Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership in efforts to address warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and for introducing a bill that corrects many of the shortcomings of the bill that passed the House last August.

The RESTORE Act establishes a strong framework, much stronger than the administration's bill, to fight terrorism effectively, while providing reasonable safeguards to protect personal privacy. There are several important clarifications made in the bill.

One important change draws the appropriate distinctions based on physical location and types of targets. There has never been any controversy over the fact that surveillance directed at people, all of whom are overseas, you don't need a warrant in that situation.

The second is that the bill removes vague and overbroad language in the bill that passed last August that would allow wiretapping of conversations without a warrant if the communication was concerning a foreign target. That by its own wording suggests that if two citizens are in the United States talking about someone overseas, you could wiretap their communications without a warrant. The bill before us makes it clear that the persons involved in the conversation must be overseas, not just that the subject of the conversation must be overseas.

Third, the RESTORE Act goes a step further than the administration's bill and only allows expanded wiretapping authority in cases involving foreign intelligence unless it relates specifically to national security, as opposed to the overexpansive nature of foreign intelligence. Foreign intelligence can include anything, a trade deal or anything of general foreign affairs activities. If you are talking about national security, let's talk about national security.

Finally, the RESTORE Act was made even stronger in the committee by requiring the Department of Justice in its application to the court to specify the primary purpose of the wiretapping. Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain a warrant, he had to certify the purpose of the wiretap. The standard was altered in the PATRIOT Act which says it only has to be a significant purpose.

We have to put this change in context because the Department of Justice has not credibly refuted the allegations that some U.S. Attorneys were fired because they failed to indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election. So if the Department of Justice wiretapped someone when foreign intelligence is not the primary purpose, you have to wonder what the primary purpose is. This bill would require the administration to reveal the true purpose of the wiretap.

Mr. Speaker, in the fight against terrorism, we do not have to sacrifice constitutional protections or trust this administration to secretly protect the rights of Americans without public accountability. It is important to note that everything that the administration can do in its own bill it can do under this bill. We just require them to get a warrant before they do it or get a warrant after they do it if they are in a hurry, but they can wiretap and get the information. We just provide a little modicum of oversight to ensure that the laws are being obeyed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Insight Enterprises, Inc. Peninsula Center for Independent Living of Hampton, Virginia. This year marks its 20th year of service to individuals with disabilities on the Virginia peninsula.

For 20 years, the Peninsula Center for Independent Living's philosophy has been that individuals with disabilities should play a major role in deciding their future. As a coalition of professionals working in the fields of education, rehabilitation and community services, the Peninsula Center has been instrumental in allowing persons with disabilities to empower themselves to truly live independent lives.

Madam Speaker, the Peninsula Center for Independent Living provides an invaluable service to thousands. The Peninsula Center works to ensure that individuals with disabilities who need housing, whether public or private, can locate housing that is accessible and suitable to their needs. The Peninsula Center has also provided assistance in resolving complaints in the areas of housing, education, employment and community programs. Other core services provided by the Peninsula Center include peer counseling, and independent skills training. The Peninsula Center also provides community outreach, including disability awareness, technical assistance regarding accessibility and legal issues, and general disability related information.

Insight Enterprises was founded by Ralph W. Shelman of Hampton, who still serves as its executive director. I have had the privilege of working with Ralph on a variety of issues affecting individuals with disabilities both here in the U.S. House of Representatives and during my service in the Virginia General Assembly. Ralph served as an influential member of the coalition that helped enact the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Commonwealth of Virginia knows no better advocate for persons with disabilities than Ralph. The Virginia General Assembly even passed a joint resolution commending Ralph for his work for individuals with disabilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Insight Enterprises, Inc. Peninsula Center for Independent Living, its executive director, Ralph Shelman, and their very professional and caring staff on their 20 years of service to the people of the Virginia peninsula. I commend the officers, staff and board members of the Peninsula Center for all that they have done and will continue to do to better the lives of countless individuals, and I wish them many more years of service to the people of the Virginia peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass

the bill (H.R. 400) to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, 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 to include material on the bill under consideration.

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

Reconstruction fraud has run rampant during the engagement of the U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has devoted more than $50 billion to relief and reconstruction activities there, and at least $8.8 billion cannot be accounted for.

Some of the reports of excessive profiteering are simply appalling. For example, one contractor was hired to build the Baghdad Police College, a facility to house and train more than 4,000 police recruits. After spending $72 million of U.S. taxpayer money, the contractor delivered an engineering nightmare with so many plumbing problems that auditors from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said that during the visit a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an assessment team member's shirt.

It's not only construction. There are widely reported stories of contractors double-charging taxpayers for sodas and overcharging the government 600 percent for fuel shipments.

Another report has a company running convoys of empty trucks back and forth across an insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for phantom deliveries. Truckers referred to their cargo as sailboat fuel.

Inspector Generals have opened hundreds of investigations into fraud and waste in Iraq and Kuwait and Afghanistan involving illegal kickbacks, bid-rigging, embezzlement and fraudulent overbilling.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has more than 70 open and active investigations in contracting fraud and abuse in the war. In addition, private whistleblowers have filed numerous civil claims involving Iraq fraud under the False Claims Act.

Despite the breadth of all of these investigations and civil claims, the Department of Justice has chosen to pursue a relatively small number of cases. To promote a more vigorous Department of Justice prosecution of reconstruction fraud, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has introduced H.R. 400, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007.

Although there are anti-fraud laws to protect against waste of U.S. taxpayers' money at home, no law specifically prohibits war profiteering or expressly confers jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear the fraud cases when our forces and reconstruction efforts are deployed overseas.

To clarify the full reach of the U.S. jurisdiction to appropriately punish this conduct wherever it may occur, H.R. 400 would criminalize overcharging taxpayers to profit excessively with the intent to defraud the United States Government or any provisional authority, such as the former Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

This crime would be a felony, with criminal penalties up to $1 million in fines and up to 20 years in prison. In addition to prohibiting fraud, H.R. 400 also criminalizes false statements in providing goods and services in connection with the war or reconstruction effort. This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties up to $1 million and up to 10 years in prison.

The bill before us makes a few technical changes to the bill that was reported out of committee. Among them is a deletion of a provision providing for an alternative fund of twice the gross profits or other proceeds of the crime.

This alternative fund essentially duplicates and would possibly displace a stronger current provision in the law, section 3571(d) of title 18 of the U.S. code, which applies to all crimes.

But also note that the bill explicitly provides for an extraterritorial jurisdiction. The inclusion of this provision is meant to make it abundantly clear that this statute reaches war profiteering crimes wherever they may occur. However, it is not intended and should not be interpreted to undermine the extraterritorial reach of any other Federal criminal statute.

H.R. 400 sends a resounding warning, which I hope would be heard and taken to heart by all relief and reconstruction contractors doing business with the U.S. Government or any provisional authority operating under our control, that is, that contracting fraud not only undercuts our missions overseas, it is illegal. If you engage in it, you can expect to be vigorously prosecuted.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to point out that the standard in the bill on page 2, line 10, it says

that you have to execute or attempt to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States or materially overvalues any good or service with the intent to defraud. That's a very high standard, not just overcharging, but overcharging with the intent to defraud or, in the second part, tries to cover up the deed. Those are high standards, and people will know that they're committing a crime when, in fact, they do that.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

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

I thank the gentleman from Florida for his support for the bill. And as he has indicated when my distinguished colleague from Virginia pointed out all of the different acts that apply, one of the major problems was that there is no jurisdiction to actually prosecute those claims without this legislation. The standard is high. There is an intent to defraud.

I would hope that the House would pass the bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in mourning the loss of one of the Commonwealth of Virginia's finest public servants, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. She was a good friend and a tireless advocate for America's First District, as both she and the late Congressman Herb Bateman referred to the First Congressional District of Virginia.

Jo Ann was a self-made woman who came from modest roots. Born in North Carolina, she grew up in Hampton, Virginia, where her father was a city bus driver. She graduated from Hampton Roads Business College in 1971, received her real estate license in 1984, and received her real estate broker's license 4 years later. She was a successful business woman, having opened Davis Management Company in 1988 and Jo Ann Davis Realty in 1990.

Mr. Speaker, Jo Ann was not a career politician and probably never imagined that she would run for office and end up serving in the United States Congress for over 6 years. In 1997 she was reluctantly convinced by her friends to run for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. When our late colleague Herb Bateman announced his retirement from the House, Jo Ann mounted an underdog campaign. Notwithstanding the fact that she was outspent by a margin of 40 to one in the primary, she prevailed; and in November, 2000, she became the first Republican woman from Virginia elected to Congress.

While we had different political loyalties, we had no differences in our efforts to work together for the citizens of Hampton Roads. Jo Ann's service on the Armed Services Committee directly mirrored her commitment to the thousands of military personnel in her district. One of her first pieces of legislation that she introduced passed in 2001. It increased the amount of life insurance benefits for survivors of members of the U.S. Armed Forces killed in active duty.

Jo Ann was also a tireless advocate for the thousands of shipbuilders in her district that worked at Northrop Grumman Newport News, and she cofounded the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus with Congressman Gene Taylor of Mississippi. That caucus has made a compelling case to the Department of Defense that it is pivotal for our national defense that the Navy spend more money on shipbuilding. In the last Congress, she was instrumental in efforts to secure funding for the refueling of the USS Carl Vinson. Without Jo Ann's hard work, the Hampton Roads area might have lost billions of dollars in economic revenue tied directly to that aircraft carrier.

Jo Ann placed a high priority on the removal of ships in the so- called James River ``Ghost Fleet,'' which posed a major environmental threat to the James River and the Chesapeake Bay; and as a result of her leadership, many of those ships have been removed. Together, we have worked to secure Federal funding for the Achievable Dream education program in Newport News to ensure that at-risk children have the best opportunity to succeed in school.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body was saddened to learn that Jo

Ann developed breast cancer in 2005 and even more so when the cancer returned this year. The sadness is especially felt by members of the weekly Congressional Prayer Breakfast, which Jo Ann and I regularly attended. Despite her personal battle with cancer, Jo Ann did not retire from Congress. She stayed and fought her cancer and continued to represent the people of the First District to the best of her ability until the very end. Learning from her own experience with cancer, she has encouraged her colleagues and her constituents to get screened regularly for all types of cancer.

Mr. Speaker, the Hampton Roads delegation has lost a tremendous advocate for the interests of our region. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to her husband of 33 years, Chuck Davis; their two grown sons, Charlie and Christopher; their granddaughter; and her wonderful staff with whom my staff has worked so well over the years. America's First District and the U.S. House of Representatives have lost a true friend and advocate with the passing of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of one of the committees that Jo Ann served on and a past president of the weekly Congressional Prayer Breakfast (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of which Jo Ann Davis was a member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, who served with Jo Ann as joint president of the Congressional Prayer Breakfast, Mr. Cleaver.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Armed Services Committee who served with Jo Ann Davis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Virginia, for introducing the resolution. I ask for support for the resolution, and will yield the gentleman, my colleague, the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of a citizen of Portsmouth, Virginia, who has devoted his life to the work of God and helping his fellow man. Today I would like to pay tribute to Bishop Samuel L. Carruth of Holy Light Church of Deliverance in Portsmouth.

Bishop Carruth, the eleventh of thirteen children, aspired to be an FBI agent as a child before heeding the call to devote his life to preaching the Gospel. Bishop Carruth was educated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he attended Benjamin Franklin High School and Temple University. He then served for 2 years as a staff sergeant in the United States Army.

Following his discharge from the Army, Bishop Carruth was stricken with tuberculosis in both lungs and hospitalized in East Orange, New Jersey. The doctor's prognosis was grim and the young Carruth suffered much weight loss and pain. Bishop Carruth credits his devotion to God to his full recovery from this horrible disease.

Shortly after his bout with tuberculosis, Bishop Carruth heeded the call of ministry and co-founded the Deliverance Evangelistic Church in Philadelphia with the late Reverend Benjamin Smith. He served as assistant pastor in that ministry and in the field of evangelism faithfully for 6 years. During this time, he also received a doctorate of divinity at Jamison Bible University.

In 1967, Bishop Carruth and his family left Philadelphia and moved to Portsmouth where he became pastor of the Holy Light Church of Deliverance, which at the time had a humble membership of 13 people. Within 6 months under Bishop Carruth's leadership, Holy Light Church's membership ballooned and became an overflowing powerhouse of activity. With this growth, the original church quickly outgrew its capacity. In 1968, Holy Light moved to a larger building in Portsmouth and expanded again in 1995. Their current facility can seat 1,000 and includes plenty of space for offices and classrooms.

For 40 years, Bishop Carruth has been leading God's charge and serving his community at Holy Light Church of Deliverance. Bishop Carruth has been a member of the Portsmouth Community Development Corporation and has launched numerous community outreach programs including the Adopt-a-School program with Emily Spong Elementary School, the Holy Light College of Bible, the Summer Camp for Youth, the Men's Community Breakfast, the HLC Telephone Ministry, and reading and tutorial programs to help at risk students succeed in school.

Even as one of the most active pastors in the Hampton Roads area, Bishop Carruth has still managed to have time for his lovely family. He and his wife of 53 years, Mary C.

Carruth, have four daughters--Linda, Fayette, Dorene, and Sharron--two sons-in-law, seven grandchildren, and a niece and nephew-in-law.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007.

I would like to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), for their hard work on this bill.

We currently have a situation in which many military contractors act with impunity and no accountability because they operate outside of the jurisdiction of the United States criminal code because they are technically outside of the jurisdiction of the United States and outside of the Uniform Code of Military Justice because they are not in the military.

In Iraq, our troops have been supplanted by an army of contractors, which is estimated at 180,000, an extremely high number by any account. Last month we learned of a shooting incident involving a private contracting company, Blackwater, in which contractors allegedly shot and killed 11 or more innocent Iraqi civilians. Yesterday we learned that Blackwater was involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2005. According to at least one report, their employees fired the first shots in more than 80 percent of these shooting incidences.

Madam Chairman, to provide much needed accountability and oversight for these contractors, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) introduced H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion Enforcement Act of 2007. When MEJA was originally signed into law in 2000, it did provide the United States Federal Courts with jurisdiction over civilian employees, contractors and subcontractors affiliated with the Defense Department who commit crimes overseas. The bill was later amended in 2005 to include employees of any Federal agency supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas.

This bill closes a loophole to make sure that all private security contractors, not just those contracted through the Department of Defense, are covered, to ensure that they are accountable under United States law. This

change would update the law to better reflect the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which a large number of contractors are present, with contracts written by a variety of different government agencies, including the Department of the Interior and Department of State.

Madam Chairman, H.R. 2740 also requires the Inspector General of the Justice Department to complete and submit a report about the identification and prosecution of alleged abuses in Iraq. This section is meant to address the lack of transparency in Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions. In some cases, the Army has investigated the circumstances behind some cases and found probable cause that a crime has been committed and referred the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

In one example, unfortunately, 17 pending cases of detainee abuse, including the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison by contractors, has remained in the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Virginia for 3 years. We are not told why these cases against civilian contractors have not been prosecuted or why they are being held up. In comparison, since the invasion of Iraq, there have been more than four dozen courts-martial commenced against uniformed personnel with respect to the law of war issues.

Finally, H.R. 2740 requires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation establish an investigative unit to investigate reports of criminal misconduct in regions in which contractors are working.

Madam Chairman, I would like to state for the record that at the subcommittee markup of this bill I agreed to work with my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member, to address his concerns in the bill before it reached the full committee. We did work together and jointly offered a substitute amendment in the full committee that reflected this bipartisan agreement. The bill was then reported out of the committee on a voice vote, without further amendments. The manager's amendment, which will be offered in a few minutes, has additional recommendations from the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, H.R. 2740 is a necessary bill. It is long overdue. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the manager's amendment reflects the compromise and bipartisan nature of the bill, which was reported out of the committee with bipartisan support. But after the bill was reported out of committee, the Department of Justice wanted to completely rework the bill. One of their suggestions would have gutted the FBI investigative units established in the bill and removed the enforcement mechanisms in the bill. Another would have so limited the number of crimes covered by the law that it could have not covered contractor fraud or even sex crimes in prisons. Those are simply unacceptable.

The suggestions proposed by the administration, many of which have been incorporated into the manager's amendment, have been described by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Madam Chairman.

And finally, I'd just like to point out to my distinguished colleague from Virginia that if he has additional technical and definitional changes and recommendations, those can certainly be accommodated after the bill passes the House before final enactment. They will be accommodated.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the author of the bill.

I would like to thank the lady from Ohio for convening this Special Order so that we can talk about the great weekend that we had.

The gentleman from Florida, Kendrick Meek, did a tremendous job as chairman of the foundation. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick from Michigan did a great job as chairman of the caucus; Donna Christensen from the Virgin Islands and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina leading the legislative weekend.

We had dozens of important legislative seminars, foreign affairs, armed services and veterans, transportation, health care, education, housing, social services, financial issues, civil rights, voting rights. Every aspect of legislation that you can imagine, we had the nationally recognized experts. They were open to the public, the public had an opportunity for questions and answers and input. These were great workshops. I participated in four of them. The town hall forum entitled ``The Cradle to Prison Pipeline'' that talked about the unfortunate situation where so many of our young people start off and gradually, slowly but surely, get in trouble, drop out of school and end up in prison, and how with appropriate investments, strategic investments we can change that pipeline to a cradle-to-college pipeline, which is so much better for humanity, so much better for our communities, and that we could do that in a cost effective way.

I participated in a budget forum where we had budget experts talk about the fact that in 1993 we began eliminating the deficit. By the year 2000 we had gone into surplus. And, in fact, in 2001, we had a projected $5.5 trillion surplus over 10 years, and how, unfortunately, over the last few years we have converted that $5.5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion deficit, a swing of $8.5 trillion. And how, with appropriate changes and some of the changes we're trying to make in Congress today, we can change that back to where we have the surplus and save Social Security, invest in health care, education and other important investments.

We had a great workshop on education with the education brain trust. We had one session on desegregation of schools and how, notwithstanding the Seattle and Louisville cases, we can still, with a little hard work, make sure those schools are desegregated.

We focused on the importance of early childhood education and the elementary and secondary education and Higher Education Act. We were able to make sure that we invested appropriately in education to make sure that we have a better community.

We also had another workshop on the judiciary, juvenile justice and the importance of making the choice between reducing crime and playing politics. We need to make sure that we reduce crime. You were very active in law school admissions, to make sure that law schools' admissions policy was not discriminatory.

Great workshops, judiciary, education, budget. The other important workshops. It was a great educational weekend.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for your hard work and leadership and also the ability to bring us together so that we could discuss the great work that was done over the weekend.

Thank you very much, and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1199) to extend the grant program for drug- endangered children.

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.

H.R. 1199 was introduced on February 27 of this year by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza). Currently, the legislation enjoys the support of 15 additional bipartisan cosponsors.

The measure, on its face, is quite simple and straightforward. It simply extends funding for the Drug Endangered Children Grant Program through fiscal year 2009. The current authorization for the program is set to expire this year.

The Drug Endangered program was first authorized as title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which authorizes up to $20 million a year for grants to address this problem.

One of the most troubling aspects of drug use is its impact on children. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, over 15,000 children were found at methamphetamine labs from 2000 to 2004. The problem, however, is not limited to meth abuse. A Health and Human Services study found that over 1.6 million children live in homes where a variety of illicit drugs are used. These drug-infested conditions stretch child welfare agencies beyond their capacities because of the increased violence and neglect.

On February 6, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 545, the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007, which has been reported by both the Crime Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee. A central provision of that bill extends eligibility for drug-endangered children grants to Native American tribes. However, unless the Congress passes H.R. 1199, the authorization for the drug-endangered children grants will expire this year, negating our recent efforts to help Native American children.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to pass this important piece of legislation, and I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership in introducing the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives of the importance of providing a voice for the many victims (and families of victims) involved in missing persons cases and unidentified human remains cases.

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 resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 340 to express the commitment of the House of Representatives in giving victims involved in missing persons and unidentified human remains cases a voice through advancing DNA technology.

The grief of loss of a loved one, particularly a parent's loss of a child, can only be surpassed by the endless torment of not knowing. When a loved one is missing, there is no finality, no way to begin the grieving process so that closure may eventually come and family and friends can begin healing. Going on, often hoping against hope, knowing the news they fear the most may come at any moment is a tormenting experience.

But with today's DNA technology, much of this burden can be removed. Over 6,000 samples of DNA evidence have been used to identify remains of missing persons; and with continued and increased funding, we can bring more justice to victims and peace to the families and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I further support the continued funding of DNA initiatives because of the incredible part DNA evidence has played both in determining guilt and protecting the innocent. Since 2002, over 200 wrongly convicted persons have been exonerated through DNA evidence, including death row inmates. In fact, just this weekend two incredible stories arose in the Baltimore area. On Saturday, September 22, prosecutors dropped all charges against a Baltimore man who had been held in a rape and assault of a 59-year-old woman just last month. This morning the Baltimore Sun newspaper reports that Baltimore County has solved their 18th DNA-evidence case, a rape investigation open since 1978. After 29 years, a victim will finally see justice.

Mr. Speaker, we can and must continue to fund advancing DNA technology because, although there has been much success, there remains much to do. Over 40,000 samples of biological evidence related to missing persons are in laboratories around the country ready for entry into DNA databases with the potential of identifying almost 40 percent of our missing persons. And although DNA backlog reduction grants have cleared more than 60,000 criminal cases, exonerating the innocent and identifying the guilty, the backlog level remains almost unchanged. Police departments and prosecutors recognizing the benefits of DNA evidence have been trained in its collection and are using the technology more than ever before, which adds samples at the rate that the backlog is being cleared.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support continued DNA-evidence backlog reduction grants in identifying missing persons and to exonerate the innocent and to identify the guilty. We have seen what the technology can do, and we have the wherewithal to fund those activities. Justice demands that we view continued funding as a major responsibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in introducing this resolution. I urge the House to adopt it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference report to H.R. 2669 the College Cost Reduction and Access

Act. I would like to thank my colleagues who worked diligently to bring this legislation before the full Congress, including Chairman Miller, Chairman Kennedy, and Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act takes savings generated as a result of the reconciliation process and makes four major investments in America's students, especially students in African American communities.

First, the bill will increase the maximum Pell grant scholarship--the Federal scholarship for low- and moderate-income students--over the next 5 years to $5,400. This increase in the Pell program is critical. Since the 2001-2002 school year, tuition at public four-year colleges has risen 55 percent. Unfortunately, during that same time period, the maximum Pell grant award increased by less than 8 percent and did not increase at all over the past 4 years.

Second, H.R. 2669 will cut the interest rate on student loans in half over the next 4 years. This interest rate reduction will provide enormous relief to the many students who take out subsidized Federal loans.

Third, this legislation will make a strong and historic investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority serving institutions. HBCUs represent an important piece of our history and investments in HBCUs are imperative for both student services and programs as well as institutional needs and infrastructure improvements. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act shows this commitment by improving and increasing funding for much needed student programming and opportunities. The funding for these colleges and institutions can be used for a variety of important programs and needs, including science and lab equipment, library books, and enhancement of certain disciplines of instruction such as math, computer science, engineering and health care.

This funding will go a long way toward closing the achievement gap that exists across our nation and helping those who wish to better themselves through education achieve their goals. The bill also provides, for the first time ever, funding for Predominantly Black Institutions and Asian and Pacific Islander-serving institutions, thereby recognizing the importance of institutions of higher learning that serve these communities. In addition, it also provides additional funding to Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian- serving institutions. While this funding will cover only a portion of the unique needs of these historical places of learning, I appreciate the commitment that members of the House Education and Labor Committee have expressed to continue to find ways to support these important institutions.

Finally, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act includes a provision to aid the Upward Bound program, which is the last hope and ticket to the future for many low income and first generation college students. The bill includes an additional $228 million to fund both new and prior funded Upward Bound programs across the Nation. This funding will reach several Upward Bound programs at HBCUs. In this grant cycle, 30 percent of Upward Bound programs at HBCUs would have been eliminated despite an increase in the total number of Upward Bound programs receiving grants. This provision would also provide funding to other deserving Upward Bound programs including programs serving Hispanic students.

I believe the College Cost Reduction and Access Act contains critical support for our nation's higher education system and I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill authorizes grants to Minority Serving Institutions for technology improvements and infrastructure. Given the large gap in technology between MSI campuses and other American universities, this legislation is critical to improving MSI's educational advancements.

It is important to note that MSI's educational contributions are significant. For example, in 2000 at least 40 percent of all African American students who received a baccalaureate degree in physics, chemistry, astronomy, environmental sciences, mathematics and biology graduated from a historically Black college and university. Given their contributions to our society, we must do all we can to make sure that MSIs receive the most modern technology to keep up with other universities.

Unfortunately, at the current time, there is a ``digital divide'' between MSIs and other schools in technology infrastructure and programming. Less than half of the students attending Minority Serving Institutions own computers. Sadly, the majority of historically Black colleges and universities do not provide high speed access to the Internet [according to a Feb. 2004 report by the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education]. We also see this trend in minority communities around the country. Over 60 percent of the U.S. population uses the Internet at home, while only 46 percent of African Americans and 37 percent of Hispanics have Internet access at home [according to a Feb. 2004 report by the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education].

The Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of 2007 will help eliminate the technological disparities at MSIs by establishing a grant program. These grants will help MSIs purchase equipment, make upgrades and improve their technology infrastructure as well as provide technology education services. In addition, these grants will promote the use of information communications technology to strengthen engineering, math and science research.

I would like to thank Mr. Towns and Mr. Forbes for their efforts to bring this bill before Congress and their commitment to rectify this disparity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 694.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last night we considered a bill that the Director of National Intelligence said provided everything we needed. We didn't pass that bill, and here we are today.

This bill, unfortunately, does more than what's needed. It really lets the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to kind of use their imagination to decide when surveillance is appropriate without any meaningful review.

This bill will allow warrantless collection of personal data, e- mails, Internet usage, and allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to do data mining, Internet usage monitoring, reading e-mails or otherwise acquiring information on every American, even domestic communications, as long as they determine that the surveillance is gathering foreign intelligence, that's not terrorism information, that's anything involving diplomacy, concerning someone abroad, not someone who is abroad. It could be a conversation, if the conversation concerns someone abroad. It's helpful just to read the language of the bill.

Section 105(b)(a), notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may, for periods of up to 1 year, authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General determine, based on information, so on and so forth, that, among other things, that the information that they are gathering is that a significant purpose is the acquisition of foreign intelligence, doesn't even have to be the main purpose, just a significant purpose.

There is no meaningful oversight. They just have to determine that and put it in writing. Then they can listen in.

In terms of the reverse targeting, the language that the gentleman used makes it clear that if they are talking to somebody outside, they can listen to someone domestically.

Mr. Speaker, the former speaker indicated that I didn't read the whole section where he said that acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance. That's true, it doesn't include wiretap, but it does include searches, e-mail review, all kinds of data mining so long as it's not electronic surveillance.

This is overly broad. It can happen in the United States so long as it concerns someone we reasonably believe to be outside of the United States. It doesn't even have to be the primary purpose of the search. It can be a significant purpose of the search.

Madam Speaker, it would be better to consider complicated wiretap laws in the process with committee consideration, public hearings, markups, and consider amendments with more than just 1 minute of discussion, but we have been told that there is an urgent need for clarification in the wiretap law.

Now, all of those clarifications are in this bill, especially the foreign-to-foreign communications. This bill honors our Constitution and provides the government all of the flexibility that we were told was needed, but it does not leave the decision of when wiretaps are allowed to the imagination of this Attorney General.

The secret FISA court is appropriately involved. It does not restrict the ability of law enforcement to engage in appropriate surveillance, but it does respect our Constitution. We should adopt this very limited clarification in the law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This important legislation overturns the recent Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a decision which undermines title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Ledbetter decision forces victims of discriminatory pay decisions to live with discriminatory paychecks for the duration of their career if they fail to file a claim within 180 days of the discrimination, possibly even if they had no knowledge of the discrimination within the 180 days. In other words, after 180 days, an unsuspecting female, minority, elderly, or disabled worker would simply be out of luck.

This would even be the case if the employer admitted to the discrimination and continued to discriminate after the 180-day limitation had passed.

Mr. Speaker, we hear comments that there would be no statute of limitations. That is not true. Under the bill, there is still a statute of limitations; 180 days still applies. The plaintiff has to show that a discriminatory paycheck was issued within the last 180 days. And if the employer would simply stop discriminating and went a whole 180 days without discriminating, then the statute of limitations would apply and it would be too late to bring a case.

Under the Supreme Court decision, that unjust outcome under the case is not in keeping with title VII's remedial purpose or the spirit of the civil rights cases.

Now, Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissent, ``Congress never intended to immunize forever discriminatory pay differentials unchallenged within 180 days of their adoption.'' I agree with Justice Ginsburg. And she also noted that Congress should correct this injustice. This bill corrects the injustice by appropriately expressing Congress's intent that title VII will hold employers accountable for unlawful employment discrimination.