Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying conference report for the fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and Young as well as the staff of the Defense Subcommittee for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation covers an extensive range of priorities that are vitally important to our armed services, and we must pass it before adjourning later this week. As we fight for our way of life, our enemies are actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while waging their terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free nations of this world.

This legislation provides the necessary supplemental funding to give our deployed soldiers the resources they need to continue taking the fight to the terrorists. It contains funding for force protection, including improvised explosive device jammers to shield our soldiers from roadside bombs, as well as increased funding to replace and repair battle-worn equipment.

Mr. Speaker, our House and Senate colleagues did a good job securing funding for many important programs which are our military's top priorities. Chief among these, Mr. Speaker, is the F-22 Raptor. I am particularly encouraged by the work the Appropriations Committee has done to fund the F-22 program this year, as this aircraft is vital to our Nation's defense.

The conference agreement includes authority for multiyear procurement of 60 F-22 aircraft, beginning with 20 fully funded in this fiscal year and continuing with two subsequent lots of 20 aircraft each in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

This will go a long way towards providing stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future. Further, Mr. Speaker, as we fight the global war on terror, the United States must without question continue to modernize and strengthen our ability to support our men and women in harm's way.

Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is critical to this mission, and I would like to applaud conferees for their recognition of this in funding nine C-130Js, two KC-130Js, and the C-5 modernization program.

The conferees also responsibly recognize the importance of developing life-saving innovations to benefit our warfighters. Accordingly, $1 million was included in the conference report for the research and the development of protein hydrogel, which is manufactured in my district, by definition, Mr. Speaker, an earmark and one that I proudly sponsored.

Protein hydrogel has the potential to quickly seal battlefield wounds to prevent excessive bleeding and death. We are absolutely doing the right thing providing for that research.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleagues, thank Mr. Cole, thank them for their hard work, and I urge support for this rule and the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1215, a bill that provides for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development program.

First, I want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Ehlers, Mr. Wu, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and all of the Science Committee members and staff who worked hard to bring this important bipartisan legislation through committee and to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, chemists can design chemicals to be safe just like they can design them to have other properties, like color and texture. As chemists design products and the processes by which those products are manufactured, they can and should factor in the possible creation of any hazardous by-products.

This technique of considering not only the process in which products are produced but also the environment in which they are created is the basic definition of green chemistry. It is a method of designing chemical products and processes that at the very least reduce the use or generation of hazardous substances.

Green chemistry represents an ever-growing field of science that is demonstrating much promise. This legislation gives Congress the opportunity to support these important efforts by encouraging additional research and enhanced collaboration.

I want to take a moment to outline several reasons why I believe my colleagues should support this legislation. The first is the simple fact that preventing pollution and waste from the start of a design process is often cheaper than cleaning it up later.

Developing new products and processes are an integral component of a variety of industries.

Industries that span fabrics to fuel cells and the innovation created by this enhanced research will subsequently spur economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, since the heart of green chemistry is design processes that utilize as many benign materials as possible as well as designing them to be conducted at or near room temperature and pressure, working conditions and safety for our employees can be vastly improved.

Unfortunately, despite all the promise of green chemistry, the Federal Government invests very little in this area. This legislation allows coordination of Federal green chemistry research and development within several

Federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy.

H.R. 1215 will encourage universities and academic institutions, as Mr. Wu just mentioned, to train future workers in this exciting technology. This coordinated program will support research and development grants for partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofits. It will also promote education through curriculum development and fellowships that will collect and disseminate information about green chemistry.

Finally and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1215 is a fiscally responsible piece of legislation in step with the current reality of our budgetary constraints. This legislation funds these programs by obtaining sums already authorized to the above-mentioned agencies. It does not authorize the expenditure of any new money. Let me say that again. This legislation does not appropriate new funds but rather refocuses the budget of these agencies.

Chemical companies, pharmaceutical corporations, carpet and rug manufacturers and biotechnology businesses have endorsed H.R. 1215, showing a broad range of support for the merits of this legislation. All of these companies and corporations realize the advancement of green chemistry is a positive not only for their businesses but also our country's environment, our economy, and our Nation's health.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this innovative, insightful, and responsible piece of legislation that will show the American public that Congress and the business community are committed to preserving our Nation's environment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Berry College in Rome, Georgia, which this year was named as one of the top two colleges in the South by the prestigious U.S. News and World Report rankings.

For those of us who know Berry College, this honor comes as no surprise. This past spring I had the honor of addressing Berry College at the 2006 graduation ceremony. I was incredibly impressed by the student body. Berry is helping mold engaged, eager, driven students into the kind of leaders our communities are fortunate to have.

Berry College's founder and namesake, Martha Berry, once noted that education combines the head, the heart, and the hands. I know Berry students are receiving a superior education that combines high-quality academic learning with moral and spiritual growth and experience and worthwhile service to others. This makes Berry not only one of the top colleges in the South but in the Nation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating Berry's president, Stephen Briggs, and the students, faculty, staff, and alumni that have made Berry College into a premier educational institution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1018 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1018 provides for consideration of H.R. 4830 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4830.

In addition, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6094 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, again equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 6094.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6095 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit

Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume to respond to a couple of the comments that my good friend made in regard to the point of the Senate-passed bill that is more acceptable, the so-called comprehensive reform bill.

Well, I will tell you, my colleague said that would be more acceptable. That comprehensive reform bill, by the way, is just a euphemism for amnesty, and 90 percent of my constituents would beg to differ with him, and I think that is true across this country.

He also made the point about this Congress not doing its work and taking off tomorrow. Well, he knows and all of us know that the reason we are not going to be in session tomorrow is because the leadership of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in deference to the fact that tomorrow is a high Jewish holiday, that we not be in so that people could worship and observe these holidays.

So it is disingenuous these things that my good friend and colleague is mentioning.

The other thing about going to conference with the Senate. Well, he knows that in the Senate bill there is a revenue provision which makes their bill unconstitutional. If they want to remove that provision and then send that bill back over, we can go to conference. So it is just a game that they are playing.

My colleague also, and he is perfectly within his rights to do this, he talks about some issues that are more important to him and maybe to his party and his leadership and brings up the issue of the minimum wage and a stand-alone minimum wage bill. Madam Speaker, if we solve this problem of porous borders and prevent these millions of illegal immigrants from flooding into this country, taking jobs away from American citizens and legal immigrants and, in the process, driving down wages, if we can stop that hemorrhaging, then we will not need to increase the minimum wage because it will be increased automatically by employers.

So he wants to take a rifle approach and say we are taking a shotgun approach. We are going to get the job done, and we are going to solve many of these problems with this bill.

Madam Speaker, I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), my good friend who knows of what he speaks in regard to immigration and secure borders.

Madam Speaker, at this time I want to proudly yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who, in his capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, held hearings in August.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Dreier, and the House leadership for continuing the debate in favor of securing our borders. The pattern in recent years has been to address the issue of immigration and border security once a decade. In 1986 we had an immigration reform bill. In 1996 we had an immigration reform bill. But the results at best were mixed, and this year we have yet another opportunity to get it right. Ninety percent of the American people are demanding that we secure our borders and secure our borders now.

The legislation offered under this rule will help our current agents detain and apprehend criminals, not just those crossing in search of work, Mr. Speaker, but truly dangerous individuals as well. Security on our borders remains a crisis. Our agents on the border need our help. Our constituents are forcefully voicing their support for immigration reform, with an emphasis on border security.

And I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and the underlying bills so we can start to solve this problem and solve it now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate over immigration and border security, it is important to remember the security of the ballot box. Most importantly, we need to uphold the concept of the citizen voter, which is the foundation, of course, of our democracy.

Voting in our democratic government needs to be preserved for United States citizens to protect the legitimacy of the voting process as well as the interests of the United States.

One of the first bills I introduced, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, was the Voter Verification Act to address concerns about noncitizens voting and reaffirm that only United States citizens have the right to vote.

The Voter Verification Act simply stated that before voting in a Federal election, a citizen has to provide proof of citizenship. Whether the proof of citizenship is a birth certificate, a passport or a driver's license from a State that limits driver's licenses to citizens, the important point is to make sure our election workers are checking credentials before allowing people to vote.

This bill is slightly different from the Voter Verification Act, but it is very similar, and I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, for introducing H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, and, of course, as well as Chairman Ehlers.

In Georgia, Governor Perdue has twice signed legislation to address the issue of voter registration. Since Georgia requires proof of citizenship before any method of voter registration, the concern is matching a registration card to a legitimate photo identification card.

Combine the REAL ID Act, which passed earlier in this Congress to mandate secure and reliable State identification cards, with the Georgia ID law, starting this November the State I represent has a better system for knowing who is voting in our elections as well as a means for deterring illegal voters.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe we need to preserve and limit the right to vote to citizens. The right to vote is a sacred right, and we need to preserve its integrity.

I ask my colleagues, support this rule and the underlying legislation. And, yes, I have finally found an issue on which I agree with former President Jimmy Carter.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on the House and Senate to quickly pass the right kind of military tribunal legislation.

We are in a war for the future of civilization, and military tribunals provide the best way for us to bring brutal terrorists to justice and to prevent future attacks on our citizens.

Military commissions have been successfully used throughout United States history to bring dangerous war criminals to justice. President Roosevelt used them in 1942 to try eight German saboteurs who plotted to attack the United States. In fact, military commissions have been used by President Lincoln and even General George Washington. Now Congress must allow this same power to our modern-day Presidents.

The right kind of military tribunal legislation can help us to disrupt actual terrorist plots right here in America; access critical information on al Qaeda; and prevent handing over Top Secret information to men like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of the masterminds of September 11.

September 11 was one of the darkest days in United States history. We must give our military the power to continue preventing other devastating attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, by a vote of 239-182. Included in the final version of that bill was an amendment that was offered by Mr. Hunter, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Goode, Mr. Royce and myself to construct a high-tech security fence along the most populated and in-need parts of our border.

This past August, I had the opportunity to visit the border fence in San Diego, California, and I can vouch for its effectiveness. I agree that it may not be cost effective or even necessary to line our whole northern and southern borders with a security fence, but in the most populated areas where there is not much room separating two cities, like Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California, a secure border fence would be a valuable investment because it provides our Border Patrol the time necessary to apprehend smugglers and others crossing the border illegally.

I commend Chairman King and the House leadership for revisiting this issue, because it is the most basic and effective means for securing our border, in this Congress. Like locking the door to your house before turning on the alarm, it only makes sense to begin enforcement of our borders with physical barriers.

Mr. Speaker, we need to stop the fluidness of our borders before we consider any other immigration idea. In the words of a doctor, we need to stop the bleeding before we can stitch the wound. Constructing barriers on our borders is a critical first step toward curing this patient.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1000, a resolution providing for earmark reform in the U.S. House of Representatives. I want to say that I support this resolution because I take my responsibility to allocate the hard-earned money of the residents of Georgia's 11th District very, very seriously.

There are fundamental duties of the Federal Government, tasks that the American people cannot do individually, but they rely on the collective strength of our Nation's capital to accomplish. Some of these tasks are national security, ensuring the safety of our citizens at home and abroad, and maintaining our national highways and infrastructure. However, over the years, the Federal Government has expanded this definition to encompass many extraneous projects that cannot be defended.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason earmarks have become such an integral part of the appropriation and authorization process in Congress. It is because each individual Member of Congress knows what is needed in their own districts better than anyone else. It is for this reason that I fully support this legislation, because it does not outlaw earmarks. Rather, it represents reform that is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I have submitted earmark requests on behalf of my constituents, but I have always tried to prioritize these projects in an effort to maintain my credibility as a trustworthy steward of the taxpayer dollars.

So I rise today not to condemn the earmark process, but rather to applaud the legislation that inherently reforms it. This legislation takes a stand for transparency in an effort to curb the current trend of frivolous Federal spending. Congress always needs to remember to whom we are ultimately accountable, and because of this legislation, Congress will be able to restore that full credibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Haralson County, Georgia, which this year is celebrating its 150th anniversary.

One hundred fifty years ago, back in 1856, the Georgia General Assembly created Haralson County from parts of Carroll and Polk Counties. Haralson County is forever tied to the statesman of its founding. The county was named after a distinguished soldier and a United States Congressman, Hugh Haralson, and the county's seat, Buchanan, was named several years later after President James Buchanan.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most recognizable sites in the city of Buchanan is the courthouse, built in 1891, and currently listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. The courthouse is symbolic of Haralson County, for as the county has grown and changed over the past 150 years, it has never lost sight of its history and founding.

And though the county's founders might not recognize some of the recent additions, like the Honda plant, I know they would feel right at home in the warm communities that populate this county. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating the citizens of Bremen, Buchanan, Tallapoosa, Waco, and all of Haralson County on this historic occasion

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 997 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2006. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary which is now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendments and shall be considered as read.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 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, and 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, Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and allows one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, today we will debate reforming a government-owned corporation called UNICOR, which is more commonly known as the Federal Prison Industries. Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, manufactures products and provides services that are sold to the executive agencies in the Federal Government. When the Federal prison system was established at the turn of the 20th century, factories were erected in Federal prisons to manufacture products for the Federal Government. President Roosevelt consolidated Federal Prison Industries into UNICOR in 1934 to provide training opportunities for inmates, control inmate behavior, and diversify production.

In fiscal year 2005, Federal Prison Industries generated $765 million in sales with all revenue reinvested in the purchase of raw materials and wages for inmates and staff. As of 2004, there were 102 UNICOR factories at 71 different correctional facilities working on operations such as metals, furniture, electronics, textiles and graphic arts. UNICOR currently employs 19,720 inmates, or 17 percent of eligible Federal prisoners, at a rate of 23 cents to $1.15 an hour and, by charter, must be economically self-sustaining without any Federal appropriations.

So, Mr. Speaker, the problem with the current system is the adverse impact it has had on small businesses which do not have the ability to compete with UNICOR's guaranteed market, even if they could provide a better deal for our government agencies.

Mr. Hoekstra introduced H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, with the fundamental objective of correcting this problem by eliminating the requirement for Federal agencies to purchase products from UNICOR under most circumstances.

H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003 passed by a vote of 350-65 in the 108th Congress, and it is almost identical to this Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, the notable exception being the authorization of a new work-based employment preparation program for Federal inmates where private sector firms can enter into agreements with UNICOR to prepare inmates to reenter society through real-world work and apprenticeships.

The Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act would change the 1934 statute of Federal Prison Industries by requiring UNICOR to compete, let me repeat, to compete for business opportunities instead of relying on a mandatory government purchasing, prohibits inmate labor from being sold separate from inmate products, provides more remedial education and vocational training opportunities for inmates, authorizes alternative inmate work opportunities in support of nonprofit community service organizations, and it allows the Attorney General oversight and discretion to award individual source contracts should UNICOR lose a contract and endanger the safety of a Federal correctional institution.

It establishes a $2.50 per hour minimum wage for prisoners who are within 2 years of release. It raises the maximum wage to half of the Federal minimum wage for all inmates by September 30, 2008, and equal to the Federal minimum wage by 2013.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it increases the ability for public comment on proposed Federal Prison Industries expansions and ensures direct access to these comments by the board of directors.

Considering our Nation's tradition on promoting fair competition and with the support of organizations and business interests such as the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Coalition for Government Procurement, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Uniform and Textile Service Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the Prison and Justice Fellowship, it should be reasonable to apply good business practices to prison labor.

Beyond fair competition, it is important to modernize the Federal Prison Industries program for this 21st century. UNICOR has operated on the same base model since 1934, despite diverse changes in labor and technology.

Our Federal prisoners are beyond the days of simply stamping a license plate for a penny a day. If we are to remain committed to rehabilitation and our Federal system of prisons, then we need a serious commitment to give prisoners reasonable work skills, reinforce acceptable behavior, and reinstate these prisoners to a real world work environment.

Furthermore, we need a system that is business friendly and is cost effective to our Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to vote for swift passage of this rule, and, of course, H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2006.

I, Mr. Speaker, stand in support for both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't question the gentleman from California's right to take an opportunity to advocate on behalf of his district and the construction of that Federal facility, and I am sure he knows of what he speaks. But getting more to the point of this particular bill, the gentleman, my good friend from Florida, wanted an open rule.

Of course, I understand that. I think if I were on the other side, I would always want an open rule as well. But in the spirit of openness, I want to point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that I think there were eight or nine amendments submitted. We accepted five. Three of those amendments to this bill were Democratic amendments, one was a bipartisan amendment. Yes, there was one Republican amendment.

The last time we passed this bill, there were something like, we had an open rule, and there were 14 amendments that were accepted. All of those amendments are included now in the text of this bill that we are discussing today.

I just want to point out that the process of bipartisanship and openness, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you, and remind my colleague from Florida, and I know he is aware of this, but in the committee, the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, supported this bill as did Mr. Watt, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Frank. The main amendment that came through committee concerned this issue of training, of better training of our current Federal prison population to help them be better rehabilitated and have an opportunity, as they go out into the 21st century.

As we point out, we are trying to revise something that started in 1934 with people stamping license plates. There is a lot of modern technology, Mr. Speaker. I know all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that.

If there is some way that we can give that training to these people in the prison system who want to change their lives, and, as soon as they get out, they get a good job, maybe even go to work for one of these private companies that is helping provide for their training through this program, that was a wonderful addition to the bill.

That, in fact, was new since the last time this bill came up. Again, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Watt, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Waters and Mr. Frank were all very supportive of that.

So the statement that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' I think it was broke, and I think my good friend from Florida's colleagues felt that it was broken, and in a bipartisan way we are trying to fix it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

The gentleman says that is not the most important thing, and I don't disagree with him. I think it is very important. It is not the most important thing. Of course, a lot of ``the most important things'' that he has mentioned this Republican majority has brought to the floor of this House and we have passed, some of that, most of it actually, in a bipartisan way, with support from the other side.

Of course, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida knows, we have passed I guess it is 10 out of 11. We may have one appropriations bill that has not passed the House. All of the rest have. We are waiting on the Senate. We are very confident that we will next week, given the leader's colloquy for what our schedule is, I can't say for sure, but it is my understanding we will be dealing with both the Homeland Security appropriation and the Department of Defense appropriation next week.

As I pointed out, we have passed all of these appropriations bills. We have done our work and we will continue to do our work. We are ready to receive those conference reports.

In the meantime then, what are we to do? Is the gentleman suggesting we sit over here on the leadership majority side and do nothing? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are doing our work.

This is a very important piece of legislation, and I want to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for sponsoring it and for being a tireless champion of reform for Federal Prison Industries.

As I discussed in my opening statement, it is important to protect the interests of business without diminishing the effectiveness of our Federal Prison Industries, also referred to as UNICOR. With H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, this Congress has an opportunity to promote fair competition and to update UNICOR for the 21st century, as I said earlier.

This body passed similar legislation with an overwhelming 350-65 majority. Federal Prison Industries are important for prisoner behavior control, for the safety of our Federal prison guards, and, furthermore, it serves as an opportunity, and this is most important, for inmates to learn skills necessary for life after prison. It helps reduce the number of repeat offenders and ultimately reduces the stress of our overcrowded prisons. My good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), of course, mentioned that in describing the facility in his district that is so needed.

This current Federal Prison Industries system is outdated and it still operates off of the same executive order issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934. Considering the global economy and accounting for further changes and the needs and exchange of goods and services in this, the 21st century, it is important to update this program in order to preserve its efficiency for rehabilitating prisoners.

The Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005 would preserve the successful formula of the current system with the checks and balances of a competitive market. It is no longer in the best interests of our government or Federal prisons to have a guaranteed artificial market. Our current system is not fair to small businesses who wish to compete for government contracts, it is not fair to the executive agencies trying to work within a tight budget, and it is not fair for the education of prisoners who need to learn new job skills and the nature of a competitive market.

Outside of providing competition for outside businesses, H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005 would prohibit inmate labor from being sold separate from inmate products, it would provide more remedial education and vocational opportunities for inmates, and it would authorize alternative inmate work opportunities in support of nonprofit community service organizations.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the diverse support of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, including businesses, civic organizations and the unions. It is important to pass legislation to reform Federal Prison Industries in order to sustain the program for the 21st century.

I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and the underlying legislation

Mr. 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 in strong support of this rule and the underlying resolution. As we just marked the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack launched against the United States, it is more important than ever that we stand united in condemning terrorism as we engage in this epic battle for the future of civilization.

In this war on terror, Mr. Speaker, we are not in a battle of civilizations, we are in a battle for civilization, and our enemies are actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while waging their terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free nations of the world.

Our government has achieved many successes in this war and we have made substantial progress. We have enacted strong legislation, including the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the Department of Homeland Security. We have strengthened our borders and ports through the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. We have funded our first responders in the amount of $41.5 billion. Our intelligence agencies are working together like never before, thanks in large part to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

While many of our political opponents have disagreed with our efforts, these changes are directly responsible for preventing another attack against our Nation since 9/11.

Thanks to our counterterrorism techniques, the United States and our allies have foiled several terrorist plots, disrupted terrorist cells, including several in our own country, and brought many high-profile terrorists to justice.

Just one month ago, Mr. Speaker, British authorities in London foiled a plot to blow up as many as 10 United States bound commercial airliners. The cooperation of British and American intelligence and counterterrorism authorities that led to the foiling of this plot is proof of two indisputable facts: First, we cannot let our guard down in the fight against terrorism; and, second, the steps Congress has taken since the tragic events of 9/11 are indeed working.

It is therefore critically important, Mr. Speaker, that we continue giving America the tools it needs to fight the global war on terror.

As stated by the 9/11 Commission, we must continue making strides and using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool. It is absolutely appalling that, in the light of this, 174 of my Democratic colleagues still voted against H. Res. 895, legislation supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and condemning the publication of any classified information that could potentially impair the fight against terrorism. Not only did House Democrats vote against making the Committee on Homeland Security permanent at the beginning of this Congress, 120 of them opposed the creation of Homeland Security in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we have at times disagreed on how to prosecute the war on terror, none of us will ever forget the attacks of September 11. Let me be clear. By supporting this resolution, we are standing strong and sending a message that we will continue fighting the terrorists. We will prevail no matter how long it takes. We are telling the terrorists that they will never again catch us off guard, and that an enemy committed to the death and destruction of the American way of life will not prevail. I know the strength of America, I know the strength of her people, and I know that we will be victorious in this fight for freedom. We must continue honoring the memory of those heroes who died on 9/11 by standing strong against terrorism and taking the fight to the enemy.

This resolution simply reaffirms our commitment, and it deserves, as our chairman and Mr. Sessions said, the full support of this fight. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and the underlying resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Representative King, for taking the hour to discuss such important matters, and, of course, in a timely manner, here, one day more than 5 years from the anniversary of that horrific event on 9/11. The gentleman was mentioning, I think, earlier about people remembering, of course, where they were at that horrific time of that initial plane attack on the first Twin Tower.

We all do. We think back about that. We remember almost exactly what we were doing. Just like back in 1963, I can remember exactly what I was doing when our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was brutally assassinated. I remember exactly where I was on the campus at Georgia Tech and what meeting that I was in and who the faculty leader was at that meeting at the campus YMCA and how I left that meeting and walked slowly across campus to my fraternity house to turn on the television set where we all were glued for the next 72 hours.

That was the same shocked feeling that I felt 5 years ago yesterday when I was a medical doctor and actually in the operating room performing surgery early on that morning when the announcement was made that a plane had struck one of the Twin Towers. We thought that maybe it was a small private plane like the one that had hit the Empire State Building in New York City many years ago, with not a massive loss of life, and certainly no building came tumbling down.

So you remember. We all do, and, of course, today, as we are here back in Washington on the floor of this hallowed Chamber, talking a little bit about our memories, and why it is so important, as President Bush said, the very next day, and Representative King has brought it out so clearly, we will not cower against this horrific enemy. We will fight them to their death.

We will do everything in our power as a people and the President as Commander in Chief and we as the Congress to prevent another attack on our soil.

You know the old adage, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, certainly that is true today. We can listen to all the naysayers and the criticism of what we should have done, could have done, would have done, what has gone wrong, why the plan is not perfect; but the bottom line, Madam Speaker, my

colleagues, Representative King, we all know, is that we have not been attacked. That is not to say that it couldn't or won't occur at some time in the future, but I say we are where we are today because of the action that this President, this Commander in Chief, this Congress and our military and the will of the American people to not continue to draw lines in the sand against the Islamic extremists, in this instance, of course, al Qaeda.

But we had been attacked before, and last week when we talked about this, you know, you can enumerate date time and event, loss of life, really going all the way back to the Iran capture of the men and women at our embassy in Tehran, and then after that, of course, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the loss of 241 lives, and the first attack on the World Trade Center and the USS Cole and 17 of our sailors killed in that attack. And what did we do? You say you better not do that again.

As my colleague from Iowa, and I think all of my colleagues, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand, at some point you have got to show some real courage and respond in the appropriate manner, and that is indeed exactly what we have done.

It starts, of course, with the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the detention of these enemy combatants that have been caught on the field of battle in Afghanistan. Those people are not detained, whether it is at Guantanamo or these so- called secret prisons in Eastern Europe, they are not detained because they were caught jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk, Madam Speaker. These were enemy combatants that were at the scene of the battle with literally their hands caught in the cookie jar.

We have, because of the ability to interrogate them in a humane fashion, a tough fashion, we have been able to get actionable intelligence, and that is exactly what has led to things like the capture, actually not capture, but the ferreting out and killing of al Zarqawi, and finding Saddam Hussein himself and the ferreting out and killing of his two sons. This is because we were able to obtain actionable intelligence in the interrogation process.

Now we hear from the other side and all the naysayers saying, you know, you have got to be kind and warm and fuzzy and treat these people with respect. I say to my colleague, what kind of respect did they show, Madam Speaker, to those 2,997 men and women, from not just the United States, but from a lot of other countries, who were working, law-abiding individuals at the Twin Towers that fateful day 5 years ago? They were shown absolutely no mercy.

So it is important for our colleagues, it is important for the American people, to understand that this President is doing exactly what is necessary to protect this country. He is the Commander in Chief. That is his first and foremost responsibility, to maintain internal order and protect us, protect the domestic tranquility and protect the American people.

So for us to have an opportunity tonight to talk about that I think is a great thing, and I commend Representative King for leading this hour. I am proud to be here with him and will be here to listen carefully as we continue and as some of our other colleagues weigh in on this issue and discuss this further.

At this point I yield back to my colleague, but intend to stay right with him for the rest of this hour as we continue to discuss this most important subject.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I just wanted to interject as he developed this line of thought. I was at a rally in my district yesterday, we did a tribute to the 9/11 victims, and in the newspaper in Marietta, GA, there was an article, Madam Speaker, written by a former State representative who is now our chief deputy sheriff, Colonel Linda Coker, who had been to Israel with a group of law enforcement personnel to study what they do in Israel, in that small country of 6.8 million people, particularly in the city of Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv, and what their citizens have to go through to protect them from these horrific improvised explosive devices and bombs that are strapped to bodies and folks walking into shopping centers, crowded shopping malls.

The lesson, Madam Speaker, that we learned from them, and I think what Representative King is pointing out that we need to understand, and I think the American people do now understand, is that we are not, because of what we have had to do, we all wish, pray to God, that we could go back to September 10, 2001, and enjoy that false sense of security. But now we know that we can't. And it is not about taking away our liberties, but it is very much about inconveniencing us.

Madam Speaker and my colleague, Representative King, I just wanted to point out that Colonel Coker said when she was there in Israel on this recent trip with law enforcement, she noticed that people there when they go into a shopping mall, they go into a Parisians or whatever, they have to check their purses, they have to go through metal detectors. We fret about that because we do it on getting on airplanes, and yet they do that even going to shopping malls. But they understand that is important.

I think we just need to understand that too. I hope my colleagues agree with me that we can put up with a lot of inconveniences without infringing on our liberty for the safety and protection of ourselves and our families and our children and our grandchildren.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to interject, he is exactly right. And his friend, the veteran that was with him on that fateful morning and said, ``Pearl Harbor,'' that attack on December 7, 1941, that day which President Roosevelt said would live in infamy, certainly it has. And as Representative King pointed out, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, something like 2,400, slightly less than 2,500, people were lost on that Sunday morning at Pearl Harbor in that unprovoked sneak attack by the Japanese. And the Twin Towers was very, very similar: an unprovoked sneak attack on 2,997 people.

Representative King, I was asked recently in my district on a radio interview, and the reporter said, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have lost almost 2,700 of our brightest and bravest patriots. Is it worth it? And is it worth it, indeed. Losing one life is painful. It is painful for the families, of course, and for the Commander in Chief and from this Congress who gave the President the authority to wage war against these dastardly Islamic extremists. But it is worth it. It is worth it because that is the price we have to pay. I think Thomas Jefferson said a long time ago that the tree of liberty has to be nourished occasionally by the blood of patriots.

And I think about World War II. The island of Iwo Jima, that very important foothold in the mid-Pacific. In 30 days we lost 7,000 of our best generation, our Greatest Generation. But it was worth it.

I just felt like I had to make these points with my colleague and say that that is why the President says we will stay the course, we will not fail those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and their families.

I realize the time is drawing to a close in this hour, but I wanted to point out, Madam Speaker, to our colleagues, that of course tomorrow on the floor of this House we will have 4 hours of debate on a resolution, a House Resolution, recognizing these men and women that Representative King just referred to, and I am talking about the first responders.

We all honored them yesterday across this Nation, the 350-something firefighters that lost their lives on 9/11 as they charged into those burning towers. I am sure that none of them thought for a moment about their own safety. They just knew that there were men and women, possibly children in those buildings that needed to be rescued.

So, again, I hope tomorrow we will have a unanimous vote on that resolution, and I look forward to being a part of that.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of September 11 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the

Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Tuesday, September 12, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which was filed with the House on July 21, 2006.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format, and they should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Little Leaguers from Columbus, Georgia, who on August 28 defeated their worthy opponents from Japan to win the Little League World Series.

Mr. Speaker, this is a truly remarkable accomplishment. It is the ultimate achievement in Little League sports. Performing so well under pressure in front of the massive Williamsport crowds, as well as millions watching on national television, it is a testament to the tremendous talent, character and fortitude of these boys from Columbus.

Mr. Speaker, in 1983, another team from Georgia bested the Dominican Republic to win the Little League World Series. By now, these boys are grown men, and some pursued a future in professional baseball. Adam Olmstead, the starting third baseman and son of my nurse, Lynn, when I practiced medicine, is now a prominent radiologist in Florida.

Mr. Speaker, this shows us that many of our best and brightest student athletes pass through Williamsport in this character-building experience on their way to excellence in a variety of professional fields. These boys from Columbus are no exception. They made their community and their country very proud, Mr. Speaker, and are a great example of the future leaders our Nation needs.

Again, I offer my congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise today to congratulate Spelman College on its 125th anniversary. This is a historic anniversary for a historic institution, and I am indeed proud to cosponsor the resolution of my good friend Mr. Lewis and my other Georgia colleagues in honoring Spelman College.

In 1881, two female schoolteachers, Sophia Packard and Harriet Giles, established Spelman College in Atlanta for the purpose of educating African American women and girls. Over its 125-year history, there have been many individuals who have worked hard to bring excellence to this institution, a tradition that indeed continues today.

Spelman College today encompasses a student body of more than 2,100 students from more than 21 States and 15 foreign countries. In 2006, their excellence was noted nationally when U.S. News and World Report ranked Spelman College among the top 75 best liberal arts colleges in the country.

Mr. Speaker, in this resolution, just looking at a couple of points, Spelman College was ranked, as I say, among the top 75 best liberal arts colleges, according to U.S. News and World Report; also the Association of Medical Colleges ranked Spelman fifth among undergraduate programs for black students accepted to medical school; and Spelman is one of six institutions designated by the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a model institution for excellence in undergraduate science and math studies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend Spelman College President Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum, as well as the administration, the faculty, students, and alumni for contributing to the enormous success Spelman College has achieved over these past 125 years. With Dr. Tatum's vision for achieving excellence, I know the next 125-plus years will see the same quality education and the strong community support of Spelman College.