Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers H. Res. 1009 this week, I would like to highlight the outstanding efforts of an organization in my district, Promise House of Dallas. Since 1984, Promise House has served as a pillar of the Dallas community through its mission to serve the needs of runaway and homeless youth throughout our community.

Promise House was originally established by Lovers Lane United Methodist Church to provide a 16 bed emergency shelter for teenagers. Today, this program provides over eight large programs for runaway, homeless, and at-risk students, and is supported by numerous churches, businesses, and individuals. At-risk youth and their families may access services ranging from food and clothing to counseling, education, transitional living arrangements, and parenting services. With communal support, the Promise House staff works endlessly to offer hope to youth and families in crisis.

Promise House has helped countless youths pursue their hopes and dreams. When he entered Promise House, Justin was a 17-year-old young man who was physically and emotionally abused by his father. Between the abuse and family disarray, Justin turned to aggressive behavior and heavy drug usage. In a courageous and lifesaving decision, Justin came to Promise House for help. Promise House provided Justin with a safe environment and a variety of services, including shelter, counseling, intensive case management and life skills therapy. Through the support of Promise House, Justin turned his life around. Justin continued therapy services even after leaving Promise House and successfully graduated from high school. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that Justin is a senior at the University of Texas at Dallas and a recipient of the Blake Davis Memorial Scholarship--established by Promise House to promote opportunities for higher education and a better life.

Justin's story serves as an example of how Promise House provides youths with a safe haven to help meet their life goals. I am proud of Promise House's selfless efforts in reaching out with open arms to the needs of the children and teenagers in the north Texas area.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the national Tourette Syndrome Association for their hard work to have Tourette Syndrome listed as a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

On August 4, 2006 Margaret Spellings, the Secretary of the Department of Education, announced the final regulations enforcing Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which now lists Tourette Syndrome in the category of ``Other Health Impaired.'' This new classification means that students with Tourette Syndrome will no longer find themselves in limbo--knowing that they are legally entitled to receive the necessary educational accommodations but unable to point to specific language in the law that would protect their rights.

For years, many students with Tourette Syndrome who sought accommodations were labeled as having behavioral or emotional problems and not a neurological disorder. This incorrect designation sometimes placed students with Tourette Syndrome into classrooms with behaviorally or emotionally disturbed children. By including Tourette Syndrome in the law, the Department of Education is sending a clear message to schools across the country that Tourette Syndrome is a neurological disorder. The category is no longer a subject of debate and one more hurdle has been cleared for students with Tourette Syndrome.

The Tourette Syndrome Association and its members have been steadfast in working with Members of Congress and officials from the U.S. Department of Education for this designation in ``Other Health Impaired.'' Over the years, they have held hundreds of meetings with many of my colleagues in this body and have sent us thousands of letters explaining the necessity and value of having Tourette Syndrome listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This victory for the Tourette Syndrome Association and its members has been long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would personally like to thank my friend Jeremy Scott, the Tourette Syndrome Association's Director of Public Policy, for his dedication and leadership to ensuring that Tourette Syndrome be added to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This accomplishment will positively impact the educational experiences of hundreds of thousands of children with Tourette Syndrome.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1002 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only.

This rule provides for 1 hour debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This legislation, much of which has already been passed by the House as part of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Control Act of 2005, is a positive step in regaining operational control of our borders and achieving broad reform of the immigration process.

This legislation is the product of five formal hearings in standing committees during this Congress alone. It also draws on a number of hearings in past Congresses and a wealth of information learned through field hearings conducted over the August recess by Members of this Republican majority.

Last month, many Members of this body, who were greatly concerned with addressing the problem of our porous borders, traveled across the country to determine what steps could be taken to harden our borders and ensure that those who would wish to harm us cannot exploit this well-documented weakness.

Like many other Members, over August I traveled to our border. I traveled with Congressmen Charlie Dent, Henry Cuellar, John Doolittle, and Jo Bonner to meet with Border Patrol agents from Laredo, Texas, and to see firsthand the needs of our country as it relates to border protection.

We discussed with these dedicated men and women on the front line of our border how best to address the rampant drug and human smuggling that occurs in an area along our southern border. We learned firsthand of the challenges faced by our brave Border Patrol agents in combating the flood of criminal activity that occurs along our southern border on a daily basis. The information we learned on this trip, and the information learned from dozens of other field hearings just like this from this past August, all have been incorporated in the legislation that we will hope to take up today.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 advances the rule of law and protects our Nation by providing our Border Patrol with the tools they need to achieve operational control of the border. The language closely mirrors sections 101, 1002, and 1003 of the border bill already passed by the House, and authorizes more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest border with prioritized placement at critical, highly populated areas. It also requires an evaluation of infrastructure needs along the northern border of America.

The Secure Fence Act also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a ``virtual fence'' utilizing leading edge technology and through established best practices to create optimum results at the most efficient cost. This includes the deployment of cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and integrated surveillance technology.

This legislation further requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide all necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority already held by United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.

Finally, this legislation requires DHS to assess our Nation's vulnerability on our northern border and to address how they can be effectively and efficiently resolved.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a commonsense step that this Congress can take to deal with problems of alien smuggling, illicit drug running, and illegal immigration. The House has already passed a more comprehensive bill that enjoyed the support of 239 bipartisan Members. But because a broader package of reforms may not be enacted into law this year, our Republican leadership has decided to take the least controversial portions of this broader reform effort and to pass them in pieces that the other body can then take up and pass.

I would like to commend Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for their vision and leadership in bringing this commonsense bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Pete King, who is chairman of Homeland Security, and all the members of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees for their hard work in doing the research and hearings that were necessary to bring this bill to the floor.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to provide operational control of our borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Fullerton, California, chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, Chairman Royce.

Mr. Reyes, by the way, this entire body not only recognizes but appreciates your service to this Nation, not only for the professionalism that you continue to exhibit but that which you did for your 26 years.

I would say to the gentleman two things, if I could politely suggest to him that he knows it is not truthful to say that we are going to have a 2,000-mile fence along the border. That has not been suggested. We have never talked about that, and to insinuate that would simply be untruthful.

We have not suggested that, and this bill very specifically, and I would like to have the gentleman, if he would like to get a copy, relates to adding 10 miles of fencing that extends 10 miles west of the Tecate, California port entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; 10 miles west of Calexico, California to 5 miles east of Douglas, Arizona; 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso; extending 5 miles northwest of Del Rio to 5 miles southeast of Eagle Pass, Texas; extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry. This will be literally 100 miles worth of fencing. It will be 700 miles worth of fencing when you add up the total. What we are trying to do is to take the things that we heard firsthand that the men and women who work on the border said. This is the priority, not 2,000 miles.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would like to reclaim my time. We have talked about this since 2001. The fact of the matter is that this bill is very specific. It aims directly at where the problem is. I would like to also note that not one mile of fencing is in the Democrat plan, not even 15 feet worth of fencing. I don't know how you can have a comprehensive plan when you talk directly to Border Patrol agents who are in Laredo, Texas and other points along the border, and they say their number one concern, they are asked is the fencing, first of all, to allow them for their own safety, their own safety. The men and women of law enforcement who are down there have asked for, and, in the Republican bill, will get the fencing that they have asked for.

I will not at this time, but I know that the gentleman has lots of time left to continue the debate.

We need to make sure that we are doing what the men and women of law enforcement are asking for. What else are they asking for? They are also asking for, and I have seen firsthand, the need to better protect those people, the unassuming people, who illegally are entering our country, who do so at great risk and peril. These fences, which are in our bill, not their bill, not 10 feet of fencing that is in their bill, will allow our Border Patrol agents to effectively deal with this huge number of people who are coming here to wall off areas that are dangerous for our men and women, as well as people who are just dumped off on the border late at night and told, go that way.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken time, Republicans and Democrats have taken time to come to our border and see what we need. It is the Republicans that heard from the Border Patrol agents and others. We need to help protect this country, yes, but we need to do it to protect people who many times get in trouble, many times who need desperate help, and it is to help save our agents as well as those people.

I am proud of my bill. For the characterization that this is a do- nothing bill, I would say, I am sorry that you didn't hear what was said at these important hearings and did something about it. That is all this bill is. It is to take what we heard of the most immediate concerns. We know we have a debate with the Senate. We know we have got some problems trying to negotiate that through, but this should not be held hostage.

I would like to go directly, Mr. Speaker, to H.R. 6061, which is what we are discussing here, but bringing in to incorporate the things that we know we have already done under our FY07 Department of Homeland Security appropriations. We are going to provide for $19.6 billion for border protection.

What we are going to do, as I recall it is darn near September, and as soon as this month is over with we want to have new money. We are going to pay for this fencing. To assume or to say that it is not going to happen would really be, I think, less than honest. The administration is working with this body. We are opening up this information to the other party that had been a part of the hearings, and they know that we are going to have money that is available directly for the needs of what this bill is about.

But what this bill specifically does is it says this is the priority at this time. We believe the fencing is there for good and intended purposes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the vice chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

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

My colleagues and good friends not only from Texas, Mr. Reyes, but also the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Texas have spoken very eloquently about the needs of this great Nation. I have every reason to believe all three of those individuals joined many other Members of this body in hearing from people about the needs of the Border Patrol, the communities along the borders and the things which they would want and need.

This bill is very specific. It talks about the types of things that would be necessary and needed on an interim basis.

Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, understand that we have passed bills many times before this that are more comprehensive, that are larger, that contain money, that do a lot of things that will enable us to get closer. The bottom line is, we need this interim step to get done now. It comes as a result of the hearings, it comes as a result of feedback from the Border Patrol, it comes as a result of communities who have asked us to please help them. So we are going to do that.

I am going to ask Members to vote ``aye.'' I am going to ask them to support this bill. And it is my prediction, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a bipartisan-passed bill today on the floor of the House of Representatives because it represents the balance and integrity of not only our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, but also John Boehner and our great chairman of Homeland Security, Pete King.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 1002, Rule for H.R. 6061 Secure Fence Act

of 2006

In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the

following:

``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed

in Section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative

Reyes of Texas or Representative Thompson of Mississippi or a

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order or demand for division of the question, shall

be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for

60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3)''

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

``Sec. 2. The amendment by Representatives Reyes (TX) and

Thompson (MS) referred to in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 606

Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, this rule provides for 4 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and also provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.

Finally, it provides that notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today, 5 years after the tragedy of September 11, to speak with one voice to let the world know that we have not forgotten the lessons of that terrible day. We are here to remember the thousands ruthlessly murdered by our enemies who hijacked four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and to recognize the unimaginable losses suffered by their families. We are also here to honor the sacrifices and the courage shown by our first responders who selflessly rushed to the flaming buildings in order to rescue the victims of these attacks.

We are also here to let our allies in the war on terror know that we stand united with them in the war on terror, and to recognize the progress that continues to be made by our Federal intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies in conjunction with intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies of our allies, in keeping Americans safe. And we are here to remind these allies and to place our enemies on notice that we will never shirk from the war on terror and that we will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001.

The six-page resolution should be recognized by every Member of this body as an opportunity to remember our Nation's tragic loss and to encourage every American to do the same. It is an opportunity to extend our sympathies to the families of the lost and to honor those who risked their own lives and health trying to protect the lives and health of others.

It is an opportunity to extend our gratitude to our intelligence and military personnel serving at home and abroad and their families for their service. It is to thank the citizens of other nations who are contributing to the effort to defeat global terrorism.

More importantly, it is an opportunity by this body to reaffirm that we remain vigilant and steadfast in the war on terror, that we remember the sacrifices made by so many innocent Americans on September 11 and that we will never succumb to the cause of terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will be brought here before the House for a vote is an earnest, heart-felt and comprehensive resolution putting the House on record and standing once again against terrorism.

This House already has a strong record on this topic and has already passed a number of bills designed to accomplish the main goal laid out in this resolution, to remember the lessons of 9/11 and to honor the victims by preventing another attack on American soil. We have voted to give our law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute the war on terror in the United States and throughout the world, and through the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization we have once again reaffirmed that.

We have voted to implement a key component of the 9/11 Commission by creating Federal standards for the application process in the issuing of State identification cards through the REAL ID Act.

And this House has voted to secure our borders through the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act and to defend our ports through the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. We have made important reforms in the intelligence community through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and provided our first responders with the resources that they would need with our annual Homeland Security authorization and appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, this House has accomplished a great deal on behalf of the American people to ensure the citizens of the United States that they can be safe here and abroad, but we understand that this job is not yet done. Next week the House is scheduled to consider legislation that will build upon all of this hard work, legislation to further boost our national security and to give our law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent our shadowy, ever-shifting, and determined enemy to once again demonstrate that we do not rest in the war on terror and that we will not forget.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule to let our allies and our enemies alike know that we will continue the war on terror both in memory of those murdered on September 11 and for the generations still to come who will look back and evaluate our ability to put partisanship aside and to stand together on behalf of our Nation, our citizens, and, in fact, our civilization.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, from Massachusetts does clearly talk about the differences of opinion that we have, and I respect that difference. I would also say that this body has an obligation to move forward and work on issues that we think are correct and right. And quite honestly, Republicans do see what has happened to

this country, I believe, in a significantly different way than what my colleagues, the Democrats, see.

Several months ago we had a vote, and we have done this several times, but a vote on the intelligence bill where the Democrat Party wanted and had a vote on the floor that would require law enforcement and intelligence to release every single name of every single person under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies to the Congress, to nonlaw enforcement officials. These are the kinds of ideas that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats have about how we go about protecting this country. We politely disagree.

The resolution here today is not about policy as it relates to what we are trying to pass today. It is about how this act that happened on 9/11 we will not forget. We will thank the men and women who protected us that day. We will stand behind the men and women of our military and intelligence organizations. We give thanks to the families who are here in this country whose loved ones serve on the front lines. And, lastly, we will let our allies know and the terrorists know that we will stay to the end. That is what this resolution is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we think we got it right. We think we did the PATRIOT Act right. We think we did intelligence authorization right. We think we do a lot of things right around here. We are going to stand up for this country, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the men and women who protect our country. We are going to stand up and give the men and women of the intelligence community the things that they need.

Today, it is right and fitting to say thank you; we will not forget and we will be vigilant to protect this country. That is what this resolution is about

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

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

The gentleman from New York described his disagreement with the administration. I understand that. We had seen the administration before this President ignore, completely ignore, the advice from the CIA. As a matter of fact, I remember at least one CIA director resigned under President Clinton because he could not get President Clinton to pay attention to more than 3 hours in a month to the intelligence needs of this country.

We have already talked about how vote after vote after vote by the Democrats that they choose to gut our ability, in my opinion, to effectively not only have law enforcement but to chase down those that may do harm against this country.

Some choose to characterize that we are not safer today than what we were before the attack. I completely disagree with that. I would completely disagree with that because I think every single American that day learned of the tremendous forces that were aimed at the United States that we had really been completely unaware of before.

So I think that we are better off today. Are we absolutely safe? No. Are we safer? Yes, we are, and we have a responsibility to maintain that line of defense.

This resolution has nothing to do with that. It is a resolution, the force of this body, to say we respect the men and women who on 9/11 gave their lives; we are sorry for the men and women who have been injured as a result of that; we are going to support our military; we are going to support the families and we will never forget; and we are going to back up our allies; and we are going to make sure that we get it right. That is what this resolution is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is the honorable and the right thing to do, to say thank you to the men and women who gave their lives, to say thank you to the men and women who were heroic in their efforts to try and save people, and it is the right thing to do to say to the men and women of our military and our intelligence communities that we believe you have not only done a great job but we thank your families also for those sacrifices.

We believe it is the right thing to do to remember this event 5 years later. We believe it is the right thing to do to let the world know that the United States Congress, this body, in this House resolution, believes that we will stay strong not only in the war on terrorism but that we believe that fighting for civilization and peace and opportunity in this world is the right thing.

We have heard from three of this Congress' greatest leaders, Phil Gingrey, Pete King, who is the chairman of the committee, and the young chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, as they have spoken eloquently about not only what this country stands for but about how our respectfully saying thank you and remembering this day is a part of our job and is the right thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote on behalf of this resolution

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

Previous Question for H. Res. 996, the Rule for H. Res. 994 Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives on the 5th Anniversary of the Terrorist Attacks launched against the United States on September 11,

2001

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the resolution printed in section 2

expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the

five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the

United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall be

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and

controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or

their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.''

Sec. 2. The following is the text referred to in Section 1:

Resolution

``A resolution expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the

terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,

2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four

civilian aircraft, crashed two of them into the towers of the

World Trade Center in New York City, and crashed the third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight

93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town

of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight

struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control

of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching

its likely destination in Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,

volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to

the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be

commended;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from

many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of

these attacks;

Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,

September 12, 2001, to be a National Day of Unity and

Mourning; and

Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United

States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago,

but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the

world against United States persons, facilities, and

interests, as well as United States allies during that time:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a

result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these

attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved

ones;

(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the

attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their

sponsors;

(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and

defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;

(5) recommits itself and the Nation to bringing to justice

the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;

(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of the

United States Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first

responders, and others who have bravely and faithfully

participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11,

2001; and

(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of

Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks

against the United States on September 11, 2001.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Army Sergeant Jeffrey Scott Brown, an American hero who gave his life in defense of liberty and freedom. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that others might know freedom, and I am humbled by his bravery and selflessness.

Sergeant Brown lost his life on August 10, 2006 due to injuries sustained when his UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter crashed in Rutbah, Iraq during combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was 25 years old. Sergeant Brown was assigned to the 82nd Medical Company at Fort Riley, Kansas.

Sergeant Brown came from a family dedicated to American ideals and serving this great Nation. His father is a Vietnam veteran and his brother, Timothy, currently serves as a crew chief on an Apache helicopter in Germany. Sergeant Brown is survived by his wife, Ashley, of Carrollton, Texas; his parents, Ed and Diane Brown of Trinity Center, California; his brothers, Timothy and Michael; and his sister, Kathryn.

I extend my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Brown. He leaves behind a legacy marked by courage, integrity and character. May God bless all those he loved, and may they know the gratitude of the American people.

Madam Speaker, in recent weeks, radical terrorist organizations have engaged in a number of unprovoked attacks on the State of Israel. I rise today in strong support of Israel's right to defend its citizens and its borders from acts of terrorism.

Most recently, Hezbollah military forces committed an act of war by crossing the border between Lebanon and Israel, attacking and killing several Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. The integrity of the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel must be respected in order for Israel to provide for its security. Hezbollah--a terrorist organization recognized by the U.S. Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)--operates with impunity in many areas of southern Lebanon. Lebanon must accept responsibility for and bring an end to military attacks originating from within its territory. Iran and Syria also bear responsibility for the current crisis, because armaments used by Hezbollah have been traced to Iran and transferred through Syria for use by these Hezbollah forces.

This month, Hamas--another organization designated by the State Department as a FTO--also conducted an unprovoked military attack on Israel, killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. This military invasion represents a small part of the Palestinian violence emanating from Gaza into Israel. Last August, Israel withdrew every settler and soldier from Gaza in hopes that Palestinians would establish a democratic state capable of living side-by-side in peace with Israel. However, Palestinian terrorists took this historic opportunity to begin systematically firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns. Over 1,000 have been fired since Israel's total withdrawal from Gaza--and it is important to note that the rockets are fired into territory belonging to Israel before 1967 and universally recognized as being Israeli territory.

Israel has the obligation and the right to defend its citizens against attacks emanating from both Lebanon and Gaza. I support Israel's right to take the appropriate military action necessary to deter future attacks, and hope that Israel's neighbors will take this opportunity to control future terrorism within their own borders.

Mr. Speaker, I was granted official leave of absence the week of July 10, 2006. Please let the record reflect, that had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll No. 374, final passage of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 896 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

This rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and, as always, provides the minority with one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its underlying simple House resolution that allows the House of Representatives to take a very clear position on our collective commitment to identifying and tracking terrorist finances and our condemnation of the disclosure of any information that puts the lives of American citizens at risk.

Today, throughout the course of the debate, we will hear a great number of accusations hurled from those Members opposed to this resolution. It is their right to dissent. That is the basis of our democracy. However, it needs to be made clear at the outset what this resolution does and what it does not do. What this resolution does is simple:

It states that the U.S. House of Representatives supports efforts to identify, track and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks and that the House finds that the Terrorist Financing Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and executive orders, and that the appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect civil liberties and that Congress was duly informed of this fact.

It also says that the House condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and expresses concern that disclosure of this information may endanger the lives of American citizens and our efforts, and that the House expects the cooperation of all news media in protecting the lives of Americans and the capacity of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

This resolution does not single out or censure any specific media outlet for its disclosure of classified information that has put American lives at risk and made our allies less likely to share classified data in the future. Nor does it chill first amendment rights or prevent the news media from performing their constitutionally protected activities. We will hear these kinds of accusations today time and time again from the other side, Mr. Speaker, and it is important to make clear from the outset that they are simply not true.

The basis for the House taking this position is just as clear. We know that after our country was attacked on September 11, President Bush launched a full-on campaign against terrorist financing and authorized the Treasury Department to track the financial supporters of terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah to prevent any further attacks on American citizens either here or abroad.

We know that by following these monetary transfers, the United States has been able to locate and identify terrorists and their financers, chart shadowy terrorist networks, and keep funds out of the hands of these criminals. We also know that data provided by this program helped to identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted of laundering $200,000 through a Pakistani bank on behalf of al Qaeda. This program also facilitated the capture of the mastermind of the Bali resort bombing of 2002.

This terror finance-tracking program, better known as the SWIFT program, has been invaluable in protecting American lives and choking off the sources of terror funding. It is exactly the kind of limited, legal and effective program that we need to hunt down and starve terrorists of the funding that they use to attack American interests and citizens.

As with any national security program, the administration must be protective of the sources and methods it uses to execute its mission. Disclosure of this program has degraded our national security and injured our efforts to prevent terrorist activity by allowing our enemies to understand what steps we were taking to stop them. And in a situation where it is vital to always remain one step ahead of your enemy, the consequences of showing them our techniques has potentially devastating and life-threatening consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to speak with one voice today in recognizing the importance of identifying, tracking and ending the financing of terror and condemning any actions that would allow the unauthorized disclosure of information that helps our government to achieve this end. I urge the adoption of this rule and the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States did speak about this opportunity that we had as a result of what the Congress passed the law asking and giving the legal authority to the President to track financial transactions. The Congress had already spoken about it as we were debating whether we were going to pass that law. In fact, the President did as a result of these disclosures of finding terrorists say that we found financial ends and means by which terrorists were being supported.

But I will strongly disagree with the young woman from New York in her characterization that the President spilled the beans on all of this. Not true. It was someone going and talking to over 20 people, revealing intimate details of what the plan was. Not that it existed, but how it worked, where it was formed, where we gathered information, how things were done.

And that is a desperate attempt by someone to go and provide the enemy with information that would allow them to work around those things that we had established. What we are talking about is classified information, not the knowledge that something is happening. And classified information in detail about not just the summary of this, but in details, is what we are concerned about today.

So I disagree with the gentlewoman from New York. I believe that her characterization is not only wrong, but it is also aimed at the wrong people. We had hoped and would still hope that the minority today would see that what we are talking about is sharing of classified information and that we believe it is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Well, we just heard it. It's okay to leak classified information. New York Times, it's okay. Democrat Party, no problem. That is what the power of the press should be all about. We need them now more than ever, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that.

Leaking classified information is wrong.

And the----

Mr. Speaker, we are asking for all Members of Congress to universally say today we believe the leaking of classified information is wrong. And that is what we are here for today. I am disappointed that we have Members of this body that say that is what a free press is all about, to leak classified information.

It is a real sad day in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee we had an opportunity to digest a lot of information about this, not only about the program but also about, theoretically, who knew what, where, and when. It is my understanding that every single member of the Intelligence House Committee received an invitation to attend a briefing. That is not an indication that every single member attended that open invitation.

I would allow the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman

from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, we do talk about disclosure, unauthorized disclosure of information. But I fail to see where this resolution talks about any newspaper where we mention them. We intentionally chose not to do that because that is not what the resolution is about today, Mr. Speaker.

Time after time we have heard our Democrat colleagues mention newspapers by name. That is not what this was about. We are simply trying to say that we believe that information that is considered private, sensitive, and that should not be disclosed should not be done.

It would be very simple for us to understand that the President may say, you know, we have spies that work for the United States, but if he disclosed who they were, what they did, how they went about doing their business, where they were located, who they came into contact with and their MO about how they did things, that clearly would be something that would be out of order.

So I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we intentionally have not tried to chastise anyone. We are simply saying we believe the unauthorized disclosure should not be revealed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, we are through with all of our speakers that we might have. We will then wait for the gentlewoman from New York to close, and then we will do so.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield all time remaining to the Chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 440) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 27 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my friend, Congresswoman Matsui, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

This structured rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.

It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report and offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. These amendments shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and, as always, it provides the minority with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation brought to the floor from the Financial Services Committee under the leadership of Coach Mike Oxley and Chairman Richard Baker.

Yesterday evening, despite inclement weather, the Rules Committee met and took testimony from Members regarding their thoughts on how to improve this legislation. The committee determined that many of these amendments should be considered and made two-thirds of those amendments submitted to the committee in order, including seven Democrat and bipartisan amendments.

This legislation follows upon sensible reforms of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which also sought to update and modernize the National Flood Insurance Program. Although this previous effort at reforming the program was well intended, a number of provisions included in the 2004 act have yet to be implemented.

Also, this earlier effort is currently incomplete because it was passed by Congress before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the gulf coast and, therefore, did not incorporate the lessons learned from these storms and how best to administer the NFIP.

The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act makes a number of commonsense changes to current law. Among other things, it does the following: it requires the Comptroller General of the United States to study the effects of extending the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements to all properties located in flood hazard areas and report back to Congress within 6 months on the findings.

It increases the fine levied against federally regulated lending institutions

for each failure to require mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements to $2,000 and increases the total cap on fines for institutions to $1 million.

It reiterates FEMA's responsibilities to implement provisions of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and directs FEMA to continue to work with the insurance industry, State insurance regulators and other interested parties to implement the minimum training and education standards for all insurance agents who sell flood insurance policies, and mandates that FEMA submit a report to Congress on implementation of these provisions.

It directs FEMA to maintain and periodically publish an inventory of levees located in the United States so that these levees can be identified for National Flood Insurance Programs.

In addition to improving and reforming this program, this legislation also ensures that taxpayers are protected, including provisions to establish that nonresidential properties and nonprimary residences will be charged actuarial instead of subsidized rates.

It increases the NFIP's borrowing authority to $25 billion, but also a requirement that FEMA submit a report to Congress on how it intends to repay funds borrowed under this increased authority.

It requires a semiannual report by FEMA to Congress on the financial status of the National Flood Insurance Program.

It extends the current pilot program for mitigation of severe repetitive loss properties, which is set to expire September 30, 2009, to 2011.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker for their hard work on this legislation. Listening to people, learning from the mistakes of the past and also from the impact of these devastating hurricanes has meant that we will continue our efforts to protect homeowners, taxpayers, while ensuring that a viable market for flood insurance continues to operate effectively and efficiently in the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as she chooses to consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to notify my colleague, Ms. Matsui, that I do not have any additional speakers. I would welcome the opportunity to have her go through those speakers, have her close, then I will do the same after she is through.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as you have heard today on the floor, this rule is fair; it is balanced. It is not an exception; it is a rule. And I appreciate the kind comments that have been made by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about underlying legislation which will help improve the national flood insurance program.

I want to thank Chairman Richard Baker from Louisiana and Chairman Mike Oxley from Ohio for their strong leadership on behalf of this great bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Army First Lieutenant Ryan T. Sanders, an American hero who gave his life in defense of liberty and freedom. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that others might know freedom, and I am humbled by his bravery and selflessness.

First Lieutenant Ryan Sanders was killed on June 11, 2006 while conducting combat operations when a roadside bomb exploded near his Abrams tank in Baghdad, Iraq. He was 27 years old. First Lieutenant Sanders was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division at Ft. Hood, Texas.

In keeping with Eagle Scout tradition, he placed the safety and well being of others above his own. His family is dedicated to American ideals of freedom and democracy as he is the third of four sons to serve in the Persian Gulf region.

First Lieutenant Sanders is survived by his wife, Jennifer Sanders; his parents, Jim and Kay Sanders of Richardson; his brothers, Mike, Jeff, and Greg Sanders; and his grandparents, Truett and Joyce Sanders of San Angelo. I extend my deepest condolences to each of them.

First Lieutenant Sanders leaves behind a legacy marked by courage, integrity and character. May God bless and comfort all those he loved, and may they know the gratitude of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Bob Duvall for his contributions to technology advancements in the defense industry. As an expert engineer with Hughes Aircraft and as Vice President of Advanced Technology at DRS Technologies, Mr. Duvall made a lasting impact on defense technology and military members. Bob passed away on May 24, 2006. He was 61.

Bob Duvall was born in Cheverly, Maryland on October 8, 1944 and grew up in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC. His father was an electrical engineer for the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, and he inspired Bob in his career as an engineer. In 1967, Mr. Duvall graduated from Cornell University with a degree in electrical engineering and subsequently went to work with Hughes Aircraft Company in California, where his technical expertise expanded to include circuit design, optics, infrared technology, optoelectronics and systems integration. Bob furthered his education with a master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California in 1975.

Bob's early contributions and developments during his more than 20 years with Hughes Aircraft led to innovation in Naval and Air Force laser pointing and tracking technology that today is considered a step forward to a high energy laser system for ballistic missile defense systems.

Following the first gulf war, our military leaders recognized Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) as a key combat overmatch capability for our mounted and dismounted troops. In response, Bob Duvall was the lead for Hughes Aircraft in partnership with Texas Instruments to develop this next generation of night vision systems using thermal sensors. The Army's Second Generation FLIR involves the insertion of a common second-generation thermal sensor, known as the B-Kit into the Army's highest priority ground-based platforms.

These systems have played an important role in our efforts to fight the Global War on Terrorism. Because of Mr. Duvall, these systems have been fielded with the capability to see when the enemy can not and to fight during conditions that are obscured by weather or time of day. Our troops now enter into battle with the decisive ability to ``Own the Night'' and precisely target and defeat the threat. Because of his efforts and expertise, Mr. Duvall contributed directly to saving many lives and avoiding great loss.

Bob Duvall was unequaled not only as an Engineer, but as a friend-- full of good humor, a wonderful storyteller with an infectious laugh, a patient listener, and a willing contributor to others in need. Bob Duvall's family was his greatest joy and he is survived by his wife Shirley and his two children, Mark and Michelle. He will be sorely missed by his loved ones, his colleagues, and others who benefited from his contribution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Melancon and I rise today to honor the 45th Annual YMCA Youth Governor's Conference that begins in Washington, DC this weekend. We are pleased to have the distinct honor of being the Congressional sponsors for the Youth Governor's breakfast with our fellow colleagues in the House.

The YMCA Youth Governor's Conference brings together some of the most outstanding youth leaders in America. YMCA Youth and Government is a nation-wide program that allows thousands of teenagers to simulate state and national government.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to personally recognize each of this year's YMCA Youth Governors for their dedication and service to America's youth.

Michael Dan Admire of Texas, Julia Catherine Love of Louisiana, Neil Karamchandani of South Carolina, Brian Daniel Tinsman of Delaware, Robert Charles Adler of Minnesota, Charles Edward Strickland of Alabama, Michael Elliot Hughes of Arizona, Ian David Bruce of California, Matthew Paul Cavedon of Connecticut, Rebekah Lydia Hammond of Florida, Jerald Jake Landress of Georgia, Jordyn Suet Ha Toba of Hawaii, Thomas Naaliiolani Toyozaki, Jr. also of Hawaii, Capri H. Savage of Idaho, David Williams Simnick of Illinois, Martin Iran Turman, Jr. of Indiana, Preston Scott Bates of Kentucky, Seth D. Dixon also of Kentucky, Benjamin David Goodman of Maine, Jonathan M. Brookstone of Maryland, Zachary Ryan Davis of Massachusetts, Lauren Brenda Gabriell Hollier of Michigan, Marvin Anthony Liddell also of Michigan, Christine C. DiLisio of Missouri, Vernon Telford Smith IV of Montana, Victoria Elizabeth Gilbert of the Model United Nations program, Eoghan Emmet Kelley of New Hampshire, Danielle C. Desaulniers of New Jersey, Juan Carlo Sanchez of New Mexico, Michael J. Couzens of New York, Edgar Turner Vaughn of North Carolina, Kenneth Robert Hines of Oklahoma, Jerrod Engelberg of Oregon, Emily Claire Pramik of Pennsylvania, Allison M. Dove of Tennessee, Joshua Ray Lambert of Virginia, Morrie S. Low of Washington, Rochelle Mincey-Thompson of the District of Columbia, Max Joseph Balhorn of Wisconsin.

We wish all of the 2006 YMCA Youth Governors a very successful conference here in Washington, and we encourage them to continue their sincere devotion to leadership and public' service in this and their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my fellow Texan and good friend, Chief of Staff of the Air Force GEN T. Michael ``Buzz'' Moseley, who received the high honor of being knighted during a ceremony at the British Embassy in Washington, DC on May 30.

General Moseley was awarded the honorary knighthood due to his contributions to British-American relations during his tour of duty as the commander of the air war over Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition to being the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Moseley can now add the honorary title of ``Knight Commander of the British Empire'' to an already impressive service record. General Moseley becomes the next in a long line of some of our Nation's most impressive leaders and skilled military commanders to be so highly honored by our British allies including President Ronald Reagan, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, GEN Jimmy Doolittle, GEN Carl Spaatz, GEN Tommy Franks, and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

I congratulate my friend General Moseley on his knighthood, and thank him for his outstanding service in leading the United States Air Force in its continuing operations in the global war on terrorism.