Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution marking the sixth anniversary of this vicious attack on America.

It was 6 years ago tomorrow when our Nation was irrevocably changed as the tragedy struck in the streets of Lower Manhattan, the fields of Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon.

Six years later, the pain and anger remain fresh. We still miss those lost on that day, and we are still grateful for the heroes who faced danger on that day.

When the day was over and as we learned of the loss of nearly 3,000 Americans, including 700 New Jerseyans, just about 100 from my district in one small town, 20 or more were killed, 12 from the same church, we knew our Nation had been changed forever.

But amidst the tragedy, we also saw the best of our Nation, neighbors and friends consoling one another, Americans from all walks of life standing united side by side waving the Stars and Stripes and lighting candles to honor those missing or lost.

And while our Nation still faces challenges and still grapples with the aftermath of these attacks, we draw strength from the knowledge that the character and resolve of America is still strong 6 years later.

Today, on the eve of the sixth anniversary of this tragedy as a Nation, we remember all those we lost. We embrace those who remain, the families of those victims, and we honor those who serve on our behalf in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and do it on a hellish environment on our behalf. And we honor our firefighters, our police officers and our emergency personnel. We bless them for their work. We will never forget September 11, 2001.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and want to thank Chairman Murtha, Ranking member Young and their very able staff for their hard work.

The challenge before our Subcommittee was this: strike the appropriate balance between present and the future needs for our military in a time of war.

Clearly, we must provide the funding necessary to support our courageous young warfighters--troops in the current fight--and their families.

In this regard, I am pleased that the bill:

Fully funds a 3.5 percent pay raise for troops;

Provides an additional $2.5 billion for family support activities-- more counselors, teachers, day care providers, better housing, etc;

That the bill: Contains significant increases in many Defense Health accounts and provides funding to improve military mental health and PTSD programs;

Includes new efforts on preventative medicine in DOD and enhancements to military medical research;

The $1.9 billion shortfall in the military's TriCare program is erased in this bill;

Contains new initiative to consolidate the DOD and VA medical record- keeping systems to assure that our soldiers' medical records do not fall through bureaucratic cracks.

Further, the bill:

Fully funds flying hours for our aviators and home training for all those who fight on our behalf;

Includes an additional $142 million to I provide enhanced security at DOD bases here in the U.S. As the recent incident at Fort Dix demonstrates, our military bases are terrorist targets.

But Mr. Chairman, this Committee also applied its best judgment as we look to the future and how this Nation will confront future opponents in future conflicts. The bill:

Provides nearly a billion new dollars to upgrade the equipment of our National Guard and Reserves for both military and home state civil operations;

Fully funds the ``end strength'' increases for the Army and the Marines;

Moves the F-22 Raptor program forward and retains language that bars its foreign sale;

Advances the Joint Strike Fighter program and directs production of a 2nd engine;

Establishes a new Army Stryker Brigade and contains funding for five new ships for the Navy.

Mr. Chairman, if I had written it this bill, I might have written sections differently. For example, one could argue with the total funding levels. And I wonder if we have ``gotten it right'' with respect to reductions to Future Combat Systems--the Army's signature modernization program.

But all-in-all, this is a good package worthy of our support. I thank the Chairman. I thank

the Ranking Member. And I thank the staff and urge support of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation--H.R. 3356.

The Global War on Terrorism--the Long War--is the first conflict of the information age. With our technical assets and expertise, the United States is far better at gathering information than our enemies. This is an advantage we must exploit each and every hour of the day to better protect the American people from terrorists who are plotting against us at this very moment. We must never lose that technological edge!

Last year, this House passed the Electronic Surveillance Act seeking to update the Foreign Intelligence Act (FISA) of 1978. That bill took into account 21st century technological developments which enable our intelligence agencies to spy on terrorists who may be planning the next attack.

For example, the current FISA law (1978) covers only ``wire'' and ``radio'' communications. FISA is a pre-internet, pre-cell phone law. It's a living anachronism! A dinosaur.

That reform bill never became law and since that time various developments have further eroded our intelligence capabilities.

The wording of the outdated FISA law and a court ruling earlier this year prevents our counterintelligence people from listening in on terrorists overseas if that communication is somehow routed thru ``nodes'' in the United States.

In our effort to ``connect-the-dots'' to prevent the next attack, this is a huge problem! The Director of National Intelligence has stated unequivocally that we continue to miss significant amounts of information that we should be collecting.

Simply put--we should be fully protecting the American people, and we are not.

The Democratic Leadership has known about these failures and has failed to act to correct them.

Madam Speaker, it is critically important that this Congress immediately reform the FISA.

Intelligence is our first line of defense against terrorists. Good intelligence can save American lives--our soldiers in the war zones and our fellow citizens here at home.

During this summer of heightened threat warnings, there is no more important priority for this Congress today than to modernize FISA-- fully and completely.

The lives of our constituents depend on it.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3356 falls short in several specific areas and actually erects new burdens for our counterintelligence personnel as they work to keep Americans safe.

It is opposed by the Director of National Intelligence.

I, too, oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

While I support the military goals of this legislation, all of us do, I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. We all want to see the dwell times for our troops expanded to meet Department of Defense standards, but this legislation would place handcuffs on our military commanders as they work to stabilize Iraq.

My colleagues, in many senses this is a political document, pure and simple. The dwell time requirements appear to be not so much efforts to improve the readiness of units and quality of life of servicemembers in our Armed Forces; rather, these requirements are designed to force a withdrawal and reduction of U.S. forces committed to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The proof: This bill slaps deployment prohibitions only on forces destined for Iraq, but would allow those very same forces, regardless of dwell time, to be committed to combat in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world where they might be needed.

Over the past few weeks, we have heard Members of the majority speak with varying levels of clarity about their plans to ``end the war'' or ``bring the troops home.'' Of course, we all desire to bring the troops home. One even proclaimed the ``war is lost.''

But that is not the message we are hearing from Iraq today. Both General Petraeus and General Odierno have stated that initial assessments of the new strategy are encouraging as the Iraqi Army is taking a much more prominent role in the fighting.

In recent days, many of us have read the op-ed in the New York Times written by two self-described critics of the war effort. From John Burns, Baghdad bureau chief, New York Times: ``I think there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They are definitely making a difference in Baghdad.''

And from USA Today, ``Coalition forces have uncovered more insurgent weapons caches in the first 6 months of this year than the entire previous year.''

Mr. Speaker, we have seen an increase in security, a decrease in killing, fewer car bombs, lower levels of civilian casualties; all good things. And what is this House's response to this demonstrable progress? They would

offer legislation that would hamstring and handcuff our military commanders, short-circuit the training of Iraqi soldiers, and endanger further security progress.

Mr. Speaker, I have always said that I want our war fighters' deployments to be short and as safe as possible. I do want our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and anywhere in the world where they are in harm's way, soon. But this is not the way to do it.

I rise in opposition to this, the rule, and to this type of thinking that endangers not only our soldiers but endangers the civilians that we are there to help.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully change the subject.

Mr. Speaker, all Members should be aware that there's language in this bill that greatly expands existing U.S. policy on importing drugs from other countries by allowing the wholesale importation of medicines not just for personal use but now for commercial use. Implementation of this new language would legalize the practice of reimportation of even more undocumented prescription drugs of unknown origin into the United States.

Mr. Speaker, existing Federal policies allow for importation of prescription drugs for personal use, but this new provision opens the floodgates to the unknown. This is a risk we should not take, not for prescription drugs nor for any products that might do harm to our loved ones.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the Stearns amendment. In the interest of transparency, for a dozen years I was on the board of the Morristown Salvation Army in New Jersey, and anybody who has been associated with this organization knows that they work in the trenches for the poorest of the poor. They do a remarkable job, and they work with those that are English speakers as well as those who would not speak English.

It seems to me that the EEOC has been somewhat shopping for another venue here, while the Salvation Army, I think, is truly doing the Lord's work. And for them to expend, as apparently they have, tens of thousands of dollars in some sort of a lawsuit as a result of this EEOC litigation, I think quite honestly is an absolute travesty.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the sponsor of the amendment, and I commend him and others for supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but certainly know where his heart is because he's been diligent and persistent.

The directed spending included in our committee's report augments and, in some cases, enhances the administration's own earmarks with congressional priorities, which is entirely appropriate. Funding recommendations included in our report were made in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of the House. So there's total transparency.

On a bipartisan basis, I've worked with Chairman Mollohan in reviewing all of the requests before the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, all of the Member requests, and we recommend funding for this and other projects which people will try to take out.

We believe these projects have merit, and what's most appropriate is that Members are willing to come to the floor to defend their projects, and that's necessary because we need to hear from them as to their merit. They know their States, and they know their districts, and that's why we're supporting this process.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, let me associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Mollohan.

I have every confidence, and even more so, from hearing from the gentleman from Indiana, that this project has merit. He has had the opportunity to expand on what we saw in a digested form, and I think he has made a strong case for this project. He is willing to put his name on the project, which means his integrity is backing that project.

I salute him for what he is doing. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Reclaiming my time, and just for the record, the bill has approximately 1,100 earmarks, which is about one-fourth of what we had last year. We are, indeed, making some progress in reducing the number.

In any case, Members come forward to defend their earmarks, which I think is entirely appropriate. There is far more transparency, far less in the way of earmarks. I think the process has been vastly improved.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

While I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to yield him time because there have been a number of other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Yes, I do insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I reserve a point of order.

The FBI's use of National Security Letters is a very important issue. It should be addressed by authorizing committees. I would like to point out, which I know the sponsor knows, that it is his Judiciary Committee that is the authorizing committee, and I respect that, and I know he exercises a very powerful position on that committee.

This amendment requires the Department of Justice to report on its use of National Security Letters before they can issue any new National Security Letters. As we all know, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report on the FBI's abuse of the National Security Letters in March. I hope the Judiciary Committee has been asking the Department of Justice questions. I am sure they have. Perhaps they should even mark up a bill to reform the FBI's use of National Security Letters after they have further studied this issue if they feel the reforms made by the FBI are not sufficient to date.

Despite past abuses of National Security Letters, we know that they are an important intelligence tool. We also know that al Qaeda has reestablished its central organization, training infrastructure, and lines of global communications, and that the National Intelligence Estimate has put the United States, in the words of that estimate, ``in a heightened threat environment status.'' Taking away this important intelligence tool, these National Security Letters, from the Department of Justice while they compile a report, given this heightened threat environment, is not prudent. The use of National Security Letters is a very important issue that should be considered carefully and not debated for a few minutes on an appropriations bill.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and I insist on my point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be made in order if changing existing law imposes additional duties.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Shays of Connecticut, who has done a good job of articulating his concerns, if we could reach out to the gentleman from Indiana as a courtesy before he proceeds.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, let me say I am in accord with Chairman Mollohan in terms of supporting the mark we have in the bill, and I also support Congresswoman DeLauro.

From a New Jersey perspective, in the interest of transparency, I rise in support of the work of the East Coast Shellfish Research Institute of Tom's River in Congressman Jim Saxton's district. They do some good work. They work with other institutes around the Nation. And so I strongly support the retention of the language on this project in the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

I am pleased to join my chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), in beginning the consideration of H.R. 3093, making appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the farthest reaches of space exploration.

The bill before the House today addresses a number of critical national needs and requirements. The chairman has done an outstanding job in balancing many competing interests and has put together a solid bill in a fair and even-handed manner. I appreciate his openness and responsiveness, as well as his thorough understanding of each and every program in this bill.

I would also like to thank all Members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance and their advocacy, and also the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent long, long hours in putting this bill and report together.

On the minority side Mike Ringler and Frank Cushing, who have been mentioned; and Nancy Fox and Katie Hazlett of my personal staff; and on the majority side, Michelle Burkett, Marjorie Duske, Tracey LaTurner, Meg Thompson, Dennis Dauphin, Jennifer Eskra; and, as the chairman has noted, his great personal staff, Sally Moorhead and Julia Aaronsen.

Mr. Chairman, the bill includes important increases to priority programs that all Members can support. Throughout our extensive hearing schedule, we heard about urgent funding requests, including the need to address a growing violent crime rate that has begun to rise again after many years of decline, and the need to boost our Nation's competitiveness through more investments in scientific research and science and math education.

However, I also believe we could have met the most pressing needs by prioritizing within a lower allocation, the allocation giving this subcommittee $53.5 billion, which is $3.2 billion, or 6.4 percent, over 2007; and $2.3 billion, or 4.5 percent, over the President's request. This very generous allocation allows everything to grow and is, I believe, more than sufficient to address the highest-priority needs in a satisfactory way.

By comparison, the House passed a CJS bill with an allocation that exceeded the President's request by less than a quarter of 1 percent last year. That bill addressed critical priorities and passed overwhelmingly on the House floor.

As others have stated about earlier bills, the size of the allocation this year may make it more difficult to produce a bill that will get signed into law, so I look forward to continuing to work together with the chairman towards that goal.

I would also like to briefly highlight some of the more important contents of the bill. For the Department of Commerce, the bill includes $7.1 billion, including the full requested level for the critical functions of the National Weather Service, and important investments in NOAA's ocean and climate research.

I appreciate the chairman has included funding in the bill to strongly support the trade agencies empowering the U.S. Trade Representative in the International Trade Administration to negotiate, verify and enforce trade agreements that are free and fair, and to ensure an even playing field for American businesses and workers.

Requested increases for NIST under the President's American Competitiveness Initiative are fully funded, as is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at $108.8 million.

The bill also included $1.9 billion, or an 8\1/2\ percent increase, for the Patent and Trademark Office, and fully funds the request to support the ramp-up to the 2010 decennial census.

On the Justice side for the Department of Justice, the bill includes $23.7 billion, $1.7 billion above the request. The bill restores $1.7 billion to the administration proposed to reduce from State and local law enforcement accounts, including programs addressing violence against women, violent gangs, the meth epidemic, child exploitation and the continuing need for interoperable law enforcement communications.

I am very pleased that the chairman agrees that we must insist on standards and best practices for the use of these types of grant funds. It is not acceptable simply to pass out money to local jurisdictions without stringent requirements to follow accepted standards and proven program models. I salute the chairman for including language specifically under the COPs law enforcement technologies to ensure that funds go towards equipment that meets all relevant Federal standards.

Despite the sizeable increase in State and local law enforcement programs, many Members are concerned about the funding for SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. An amendment to increase the funding to the current-year level was adopted at the committee level.

We may see further amendments to increase it even further. The costs incurred to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens continue to be an enormous financial burden on our towns and cities. The SCAAP program provides important partial Federal reimbursement for costs relating to what is truly a national, not a local, problem, immigration enforcement.

The bill also includes important investments to fight the national epidemic methamphetamine abuse: $600 million for Justice Assistance Grants which support local drug task forces, the Byrne Grants; $85 million in grants to combat meth, that epidemic; $40 million for drug courts; and funding for the DEA to support State and local efforts and to fight international drug trafficking.

The FBI is funded above the President's request, which is necessary in order to continue current staffing and operations levels while also funding urgent increases in counterterrorism programs. The Appropriations Committee has been at the forefront of the FBI's transformation into our Nation's premier counterterrorism agency, and I am pleased we are able to continue that support this year.

Too often we fail to recognize the critical and often dangerous work that the FBI special agents and, may I say, also the DEA and AFT special agents do both at home and abroad in order to detect and prevent terrorist and other types of attacks. This is incredibly important work. This bill strongly supports those efforts while providing necessary funding for the FBI to fulfill its traditional roles and address emerging problems, such as child exploitation, the growth of violent gangs, and human trafficking.

One area where I believe we should have done more in light of the generous allocation is in Federal law enforcement. In the joint resolution for 2007, the Congress provided more than $1 billion above the freeze to support current operations and urgent increases for Federal law enforcement. In many cases, these increases were not assumed in the formulation of the President's budget for 2008. So while most Federal law enforcement accounts are funded at least at the President's request in this bill, there still will be some negative consequences in the form of personnel reductions and hiring freezes at some agencies, including the DEA, the AFT, and the new National Security Division. The chairman has been very cooperative thus far in helping to lessen the impacts on the DEA, and I hope we can work together to improve funding for Federal law enforcement generally as the bill moves forward to conference.

In addition, I am concerned that the Justice Department rescissions included in this bill may turn out to be based on unrealistic assumptions. The balances available could likely fall far short of the rescinded amounts, and I hope to continue to work with the chairman to avoid any harmful cuts.

In the area of science, this bill also funds important initiatives in science and competitiveness. The capacity to innovate is the primary engine of our economy and our way of life. In order to sustain it, we must increase our investment in basic scientific research and strengthen science education.

This bill fully funds the President's competitive initiative, which includes a commitment to double the funding for basic scientific research over 10

years, and also to strengthen and encourage education and entrepreneurship.

For the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $6.5 billion, or 10 percent, above the current year for research that will set the groundwork of the development of new technologies and science education programs that will continue to ensure that we have a well-educated and skilled workforce to improve our competitiveness.

For NASA, the bill provides $17.6 billion. This level supports the President's vision for space exploration with the full request for the continuing development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Crew Launch Vehicle, keeping to a minimum the gap in flight capability after the retirement of the shuttle.

The bill also includes funding for the request for aeronautics research, space science programs, and NASA education programs.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, despite concerns about the overall level of spending, this bill represents the chairman's best efforts to distribute the allocation he was given to the various competing requirements under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. I highly commend him for an outstanding job and will be urging all Members to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland, a strong voice for the Chesapeake.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, quite reluctantly, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, but certainly your views are held by quite a lot of people. I think it would be a mistake to cut the census, which is obviously a constitutional obligation. As I remember looking at that account, the Member's suggesting that we double the account, actually I think ITA got $10 million more than the President requested. So they actually have more money to deal with, maybe not the specific Office of China Compliance, but I think it would be a mistake to cut the Census, which is a pretty important thing we are trying to ramp up.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we obviously respect our colleague's attempt to improve the financial situation for these border prosecutors, but the general feeling is that Census accounts are not the ones we want to use for that purpose. But we certainly respect what you would like to do to enhance their resources.

Mr. Chairman, like the chairman, we want to salute Representative Eshoo and Mr. Shimkus. This is sort of a promise that has not been delivered on, and we are mindful of it. But I would agree with the chairman, to take a whack out of the Department of Justice general administration accounts would affect people that are working there presently.

There is the expectation, which, of course, it might irritate you for me to mention this, that somewhere along the line, goodness knows when it will happen, there will be a spectrum auction. I don't know, there is $40 or $50 million. I know you are looking for $250 million. It is not exactly inexpensive. When the auction should occur, this is the type of necessary project that needs to be funded.

But I would concur with the chairman, I know you tried to choose wisely, I am not sure these are the accounts that I would recommend taking money from. So I would concur with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to yield 2 minutes to my chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment as well. And obviously we have a strong appreciation and affection for the power and the reasonableness of the delegations from California and Texas. The nexus between Texas and California is a pretty strong nexus here.

And I am supportive of SCAAP. I think Mr. Dreier kindly has acknowledged that the committee did put money in there through a Honda amendment, and obviously we would like to plus it up. The costs have somewhat escalated from what we originally anticipated from the floor debate here.

But I would agree with the chairman. The cuts that are proposed from these accounts actually affect real people.

And in the Commerce Department management account, and I know Mr. Dreier is an advocate of trade, it's a 40 percent cut in the management account for the Department of Commerce, which leaves them with 60 percent for operating costs. And for the Justice Department general account, which is $104 million, $104.8 million, this account is reduced by $25 million. They're down to $79 million. That means people out the door who are doing prosecutions that are important to all of us, perhaps even related to the issues that we're focused on today, which is criminal aliens.

So I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but certainly am sympathetic and have been because I've been well educated by not only the Member of Congress from California.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is kind to yield to me. I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, let me join with you in congratulating Mr. Price for pushing something which the committee has pushed, which is promoting math and science, especially encouraging young women to get into those pursuits and academics.

Mr. Price has indicated to me that he would be willing to withdraw his amendment if he had a commitment from us that we would work hard as we progress in putting our bill together matching it with the Senate to see what we could do to increase these accounts.

I should point out that we are doing more, as you have noted, for the National Science Foundation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

But our committee reverberates in every sense. It is an echo chamber that not only NSF, but NOAA, NASA, and all of these agencies ought to be promoting math and science education. So I will be happy to work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed by the introduction and consideration of this amendment.

I can attest to what the chairman of the full committee said about my colleague and friend recusing himself from any consideration. He has been absolutely scrupulous in terms of that regard.

I'm not a lawyer, but there are quite a number of lawyers here. Everyone under the law is entitled to due process. And I can't talk about how long this process has taken, but I have every confidence that justice will be served, and hopefully in an expeditious manner.

But I'm, indeed, sorry that this amendment has been brought to the floor. I think it is totally inappropriate. Obviously Members have a right to make motions of this kind.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank Mr. Rogers not only for his congressional service, but for his other life before he came to Congress. As I sort of said in my opening remarks, all of us on this floor salute the men and women who are special agents. They do dangerous work. The gentleman has been unstinting in terms of educating me as the new ranking member, you didn't have to do it to the other side, as to the sort of things that were discussed by Representatives Wolf, Hobson and Rogers.

We tried in our bill to give some direction and impetus to having these issues of retention up and out and housing allowance raised to a higher level of interest by the FBI Director. We are not going to stop that push.

The gentleman may or may not be successful with his amendments, but I am still committed, and I am sure the majority is, if there is something going on here that is unfair, promises haven't been kept, we are going to do our level best without authorizing on this bill to see that it is done.

I support the Chairman's point of order.

Thank you for yielding. I echo your sentiments.

Let's move on this amendment. I highly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I just wanted to say that it has been interesting to be a spectator between two William & Mary graduates. We are not allowed to make product endorsements on the floor, but it is good to see that the logic will reign, and I will be supporting the Chair's logic.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to support the Sessions amendment. I believe in the A-76 process. I do think public and private competition is important. The contracts are important. The A-76 process I do think provides more efficiency and is definitely better for the taxpayers. So I support his amendment quite strongly.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, not only does this amendment hurt law enforcement's efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it sends the wrong message. Marijuana is the most widely abused drug in the United States. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is under the jurisdiction of our committee, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs combined.

This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young people that there can be health benefits from smoking marijuana.

Our committee received a letter last week from John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy opposing the gentleman's amendment. He warns of the potential public health impacts of encouraging the unfounded belief that smoking marijuana is a safe and effective medicine, contrary to prevailing expert opinion.

Last year, our own FDA stated: ``Smoked cannabis has no acceptable medical use in treatment in the United States,'' and that no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use. Furthermore, the FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment on my own behalf as well as Congressman Garrett from New Jersey, my colleague; and Congressman Christopher Shays from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey, Scott Garrett.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

For well over 15 years, I've been an advocate of reducing aircraft noise over northern New Jersey. I have attended dozens of public hearings, had meetings with FAA officials, responded to thousands of letters from constituents whose lives have been negatively affected by the existing air traffic patterns and related noise. I have been more than a proponent of a design of air space over New York and New Jersey metropolitan area, the first such redesign conducted by the FAA, but I have actually been working on funding for this design plan.

And let me say, I respect Mr. Oberstar. I respect all of the big guns that are out against this amendment. But the issue is, and Mr. Oberstar mentioned it, is that the FAA has always been dismissive of aircraft noise concerns. We're not trying to say that we shouldn't be concerned about airline safety and too much congestion, and we don't want to do damage to our airline industry, but for those in the flight patterns now, what they propose negatively affects our constituents in northern New Jersey.

Quite honestly, the FAA, if you will pardon the expression, has been blowing us off for a long time. They've been dismissive. So this amendment is all about sending a wake-up call to Administrator Blakely.

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

Before yielding to my colleague from Connecticut, this appropriations bill relating to the FAA has always carried language directing the FAA to deal with the issue of air noise. It has been repeatedly ignored.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Shays of Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Morris Plains Fire Department, in the Borough of Morris Plains, Morris County, New Jersey, a patriotic community that I am proud to represent! On June 23, 2007 the good citizens of Morris Plains will celebrate the Fire Department's 100th anniversary with a parade, picnic, awards ceremony, and fireworks.

In the early 20th century, Morris Plains was a small community within Hanover Township and was supported by the Hanover Township and Morristown Fire Departments. However, in 1906, the Wise Hotel in Morris Plains was completely destroyed before either fire company could respond to the call. The incident

brought to the town's attention the need for local fire protection, and on April 25, 1907, in the meeting hall of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics on Franklin Place, the Morris Plains Fire Association was incorporated.

The Fire Department's first purchase was an American LaFrance horse drawn hook and ladder that was financed from donations from the local citizens. Another citizen pitched in by donating his own horse and wagon to be converted by the firemen for use as a hose and wagon.

As the community grew, in 1926, it was decided that Morris Plains would break away from Hanover Township to become what is known today as the Borough of Morris Plains, also known as the ``community of caring.'' In addition, the new Borough government assumed the position of maintaining and replacing fire apparatus. The Morris Plains Fire Association became the Morris Plains Fire Department.

In August of 1940, a fire in the roof of the firehouse damaged the building beyond repair. The Borough Council had been conducting their business in the firehouse meeting room. The Fire Department and Council built a shared facility that today encompasses quarters for the Fire Department, Police and Borough offices.

Today, the Morris Plains Fire Department is led by Chief Michael Geary who successfully commands an all volunteer fire department of about 80 members serving close to 5,250 residents in about a two and a half square mile area.

Madam Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Morris Plains Fire Department and all their firefighters, past and present, on celebrating 100 years of protecting one of New Jersey's finest municipalities!

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey- Wolf amendment and thank the authors for highlighting Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which could allow DOE to designate large transmission corridors across the country and override States' decisions about transmission line placement.

Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that the energy requirements of our growing economy will place increasing demands on existing transmission facilities. In this regard, modernization is an important goal.

But we want to make certain that our State, county and local communities are fully engaged in the process to determine where transmission lines are located. Local leaders and property-owners have the clearest view of how these lines will affect their communities.

The goal of this amendment is to allow additional time for consideration of DOE and FERC's implementation process, so that there will be more complete deliberation and consideration of this potential regulation.

Municipal, county, and State officials want and need to be full partners in the process that leads to the siting of new transmission lines.

I urge support of the Hinchey-Wolf amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Police Unity Tour which honors the memory and courage of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty and raises money for the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. Over one thousand police officers from around the country have completed the tour, four hundred of whom left from the Township of Morris, Morris County, New Jersey, a vibrant community I am proud to represent and rode over 300 miles to the Memorial in Washington.

In May 1997 the Police Unity Tour was organized by Officer Patrick P. Montuore of the Florham Park Police Department, with the hope of raising public awareness of police officers who have died in the line of duty and to honor their sacrifices.

The tour started in 1997 with 18 riders on a four day fund-raising bicycle ride from Florham Park, N.J. to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington. This past year they had over one thousand riders nationwide who made the trip. Inspired by their commitment and their motto, ``WE RIDE FOR THOSE WHO DIED,'' the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund has selected their organization to be the sponsor of the Museum's Hall of Remembrance.

Madam Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Police Unity Tour on their 11th Anniversary of honoring fallen law enforcement heroes!