haven't we, been making this fight on human rights, as well as others in this body, and our dear friend, Mr. Lantos, as well.

They told us 19 years ago, at the time of Tiananmen Square, if only we would engage economically with China, then human rights would improve there, democratization would take place, markets would be open to our products. But that just really hasn't happened.

Here we are 19 years later. The Olympic Committee honored China by giving them the opportunity to host these Olympic Games. The President of the United States is honoring them by attending the opening ceremonies. It is very important that the opportunity afforded to China be met with responsible behavior on their part in terms of human rights in China and Tibet.

So I hope that the President will not miss the opportunity, that historic, that has wide-ranging consequences, and which will be viewed with such favorability should he deliver the message when he is there.

The President is well known for his support of freedom of religion. That is a commitment that he has made throughout the world, and it is one that I hope that he will carry with him to China as well.

With that, again, I thank the gentleman and Congresswoman Ros- Lehtinen for bringing this to the floor.

I am very thrilled that the Congress of the United States will speak with one voice on this important subject. I know the struggle for human rights is a long one, but we did not expect the Olympics to result in a situation where they were worsened in China instead of improved, as was the promise.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and for his hard work and great leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor in a way that is bipartisan and shows the full support of this Congress as a Congress for America's children.

It is a special day for us because this bill is long overdue, and took a ``New Direction Congress'' to work it out and bring it to the floor in the form that it is in, which is to protect America's children.

But it is a special day for another reason, and that is because one of the main authors of the bill, Congressman Rush of Illinois, is back with us today. We are all family, and to have our family member return in good health is really something very special to us.

He worked so hard to pass this bill the end of last year, so that before Christmas, families across America could know that Congress cared about our children. The bill passed on a suspension calendar with a strong bipartisan vote with the support of community groups that care about children.

So Mr. Dingell, thank you for making this come to fruition, especially at a time when Mr. Rush could be back here with us so that we could say to him, in person, thank you for your leadership for America's children. We love you. You make it a very special day for us when we can do something for America's children and to do so in your presence.

Thank you, Mr. Rush, for your leadership.

This bill is necessary because, does anybody not know that I am a grandmother?

My husband always says, I just wonder how far into your speech it is before you start talking about your grandchildren.

But as a mother of five and a grandmother of seven, and a person who observes a wider range of children in our extended family, I know that we, moms and parents, want to do everything they can to do the best for their children. But we have our limitations. We have to depend on the Federal Government, and government in general, to protect our children from chemicals that may be harmful to their health or even worse than that.

And so, the last several years, even this past year have been called the year of recalls. The Year 2007 was dubbed the ``Year of the Recall'' by Consumer's Union.

More than 45 million toys and children's products were recalled last year, and some were found to contain nearly 200 times the legal amount of lead. Toys, toy trains, costumes, magnets, because and even baby bottles were among the common, everyday items found to be harmful to our children.

What is a parent to do?

This year dangerous toy and product recalls are happening in even swifter rates. The number of recalled toys and children's products is up 22 percent over the first half of last year. What is a parent to do?

Most of the toys that were recalled should never have found their way on to the shelves of local toy stores. Over the last several years, at the same time of these record toy recalls, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is charged with testing toys before they end up in the homes of our children, have been starved for resources. The agency lost 15 percent of its work force between 2004 and 2007. And in 2007, even the Commission's Acting Director complained that there was only one lonely toy tester at the Commission.

Today, at this legislation, we strengthen the ability, our ability to prevent those toys from even getting to market, get products off the shelves more quickly, and increase fines and penalties for violating product safety laws.

The legislation eliminates lead beyond a minute amount in toys and other products intended for children under 12 years of age. It also bans toxic phthalates in children's toys and child care articles.

Today the ``New Direction Congress'' is asserting our responsibility to protect children from dangerous toys. Dangerous toys. Think of that. Shouldn't that be an oxymoron? It should be a given that toys are not dangerous. Sometimes they can be used inappropriately. Somebody can fall with a toy, et cetera, but if it has within its very make-up something that is harmful to the health of children, something is wrong with this picture.

The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act, which is what this bill is, of 2008, is the result of the leadership of many in Congress. I again want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Dingell and Bobby Rush. I also want to acknowledge Ranking Member Barton for his cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor. I would like to acknowledge other leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Waxman, Congresswoman Schakowsky, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, and also Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, not on that committee, but a person on the Appropriations Committee who has some jurisdiction over this issue, and who has been relentless, a relentless grandmother on behalf of children.

So I would salute this as a bipartisan effort on behalf of our Nation's most valuable resource, our children, because it is our sacred duty to protect them.

We began this Congress calling it to order in the name of all of America's children. Today we are honoring some of our promise to them by keeping their toys and children's products safe.

Again, Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to give an overwhelming unanimous vote on support for this important legislation for the children.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his excellent management of this legislation on the floor today. I want to commend him, as well as commending Mr. Lampson for this legislation, which he has worked on for a very long time and which makes very good sense for the American people. I also thank Mr. Markey for his extraordinary leadership on this issue as well.

The choice that we have before us today, my colleagues, is a simple one. The price at the pump is one that is a problem and challenge to the paycheck-to-paycheck economic security of America's families. It must be brought down.

There are two goals that we have in what we are doing here. One is to protect the consumer. That is a responsibility that we have. And in order to do that, to increase the supply of oil that will help bring down the price at the pump.

This week we have the SPR bill to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Next week we will have the speculation bill which will address the issue of undue, excessive speculation in the oil markets and what impact that may have on the price of oil.

In the course of this debate, I think it's important to remember some fundamentals, and one of them is the following. The United States Government is sitting on a stockpile of oil, 700 million barrels of oil. This fact is well known to you in the course of the debate, I know, 700 million barrels of oil. This is oil that the taxpayers have paid for and in some cases have paid a very expensive price for, and it is there.

The President is sitting on that oil. It's called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it is reserved for an emergency. The difference of an opinion that we have here is, is it an emergency that the American people are facing the prices at the pump that they have and home heating oil and the rest.

We say it's an emergency, but an emergency that would justify our taking not more than, well, we would take it down to, I think it's 90 percent of what is in the SPR. The SPR, as I said, has 700 million barrels, and 97.5 percent of this stockpile, this government stockpile, is filled. It's fuller than it's ever been in history. It's an historic supply.

So what we are saying to the President is just take a small amount of that. Free our oil. This oil has been paid for by taxpayers' dollars. Free our oil, increase the supply on the market, and within 10 days the price at the pump can come down.

A while back, we asked the President to stop filling the reserve. Imagine, we were buying oil at top dollar this spring to keep filling this stockpile. The President refused. This Congress voted overwhelmingly in both Houses to stop filling the SPR, recognizing that as we pulled oil out of the supply and into the stockpile, we were affecting the price at the pump.

This time we are saying it hasn't come down enough, certainly not for America's consumers. We need you now to do the reverse, to follow up on that, not only not fill the stockpile, but to increase the supply in the marketplace.

Every time this has been done, and it has been done three times in the last 20 years. Every time this has been done, and you have seen the charts here, Mr. Markey has those charts. Every time it has been done, the price of oil has come down.

So it's a proven way to bring the price at the pump down. When the price of oil comes down in a very sound, market-oriented way, we will buy oil cheaper to replace this oil that we took out and sold at a higher price and make a profit on it.

It makes all the sense in the world to do it this way. Those who oppose this are using this argument that instead of releasing the oil from the stockpile, government-owned stockpile, paid for by the consumer and the taxpayer, instead of releasing this oil to increase the supply in the market, we should be drilling more. We should be drilling in protected areas.

Even the President has said that that is not any short-term fix. Everybody recognizes that if you drill, that it takes 10 years to affect the price at the pump, and only about 2 cents at that.

So instead of saying only drill, only drill and get a 2 percent benefit 10 years from now, we are saying release the oil from this stockpile so that we can have a price at the pump result in 10 days, not 10 years. This is part of what we brought forth last week, too--use it or lose it.

Democrats support drilling. It's important in this debate to recognize that there are 68 million acres in our country which have permits and are ready to go for drilling. So we are saying to the oil companies, use it or lose it. Use your permits, drill for oil, but don't say I don't want to drill there where I have an environmental permit to drill, I want to go drill in some protected area, which is going to take longer for me to do, by the way. And the reason I'm not drilling so much where I'm allowed to is I don't have the equipment to do it.

See this for the hoax on the American people that it is. Yes, we are saying drill, use it or lose it as a way to increase domestic supply. We are also saying you increase domestic supply by investing in renewable energy resources, wind, solar, biofuels and the rest. No less a stalwart Republican than T. Boone Pickens is saying, ``I'm for everything.'' He's for drilling, he's for wind, he's for solar, he's for natural gas, he's for alternatives to foreign oil. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is a national security issue, it is an economic issue, not only for our economy but for the economics of America's families and for our consumers.

It is an environmental health issue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and especially foreign oil. And it is a moral issue, because it has an impact on how we preserve our planet. That's why we have so many evangelicals supporting our efforts for renewables rather than fossil fuels.

So it is an important debate that we are having, because this argument that we shouldn't have oil today on the market, which will reduce the price in 10 days, but, instead, should be drilling where we are not allowed to and have a 2-cent saving in 10 years, think of it. This isn't a reason, this is an excuse, and it's an excuse for a failed energy policy.

It is the energy policy of the Bush administration and some of the Republicans in Congress, but not all, because many have voted in an enlightened way on this subject. This is an excuse for their failed energy policy. These are the same people, George Bush and Dick Cheney, who brought us over $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And now they are saying more of the same.

We are saying a new direction. And now we can drill, we can increase the supply, we can invest in renewables, we can end speculation, we can protect the consumer. As we do all of that, including the drilling, we can do it now, and we can do it right. The fastest way to help the consumer is to release the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but let's think of that as a government stockpile paid for by taxpayers' dollars that a small amount can have a big impact.

I urge my colleagues to go down the same path you did before when overwhelmingly over 300 Members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted to stop filling the SPR. Now let's just say there is so much in there, you can spare some to help the consumer. Do it right. Do it right now.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this very important legislation.

Again, I would commend Mr. Markey, Mr. Barrow and Mr. Lampson, the author of this legislation. I thank you, Mr. Lampson, for your leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for the great intelligence, brilliance, and eloquence that he has brought to this very important debate for the American people. I want to thank him, as Chair of the Financial Services Committee, for his tremendous leadership. I also want to commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters as Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, and acknowledge the excellent work of Chairman Charlie Rangel on the Ways and Means Committee, without whose leadership we would not be here today, and also subcommittee Chair Richie Neal for his extraordinary leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this legislation would have been the product of much more bipartisanship, and it seems that it has been between the White House and the Democrats in the Congress. As a fan of Congressman Spencer Bachus, I also want to acknowledge him. We have some areas of disagreement here, but I'm pleased that we are able to move forward.

Mr. Rangel, Mr. Frank, Mr. Neal, and Chairwoman Waters have brought us a comprehensive package on housing policy reforms that will lift families facing foreclosure and stem the continuing drop in home values across the country.

I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Secretary Paulson. Treasury Secretary Paulson played a constructive role and helped the President reach this agreement after opposing many parts of this legislation. I'm so pleased that the White House issued a statement that the President would not veto this bill.

Under Chairman Frank's leadership, the House last year, just 3 months after Democrats took the majority, in the spring of last year, this House of Representatives passed a bill very similar to the one the House is voting on today, and the administration said that it will not oppose. But at the

time, we had trouble getting from the passage of the bill. Mr. Frank and members of the committee, Chairwoman Waters, foresaw, they knew there was a need for legislation. They passed legislation similar to this 15 months ago only 3 months after Democrats took power.

Again in May of this year, the House passed virtually an identical GSE reform bill as part of a broader comprehensive package to address the crisis in our housing market. Also in January, in discussion over the economic stimulus package, we proposed inclusion of both the GSE reform bill and the FHA reform bill that are now in this package. Unfortunately, we could not get agreement on that.

The bill that the House takes up today, if enacted, will represent the most far-reaching reform of our nation's Federal housing finance system in a generation. Chairman Frank had the foresight to build a bipartisan consensus around the bill that addresses the difficult challenges in our housing markets and communities across America. To help American families avoid foreclosure and jump-start the housing market, this legislation first steers middle class families away from predatory subprime loans and provides them with affordable mortgages; shields middle class borrowers from predatory lending practices and provides foreclosure avoidance counseling opportunities; protects taxpayers, not speculators, by requiring lenders and homeowners to take responsibility; and it offers tax breaks to first-time home buyers.

In this bill we are also ensuring that legislation increases the stock of affordable housing by preserving affordable rental housing for seniors and other populations in communities across America; provides tax incentives for the production of rental housing for low-income populations.

So while all of the attention is on the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest, I wanted to be sure that people understood what was happening to help working families in America.

I would have liked to have seen a seller-financed down payment provision that would help low- and moderate-income families achieve homeownership, and I hope that that issue will be revisited in future legislation. I would also hope that we can review carefully what the most appropriate government structure is to oversee the GSE, including the Federal home loan banks. The Federal home loan banks were not part of the problem, and I know they have some concern about whether a single individual, an executive director or a governing board would provide better governed insight. I think it would be important for us to review this.

On the subject of our veterans, this legislation, and thanking Mr. Frank, is also helping returning veterans achieve the dream of homeownership by increasing the VA home loan limit for veterans in high-cost areas. I'm so proud of that. It is extending the length of time veterans are protected from foreclosure upon their return from service from 3 months to 1 year.

The bill does many, many other things, too numerous to mention here, but suffice it to say that we are addressing a crisis of historic proportions, and the bill protects the futures of our families and their housing.

Having just returned from the gulf coast region, I would also like to note the significant contributions to this bill of two of our newest Members of the House, both of whom hail from the gulf area, Don Cazayoux from Louisiana and Travis Childers from Mississippi. Congressman Cazayoux and Congressman Childers sponsored legislation cutting red tape at HUD so that public housing facilities can receive swift assistance from FEMA after a natural disaster. Their legislation also authorizes funds to combat violent crime on or near the premises of public or federally assisted housing facilities. Their achievement is a testament to their diligence and dedication in representing their districts.

As this bill was going forward, I just might say about 2 weeks ago around this time we thought we had a mortgage foreclosure housing bill that we would bring to the floor. It was then that we heard that following weekend, a week-and-a-half ago, from Secretary Paulson that the GSE language provisions needed to be in this bill. That made a drastic change in the legislation making it a much bigger package.

While we all understand that the last thing our economy needs is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not to be able to make loans and we go forward giving confidence to the markets that Congress will act and the system should be trusted for what Congress is saying about this, I think down the road a bit we should review the hybrid nature of Fannie and Freddie. I know that this bill gives authority to review the compensation of the executives of those institutions, and I think that's very important.

Owning a home is an essential part of the American dream. It's not only about what it means to individuals, it is what it means to the community, putting down roots. It's what it means to the economy as we take an interest in our homes and make them habitable. By expanding homeownership opportunities and protecting families against foreclosure, we are helping to keep the American dream of homeownership alive by restoring confidence in the housing market. Our economy can begin to grow and create jobs for the American people again.

For this reason, I don't think we could have been better served than by the tremendous leadership and knowledge and perception of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Barney Frank. I thank you for your leadership once again, Mr. Frank, and by the relentless persistence of Congresswoman Maxine Waters on behalf of low-income people and homeowners and renters in our country. Thank you for your leadership.

Thanks to Mr. Rangel as well. It seems like every bill we're thanking Mr. Rangel because he has such an important part of it. He has so much knowledge of the process, stamina, and working on legislation day in and day out, we're deeply in his debt, and in this case, he was well and ably served by Congressman Richie Neal.

Again, this is a major accomplishment for the Congress. I'm glad it's being done in a bipartisan way with the Congress and the administration and hope that it will be signed into law this week.

Thank you again, Mr. Frank.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership in bringing the most extensive drilling legislation to the floor of the House. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.

Because part of what we must do in order to bring down the price of energy to the American people is to increase domestic supply and to protect the consumer. And increasing domestic supply means that we must remove all doubt in the minds of those who wish to drill and those who want the drilling to take place that there are 68 million acres in the lower 48 States where drilling is allowed: ``Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands,'' the DRILL bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the documentation of that amount of land. Thirty-three million of those acres are offshore. So the question is, why do you not want us to drill offshore? We do, in 33 million acres. Why do you not want us to drill on land? We do, in tens of millions more acres in the lower 48.

And then this bill takes us to Alaska, where the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is a bigger source of oil than the ANWR, the refuge in Alaska. So why those who wish to make an argument here are saying we won't let you drill: No, we want you to drill. Why are you saying this is the law, they have to do it anyway? Well, they aren't because these lands are not drilled upon.

We're not getting the product from them.

So in order to protect the consumer and to increase domestic supply, we're talking about two things: We're talking about protecting the consumer with legislation to curb unnecessary, excessive and abusive speculation in the marketplace. That debate is going on in the Senate as we speak here right now and will come to the House soon.

Increasing domestic supply means facilitating drilling where it is allowed already--in tens of millions of acres across our country. It means investments in renewable resources, because that is part of our energy supply now and for the future. And it also means an immediate call upon the President to free our oil. Right now, the President is sitting on over 700 million barrels of oil. This is oil that has been bought and paid for by the American taxpayer and is warehoused in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is there for emergencies, and we have a national emergency in terms of the energy crisis in our country.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 97.5 percent full, the fullest it has ever been in history. All we're asking the President to do is to take 10 percent of that oil and release it over time into the marketplace; increase the supply, reduce the price.

Ten days ago, we called upon the President to free our oil. If he had done so at that time, we would already have an immediate impact at the pump, 10 days. Release the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 10 days later we would have had an impact at the pump.

What our colleagues are suggesting about going beyond the areas that already have permits all ready to go will take 10 years to get to the pump. Even the President, who is advocating drilling in the protected areas of OCS, even he said in his press conference the other day, this is not an immediate fix. This will not lower the price at the pump in the near future. Even the President has said that.

So this is a false argument. It's an argument trying to be used to divert attention from the fact that President Bush has had a failed energy policy for the last 7.5 years. If he had acted earlier, we would be reaping the benefits of our investments and renewables. But there has been a resistance in the Congress and within the White House to these changes.

So here we are today at a moment of truth. The truth is that there is a great deal more oil to be exploited in our country. The truth is that it is not being exploited, and this bill would encourage that exploitation. It would encourage those who have the leases to use it or lose it, and if they don't want to exploit the situation, to let someone else drill and produce oil and gas in those acres.

It also says that in Alaska we should be drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Instead of having a fight over a protected area, let's go to an area that is already permitted for leasing and has more oil in the first place. The bill also says, when we do that, we must bring that product to market.

So let's complete the pipeline--it's 5 miles there to complete the pipeline--and then build the natural gas pipeline to take natural gas from Alaska to the United States. The only reason that has not happened is because the President has not decided it should.

All of this is only a decision. We call upon the President to use the good offices of the President of the United States to encourage those who are in the final stages of decision making on this to move. And then the supply of energy to our country will be vast, and it will create probably a hundred thousand new jobs. Building the Alaska Pipeline, the Natural Gas Alaska Pipeline, would be the biggest infrastructure project in history. And all the President has to do is give the signal that this should be done. He hasn't in 7.5 years. This bill calls upon him to do so.

So when we drill, and when we bring the oil and gas down to our country, we are saying that none of this oil that is being produced can be exported to foreign countries. It is there not for the profit of these corporations, but to meet the energy demands of the American people.

Essential to all of this, though, is to ignore the false claims being made of the impact of drilling on these protected lands. Maybe the science and the technology one day will make that feasible, and we should always keep our minds open to that. But to say we have to go there--which will take much longer to bring product to market--is just a diversion from the matter at hand, which is, a failed policy in the White House. As Mr. Markey said, two oilmen in the White House, $4-plus a gallon at the pump. The President is sitting on 700 million barrels of oil that would bring down that price at the pump.

Free our oil, Mr. President. ``Use it or lose it'' to our oil companies. End speculation that is driving up the price. Protect the American consumer. Vote for the DRILL Act.

I thank Mr. Rahall again for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, I commend him for his extraordinary leadership on this subject.

Madam Speaker, I have not been able to watch the entire debate, because I was involved in meetings, but I hope it was made known to all who are following this debate how historic this is that we have Mr. Dingell as part of the management of this bill and bringing this bill to the floor. He comes from a strong tradition of access to affordable, reliable health care for all Americans.

His father had it as his life's work in the Congress. Mr. Dingell was a young Congressman at the time he sat and presided. He sat in the chair and presided and gaveled the passage of the Medicare bill. I don't know if that has been discussed here today, but I want to be sure that all who follow the record of Congress know of the long history, the family tradition and the tremendous leadership that Mr. Dingell has provided in this regard.

I also want to commend Mr. Pallone from the Energy and Commerce Committee for his work in this important legislation; Mr. Stark, the Chair of the committee of jurisdiction in the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you, Mr. Stark, for your leadership. I also commend Mr. Rangel for the important work that he did to make this vote possible today.

People across America saw us pass this bill before the Fourth of July break, and it was celebrated by seniors who were concerned, and with people with disabilities, who were concerned about the impact of this however modest reform of Medicare. After the break, the Senate took up the bill once again. They failed with 59 votes the first time. You need 60 in the Senate, as you know.

The whole country was jubilant and applauded when Senator Kennedy came to the floor, a fighter for America's seniors, a fighter for people with disabilities, a fighter for our children,

a fighter for working families in America. He left his own physical challenge behind to come to the floor of the Senate all the way from Massachusetts to be the 60th vote.

It was such an historic moment, and nine Republican Senators changed their votes on the strength of Senator Kennedy's vote. It was 59 until he voted, and then he made the 60th, and then it became 69, and it was pretty exciting. People cheered, and everyone was tear filled and happy that this happened, affordable, reliable, health care for America's seniors and those with disabilities passed.

Then the President said that he would veto the bill. It was such a downer.

Here we are again today to come back to have an overwhelming bipartisan support in the Congress of the United States, in the House of Representatives, to say to the American people we understand the challenges they face. All of the seniors organizations and disabilities groups, of course, support this legislation, but just about every health-care providing group in our country supports this legislation as well, except one, and that is some in the health insurance industry. I guess the President is voting with them and not with America's seniors and those with disabilities when he vetoes the bill.

I am very proud of the work of, again, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stark. I thank them for their leadership. You have given us an opportunity to vote for the American people, not only as their representatives, but on their behalf, and we are all grateful to you for that. I urge a vote to override the veto.

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome more than 700 delegates and 1500 total participants to the 39th Biennial Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Church of America to Washington, DC. The theme of the 39th Biennial Congress is Gather My People to My Home, which recognizes the value of each person and, as Archbishop Demetrios of America has written, acknowledges that many people are struggling and seeking a spiritual home where they can find peace and hope.

The Greek Orthodox community in San Francisco is an example of the beautiful diversity of my hometown. I am proud that several of my constituents, including Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco and Fathers Stephen Kyriacou and Aris Metrakos and lay leaders from the Holy Trinity Church and Annunciation Cathedral of San Francisco, will be in Washington for the Congress this week. I would also like to congratulate my friend Andy Manatos who will serve as the Chairman of Clergy Laity Congress during this conference.

The House of Representatives is blessed to have had many Greek Orthodox members of Congress over the years. Today, the community is well-represented by leaders such as John Sarbanes of Maryland, Zack Space of Ohio, Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts and Gus Bilirakis of Florida.

Members of Congress have expressed strong support for the Greek Orthodox community through the years including awarding the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award bestowed by the Congress, to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions toward religious understanding and peace.

The religious freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Orthodox community continues to be a top priority for Members of Congress. A bipartisan group of members on the House Foreign Affairs Committee recently sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Turkey urging him to do everything possible to preserve the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to end restrictions and practices which threaten the viability of this nearly 2,000-year old spiritual beacon. The millions of Orthodox Christians in America and around the world can be assured that Congress will continue to advocate for their right to worship and practice their faith without undue government interference.

As Greek Orthodox clergy, parishioners, and hierarchs visit our nation's capitol this week, I thank them for their leadership and wish them a successful conference.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him and Mr. Sali for their leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor in a timely fashion for us in California. I appreciate the good work of their committee.

Mr. Speaker, California today is fighting some of the most significant fires in terms of acres burned in our history, more than 675,000 acres, as the fires that have cost $276 million to fight, according to the State and Federal reports, to date. The number of active wildfires up and down the coast of California is 330. There have been 1,731 fires since June 21.

Up to 20,000 firefighters are battling the blazes, many of them from neighboring States, many from far and wide across the country. Some from other countries, from Mexico, from Canada, from Australia, and New Zealand and other places, coming to the rescue. Later today we will have a resolution offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Farr), whose district is greatly impacted by these fires, a resolution to commend our firefighters, thank them for their service and their sacrifice, and that will be an important resolution and debate at that time.

But in addition to extending our sympathy to those for their losses and our appreciation to our firefighters, we have to do more. And today, Mr. Rahall, you have given us the opportunity to do just that.

This legislation, the FLAME Act, before us creates an emergency Federal fund dedicated solely to combating the catastrophic wildfires. This funding will help ensure that fire prevention resources are not consumed by emergency firefighting expenses. Others have spoken about the need for us to even go beyond this act in terms of treatment and prevention, but this act is important because this fund will prevent the soaking up of all of the other dollars that should be used for prevention but are used for extinction.

The FLAME Act also requires the administration to develop a cohesive wildfire management strategy. This is very, very important and long overdue. We need prevention. We need the treatment that was described by our colleague. A long-term strategy is needed and should include approaches to hiring and retaining experienced Federal wildland firefighters. We have enormously talented people in our country. We want many of them to work for the Federal Government, and that's why I oppose the administration's insistence on outsourcing and other policies that undercut the Federal workforce which extend to our wildland firefighters.

I want to commend Mr. Rahall, whose leadership on the Natural Resources Committee is helping to strengthen efforts to better prepare for and combat wildfires, Mr. Sali as well, for bringing this legislation to the floor; Chairman Raul Grijalva of the Natural Resources Committee's National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee; and Chairman Norm Dicks of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior. These outstanding leaders have brought forward bipartisan legislation that will help us fight future catastrophic fires and ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to protecting both citizens and property. That is why this legislation has such broad bipartisan support and has been endorsed by five former chiefs of the Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters, the National Association of Counties, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the Western Governors Association, and nearly 40 other leading organizations.

As I said earlier, our colleague Congressman Farr is to be commended for authoring the resolution the House will consider shortly that commends our firefighters from California and throughout America for their courageous service. As we thank our colleagues for this much- needed legislation, we should also honor the service of our firefighters, the California Office of Emergency Services, the National Guard for helping protect our neighbors' lives and homes in California and throughout the West.

We also express our deepest sympathies to those who have suffered deep personal losses as a result of these fires, particularly the families of two firefighters who lost their lives: Robert Roland of the Anderson Valley Fire Department, a volunteer fireman who lost his life fighting a fire; and John Hermo of Oregon. He came down from Oregon to help fight the fires. He was drowned while off duty but, nonetheless, here in the service of this important fight.

This critical legislation is an opportunity to provide consistent assistance and structure for relief in these times of emergency. Again, we express our appreciation to the legislation's authors and hopes that the weather and the wind will assist our brave firefighters in combating the blazes. I know we all join in saying that we wish God will bless our courageous firefighters.

Madam Speaker, the recent Retinitis Pigmentosa International Society's presentation of its Woman of Vision Leadership Award to San Francisco-based activist and fashion designer Mary Green is an excellent occasion for this body to take note of the unique and innovative manner in which Mary has employed her burgeoning business success to improve the lives and work conditions of women in developing countries around the world.

Mary Green is a visionary of ethical and sustainable entrepreneurship, a creative and compassionate strategy that other American business leaders might find rewarding, encompassing both good humanism and good business. The Vision Award saluted, along with her design skills, her commitment to creating better lives for people living in the shadow of poverty and deprivation throughout the third world. Mary Green's signature is adapting and uniting the unique artistic skills of workers in various countries with their innate entrepreneurship. By doing so she has created stable business communities that have emerged to produce her exceptional fashion designs. It is her creative humanism that truly makes her a woman of vision.

A committed activist in many areas of social improvement through activities in the business world, nonprofit entities and humane governmental activities, from solar power cooperatives to stem cell advancement, Mary Green's most notable achievements have been in the area of developing business solutions that address society's most pressing problems. It is the human dimension of sustainable business, including the empowerment of women, which operates as a key factor in all of her work. Mary Green personifies what is great about sustainable entrepreneurship: the blend of human and natural capital creating a community of trust and happiness with the creation of a valuable product that transcends the focus on immediate monetary reward. We are all the beneficiaries of the vision of Mary Green.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his great leadership as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I commend him.

I commend Mr. Conyers, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for although he is not supporting the legislation before us today, he certainly had a tremendous impact to improve it. Thank you for your relentless championing of civil liberties in our country, Mr. Conyers.

I want to pay special tribute to our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for making this compromise possible today. It's a very difficult task, many competing views as to how we should go forward. Mr. Hoyer handled it all with great intellect and great respect for all of those views. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.

Also want to acknowledge Mr. Smith and Mr. Hoekstra and minority whip, Mr. Blunt, for their leadership in giving us this opportunity today.

We've heard it over and over again. Our colleagues say this bill is not perfect, this isn't the bill I would write. I prefer this bill, I prefer that bill.

Well, I prefer the House bill that passed and was sent to the Senate. It isn't an option for us. I do not, I totally reject the Senate bill which is an option, and that is the comparison that we have to make, the contrast that we have to make today.

But in doing so, I think we all understand the important responsibility that we have in this Congress, focused on this debate today. I always take the debate back to our responsibility when we take the oath of office. We take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. In that preamble to our Constitution, we must provide for the common defense. Essential to honoring that commitment to protect the American people is to have the intelligence, operational intelligence that will help us do that.

When I first went on the Intelligence Committee, our focus was on force protection. Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence to make the decisions necessary to keep them safe and to do their job. Force protection, force protection, force protection. It is still a primary responsibility of our intelligence.

In addition to that, we have the fight on the war against terrorism, the fight against terrorism, wherever it may exist. Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plans of the terrorists and to defeat those plans.

So we can't go without a bill. That's just simply not an option. But to have a bill, we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States, and this bill does not.

Some in the press have said that under this legislation, this bill would allow warrantless surveillance of Americans. That is not true. This bill does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans. I just think we have to stipulate to some set of facts.

We may have our opinions about the bill, but there have been so many versions of the story of different bills that have come up, the PAA last year, which I thought was totally unacceptable. The Senate bill, also unacceptable. Our House bill, which I mentioned before, which I thought was the appropriate way to go, and now this compromise.

As I was talking with Mr. Hoyer in the course of his negotiations, there were certain things that I thought had to be in the bill to make it acceptable, certain threshold issues that had to be there, and they are.

In terms of the original FISA bill, it's interesting to note that this bill is an improvement on that in three important ways.

First, we all recognize the changes in technology necessitate a change in the legislation, and this legislation today modernizes our intelligence-gathering system by recognizing and responding to technological developments that have occurred since the original FISA Act in 1978. In doing so, we can make the country safer in a more advanced technological way.

Second, and this is very, very important, and there's some misunderstanding about this. This bill provides that Americans overseas receive the same FISA protection, including an individualized warrant based on probable cause, as Americans living within the country. This is a very important improvement on the original FISA Act.

Third, this bill strengthens congressional oversight. And this is very important, the transparency. Transparency and intelligence don't always go together, but accountability is central to intelligence. This strengthens congressional oversight by requiring that the executive branch provide more extensive information about the conduct of surveillance to both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee. This is new, this is better. The more we know, the better, I think, the law will be enforced.

If this bill does not pass, we will most certainly be left with the Senate bill. I think that's clear. And this bill is an improvement over the Senate bill in the following ways, just to name a few.

First of all, it reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive means of collecting foreign intelligence, and makes absolutely clear that the enactment of an authorization for the use of force does not give the President, whoever he may be, any inherent authority to alter the requirements of FISA. Very important.

This is important because President Bush believed, and this was what we were told, that he, as President of the United States, had inherent authority under the Constitution to do almost anything he wanted.

And what this bill reaffirms is that the FISA law is the authority for collecting foreign intelligence. There is no inherent authority of the President to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy. It is not a monarchy.

Secondly, it is an improvement of the Senate bill. And by the way, no offense to President Bush. I wouldn't want any President, Democrat or Republican, a Democratic President or a Republican President to have that authority.

Secondly, the bill provides that, except in rare circumstances there will be pre-surveillance review by the FISA Court.

And when I say rare circumstance, I mean very, very rare.

Unlike the Senate bill, this legislation retains FISA's broad definition of electronic surveillance and thus guarantees that basic protections of FISA apply to all the new forms of collection authorized by the bill. There had been an attempt, and that's why the Senate bill is inferior in this respect, to just narrow it to certain kinds of collection, and this says it applies to all collection, electronic surveillance.

Fourth, it contains specific protections against reverse targeting. This reverse targeting is very, very important to the civil liberties of the American people, and I am satisfied by the specific provisions against reverse targeting. It provides a full and independent review of the President's surveillance program by the Inspector General of the relevant agencies.

Of course, there are aspects of this compromise bill that I do not like. I don't believe that Congress should be in the business of interfering with ongoing lawsuits and attempting to grant immunity to telecommunication companies that allegedly violated the law. Those companies have not lived up to a standard expected by the American people. I don't think today is any cause for celebration for them. They come out of this with a taint.

I do not believe that the pending lawsuits would have achieved what we would have liked them to do which is what the Inspector General's review would, which is to learn the truth about the President's terrorist surveillance program and give us the information we need to make sure that never happens again.

In addition, this legislation makes sure that in the future, the telephone companies must fully comply with Federal statutes.

Again, it would have been my preference to vote for the RESTORE Act that the House sent over to the Senate. I do not consider it an option to live with the Senate bill. This is the opportunity that we have to protect the American people through the gathering of intelligence which is essential, as I said earlier, to force protection, to protect our men and women in uniform and help them make the decisions they need to do their jobs and keep them safe and to fight terrorists by learning their plans in advance and squelching them.

I want to thank those who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor. Again, it's not a happy occasion, but it's the work that we have to do. I think we have to remember getting back to the Constitution. The House, article 1, legislates. We pass the laws. The judiciary interprets the law. The executive branch enforces the law. And what is very important about whatever we pass, especially in relating to subjects relating to our security and our liberty, it's important that the President of the United States enforce this law honoring the Constitution of the United States recognizing the responsibility that we all have to protect the American people and protect the Constitution of the United States at the same time.

So again, a difficult decision for all of us. I respect every opinion that was expressed on this floor today. The knowledge, the sincerity, the passion and the intellect of those who support and oppose this have been very, very valuable in making the bill better, if not good enough for some, but certainly preferable to the alternative that we have which is the Senate bill which must be rejected.

I'm not asking anybody to vote for this bill. I just wanted you to know why I was.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.