Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, almost before the ink was dry on the February 22 letter to Intelligence Chairman Reyes claiming that the telecommunications companies were balking at their surveillance support requests, the DNI and Attorney General were forced to admit that the companies were, in fact, cooperating with the U.S. Government surveillance activities. It is not simple patriotic duty; it's the law. They must cooperate. Under FISA, if they're compelled to cooperate, they are automatically provided immunity.

The truth is that the only time FISA phone taps have been turned off lately is when the President failed to pay the FBI phone bills. If you don't believe me, look at the Inspector General's report of the Department of Justice in 2008 this year.

The real issue before us is this: How do we produce law that provides us better intelligence and safeguards Americans' liberties? The answer is we've done it through the RESTORE Act, and the sooner that House- passed bill becomes the law of the land, the better. Requiring the government to apply to a court and demonstrate to a standard of probable cause that they know what they're doing not only protects the liberty of Americans, it produces better intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.

For the last 20 years, my colleagues in the scientific community have issued warnings that the release of greenhouse gases is altering the earth's climate in ways that are both expensive and deadly. It is well established that the climate change of recent decades can be attributed to the way we use energy. In fact, the greatest insult to our planet is the way we produce and use energy. This is one of the principle subjects that I have spoken about and worked on since I first ran for Congress, and it is one of the reasons, I believe, that my constituents sent me to Congress.

As an energy scientist, I know how much can be done technically to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to slow the rate of climate change. Last year, Congress passed H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act, historic legislation that took the long overdue first steps toward addressing global climate change and addressing our long term energy needs. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate removed a provision from the H.R. 6 that would have repealed billions in tax subsidies for oil companies and instead invested in the production of renewable energy. I am pleased that the House is reconsidering these important provisions today in H.R. 5351. If this legislation becomes law it will be a significant second step toward implementing a rational, sustainable national energy policy.

Today, consumers are paying more at the pump than ever before. My constituents in my Central New Jersey district are paying $2.95 at the pump, a 119 percent increase from what they paid in 2001. Gas prices throughout the country over the last two weeks have risen an additional 17 cents, and oil prices have reached a record high at $102 per barrel. While American families transportation and heating costs continue to rise, the five top oil companies posted record profits for 2007, and ExxonMobil posted the largest corporate profit in American history of $40.6 billion. At this time of record profits, oil companies are receiving huge government subsidies. It is past time that we reverse this failed policy which has only benefited big oil companies at the expense of American families and our environment.

The legislation before us today would eliminate the $18 billion in tax breaks that have been awarded to big oil. It will use this money to extend and expand tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances. Specifically, it would extend existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas and trash combustion, as well as adding new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy.

My home state of New Jersey has been a leader in solar production, with over 2,400 solar installations in place and I am told that it has the fastest growing solar market in the United States. The extension of the solar energy tax credit through 2016 will help ensure that the use of solar will continue to proliferate in New Jersey. This will help New Jerseyans reach our goal of having 20 percent of the State's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020.

The renewal of these tax credits will also help to increase our economy by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. According to a recent study, if the renewable energy tax breaks expire at the end of this year over 116,000 jobs in wind and solar industries would be lost in one year. Today, when the predicted economic growth forecast is an anemic pace of 1.3 to 2 percent and unemployment is likely to climb above percent, we in Congress should do everything we can to ensure job growth and preserve jobs.

Of course, this bill is not enough. If it becomes law it will be an excellent continuation of the work we began last year. Having passed this bill we will be able to continue to consider other alternative energy and climate change legislation, and I am confident that we will. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Tom Lantos. The passing of Chairman Lantos is a great loss to the Congress, our Nation, and to oppressed people worldwide.

Born in Budapest, Congressman Lantos was 16 in 1944 when Nazis captured and occupied the city. He twice escaped Nazi labor

camps and was one of the thousands of Jews saved from the Holocaust by the humanity of the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. Yet most of his family members did not survive the Holocaust.

At the end of the Second World War, Representative Lantos came to the United States with his childhood sweetheart, and soon-to-be wife, Annette Tillemann. Over the past 58 years, Lantos and Tillemann were rarely far apart and worked tirelessly together to champion human rights around the globe. Today, my thoughts and prayers are with her and the Lantos children.

When Lantos came to Congress in 1980, the first major piece of legislation he introduced was to award honorary American citizenship to Raoul Wallenberg, whom he called ``the central figure in my life.'' Wallenberg was a central figure in the lives of many European Jews.

A few years later Tom founded the Human Rights Caucus. As co-chairman of the caucus, Lantos was the leading critic of abusive and despotic regimes abroad. He was unafraid to confront the Chinese Government for its human rights record and he was undeterred in his efforts to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Most recently he helped move through Congress tough sanctions on the Burmese junta to help restore that country's democracy.

As chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for the past year, Congressman Lantos continued to be a moral leader on human rights and an advocate for those who had none.

Tom Lantos was a friend to me and to all people who believed in the basic rights of all people. I am honored to have served with him and I will do my best to work for continued fulfillment of his ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Lungren and others who have spoken are right in one respect, yes, most of the House of Representatives voted not for the Protect America Act but rather for a substitute that we passed, a very good piece of legislation, that would indeed protect Americans, known as the RESTORE Act. That passed the House. It should be the law.

We do not need the Protect America Act to protect Americans, the so- called Protect America Act. We do not need it to keep from going dark. But what we do need is the time and the attention to get this right. This is a serious, serious matter about protecting the safety of Americans but also about the definition, the relationship between the people of this country and their government.

There has been a fundamental shift under the Protect America Act in the relationship between the people of this country and their government. It is whether or not the government regards the ordinary American with suspicion first. Think about it.

The reason this country and our liberty has survived so well is because the government understands they are subservient to the people. The government has understood that they treat the people with respect, their bosses, and do not regard them with suspicion first.

To be able to seize, search, intercept without having to demonstrate to an independent judge that you know what you are doing is a sign of disrespect. It is a sign of suspicion. It is, in fact, a redefinition of the makeup of this country.

So if we need time to get this right, let's take the time. We don't need the Protect America Act to keep us from going dark, and I would argue we certainly don't need it, as they argue, to protect Americans from those who would do us harm. We have offered that protection in the RESTORE Act. Let's get this right.

Madam Speaker, nurses are the backbone of our health care system. The shortage of nurses throughout our country leaves patients unattended, doctors stressed, and nurses exhausted from extra shifts. A principle reason for this shortage of nurses is the shortage of nursing school faculty. Because of the faculty shortage many schools of nursing are turning away good students who would make good nurses.

I am pleased that my amendment which attaches the Nursing School Capacity Act, H.R. 677, to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137) has been accepted in the bill passed in the House. I thank Representative Welch and Representative Capps, one of the Co-Chairs of the House Nursing Caucus, for cosponsoring this amendment with me. H.R. 677, which has 76 cosponsors, directs the Institute of Medicine to study the constraints experienced by schools of nursing in admitting and graduating enough nurses to meet growing needs.

I appreciate that House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller accepted our amendment and incorporated it into his Manager's Amendment. Today's action shows that Congress understands the healthcare crisis facing states like New Jersey.

The study my amendment directs will explore the constraints that our nation's schools of nursing face and propose short and long term solutions to address the nursing crisis. I look forward to reviewing the study's recommendations and working to implement them before the quality of care suffers.

Over the years, I have heard from many nursing professionals from New Jersey about the nursing crisis, particularly the inability of nursing schools to meet growing workforce demands. In fact, a study from the National League of Nursing states that in 2004, nursing schools were forced to turn down 147,000 qualified applicants due to a lack of faculty. That is why I first introduced the Nursing School Capacity Act three years ago, and why I am excited that it's close to becoming law today.

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Nurses Association, the American Organization of Nurse Executives and the New Jersey Hospital Association all endorsed the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that their endorsement letters be included in the Record.

We have not solved the nursing crisis with today's action, but we have taken a step in better understanding the problem.

February 4, 2008.

Hon. Rush Holt,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Holt: On behalf of the American

Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the American

Nurses Association, we would like to thank you for offering

the language included in the Nursing School Capacity Act of

2007 (H.R. 677) as an amendment to the College Opportunity

and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137).

Over the past decade, the inability to increase the supply

of nurses has become more apparent as the challenges faced by

nursing education programs have intensified. These challenges

force schools of nursing to turn away thousands of qualified

applicants each year. According to a 2006 AACN report, U.S.

nursing schools turned away 42,866 qualified applicants due

to an insufficient number of faculty, clinical sites,

classroom space, clinical preceptors, and budget constraints.

Almost three quarters of the nursing schools responding to

AACN's survey pointed to faculty shortages as a primary

reason for not accepting all qualified applicants into

nursing programs. A Special Survey on Vacant Faculty

Positions released by AACN in July 2007, reported a total of

767 faculty vacancies (8.8 percent vacancy rate) identified

at 329 nursing schools with baccalaureate and/or graduate

programs across the country.

Clearly, the obstacles faced by schools of nursing in

attempting to increase enrollment and graduations are vastly

complex and warrant further investigation. Your bill will

facilitate the discussion of these constraints and help

explore solutions to overcome the barriers that are

preventing potential students from entering the nursing

profession. In addition, your bill calls for recommendations

to be made by the Institute of Medicine which will serve as a

valuable resource for policy-makers as well as the health,

industry, and education systems.

AACN and ANA sincerely appreciate your willingness to

thoroughly investigate the nursing and nurse faculty shortage

through the Nursing School Capacity Act.

Sincerely,

American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

American Nurses Association.

American Organization of

Nurse Executives,

Washington, DC, February 4, 2008.

Hon. Rush Holt,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Holt: On behalf of the over 6000 members

of the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE)

representing nurses in all facets of executive practice, we

would like to express our strong support for the amendment

that you and Representative Welch are prepared to offer to

H.R. 4147 the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of

2000. The amendment incorporates the language of your bill

H.R. 677, the Nursing School Capacity Act into a more

comprehensive piece of legislation and would provide the

nursing and health care communities with important research

into the underlying causes of the nursing shortage.

The majority of AONE's membership of registered

professional nurses are leaders in the day-to-day management

and delivery of direct patient care services. In this

position, we have been able to see first hand the impacts of

the worsening nursing shortage and applaud your efforts to

address this critical situation through the provision of

study to be conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the

National Academy of Sciences. Understanding that the nursing

shortage is the result of the convergence of a number of

factors, your proposed legislation would identify the

constraints encountered by schools of nursing in admitting

and graduating the number of registered nurses to ensure

patient safety but it would also propose recommendations to

alleviate the constraints on a short-term and long-term

basis.

AONE has been in the forefront of attempts to deal with the

nursing shortage and welcomes the opportunity to participate

in the proposed study as a consultant in partnership with the

other relevant organizations named in your legislation. AONE

has focused on the work environment and the educational

preparation of the nurse of the future. We see our past and

current work as integral to the study you have proposed. Your

legislation provides a comprehensive approach to identifying

and quantifying the factors that have contributed to the

shortage such as regulatory barriers, educational

preparation, salary and benefit structures, and

characteristics of the workplace.

AONE applauds your efforts and those of Mr. Welch to

include this needed legislation as an amendment to H.R. 4147

the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.

Sincerely,

Carol A. Watson,

President.

Pamela A. Thompson,

Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Mr. McKeon for producing a strong piece of legislation. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act does what the name suggests. It expands affordability and access to college education for the broadest range of Americans. It expands Pell Grants, the basis of financial aid, and I'm pleased to say it allows Pell Grants to be used year round and for certificate programs and part-time students, something I have been working on for a long time.

The bill does many other things, including some initiatives that I have been working on. It empowers small and community colleges to provide child care programs so that working mothers can attend school. It includes grants and loan forgiveness for math and science students who pledge to conduct service in math and science fields after graduation. It includes grants for foreign language partnerships between local schools and language departments at institutions of higher learning and grants to institutions that will combine science with foreign languages.

I am pleased that in the Education and Labor Committee we were able to pass an amendment so that this bill would create an Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education.

I am pleased to note further that the bill will direct the Institute of Medicine to study how to deal with the shortage of nurses that's created by the shortage of nursing faculty.

These initiatives are part of a large effort to make it easier for students to finance their education and an effort to strengthen the quality of education that they receive. This is a good bill. I look forward to working with Members of both parties to see it become law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Thomas Gorrie, Johnson & Johnson's Corporate Vice President for Government Affairs & Policy on his retirement from the company.

Johnson & Johnson has a long history as a New Jersey-based company, starting as it did making bandages and emerging over the years to become the world's largest health-care company. I am proud to represent many thousands of Johnson & Johnson's employees, including Dr. Gorrie, who is also a friend and neighbor. He has informed me of his plan to retire from Johnson & Johnson on March 1, 2008 after a productive 35 years of service, and I want to take a moment today to pay tribute to his lifetime of service and accomplishments.

My colleagues here in the House may be familiar with Dr. Gorrie's work, even if they have not personally met him. Under his leadership he brought Johnson & Johnson to Congress by establishing the Johnson & Johnson Day on the Hill, where new pharmaceuticals, breakthrough technology and medical devices are on display for Members and staff to learn about and in the case of the iBOT, a power wheelchair, take it out for a spin.

Born and raised in New Jersey, Dr. Gorrie received his bachelor of arts degree from Rutgers University and his masters and doctorate degrees in chemistry from Princeton University.

After completion of post-doctoral studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Dr. Gorrie began his career with Johnson & Johnson in 1972 as a senior research scientist in the medical device area. He subsequently held positions of increasing responsibility in marketing, sales, and general management, including Company Group Chairman and Worldwide Franchise Chairman of Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., and member of the Consumer Pharmaceuticals and Professional Operating Group. He then worked with the Johnson & Johnson Development Corporation before assuming his current position as world- wide head of government affairs and policy in 1999.

Tom is an active member of his community and currently serves on numerous non-profit boards. He is Chair of the Duke University Health System, a member of the Board of Directors of Duke University, and a Trustee Emeritus of the Board for the Hun School of Princeton. He is a member of the Board of the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations and Vice Chair of the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment (CAEFI). Finally, he is an adjunct professor at one of our state's finest educational facilities, the Rutgers Business School.

The way that Dr. Gorrie imbues all of his work with admirable ethics is reflected in this book he edited a few years ago, ``Ethics and the Pharmaceutical Industry.'' For the book Dr. Gorrie brought together representatives of industry, government, NGOs, and leading thinkers in medicine, health ethics and economics to propose solutions and safeguards to the many ethical challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry. The book touched on such topics as the ethical demands and economic constraints of drug research, the right of patients to participate in clinical trials, the regulation of prescription drugs and intellectual property rights. I was pleased to write a chapter on how government should regulate stem-cell research. As Congress continues to debate many of the issues the book explores, I recommend its scholarship to my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, Johnson & Johnson is one of America's leading and most innovative pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device and consumer healthcare companies. I commend Dr. Gorrie's service at Johnson & Johnson. I know we have all benefited from Dr. Gorrie's leadership during the past 35 years, and as he continues to increase his civic participation, many will continue to benefit from Tom's vision and talents.

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the United States of America has remained for more than two centuries a model to the world is the constitutional promise of the first amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

I did not vote against H. Res. 847, but I strongly believe it should never have been brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. It is appropriate for Congress to address moral and ethical issues of societal import, but not issues of religious import. Congress should not legislate on whether Jesus is peoples' ``savior'' or whether Christmas symbolizes ``God's redemption and mercy.'' Despite some good phrases, H. Res. 847 was inappropriate legislation that deserved neither a ``yes'' nor a ``no.'' I voted present, as I have occasionally done for legislation that I believe should never have been brought forward.

Those of us who practice our deeply held religious beliefs are able to worship more freely than anywhere else in the world because of this important protection that our founders installed so wisely. My Christian religious faith not only supports my entire life and dedication to service; it also leads me often to speak out on religious tolerance in the world.

Some people have noted that earlier this year I had voted to honor the Muslim observance of Ramadan and then recently refused to vote to honor Christmas. That is not really true. In October I voted in favor of a resolution that at the time of the Muslim Ramadan expressed ``friendship'' and ``respect'' for Muslims and commended Muslims who reject ``hatred'' and ``bigotry'' and who present Islam as supporting ``tolerance and full civil and political rights.'' That was a message of societal and political import, not religious, and different in tone and content from the recent resolution celebrating Christmas.

That is the way I see it, and when it comes to votes on the floor of the House, I call them as I see them. I trust my constituents will see

it as a thoughtful and conscientious vote, even if they disagree with it.

Madam Speaker, the government often negotiates agreements or promulgates regulations that may produce unintended consequences for certain individuals. In such instances, Congress will review the implementation of the law and try to rectify those unintended problems even if the general requirements should remain. For example, exemptions are made in transportation regulations, Government land use, and trade legislation. Such is the case with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which was enacted in 1989. Since then Congress has acted occasionally to reduce, suspend, or repeal duties on certain imports as a matter of economic fairness and competitiveness.

Tariffs serve not only to raise revenue for the Government, but also to benefit American business and industry and holdings. Tariffs are notoriously complicated in their effects, and the policies are very difficult to get right.

Each of the nine bills I prepared recently would either suspend or reduce the import duty on a specific chemical compound. Each bill and the chemical compound in question is publicly available and open for all to see and comment on. I believe such openness is an important part of effective Government.

By suspending the import duty on products not made domestically in the United States, Congress can remove an economic barrier that might send production abroad--taking with it good-paying jobs--and also can help lower costs to consumers for the final products. These bills were all submitted to comply with procedures and criteria set by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade. None of the chemical compounds is manufactured in the U.S., the value of each of the requested duty suspensions is no more than $500,000, and their suspensions can be enforced by U.S. Customs officials. The products produced using the imported feedstocks are deemed to be desirable to produce and use in the U.S.

Introduction of the bills is just the beginning of a long process of scrutiny by the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Department of Commerce. Each one will seek information about potential domestic production, present and future imports, and will research the revenue loss associated with the suspension. Additionally, the Subcommittee on Trade will solicit public comment from all interested parties. An objection at any point throughout this process can disqualify the product for further consideration. At the end of this process, the Committee on Ways and Means will put together a miscellaneous tariff bill that includes hundreds of items that have met these rigorous criteria. I expect that temporarily suspending the duty on the nine products I have requested will help our local economy by making American manufacturers more competitive in the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, the House made a serious mistake last August when it passed the Protect America Act. I opposed the legislation at the time because it authorized a massive, unregulated electronic fishing expedition, an approach guaranteed to ensnare innocent Americans and a sloppy, inefficient way to collect intelligence. It lacks the basic standard of court review of the government's actions.

If we have learned anything, it is when officials must establish before an independent court that they know what they are doing when they collect communications, we get better intelligence than we do through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions.

Extending the PAA is unnecessary because existing orders issued under it will continue for a year and are broad enough in scope to deal with any contingencies that may arise.

In November we passed in this body a good bill to replace the PAA. Congress should never pass legislation under duress brought on by propaganda, misinformation, and fear-mongering. I urge my colleagues to remember this when we debate the topic today.

Mr. Speaker, later this week Congress will return to the issue of how best to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In November in this House of Representatives, we passed a very good bill. We would do well to observe the principles established in that bill.

Any final review of domestic surveillance passed by Congress should include court review of executive branch actions. The reason for this requirement is quite simple. Having a legal standard of review provides us both better intelligence and better civil liberty protections for our people. It is simple. It has been demonstrated that when officials must establish before an independent court that they know what they are doing, that they have reason to intercept communications, we get better intelligence. And, of course, that's the point, to have the intelligence to protect the American people from indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions. Those are not productive.

In November, we passed a bill that would do this, the RESTORE Act. That bill guarantees court review of executive branch actions related to surveillance activities. I would commend that bill to this House.

Mr. Chairman, there's no question that mining has been a dangerous job. And today coal mining is rated among the most dangerous occupations in America. It does not have to be that way.

As a scientist, I've paid some attention to mine safety technology, but I also feel strongly about the concerns of those working in mines because I was born and raised in West Virginia, where my father, many years ago, as a member of the House of Delegates, and later

in the Senate, was known as one of the best friends the miner ever had.

As an original cosponsor of the S-MINER Act, I want to thank Chairman Miller and our staff for recognizing the importance of getting communications technology, currently existing, and that being developed, into the mines as quickly as possible.

This bill improves the work of the previous Congress by requiring that enhanced communications and miner tracking systems be installed immediately upon enactment.

I remain troubled that the Mine Safety and Health Administration and mine operators have delayed getting promising technology into the mines. It is really heartrending to share in the terror and tragedy of miners stranded without communication.

A year ago, NIOSH reached an agreement with the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Research Center at Fort Monmouth in New Jersey to test and develop the KUTTA communications system because communications on the battlefield and in noisy environments subject to disruptions have lessons for communications in the mines.

Mr. Chairman, MSHA has not acted with the urgency needed to prevent future miner fatalities. Today Congress is acting.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because, in the wake of the Sago and Darby and Crandall Canyon mine tragedies, we should not have to face more families who have faced these tragedies, and we should do everything we can to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was originally enacted in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans paid at least some income taxes--like everybody else. Before the AMT, the richest Americans could unfairly dodge their taxes by using deductions to sidestep their social obligations. However, what began at the end of the Johnson administration as an attempt to guarantee that the top few hundred Americans pay their fair share of taxes--has not been indexed for inflation and as a result has slowly morphed into a middle-class tax hike.

More families in Central New Jersey are affected by the AMT than anywhere else in the country. Currently 33,292 of my constituents are hit by the AMT and this number will increase to 121,503 if we do not take action today.

Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill should have been paid for. I voted twice now for appropriate offsets to ensure that we keep our promise to the American people that we will not continue to spend money that this Congress does not have. We can not continue to borrow money from China and other countries in order to pay for the choices we make today. It is our children and grandchildren that will be forced to pay this debt around the world. Unfortunately President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to worry about the costs of this bill and the effect it will have on the next generation. I will continue to support my colleagues in making sure increase in spending or cuts in taxes are paid for and that next year we find an offset so that we do not pass this debt to the future generations.

However, with the prospect of having an additional 88,211 of my constituents pay the AMT, I believe we must move today to enact an AMT fix. We cannot make the middle class pay for the failures of the administration. I urge all my colleagues to support this important tax reform that will help middle class families from unfair tax burden.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to Patriot Week in Trenton, New Jersey. On December 26, 1776, Colonial soldiers under the command of General George Washington crossed the Delaware River and engaged in the first Battle of Trenton. As Thomas Paine wrote, this happened during ``times that try men's souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.''

On this historic day more than two centuries ago, over 2,400 patriots proved that they were not summer soldiers, battling their way through a winter sleet storm, strong winds and the ice-strewn Delaware River. Against all odds, Washington and his soldiers completed the crossing, marched silently to Trenton on Christmas night with cannon, and arrived taking the Hessian garrison by surprise. This engagement, followed by the pivotal Battle of Princeton, has been called ``the beginning of the winning.''

The crossing of the Delaware is a story that must be told again and again so all generations will know this feat and the new life it gave the American Revolution. On December 26 through 31 of this year, again this year, the Trenton Downtown Association will celebrate the 131st anniversary of this history-changing event through Patriot Week, the largest Revolutionary War festival in America.

Patriot Week in the Trenton area will include over 50 events, including the reenactment of Washington's crossing of the Delaware, puppet shows and other children's activities, tours by bus and on foot, and lectures and panel discussions. These events will help pass down this great and important story to our children and to adults, the story of the War for Independence. I am sure these events will be both informative and entertaining, as they have been in previous years, and I look forward to attending some of these events myself.

I am proud that in my central New Jersey district we honor the sacrifices that were made to found this great Nation through events like Patriot Week and through the Crossroads of the American Revolution which commemorates 14 counties in New Jersey where the War for Independence took place.

However, our battles against Britain for a free and democratic nation took place in over 19 States and over two wars, and each of these States has its own unique story about its role in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Many States, however, have not taken sufficient steps to preserve the sites of those battles. Out of the 825 significant battlefields and associated sites of the American Revolution and the War of 1812, more than 100 of these battlefields have been lost, about 250 are in fragmented or poor condition, and another 220 are in danger of being destroyed within the next few years. Therefore, some of us have sponsored here in the House of Representatives the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act, H.R. 160, and the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Commemorative Coin Act, H.R. 158. H.R. 160 would create a national program for the preservation of historic battlefields. It would allow officials of the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments and nonprofit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites and to provide up to 50 percent of the cost of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. H.R. 158 would provide the necessary funding for these purchases by authorizing the creation and issuance of commemorative coins for these two wars.

History is best understood by those who have had the opportunity to touch it, experience it and live it. On December 26 through 31, over 4,000 people will be reliving the history of the Battle of Trenton during Patriot Week. It is my hope that Congress will pass H.R. 160 and H.R. 158 to allow other States the privilege of preserving their historic battlefields where their citizens, and

all citizens, can experience the history of the founding of our great Nation.

Madam Speaker, the conference report in front of us today, imperfect as it is, addresses several key issues facing our intelligence community today: attracting and retaining people with foreign languages and cultures; bringing speed to security clearance processes for new hires; the provision directing the Director of National Intelligence to establish a multilevel security clearance process; and a number of other things.

But as the person appointed by Speaker Pelosi to chair the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, I'm especially interested and supportive of the provisions of this legislation that will improve the ability of Congress to exert oversight of the intelligence activities of this country, such as requirements that the intelligence community report to Congress and requirements that strengthen the Inspectors General in the intelligence community.

Intelligence is among the most important functions of our government because intelligence can save lives, prevent war, and assist our soldiers and protect Americans. But it is also among the most dangerous, dangerous because of the damage of intelligence poorly done, the damage that can be done to American interests and America's reputation and the freedoms and humane behavior that Americans hold dear. So these oversight provisions are particularly important.

Another provision of this legislation that I'm pleased to see is the requirement that the DNI produce National Intelligence Estimates on Iran and North Korea. I'm pleased to see that it seems that some reforms are now reflected in the way that the intelligence community does these National Intelligence Estimates. The recent Iran report appears to be a product of a reformed intelligence process.

Now, I've argued for years that we should have only one policy on how to handle detainees, and this bill addresses that issue head-on by requiring that the U.S. Government personnel and contractors, anyone involved in detainee operations, adhere to the Army Field Manual.

The bottom line is this: no torture of detainees, period. I'm thankful that we're finally taking that issue straight on; and in light of last week's news involving the CIA's detainee operations, I think it's clear that we still have more work to do.

The revelations surrounding and the ongoing investigations of the CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations only underscore why Congress must establish clear policies for the video recording of detainee interrogations. I'm offering legislation in addition to what we're dealing with today that will deal with this, and I look forward to working with Chairman Reyes and the House leadership to bring that measure to the floor for a vote very soon.