Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, we are here today to consider the Democrat leadership's proposed change to the current House practices to provide Delegates from U.S. territories with representation without taxation.

The Democrat leadership, in a political effort to pad votes, is willing to trample on the Constitution by allowing these Delegates to cast votes on amendments that could affect taxpayers across the United States of America without requiring that these residents pay taxes into the United States Treasury. According to a 2000 census, American Samoa had 60,000 residents, about one-tenth the size of an average congressional district. This too undermines the fundamental constitutional provision and principle of one man, one vote.

I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bad policy and political effort by the Democrat leadership and majority to extend representation without taxation to nontaxpayers and to dilute the votes of the American taxpayers in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 12 years the Republicans, when we were in the majority, always led off every single rule by describing the rule and the actions of the Rules Committee.

I would like to yield to my friend from California to explain this rule again that we are offering today that is progress over partisanship.

So in other words, what the gentlewoman has said is that this five-step process that we are going through right now means that there will be no committee hearings, no expert witness testimony, no information that is available really to the membership of this body, but mostly would be necessary for new Members. And then when someone does come to the Rules Committee we are told before the session even starts there will be no amendments and a closed rule, and yet progress over partisanship is what we are doing here. Interesting day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process.

Every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, understands the importance of higher education in the competitive global world environment that our students and workers face in keeping the United States at the vanguard of the global economy.

I am greatly disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen to bring this narrow legislation of questionable effectiveness forward rather than engaging in an honest debate which has taken place for 12 years, as education has always been considered a bipartisan effort.

It is true that the gentlewoman did describe that it will be a bipartisan act that we do today, but this was simply the first step in education and doing the right things for our students. I disagree with that. I think members of the minority have been given the opportunity for 12 years to be a part of the progress that has taken place, offering amendments that would actually make college more affordable for parents and students, as well as the cost effectiveness of the American taxpayer who foot the bill for tens of billions of dollars each year spent on Federal student aid programs.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisanship that I talked about for 12 years was led by Republicans in support of making sure that college was more affordable. Over the past 6 years, spending on Federal student aid has increased by 57 percent, and funding for Pell Grants has risen by nearly 50 percent.

We also think about lower education also where, as a result of Republicans for the last 12 years, education has risen in spending from Washington, DC, 256 percent. Today, some $90 billion a year in Federal resources fund student aid programs from loans and grants to work study programs and educational tax benefits.

This is not a first step that we are taking today, it is another step that was not begun or born out of bipartisanship, but rather out of bumper sticker politics.

What we have talked about is that Republicans have more than tripled what spending was helping students over the last decade. Yes, it was done in a bipartisan way before today. Open committee hearings and feedback make bills better.

Republicans, through our leadership, have also made sure that more than $4 billion for new and high achieving Pell students pursuing degrees in math, science and critical foreign languages was included these last 12 years. We slashed the total loan fees so students can access more of the money that they borrowed for education purposes. We cut $20 billion in Federal subsidies to student loan lenders through the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2006, which provided substantial savings for U.S. taxpayers while ensuring that these tax programs would operate efficiently by not cutting one penny in student loans.

But rather than continue along this path of making college more affordable and increasing the transparency not only in this body, but also as it relates to college costs so that students and their parents can see why higher education costs are rising, today Democrats are imposing, in a closed rule, without feedback, upon the House legislation that would do nothing to expand college access or improve affordability. Instead, their plan will not benefit a single college student, only former students.

Let me say this very plainly, not one additional student will be able to attend college because of this proposal, unlike the bipartisan efforts of the past where we worked to make sure that it impacted more students' ability to go to college. In fact, today's legislation is no more than a flawed answer in search of a problem.

In 2004, the Federal Government spent less than four-tenths of a cent on every dollar in providing these student loans. Since 2001, the program the Democrats today seek to change, Republicans, through a bipartisan effort before today, returned over $12 billion to the U.S. Treasury because the cost of administering the program needed to be changed.

Once again, we find ourselves with a great example of the private sector doing a job better, more efficient, with less risk to the taxpayer, and the government and taxpayers will see the benefit.

This legislation also does not make good on a common Democrat campaign promise in the highly touted ``Six for `06'' program. Many Democrats on the campaign trail made broad promise about cutting interest rates in half immediately for all student loans, both subsidized and unsubsidized, as well as loans made to parents. Instead, in a classic bait-and-switch for voters, the Democrats are really bringing to the floor today legislation that only addresses subsidized loans and phases these savings in over 5 years before they sunset and then disappear.

Additionally, they proposed to pay for this weakened $6 billion plan with many of the same lender cuts passed by Republicans and Democrats in the last Congress, the same subsidy cuts that Democrats opposed because during the election they called a ``Raid on Student Aid'' when in fact it is exactly what they do today.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a comprehensive alternative to the flawed Democrat plan. The College Affordability and Transparency Act would provide students and parents with more and better information about college costs, helping students to become better consumers of higher education. It will add great transparency and accountability by establishing a user friendly college affordability comparison creating quality, efficiency task forces to determine the causes for tuition hikes at the schools with the greatest tuition increases and provide a demonstration project for up to 100 schools, freeing them from the costly regulatory requirements and driving down one of the main reasons that schools raise costs.

Mr. Speaker, today 80 percent of the student loans made are originated by the private sector at an efficient cost and enhanced borrower services, such as reduced charges, financial education tools and reduced student interest obligation, all of which would disappear if

we allow the Federal Government to crowd out the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, this was our idea, and we would have brought this forth if we were allowed to do so in a rule where Members could openly vote for this and have an honest debate through the entire committee system.

I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the former chairman, from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, I saw something, well, I saw several things that I had not seen in the 8 wonderful years I have served on the Rules Committee, but I have been told by those who have longer tooth than I that they had not seen in the 12 years the Republicans were in the majority, where people were greeted to the Rules Committee by the chairman saying, your amendment will not be made in order and it is a closed rule.

The interpretation for the membership of this body was, you need not apply. Please, just don't even come and give your story because we are not open for business. We are closed before we are open.

Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues, Ric Keller, did come up. And despite being told this right up front, in an honest way, by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), he still stuck around for another hour. He still was there to present his thoughts and ideas, even though he knew before the meeting even took place, before a vote ever took place, that he would not have anything made in order, his ideas, which he has been presenting in a bipartisan way for the last few years, would not even see the light of day.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be able to be on the floor today and to discuss this. He is a kind and wonderful gentleman who cares a lot about students and student aid, and so I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker is a prime example of the new Members of this body who are completely clueless about the 12 wonderful years of bipartisanship that have taken place out of this Education and Workforce Committee to make education strong, to give money where it has needed to be, and really, if we want to tell the truth, to take what we inherited 13 years ago from the Democrats from a failed student loan program that didn't even work, that was bankrupt.

So, Mr. Speaker, yet another good reason why I wish we had had regular order, so these new Members of Congress could speak from the facts of the case rather than holding hostage the truth.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire on the time that remains for both sides, please, sir.

Mr. Speaker, if I could at this time, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if she could engage in running down her time, it would bring us to some more parity and allow her speakers that time at this juncture.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon from California.

I thank the Speaker. I also thank the gentleman, a dear friend of mine from South Carolina, for talking about how great this is for the budget. Yet the rule waives points of order that are contained in the budget. Being specific, it is an explanation of the waivers that we found out about.

The bill violates section 302(f) because its direct spending will exceed the Committee on Education and Labor's allocation, but that is good for the budget.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have had an opportunity on this side to talk about why we are disappointed in this closed rule and in the Democrats' failure to provide a comprehensive solution to increasing higher education access for our students that will help keep America competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert in the Record an article printed in The Dallas Morning News, my home newspaper, from January 12, outlining the way today's Democrat proposal fails and falls short of their past promises.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Jan. 12, 2007]

Dems Push Rate Cut for Student Loans

Washington.--Following up on an election-year promise,

House Democrats said Friday that they plan quick action to

lower interest rates for student loans.

Their proposal, scheduled for a vote next week, would cut

interest rates on some student loans in half. However, the

college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first

touted on the campaign trail last year.

The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based

loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized

student loans--a distinction not made in the campaign

literature Democrats handed out before winning control of

Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to

reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with

their kids' college costs.

The rate cut for subsidized student loans--from 6.8 percent

to 3.4 percent--would be phased in over 5 years.

The measure would cost just under $6 billion, according to

the Congressional Budget Office.

To avoid increasing the deficit, the bill's cost would be

offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and

reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students

default. Banks also would have to pay more in fees.

An estimated 5.5 million students receive subsidized loans.

Republicans pushed a budget bill through Congress last

session that cut $12 billion from student loan programs.

Democrats and student groups argued the money should have

been preserved.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the House will have the opportunity to debate this important amendment offered by Republican Ranking Member Buck McKeon so that convicted felons will be considered ineligible to receive the Democrat interest rate reduction.

Mr. Speaker, today this debate has been very succinct and to the point. That is that we believe that for 12 years that Republicans and Democrats have worked very carefully on education issues that will help this country out, through difficult times, through difficult processes, increasing the amount of money that is available, not only for people to attend school, but also reducing the costs that were impediments in the program.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the way it is being pitched today is, well, the Republicans were just headed in a bad direction and had 12 years to do this, when in fact we have been doing this in a bipartisan way for 12 years. Today, we are going to hear it and have it the Democrats' way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Rena Bitter, a Dallas native and a Foreign Service officer currently serving as Consular Chief at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, for winning the 2006 Thomas Jefferson Award presented by American Citizens Abroad (ACA).

This honor is extended to State Department employees who have displayed exemplary service to the American community overseas. ACA founded this award to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, America's first Secretary of State and third President. They described Jefferson as ``the quintessential Overseas American'' who lived outside the new republic for many years while helping to secure its independence and promote its political, economic and national security interests. In a similar manner, Rena serves our country today as Jefferson once served.

Rena entered the Foreign Service in 1994 having previously served in Mexico City, Mexico; Bogota, Colombia; and London, England. After spending a year with the British Foreign Office, Rena served as Chief of the Nonimmigrant Visa Unit at the American Embassy in London. During an assignment in Washington, DC, Rena served as a Special Assistant to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Rena received additional leadership awards while serving both at the American Embassy in London and the office of the Secretary of State.

Currently in Amman, Rena has a wide range of responsibilities. She not only assists American citizens living and working in Jordan, but supports David Abell (co-winner of this award) and his co-workers at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Rena's dedicated efforts provide for the needs of our fellow citizens in very difficult times. As a testimony of her dedication to Americans overseas, one of her supervisors once wrote that ``If my grandkids were to find themselves in trouble, I would hope it would be Rena, or someone like her, who would be available'' to help them.

I wish Rena Bitter all the best, and I thank her for her dedicated service to the American citizens overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Medicare part D Government Interference Plan, which is what the Democrats have today.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side have made it very clear: They believe that price controls will beat what the marketplace has done, and yet the Congressional Budget Office has clearly said that is not true, there would be no savings.

What would their plan do, Mr. Speaker? They talk about the important part of what the VA does. Of over 3.8 million Medicare eligible beneficiaries enrolled in the VA, over 1 million have opted to participate in part D because it provides more flexibility and choice for the drugs that they want and they need.

Only 38 percent of the drugs that were approved by the FDA in the 1990s and only 19 percent since 2000 are available on the VA formulary. The Democrats want this for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that doctors and patients should control the medicines that are available, and I think they should be available to every single senior. We want to make sure that continues. I oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a press release by the Employment Policies Institute and an op-ed by George Will that was in the Dallas Morning News on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today opposed to this bill, this bill that did not go through regular order nor through the Rules Committee, not even to be a secret vote in the Rules Committee. And I argue against this bill for the reasons we have not had a chance to vet the bill, to tell the truth that there will be over 1.6 million people that will lose their job directly related to this action by Washington, D.C., The Federalist Society, the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C., who will control not only their jobs but take away from small businesses the opportunity to be competitive in a competitive world.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to cause these 1.6 million people to lose their jobs as a result of their inability to be able to compete in marketplaces and to raise their own wages.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that these 1.6 million jobs were important to families and people. It may not be much of a job. It may be in a small rural community, but they were jobs that were important to those people. They are jobs, even if not high-paying jobs, that would provide them the opportunity to get up and find self-worth and go and do their very best, perhaps not just with limited resources but with the very best that community may offer.

These are the types of stories that would be told if we had followed regular order, if the committees had been able to vet this, if we had known more about the ability to hear experts testify about what is actually going to happen.

We hear the words about food on the table. We hear about having people earn more money. That is great. But 1.6 million jobs will be lost from our economy as a result of what the Democrat Party does. I say, shame on us. I will oppose this. I will be for the Republican alternative that encourages better jobs.

Employment Policies Institute: Minimum Wage Hike Threatens Healthy U.S.

Economy

Washington, DC.--Despite the flourishing U.S. economy and

record low unemployment level, low-skilled jobs--such as the

retail and leisure and hospitality industries--are in

decline. These jobs will be further threatened by the

prospect of a federal minimum wage hike, warns the Employment

Policies Institute (EPI).

Decades of economic research prove that raising the minimum

wage reduces job opportunities, particularly for people with

few skills. When faced with the increase in labor costs that

attend minimum wage hikes, employers often respond by hiring

more skilled applicants, automating jobs, or cutting back on

customer service.

Contrary to the opinion of proponents of minimum wage

hikes, a rising tide doesn't necessarily lift all boats, and

an extremely healthy skilled job market often masks an ailing

low-skilled job market.

``The unintended consequences of a minimum wage hike will

disproportionately affect low-skilled jobs while skilled

labor may continue to flourish,'' said Jill Jenkins, EPI's

chief economist. ``In other words, if two computer programmer

jobs are created and one less grocery store checker is hired,

the net job creation is positive, but you're still seeing a

decline in entry-level job opportunities.''

A study by economists at the Federal Reserve found that

every 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 2%-3%

decrease in employment overall. When you focus on the job

loss suffered by low-skilled individuals such as high school

drop-outs or minority teens, the increase in unemployment is

as high as 8.5% for every 10% increase in the minimum wage,

according to research from Cornell and the University of

Connecticut.

``Instead of pushing for a minimum wage increase, lawmakers

could affect real change by promoting expansion of the Earned

Income Tax Credit (EITC),'' added Jenkins. ``The EITC

effectively targets benefits to families in need without

jeopardizing jobs.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate University Park Elementary School upon its receipt of the Department of Education's prestigious Blue Ribbon School Award.

University Park Elementary School is among the first selected in the 2006 No Child Left Behind--Blue Ribbon Schools Program. It is among only 250 schools nationwide honored for either superior academic achievement or dramatic gains in student achievement.

The Blue Ribbon Award is a testament to the hard work and dedication demonstrated by the students, parents, teachers, and administrators of University Park Elementary. This Award also recognizes the values that make the Highland Park Independent School District a beacon of academic excellence.

It is my honor and privilege to recognize University Park Elementary School for its outstanding achievement in preparing our children for the challenges of tomorrow. May University Park Elementary School continue to be a shining example of superior leadership and commitment to excellence in education.

Mr. Dreier, I appreciate the opportunity for you to yield time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit shocked and surprised with the reformers that have come to Congress, the brand-new Democrats who are talking about all these things that they are going to get done. Yet it seems to me that with the respect we would have for the voters who sent us here, that we would not be asked to approve and get ready to vote on things without even seeing the bills.

The new Democrat party, in their openness and trying to do things right, is asking Members of this body to vote for and approve getting rules to the floor without even knowing what the bills are about, the substance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this. I rise in opposition because I think it is a step backwards, not a step forwards. It represents less transparency and is a slap in the face for regular order to this House.

Section 503 of this flawed package rolls back the Sunlight reforms implemented by the Republican Party in 1995, and it creates a secret ballot in the Rules Committee for votes that are taken right upstairs, Mr. Speaker, where we would meet, where rules, as they are debated and brought before this House, Members always had to make sure that the votes that they were going to support would be recorded. That is not going to happen. There is no compelling reason for this bait-and-switch that has happened now by the new Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this. I think it is a step backwards, and it is my hope that the newest Members of this body will listen to what is being said, that their rhetoric about the openness and change in this body is simply a step backwards. What a shame. They thought they were coming to Washington to change things, and what they are doing is to make it more like central government that we are told what to do by a few people in the Democrat leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the Democratic Pacific Union. On the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II (August 14, 2005), the Democratic Pacific Union (DPU) was formally inaugurated in Taipei, Taiwan. The ceremony drew 76 dignitaries from 23 countries, including the presidents and vice presidents of Taiwan, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Palau. The Union's goal is to promote democracy and encourage contacts among its 28 member democracies. Taiwan Vice President Lu Hsiu-lien was elected Chair of the Union.

Since its inception, the Union has established a Secretariat and published its first quarterly, planned regular regional meetings in the East and the West Pacific regions, initiated the Pacific Economic Advisory Group and the Pacific Congressional Caucus, and additionally established a training program for typhoon and flood disaster reduction. The DPU has offered scholarships to students of member states to study in Taiwan, planned a Pacific university network in Taiwan, and invited distinguished women to come to Taiwan to discuss women's issues in the Pacific region. Other initiatives have been introduced to promote democratic values and prosperity among member states.

There is little question that the Democratic Pacific Union has achieved a great deal during its short history. Its goals of promoting and spreading democracy are laudable and complement with our values. We should encourage the leaders of the Democratic Pacific

Union by endorsing their goals and objectives as well as learning from them. I am certain that the Union will attract more members and win even greater international recognition in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional career of Mark L. Lowery, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service Dallas Field Office.

Special Agent Lowery began his career with the Secret Service in 1983 in the St. Louis Field Office, following a 6 year tenure with the St. Louis County Police Department. With the U.S. Secret Service, he served in the Washington Field Office, the Presidential Protection Division, Special Investigations and Security Division, and the Financial Crimes Division.

Under the leadership of Special Agent Lowery, the Dallas Field Office tackled many complex issues plaguing the Dallas community including identity theft, counterfeiting of currency and cyber crimes. Special Agent Lowery's leadership in these cases was instrumental, leading to the successful arrest and prosecution of many criminals in the Dallas area.

Special Agent Lowery has received numerous awards and commendations during his twenty-three year career, including the highest Secret Service award, the Medal of Valor in 1985. The legacy he leaves will speak loudly of the impact he made on our community and his peers and his devotion to the betterment of our community. His tenure at the U.S. Secret Service Dallas Field Office is marked by his dedication, work ethic and public service.

I am grateful for Special Agent Lowery's service to our nation, and I wish him all the best on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Barton allowing me time to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise opposing this Dietary Supplemental and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act. The bill would replace the current system of adverse event reporting by medical professionals through the MedWatch Program with a mandatory system that would require manufacturers and retailers to keep records and to report to the FDA when they received reports of adverse events.

The bill redirects complaints of adverse effects away from local health responders, health care professionals, to manufacturers and retailers and then to the FDA. Consumers who are injured should be directed to medical professionals trained to determine whether the condition is caused by ingredients in the supplement or by other factors, not by self-diagnosis.

Secondly, this bill depends on those who may be responsible for types of drugs or drug supplements to report adverse effects to the FDA. Those guilty of violating the law are less likely to report adverse effects to the government and to follow the law.

I think this is a bad bill. I hope that we reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 10th anniversary of Fox News Channel, which in celebration will present live audience shows from various locations across the country, including a live broadcast on September 22, 2006 from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.

Fox News Channel brings fair and balanced reporting to a national audience, and I am proud that they chose to broadcast live from one of Texas' and the Nation's premier institutions of higher learning, Southern Methodist University.

I would like to take this opportunity to express special recognition to Fox News Channel on the occasion of its 10th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1054 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today will provide for consideration of three measures of vital importance to our Nation: The conference report for Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This rule will enable the House to consider these bills and complete this important work on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. These three bills address some of our Nation's most pressing priorities. First, the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report funds our most important Federal programs aimed at securing the Nation against terrorist attacks. It provides $34.8 billion for the operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2006 and $2.7 billion above the President's request.

The conference agreement aggressively addresses our most critical homeland security needs, including border and immigration security; nuclear detection; port, cargo and container security; transportation security; natural disaster preparedness and response; and support to State and local first responders.

This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement, because border security is homeland security. It provides over $21 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related activities. It includes an increase of $2.1 billion over funding in 2006. This includes $5.2 billion for the Secure Border Initiative and additional funding to support technology, personnel and infrastructure to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting our borders and immigration system.

Among other security-enhancing measures, this funding includes $2.77 billion for Border Patrol, adding 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, for a total of 14,800. It includes $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicle barriers, technology and infrastructure; $4.2 billion for immigration and customs enforcement; $1.38 billion for Immigration and Custody Enforcement custody operations, adding 6,700 detention beds, for a total of 27,500; and $28.2 million to assist State and local efforts to enforce immigration laws.

This conference report also recognizes the need to enhance port, container and cargo security by providing the funds necessary to secure our ports and inbound cargo in order to prevent terrorists and criminals from exploiting the international commerce system.

It supports our first responders by paying attention to the needs of high-threat areas, firefighters and emergency management. It supports ongoing efforts to enhance the current inventory of our Nation's critical infrastructures, develop secure communication systems with Federal, State and local entities, and it continues to work with the private sector to implement protective measures around the Nation's infrastructure.

This agreement continues ongoing efforts to enhance security for all modes of transportation, including ports, rails and aviation with a focus on developing and installing next-generation technology to inspect cargo, baggage and passengers. And it supports traditional missions, such as drug interdiction, law enforcement, maritime safety and Presidential protection.

Finally, this conference report provides for the necessary and appropriate oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. It fences off $1.6 billion from being spent until DHS meets certain planning and management requirements. Under these requirements, DHS must develop a comprehensive strategy and plan for port, cargo, container security, and for the Secure Border Initiative. Department of Homeland Security must also provide expenditure plans for the border security system, U.S.-VISIT, Federal Protective Service, business transformation for CIS, explosive detection systems in airports, Customs information technology systems, and overall better financial data throughout the department, and in particular, science and technology.

Finally, the agreement directs the preparedness Directorate and FEMA to improve its capacities in communications, training and other capacity assessments, including management logistics, emergency housing, debris removal and victim registration.

Second, this rule provides for consideration of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as modified by the other body. The House version of this legislation passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 253-168 and was sent to the other body. Today's legislation again provides congressional authorization for military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes committed before, on or after 9/11/2001. It amends the War Crimes Act to criminalize grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, while fully satisfying U.S. treaty obligations. It also authorizes the establishment of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants, which is the legal term used to define international terrorists and those who aid and support them, for war crimes. While this new chapter is based upon the Code of Military Justice, it also creates an entirely new structure for these trials.

These commissions will only be used to try alien terrorists for war crimes. Any U.S. citizen will be tried within the Federal United States judiciary. These alien terrorists acquitted of a war crime will still be detained as enemy combatants according to the principle in international law that there exists an undisputable right to keep the enemy from returning to the battlefield. Thus, an acquittal at a war crime trial will not result in terrorists being released. This legislation also provides for an independent certified military judge to preside over all proceedings.

This agreement creates the process necessary to prosecute terrorists effectively and fairly, while also protecting American troops and intelligence agents fighting the global war on terror.

I would like to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Chairman Sensenbrenner for all of their hard work in reaching an agreement with the other body that keeps Americans safe while observing the rule of law.

Third, this rule provides for the consideration of legislation to give private property owners the ability to litigate cases in Federal court when local and State regulations deprive owners the use of their own land.

Although this legislation already passed the House this week with the support of the majority of its Members, it did not achieve the support of the super majority needed to pass under the suspension of the rules.

So, today, the House will once again have the opportunity to support this commonsense bill to ensure that property owners have the same access to Federal courts as other plaintiffs claiming a violation of their constitutional rights.

It removes the judicial detour of forcing claimants raising solely Federal claims to first pursue their litigation in State court on the very same case and dramatically reduces the amount of time that property owners must spend in negotiation and litigation before takings claims that can be heard on their merits.

I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all of his hard work in constructing and perfecting this legislation, and I look forward to supporting his efforts on the floor later this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this work product that the majority has brought to the floor today. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation that will keep Americans safer, uphold the rule of law and protect the private property rights of citizens. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the three underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the last few years, Members of Congress have spoken very plainly and openly to this administration about our thoughts and ideas and hopes and dreams, about how we can better protect not only this country and our borders but the rule of law, and this administration has been very open to hearing from Members of Congress about these thoughts and concerns.

Our next speaker is a gentleman who has engaged the administration, has talked about how important border initiatives are, to make sure that not only are we secure on our border but to make sure that we deal effectively and carefully with people who have come to this country, to make sure that they are safe, to make sure that they are not harmed in that process. If they have broken the law, they will take the full measure of law as it is given, but that we do so in a compassionate way.

Our next speaker is the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I yield to him such time as he may consume.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the month of August, I had an opportunity with several other Members to go to Laredo, Texas, to visit our border to see the border operations and to see the things that were happening there. I had a chance to run across Texas Army National Guard personnel who were attempting to not only work but work successfully with Border Patrol and other Customs and Immigration enforcement personnel.

I wanted to draw attention to how important our National Guard has been from each of our States in protecting our borders, working on border security and doing those things that are necessary. This came as a result of a plan that happened with input from Congress, that happened through the great work that was done not only with the President but also with local Governors and people who are interested in doing this.

I had a chance to go with the Honorable Jo Bonner from Alabama down to Laredo. And both he and I together had a chance to see firsthand how the Army National Guard worked with Border Patrol. We went out that night to see firsthand their needs.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is in this bill, the ability that we have to protect our border, to provide the necessary resources, to make sure that our men and women who are with official law enforcement and also those who are with the Guard are able to make sure that this country is protected.

That is what is in this bill. I am proud of it. I am going to ask for everyone's vote for not only the rule but also the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are talking about the rule for Homeland Security, and yesterday, the Rules Committee had an opportunity to speak very plainly with the appropriators who were responsible for this Homeland Security appropriations bill. We spoke with them about several matters. One of them was about the air marine operation under the CBP, Customs and Border Protection.

I would like for my colleagues to know, who have joined me and others in the effort to talk about the air interdiction program that we have about drugs that come into this country, that this bill provides $600 million for their border and air space protection.

Secondly, we had an opportunity to talk about the fugitive operation teams that nationwide are gathered together under Customs and Border Protection to make sure that the apprehension of those people who are illegal aliens that are in our country here who are fugitives and who are dangerous are picked up and dealt with by our judicial system in this country.

Over and over and over, the things that we have talked about that were necessary and needed throughout the years are contained with funding in this bill. I am very happy to say that I am proud of what this administration has done by listening to us, and perhaps more importantly, our appropriators, like Hal Rogers who brought this bill, who listened and who have done something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Our previous speaker has just hit on probably one of the most important aspects of freedom in America, and that is the right of a person to be able to own property, the ability that we have to have our house to be our castle. Yet as we talk about the issue, I would like to add my dimension to it.

The bottom line is that we are engaged in this on behalf of people who own property, people who own property who have grown weary of having local government take their property without due compensation for the benefit of local government, and we are going to protect the private property owner. We believe private property rights are very important, and that is why we are getting engaged, because we have seen local communities do for their own best interest those things that they wanted to do by taking private property from a person.

We believe it is a simple part of what the Constitution is about. We believe that private property rights are important. I do understand the argument, and it is related to a person who cannot fight government even in their own local community when that is what government wants to do.

We are going to give a level playing field to those individuals because we believe that the individualist who owns his own property should have equal rights also, not just to be taken advantage of by local communities.

Mr. Speaker, that is also in this rule. We support the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this up as an issue, because I think, once again, it shows clearly the differences between our parties and the way we think about this.

It is true that the Republican Party would be accused of having a balanced approach not only to making sure that these chemical companies have taken care of their responsibility for security but making sure also that we protect the jobs that come with those and the security of the towns in which they are located in.

We heard the gentleman use words like stronger, tougher, harder and making it more difficult. Everything he talked about was to simply make it harder for these companies to operate in America. Tougher sanctions, more rules, more regulations and being tough on the chemical companies. Yes, we get it, run them out of town. Run them out of the country. Take the jobs and leave.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that in this bill. We are going to bring a balance, a balance that says that these chemical companies are a natural asset to the United States of America. As a part of our ability not only to make sure that we can receive the things that we need, technology and these things which chemical companies provide, that make our lives better every day, we are not going to run them out of town and we are not going to run them out of the country.

They have a responsibility to make sure that their internal elements are safe and the controls they put in place are doing the right thing. They want to take care of their responsibilities, and we are going to make sure that that is balanced. So we are not going to allow the tougher sanctions, the tougher things that our friends on the other side of the aisle want to do. We are going to strike a balance, a balance for safety, a balance for comprehension that what we want is to make sure that they are good corporate citizens and that they look closely at where their own frailties exist.

That is why this bill is going to pass today, because we are not going to run them out of town. We are not going to speak from a position of weakness; we are going to speak from a position of strength. That is another one of the differences between the Republican Party. We are going to balance it out and do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the

Honorable Martin Sabo for his service to this House and for his additions of the things he has brought forth in this legislation, not only working in a bipartisan basis but also his leadership on behalf of making sure that the next generation understands things like port security and other things which the gentleman has specialized in.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and majority leader, John Boehner, for their vision and hard work to bring this bill forward today. They worked very closely with Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Jerry Lewis of the Appropriations Committee, Duncan Hunter of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee, and certainly Steve Chabot of the Judiciary Committee.

This bill we bring forward today is a negotiated product, one where we have worked hard with not only members of the administration, but we have taken, as Members of Congress, trips to see our borders wherever they might be, the northern border or the southern border. We have our appropriators, who have taken time to understand the intricate details and the needs of this great Nation. We have engaged with the Department of Defense to talk about those things that will be necessary to protect our men and women on the battlefield. We have taken time to make sure that we have talked to our CIA, Central Intelligence Agency, about the way that they need to do business and those attributes about who they engage across the world and how we can treat fairly, yes, but treat properly those who would engage in killing Americans and bringing down reigning terror in our cities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this underlying legislation is very important to America's learning lessons from the prior years and bringing those lessons to bear to protect this great Nation. We will speak from a position of strength, not fear. We will not worry about the things that we cannot get done but the things that we can get done. We will learn from our mistakes, and we will learn that, as terrorism in the 21st century evolves, we will, too. That is what these bills are all about.

I am proud of our country, and I say God bless America. Mr. Speaker, I ask for all the Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the gentlemen and ladies who are here on the floor tonight talking about the Wright amendment, that we are going to pass this amendment tonight.

But to answer the gentleman's question from Michigan, the reason why this is a pro-consumer bill is that effective immediately, when the President signs this, every single person that takes off from Love Field will be able to ticket through wherever they want to go. Today, they have to ticket through to an adjacent State that is close to them, they have to get off the airplane, they have to get their bags, and they have to reticket through.

This is a pro-consumer bill. This is the right thing to do. We have come together as a delegation. I am asking for all the Members of the United States Congress to please support the bipartisan attempt between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, between the airlines to do something favorable for consumers tonight.

Our majority leader, John Boehner, was aware of this issue. It has been a continuing, simmering, boiling issue for the Texas delegation. We have asked that it be brought here. I am asking for everybody's vote. Vote tonight ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1064 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this consent agreement providing for the consideration of a conference report for the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. This port security bill, which has been agreed to now by the conference committee, came as a result of House action that was made on May 4 that passed this House 421-2.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that there are four major provisions within this SAFE Act: number one, enhancing security at U.S. ports; number two, preventing threats from reaching the United States of America; number three, tracking and protecting containers en route to the United States; and, number four, establishing the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this House of Representatives speaking about and working with our counterparts in the United States Senate as well as the administration on better ways that we can enhance port security. This conference report which we bring tonight, the last night before we go to recess, is an important victory for the American people. It stands to continue the safeguard position that this great Nation expects not only of its government but expects from the House of Representatives. I am proud that we are able to bring this bill forward tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida has pointed up not only the hard work that we have been doing on this bill, bipartisan work for a number of years, but also really about the effort or the direction, the direction that we are aiming at. And, in fact, under this SAFE Port Act of 2006, we are setting a timeline by which 100 percent of all containers will be scanned for radiation, by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to set the timeline for deploying these radiation detectors.

Mr. Speaker, we are also making sure that we are adding the number of people to the Customs and Border Patrol who will conduct these validations. We are going to make sure that we continue to add, as necessary, the numbers of people pointed at the right direction.

The gentleman from Florida is correct: we are not exactly where we want to be. But for us to think that 100 percent of everything can just be done overnight is not the reality of where the threat is at this country. I believe this President, I believe this administration, I believe this Congress have been aware of the frailties of our systems. We are trying to match our dollars, the resolve of this great Nation, with the ability on all of our borders to be able to make sure that we are looking at the threats of the 21st century that come to us as a result of terrorist organizations. We want to make sure that by doing this bill tonight that we allow and put into motion the opportunity for the Department of Homeland Security to be better prepared to face those threats that come against the United States.

This passed 421-2. It is an indication, it was in May, that we are headed in the right direction. I am confident tonight that the final answer that comes from the negotiation with the Senate can be on the President's desk as early as tomorrow, ready and waiting to protect this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I came down to speak about the bill, the SAFE Port Act of 2006, and to move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, who has engaged this entire year in attempting to work with us the best as possible, despite some objections, on getting these bills to the floor.

The Rules Committee does have a job to do. That is our job tonight. Our job is to make sure that this rule is brought forward. I am asking all Members to vote ``aye'' on the previous question, to vote ``aye'' and then to get this bill on the floor with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 421-2 the last time we voted on this bill.

It is the right thing. It makes sure that we provide the tools that are necessary to the President of the United States effective immediately. I think we are going to get it done, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud of the work that is happening in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I am proud to know that tonight we will be through, we will be home, we will be with our families, but we should not leave until we get our work done, and that we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.