Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2565) to establish an awards mechanism to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in strong support of S. 2565, the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge Bravery Act of 2008.

This excellent measure establishes a formal process by which Congress will be able to recognize acts of bravery of all of our Nation's law enforcement officers who become injured in the course of their duties.

Of the more than 70 Federal law enforcement agencies, only two have an awards programs to recognize their officers. Such scant recognition for the sacrifices that these officers make is simply unacceptable.

This legislation builds on legislation the House passed in April, H.R. 4056, authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth), to accord Congressional recognition for the dangers Federal law enforcement officers face for our safety each day. H.R. 4056 would have established a meaningful and long-overdue system to honor deserving officers.

S. 2565 takes a somewhat different approach. It extends recognition for State and local law enforcement officers, as well as Federal officers, injured in the line of duty. A Member of Congress or the Attorney General would be authorized to present, on behalf of Congress, a Congressional Badge of Bravery not only to Federal officers but also to any State or local officers cited by the Attorney General based upon the recommendation of a board established by this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women in law enforcement, like many hardworking public servants, must work long and often irregular hours unlike other public servants. However, law enforcement officers undertake their responsibilities with the full knowledge that they are at risk of severe injury or worse, and it is fitting that we honor these officers for whom the risk becomes the reality. S. 2565 will now accord these brave men and women formal Congressional recognition, an honor that is so much deserved.

I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) for their leadership in this important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6531) to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6531, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2008, makes technical corrections to the 1998 Vessel Hull Design Protection Act for the purpose of clarifying Congress' intent that the design of an original vessel hull, separate from a vessel deck, may be protected.

In 1998, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act established sui generis intellectual property protection for original vessel hull designs. That Act sought to address the problems of copycats who make molds of popular boat designs in order to produce knock-off versions. These knock-offs obviously cut into the market of the original manufacturers who had invested substantial time and resources in designing and testing their boats. Nevertheless, some copycats--mostly operating overseas--have exploited a flaw in the language of the 1998 Act.

As defined in the Act, a protected ``hull'' consists of both the hull and deck of a vessel. In determining infringement, the courts have interpreted this to mean that an allegedly infringing design must be substantially similar to both the hull and the deck of the protected design taken together. This means that a vessel with a hull identical to a protected design but with a different deck is not considered an infringement. This loophole has allowed copycats to continue to take and use popular hull designs of others with impunity.

To correct the problem, H.R. 6531 explicitly extends protection to a hull, a deck, or both, as the original manufacturer chooses. If a manufacturer elects to protect just the hull, infringement will be judged based on whether the hull of the alleged infringer is substantially similar. The same applies also if only the deck is protected.

If a manufacturer elects to protect both the hull and the deck, infringement will continue to be judged on whether the combined hull and deck design is substantially similar.

It is anticipated that the Copyright Office will promulgate regulations and a registration form that will clearly indicate that a deck, a hull, or hull-and-deck combination can be protected in one application.

H.R. 6531 also amends the 1998 Act to ensure that any vessel manufactured by or on behalf of the Department of Defense is governed by that agency's general procurement law, notwithstanding vessel hull design protection.

Passage of H.R. 6531 will finally provide boat manufacturers with the protection that Congress intended to give them a decade ago.

And one point, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not address the problem of fashion design policy that is hurting U.S. designers. But given the complexity of developing the appropriate protection scheme for fashion designs, it would be better addressed in a more thorough manner the next Congress.

So I urge my colleagues to support this important measure this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX was the culmination of the hard work of many women and men who fought for women's rights to equal opportunities within the American education system. Today, we remember their efforts and we celebrate their achievements.

Title IX was the first comprehensive federal law to prohibit sex discrimination against students and employees of educational institutions. Title IX has benefited both males and females, and is at the heart of efforts to create gender equitable schools with equal opportunities and treatment for women. The law requires educational institutions to maintain policies, practices and programs that do not discriminate against anyone based on sex. Under this law, males and females must receive fair and equal treatment in all areas of higher education, such as admissions, educational programs and athletics.

The benefits of Title IX are compelling and throughout these 36 years we have seen women seize the opportunity to thrive within the education system in all areas. High school sports participation for females has risen 903% since the early 70s. In 1970, women earned only 14% of doctoral degrees, but today earn nearly 50%. Over these 36 years, women have entered and thrived in male-dominated fields such as business and science. I'd like to recognize the 92 current female Members of this Congress who have also entered and thrived in another male-dominated field. Many of my distinguished colleagues have been beneficiaries of Title IX. They have rightfully been given an opportunity to be free from sex discrimination and they are continuing to pave the way for women coming after them.

Throughout our recent history, America has seen the growing momentum to achieve the equality enshrined in our Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first giant step, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex and national origin. Then during the decade after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Congress passed a series of laws extending civil rights protections in federally assisted programs. There was Title IX, then Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which protected those with disabilities, then the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 which prohibited age discrimination, and then the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide education and intervention programs to youth with disabilities.

In the last 44 years we have made great progress towards achieving equality and extraordinary legislation such as Title IX has made this possible. However, despite all this progress, equal rights and opportunities for all have not yet been realized. We continue on the journey to obtain equal opportunities for all Americans, and we acknowledge that there is much more to be done for women and for other historically marginalized groups. But on the 36th anniversary of Title IX, we celebrate our achievements as they give us strength to continue on the path towards equality.

Madam Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6304. It allows widespread acquisition of private conversations without meaningful court review. The bill actually permits the government to perform mass untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States without any individualized finding and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all.

It arguably is not limited just to terrorism. It could be any foreign intelligence, which would include diplomacy and anything else. It is vague on what can be done with the information after it is acquired and who has access to it, and the only court review is a check on whether or not the government certifies that the process has been followed. The court does not review who, what and where the tapping will take place.

Furthermore, the collection of all of this data can be done under emergency provisions before the court acts, but the collection can continue to be done even if the court later rejects the application if the administration appeals.

The bill also provides retroactive immunity to communications companies who may have violated people's rights, and whether or not those rights have been violated should be reviewed by the courts, not decided here in Congress.

Madam Speaker, we can protect Americans' national security and protect civil rights by providing government access to personal conversations with meaningful court review. This bill fails to do that, and therefore should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 5781, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. It authorizes $20.2 billion for NASA in FY 09, including $1 billion to speed development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle.

This bill authorizes increased funding for vital aeronautics research after several years of cuts. In fact, it authorizes $853 million for aeronautics research, a $341 million dollar increase over FY 07 levels.

This includes continued funding for the next-generation air transportation system initiative--a collaborative federal effort to design a new air traffic control system that can accommodate increased air traffic, which is expected to double or even triple by 2025. This important work being conducted by engineers and scientists at NASA Langley will lay the groundwork for a more efficient, safer, and environmentally-friendly air traffic system that will reduce delays and allow our Nation to move more people and goods around the United States and around the world.

Madam Chairman, we know that investing in aeronautics research pays off. The aviation industry is the number one positive contributor to the U.S. balance of trade, with a net contribution to this balance of more than $60 billion in 2007. This is directly attributable to our past investment in aeronautics research. EVERY aircraft, worldwide, uses NASA technology. And NASA Langley Research Center located in Hampton, Virginia has been at the forefront of developing many of these cutting edge technologies.

Engineering principles developed from past research at Langley have contributed to overall aircraft safety and efficiency through advances in wing design, noise abatement, structural integrity, and fuel efficiency. And it is important to remember that these principles were developed 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years before they led to improvements in the commercial aircraft we see today. Though we may not see the benefits of today's investments in research for several decades, if we fail to make these investments today, we will regret that decision 20 or 30 years from now. Our Nation's leadership position in aeronautics is made more secure by the commitments we make today.

Madam Chairman, this bill recognizes that aeronautics has been an essential part of NASA's mission since the Agency's founding 50 years ago. NASA's aeronautics research and development efforts, including the work done by the workers at Langley Research Center in Virginia, have made the United States the world leader in the aeronautics industry.

I commend Chairman Gordon and the Members of the Science and Technology Committee for their hard work on this bill and for bringing it to the full House, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a milestone in the struggle for equality and civil rights. On this day 41 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States would no longer allow race-based restrictions on marriage to deprive Americans of their rights. Today, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, we are once again reminded that America is a place of equality and freedom.

As an interracial couple, Mildred and Richard Loving challenged laws in effect in Virginia and 15 other states which prohibited interracial marriage. On June 12, 1967 the Supreme Court recognized the merits of Mr. and Mrs. Loving's claims and overturned all race-based restrictions on marriage.

The Court ruled unanimously that Virginia's prohibition against interracial marriage violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the Court held that, ``The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.''

On this day, I would like to celebrate the lives and audacity of both Mr. and Mrs. Loving, whose vision paved the way for a freer and more colorblind society in America. Richard Loving died in a car accident in 1975 and we lost Mildred Loving to pneumonia only last month. It is the courage and the spirit of the Lovings and others like them that continue to give us hope that Americans from all walks of life will be free from discrimination.

There have been recent efforts in Congress to strip the courts of jurisdiction by legislative means. This is ill-advisable and I hope the example of Loving v. Virginia serves as a reminder to us all that this is a precarious path. Should the Court have been stripped of jurisdiction to hear this case, as some have proposed for certain controversial issues, this landmark case would have never been possible. What was once highly controversial is now accepted as commonplace thanks to those judges who were, at the time, disparaged for being ``activist judges''. Today we are a better, stronger and fairer nation thanks to their jurisprudence.

I would also like to pay tribute to a colleague and friend who played an integral part in the Loving v. Virginia case. I had the honor of serving with Attorney Bernard S. Cohen in the Virginia House of Delegates for 3 years. As Mr. and Mrs. Loving's attorney, Mr. Cohen worked tirelessly for the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and I think it is appropriate to recognize him for all of his efforts and his commitment to civil rights.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in remembering this historic case, and urge our nation to keep in mind the equality and freedom for which the Court's decision stands.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the budget, it's helpful to know where we are and how we got here. This chart shows the budget deficit over the years and shows that when President Clinton came in, we reversed the trend of deficit and actually went into surplus and were going to stay into surplus until the Republican leadership had a President who would actually sign their bills. We immediately went in the ditch and have bounced around in the ditch ever since then.

We had, when this administration came in, a projected surplus of $5.5 trillion, more than enough to pay Social Security for 75 years without reducing benefits. Unfortunately, those 8 years will come in at about a $3 trillion deficit, a reversal of over $8.5 trillion deterioration.

And although they overspent the budget that much, they didn't create any jobs. This is the job growth since the Great Depression. These last 8 years have produced the worst job growth since the Great Depression.

And so we have a budget that will reverse this. We have a budget that is fiscally responsible, it balances in 2012, remains in balance using realistic CBO estimates. It posts smaller deficits over the 5 years than the Republican alternative. It continues emphasis on fiscal responsibility by maintaining pay-as-you-go that served us so well during the 1990s.

It also addresses our priorities, increases veterans' funding, energy funding, particularly renewable energy and energy efficiency, and assistance to low-income families. It invests in education and social services. It rejects the administration's cuts in environmental protection. It funds first responders, community development, and other high-priority services. It fully funds the defense budget.

It also maintains accommodations for children's health care, higher education, and rejects the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. It does this, maintaining the middle class tax cuts. So instead of following the reckless fiscal policies of the past, instead of following the reckless recommendations of this administration, this responsible budget funds our priorities in a fiscally responsible way.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership in presenting this fiscally responsible budget. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his hard work on this bill and for his leadership on the Chesapeake Bay issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Reauthorization Act. I commend my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for introducing the bill, which will help further the Chesapeake Bay's restoration.

I serve as cochair of the bipartisan Chesapeake Bay Task Force, and I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Over 400 years ago, the first permanent English settlers of North America sailed into the Chesapeake Bay and settled on the banks of the James River at Jamestown, Virginia. Although the Chesapeake Bay played a significant role in the founding of this great Nation, the bay is often one of the most overlooked natural and economic estuaries in the United States.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed touches 41 congressional districts in the States of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have been actively involved in ensuring that the resources are available to protect and restore the

Chesapeake Bay since my days in the Virginia General Assembly. When I served in the Virginia House of Delegates, I was a member of a joint Virginia/Maryland legislative task force that first recommended in 1980 a multi-State commission to address bay issues. And that multi-State commission continues to recognize the Chesapeake Bay as a vitally important regional and national treasure.

H.R. 5540 will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which is the National Park Service component of the greater Chesapeake Bay Program. The goal of this network is to conserve the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the bay for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations through grants, technical assistance to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife refuges, historical sites, museums and water trails throughout the bay watershed. The network ties all of these sites and projects together to actively engage citizens to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156 gateways in six States and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership. And I want to take the opportunity to thank our new Virginia colleague, Mr. Wittman, for his long-time leadership and activity in Chesapeake Bay issues. I commend the Committee on Natural Resources for reporting the bill favorably to the full House and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young women who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Heritage High School Girls Varsity basketball team beat Forest Park High School of Woodbridge, VA 50-29 to win the VHSL Group AAA girls state basketball championship game on March 14, 2008. The Lady Canes (30-2) became only the 10th Group AAA team in Virginia state history with 30 wins. This is a remarkable feat and I believe they deserve formal recognition for their accomplishment.

I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to the Heritage High School players and their families, Coach Gardner and the rest of his coaching staff, Heritage High alumni, and the entire Heritage High community for their remarkable accomplishment and wish them a wonderful celebration this Thursday night.

Madam Speaker, May 30th, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft changed the guidelines established by Attorney General Edward Levi in 1976 to curb abuses by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), following revelations of an FBI ``enemies list'' in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

The Levi Guidelines were adopted after the Church Committee found that the FBI had developed over 500,000 domestic intelligence files on Americans and domestic groups and had clearly targeted investigations to disrupt the efforts of dissenters. This famed Committee detailed the disturbing extent to which the FBI had spied on Americans such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., former Navy officer Father Roy Bourgeois, and Holocaust survivor and grandmother Edith Bell, all of whom were peaceful protestors and advocates for their beliefs.

While the Levi guidelines ensured there was a justifiable criminal investigation and supervision of such investigations, the Ashcroft Guidelines have enabled the FBI to investigate groups and individuals whether or not there was evidence of criminal activity. The Levi Guidelines required that limited FBI investigations be instigated by facts or circumstances that reasonably indicate a federal crime has been, is being or will be committed. Under the Ashcroft Guidelines, we have even seen college students endure taxpayer funded FBI interrogations and investigations for simply placing irreverent posters up in their college communities. In one case, the FBI resorted to grilling a North Carolina college student about ``un-American materials'' in her apartment, such as a poster of George W. Bush holding a noose. It read, ``We hang on your every word.'' While some may argue this is not in good taste, it is far from a potential act of terrorism.

The Ashcroft Guidelines have allowed the FBI to attend and begin to track those present in every public meeting, at every demonstration and visiting all internet chat rooms. Americans need to be able to meet and debate without fear that their associations and dissent will end up in an FBI database at every turn. By severing the tie between evidence of crime and initial FBI surveillance, the Ashcroft Guidelines fundamentally alter the role of the FBI in our society and ignore the very basis for adoption of the original Levi Guidelines.

My Resolution is simple. It calls on Congress to reinstate the Levi guidelines which provide better protections for ordinary Americans from unwarranted, domestic FBI spying, on this, the 6-year anniversary of the eradication of such critical guidelines. This will end domestic spying such as that documented by the Church Committee report, where there is no evidence of criminal activity, while ensuring that the FBI can investigate anyone as long as there is a rational basis for doing so.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution urging that the Ashcroft Guidelines be replaced with a return to the Levi Guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6074) to amend the Sherman Act to make oil- producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the price of oil skyrocket, from about $50 a barrel only a year ago, to nearly $128 a barrel as of last week. The retail price of gasoline has likewise jumped and is now in the range of $4 a gallon. Americans are finding it increasingly more difficult to fill up their gas tank in the family car.

A number of factors undoubtedly contribute to this dire situation. Some might cite the war in Iraq which the President has waged for 5 years, which has both diverted trillions of dollars from more productive uses in our economy and, at the same time, contributed to the weakening of the dollar against other currencies.

Others will say that we should be devoting more resources to alternative fuels. But let's not overlook the elephant in the room. We have a dysfunctional marketplace for oil. We depend on a few large oil refining companies to supply gasoline. They have become even fewer and even larger as a result of a wave of mergers over the last decade or so. What's more, at the center of it all is an international oil cartel, OPEC.

The Gas Price Relief For Customers Act of 2008, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) addresses that marketplace dysfunction in three important ways.

First, it clears away the dubious legal doctrines that have been twisted to prevent us from holding the OPEC cartel accountable under antitrust laws. It will now be clear that price fixing violates antitrust laws just as much when committed by OPEC as it does by other cartels.

Just last week, President Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand, to ask King Abdullah to relax just a little OPEC cartel's choke hold on the world oil marketplace. King Abdullah said no, he would not.

OPEC's concerted manipulation of world oil marketplaces calls for more than begging for help. It calls for full antitrust enforcement. Our antitrust laws are international in their reach, and over the years they've been used effectively against numerous cartels around the world to vindicate the rights of American consumers to receive the benefits of honest competition. There is no excuse for giving the most notorious cartel a free pass.

Second, the bill requires the Justice Department to establish a task force to better ensure that it is effectively monitoring all parts of the petroleum and petroleum products marketplace for anticompetitive practices that artificially restrict supply or inflate prices, such as, for example, the illegal manipulation of investments in the futures market.

Third, the bill requires GAO to take a retrospective look at oil industry mergers that were allowed to take place over the past decade to assess to what extent the resulting increase in market concentration has contributed to the high gas prices Americans are now paying at the pump. This will help inform Congress and the antitrust enforcers as to what needs to be done to better ensure a competitive gasoline marketplace going forward.

These three important steps we can take now to better ensure, to better secure lower market prices for gasoline that the honest competition will bring about for all Americans.

I would, again, like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Kagen for bringing this bill before us to the House.

I urge my colleagues to support it and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished author of this bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself very briefly such time as I may consume just to reference a report.

A comment was made about committee hearings. The report that I am referencing references the committee hearings and committee considerations and committee votes on the bill in the last year. It's essentially the same bill. The report is report number 110-160. It's an 11-page report that outlines what we did in terms of committee consideration.

I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out that this isn't the only thing that we're trying to do. This is just one of the things that we're trying to do about excessive gas prices.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) such time as she may consume.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to finally conclude by reminding you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will just simply make sure that our antitrust laws apply to this oil cartel, just like they apply to every other industry. It is just one element in a strategy to try to get gas prices under control.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will support this bill, just as much as we did a virtually identical bill last May 22 when 345 of our colleagues voted in favor, only 72 opposed, an overwhelming majority. Even the Republicans supported the bill last year. It's rollcall 398.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3480) to direct the United States Sentencing Commission to assure appropriate enhancements of those involved in receiving stolen property where that property consists of grave markers of veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and exclude extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is a solemn time when we, as a Nation, commemorate the ultimate sacrifice that our brave men and women in uniform have made for us. Sadly, there are

those who, despicable as it may be, desecrate the grave sites of these heroes. In cemeteries across our Nation, thieves have even looted the metal parts of grave markers and sold them for scrap metal.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3480, the Let Our Veterans Rest in Peace Act, which will protect and honor the final resting places of our Nation's veterans. This bill will ensure that penalties are in place so that these despicable thieves are appropriately punished and would-be thieves are effectively deterred.

Specifically, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines in order to provide a fitting sentence for all offenses involving the desecration of, theft of, or trafficking in a grave marker, monument, headstone, or other object that had permanently marked a veteran's grave site.

I commend our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), for his leadership in this unfortunately necessary measure.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, particularly as we prepare for the solemn observance of Memorial Day. These veterans have sacrificed greatly for us, and they deserve no less than the highest honor and dignity for their final resting places.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will pass the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2829) to make technical corrections to section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which provides special immigrant status for certain Iraqis, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we owe a duty to protect foreign nationals who provide valuable service to our soldiers, diplomats, and other government officials overseas. Often these individuals risk their lives and those of their families to assist and protect our endeavors and our people. It's only right that we give them the assistance and protection that they need.

When we pulled out of Vietnam, Vietnamese citizens who worked for our government, as well as their families, were at great risk of being killed if they remained in Vietnam. To protect them, we gave them the opportunity to resettle in the United States. That was the right thing to do then and it is the right thing to do now for those who help us in Iraq.

This bill addresses two problems that currently interfere with our ability to protect those who deserve our protection. The first is a drafting error in the new Special Immigrant Visa Program that we enacted in January for Iraqis whose lives were at risk because of their valuable service to our government. The visas under this program were supposed to be available beginning this fiscal year, but the drafting error has rendered these visas unavailable until the next fiscal year. In the interim, we can't help those who need our help. Many of those could die because of this drafting error. This bill would correct the drafting error to ensure that these visas can be immediately accessed.

S. 2829 also serves to assist several hundred Iraqi and Afghan translators who, because of the error, continue to apply for visas under the older program. Although many of their applications have been processed and approved, they can can't come to the United States because of a cap at 500 visas in the program that has already been reached.

Despite having the support of the Department of Defense, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, these translators are without recourse and remain in danger. This bill addresses the problem by creating a 4-month transitional period under which the administration can allow persons with approved petitions in the old program to use one of the 5,000 visas in the new program.

We have all seen in the news that those who have chosen to help us in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are truly risking their lives for our Nation's interests. They are targeted by insurgents for having helped us, their families are targeted, and this bill helps us protect them.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we have seen ongoing news reports that those who have chosen to help us in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are risking their lives for our Nation's interests, and it is appropriate that we give them assistance.

This bill is exactly what we thought we had done earlier in the year. This is a technical correction. It's not a change in policy. It is what we thought we were doing. In fact, I'm surprised we have opposition because we didn't think it was controversial. The Senate bill, just to read the original cosponsors, the Senate bill was introduced by Senators Kennedy and Lugar with bipartisan cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Cornyn, Biden, McCain, Levin, Specter, Obama, Hagel, Durbin, Sununu, Cardin, Smith, Coleman, and Bond. An identical bill was introduced in the House by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) with original cosponsorship of Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Berman, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Pence, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.

Obviously those broad bipartisan cosponsors suggest that this is something that should not be controversial, especially when you consider it also has the strong support of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we adopt the bill and do what we thought we were doing in January to protect our friends who have protected us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5571) to extend for 5 years the program relating to waiver of the foreign country residence requirement with respect to international medical graduates, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Today we take urgent action to prevent a critically important immigration program from expiring.

No one disputes that there is a health care crisis in this country. With our

population aging, there can be no doubt that the demand for health care will only increase.

The problem is made worse by the fact that many people in communities across America lack access to health care because of a shortage of medical professionals, including doctors. H.R. 5571 will reauthorize the program, the Conrad 30 J Waiver program, that has been successful in helping medically underserved communities attract highly skilled physicians. If Congress does not act, the Conrad program will expire on June 1, 2008.

And how important is this program? Well, to take just one example, a little more than a year ago, in early May 2007, a powerful tornado tore through a Kansas prairie, destroying 95 percent of the town of Greensburg and killing 11 people. Because of the Conrad 30 program, doctors were available in Greensburg to serve this community in need. The Conrad 30 program allows States, like Kansas, to recommend that doctors who have received medical training in the United States on a J- 1 visa and who now want to work in medically underserved areas receive waivers from the general requirement that doctors first return to their home countries for 2 years. This is too important a program to let expire.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, for her leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith); and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for their efforts to make sure that this bill came to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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