Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the commemoration of the 44th Anniversary of the death of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which would become known as Freedom Summer. I would like to thank my fellow Judiciary member and the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis for introducing this legislation.

The right to vote has held a central place in the black freedom struggle. After emancipation, African Americans sought the ballot as a means to in American society. During the summer of 1964, thousands of civil rights activists, many of them white college students from the North, descended on Mississippi and other Southern states to try to end the long-time political disenfranchisement of African Americans in the region. Although blacks had won the right to vote in 1870, thanks to the Fifteenth Amendment, for the next 100 years many were unable to exercise that right. White local and state officials systematically kept blacks from voting through formal methods, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, and through cruder methods of fear and intimidation, which included beatings and lynchings.

Freedom Summer marked the climax of intensive voter-registration activities in the South that had started in 1961. Organizers chose to focus their efforts on Mississippi because of the State's particularly dismal voting-rights record: in 1962 only 6.7 percent of African Americans in the State were registered to vote, the lowest percentage in the country. The Freedom Summer campaign was organized by a coalition called the Mississippi Council of Federated Organizations, which was led by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

Freedom Summer activists faced threats and harassment throughout the campaign, not only from white supremacist groups, but from local residents and police. Freedom School buildings and the volunteers' homes were frequent targets; 37 black churches and 30 black homes and businesses were firebombed or burned during that summer, and the cases often went unsolved. More than 1000 black and white volunteers were arrested, and at least 80 were beaten by white mobs or racist police officers.

But the summer's most infamous act of violence was the murder of three young civil rights workers--a black volunteer, James Chaney, and his white coworkers, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. On June 21, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner set out to investigate a church bombing near Philadelphia, Mississippi, but were arrested that afternoon and held for several hours on alleged traffic violations. Their release from jail was the last time they were seen alive before their badly decomposed bodies were discovered under a nearby dam six weeks later. Goodman and Schwerner had died from single gunshot wounds to the chest, and Chaney from a savage beating. These savage attacks were perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan.

The FBI investigation that uncovered the deaths of these three brave young men, white and black, also led to the discovery of the bodies of several other African-Americans from Mississippi, whose disappearances over the years had not attracted much attention.

On December 4, 1964, 21 White Mississippians from Philadelphia, Mississippi, including the sheriff and his deputy, were arrested and charged with conspiring to deprive Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner of their civil rights, because murder was not a Federal crime. Ironically, on the very same day, December 4, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Later, a District Court judge dismissed the charges against the 21 Whites. After three years, and an appeal to the Supreme Court, seven individuals were found guilty, but 2 of the defendants, including Edgar Ray Killen, who had been implicated by witnesses, were acquitted because the jury was deadlocked on charges.

Over twenty years later, on June 21, 2005 after new evidence, a jury convicted Edgar Ray Killen on 3 counts of manslaughter. These freedom riders made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of all people, black and white. It is fitting that we recognize them and pay tribute, respect, and homage to them, and to the legacy that they have left behind.

We commemorate and acknowledge the legacy of these brave Americans who participated in the civil rights movement and the role they played in changing the hearts and minds of Americans. We also celebrate these Americans for their decision to create a political environment necessary to pass legislation to expand civil rights and voting rights for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6344 the ``Responsive Government Act of 2008. This bill is important because it liberalizes the technical filing requirements in judicial proceedings in the event of a disaster or other emergency situation. The bill provides flexibility in both criminal and civil matters, including patents. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Hurricane Katrina was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States. It was the sixth- strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States. Katrina formed on August 23 during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and caused devastation along much of the north-central gulf coast of the United States. Most notable in media coverage were the catastrophic effects on the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, and in coastal Mississippi. Due to its sheer size, Katrina devastated the gulf coast as far as 100 miles from the storm's epicenter.

The images of the detriment and devastation remain deeply etched in my mind and much of the remnants of the tragedy still remain in those communities today. The storm surge caused severe and catastrophic damage along the gulf coast, devastating the cities of Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Biloxi/Gulfport in Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama, and Slidell, Louisiana and other towns in Louisiana. Levees separating Lake Pontchartrain and several canals from New Orleans were breached a few days after Hurricane Katrina had subsided, subsequently flooding 80 percent of the city and many areas of neighboring parishes for weeks. In addition, severe wind damage was reported well inland.

This commonsense bill recognizes that deadlines in judicial proceeding need to be relaxed when there are natural disasters and emergencies. I support the bill.

Specifically, the bill provides federal courts with needed emergency authority to toll or delay judicial proceedings in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation in which courts are closed, making it impracticable for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing deadlines.

Section 3 of the bill provides authority to the Director of the Patent and Trademark office to waive statutory provisions governing patents, trademark registrations and applications to the extent the Director deems necessary to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster.

The Responsive Government Act provides essential flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations.

Finally, Section 4 provides the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office with the discretion to accept an application for a patent term extension filed not later than three days after the expiration of the 60-day period in Title 35 U.S.C. 156, provided the Director determines that the delay in filing the application was unintentional.

This provision, which corrects an anomaly in the patent law, will provide needed flexibility to the PTO to excuse minor filing errors and will promote important clinical research that can benefit the lives of seriously ill patients. This provision has the support of leading medical practitioners across the Nation.

This bill is common sense. It relaxes the technical filing requirements during times of disaster or emergency. Given the disaster and tough times that we have faced within the last 8 years, with disasters such as Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and the tragic events of 9/11, Congress needs to have a sensible response to these events. Litigants and patentees should not be penalized because of force majeur and other events beyond their control.

Because this bill is sensible, responsible legislation, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1229, recognizing the achievements of America's high school valedictorians of the graduating class of 2008, promoting the importance of encouraging intellectual growth, and rewarding academic excellence of all American high school students, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Gregory Meeks, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This bill is an important step in continuing and promoting the excellent secondary education that our nation provides.

This legislation recognizes the fine accomplishments of the graduating class of 2008 and commends them for their intellectual pursuits as well as their academic achievements. This bill, furthermore, recognizes the family members, teachers, school administrators, and community members that have nurtured the intellectual growth and rewarded the academic achievements of this year's valedictorians and graduating seniors.

This year, valedictorians across America have succeeded in tremendous academic endeavors. Whether by inspiring their fellow classmates to study a little longer for a test, or by tutoring them to write an essay, valedictorians have acted as noteworthy role models to their peers. Furthermore, through their hard work and dedications, they have enriched their academic communities.

It is further important that we recognize that valedictorians often engage in extracurricular activities, enriching their local communities and the nation by furthering economic, cultural, and social accomplishments. By volunteering their time in soup kitchens, acting as captain of the soccer team or chess club, or simply taking an after- school job, valedictorians learn more than math and English, they learn to contribute significantly to our society.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I recognize the importance of today's youth. Valedictorians as well as graduating seniors of 2008 will become the future businessmen, leaders, teachers, and scientists that lead this nation. They will use their extraordinary talents to make the world a better place. As thus, it is important for them to continue to cultivate their strengths by attending one of the many universities that this great nation has to offer. I support this legislation that encourages valedictorians and the graduating class of 2008 as a whole, to further their intellectual inquiry and academic studies beyond their secondary education.

With over 15,000 of our nation's schools recognizing this year's valedictorians as the highest academically-ranked students in their graduating class, the members of Congress, as representatives of our nation, must recognize these talented individuals for their hard work. By doing so, we demonstrate the importance of education and show our support for the continued hard work of students across the country. Without this official recognition, talented youth may not feel support which can push them to achieve high goals, such as past valedictorians and the valedictorians of the 2008 graduating class have achieved. I feel strongly that this bill is a step toward providing support for students.

This legislation is imperative to recognizing the achievement of the graduating class of 2008, supporting social engagements by graduating seniors to better our communities, and promoting continued intellectual pursuits by these men and women at colleges and universities. As the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, a Representative of the people of the United States, and a mother of two, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 372, Supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and to honor the outstanding contributions that African American singers and musicians have made to the United States, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Kilpatrick. This important resolution honors, recognizes, preserves, and promotes the legacy

and contributions that Black Music and African American singers and musicians have made to our great Nation.

Black Music has been woven into the fabric of American Society for centuries, deeply impacting hundreds of generations. The music of African-Americans is the music of America, and has historically transcended social, economic, and racial barriers to unite people of all backgrounds. African American artists, songwriters, producers, engineers, educators, executives, and other professionals in the music industry provide inspiration and leadership through their creation of music, and their value to the African American community cannot be overstated.

African-American music is indigenous to the United States and originates from African genres of music. From gospel, blues, jazz, rhythm and blues, rap, and hip-hop, African Americans musical roots can be heard throughout many musical genres that we love today. African- American music has had a pervasive influence on dance, fashion, language, art, literature, cinema, media, advertisements, and other aspects of culture and this legislation commends its pervasive influence. Furthermore, Black music has helped African-Americans endure great suffering and overcome injustice with courage and faith. Civil rights demonstrators often marched to the cadence of many songs written and composed as gospels or spirituals that were created on the fields of slaves.

As we know, African-American music is an American art form that has spanned throughout hundreds of years. Its musical elements can be heard melodiously infused in many genres that we love today. It has grown beyond its roots to achieve pop-culture and historical relevance, touching audiences around the world. According to the Gospel Music Channel, ``Gospel music sales now account for nearly 8 percent of all music purchased in the United States, selling seven CDs for every ten purchased in country music.''

Regardless of their musical styles, artists have turned to Black music as the source and inspiration for their own music, which has blurred the boundaries between secular and Gospel music. African- American musicians have played a significant role in inspiring people across the generations in America and around the world with their vision and creativity by writing lyrics which speak to the human experience and express heartfelt emotion. This important legislation requests and authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

In 1979, President Carter first declared June as Black Music Month, an honor that has yearly repeated by the designation of National Black Music Month by all concurrent Presidents. African-American musicians have helped shape our national character and have become an important part of our musical heritage and African-American music has millions of fans of different races and ages in cities and towns all across the United States. I am proud to support this legislation that honors the outstanding contributions that African-American singers, musicians, composers, and producers have made to this country and call on the people of the United States to take the opportunity to study, reflect on, and celebrate the majesty, vitality, and importance of African- American music.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation that supports the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and I urge all my colleagues to join me in so doing.

I want to thank my distinguished friend, Congressman Ed Towns. I think it's important to note of his leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee for any number of years. We have joined together on understanding this issue as it impacts our very broad communities.

The distinguished Congressman, as I note, my good friend from Georgia, is on the floor as well. We all come from different districts. He comes from an urban-centered northeastern district that has mass transit very deeply, but as well it's interesting to note that the cost of gasoline impacts all of our constituents.

I come from a broad, if you will, expensive district in the State of Texas that has not only a fledgling metro system, a metro system that we are just beginning to build, mass transit, but as well it is a community that uses its cars.

We carpool. We carpool to work. We live very far apart. It is a very large district. Therefore, the cost of gasoline is very, very costly. So we have to come together to address this question from the perspective of how will the consumer feel? We know there has been a question, a bracelet everybody used to wear asking the question how would a certain heavenly person feel about a question. We now ask, how does the consumer feel?

So I rise today to say that I think it is important for this Congress to come together and to be able to push forward an energy agenda that really gets down to the real individuals that are burdened by this cause. So let me explain, Mr. Towns, what I believe is important.

First, let me applaud the leadership for their new direction in energy. It is an important direction. It is a greening direction. It focuses on alternatives. It focuses on creating green jobs and getting a sense of understanding about the smallness of the resources that are

available now, the fossil fuel and other energy resources that need to be utilized, and therefore it is important to, if you will, impress upon Americans the value of conservation. But, at the same time, I think there are a lot of other issues that we can discuss.

I believe we should accept the premise that there are a number of energy resources that this Congress needs to address. For example, I come from Texas, and obviously we utilize fossil fuel. I think it is important to recognize that fossil fuel is present, but I think we need to emphasize looking at independent producers. They were very prominent in years past. These are smaller companies.

I do believe we need to look at where we are exploring off the Gulf, where those States of Louisiana and Texas have willingly accepted the exploration of the Gulf in a safe and environmental way.

Two or three years ago, Congressman Nick Lampson and myself passed legislation to encourage the Federal Government to do an inventory of what was available in terms of fossil fuel resources in the Gulf. I think it is important. We know that there are challenges to exploring the Outer Continental Shelf. There are challenges to exploring ANWR. There are challenges in exploring the coast off the East Coast and the California coast and the Florida coast. I believe those issues are issues that we have to work with the local jurisdictions and the governors and consumers for that to be a comfortable process.

But let us not get stuck on that. There are resources in the Gulf. We have found that there is oil shale, I believe, that has been discovered in West Virginia. There are other domestic resources that have been discovered in Mississippi. We need to be able to utilize and to be able to encourage the safe development of existing resources.

We know that our own multinational energy companies are holding leases they have not utilized. I believe it is important to call these individuals into Washington. The President needs to call these individuals into Washington, the heads of these major companies, and let us discuss why these oil leases are not being utilized, because there lies a possibility of additional resources.

Mr. Towns, you know that we have been discussing over the years the increasing of minority energy entrepreneurs. They come in all shapes and sizes. But I happen to know an energy company in the State of Texas, Osyka, that is held solely by African Americans with domestic deposits. They have resources. But what do they need? They need investment. They are not overseas. They are right here in the United States, but they need investment.

So I think there are a lot of small, independent producers that the legislative scheme here in the United States does not foster their development, does not provide them access to capital, does not allow them to build on the resources that they have. You can be assured that the more resources we put out allows us to have the ability to bring down the cost of gasoline.

Let me add an additional point that I think should be considered. When you talk to the multinationals about the cost of gasoline, they will refer you to the antiquated refineries, that they need to build more refineries. That too requires a coming together at the table. I believe we need to have a discussion so they can explain what does it mean by having an antiquated refinery?

There is a new refinery being built in East Texas and in Louisiana. That refinery took a long time to build. But maybe we need to update the refineries. I know that is a questionable proposal and policy to make them more environmentally efficient and safe. That is a key element to dealing with this.

Before I yield back and wait a moment as you yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, I want to cite some numbers that say that the Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent which are in the Persian Gulf.

Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol cannot only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to it our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction to foreign oil. These alternatives should be matched with domestic production. That may help a lot of these small interested producers.

Also the individual oil companies, the large ones who have leases here in the United States, we need to have an inventory and get a determination, as I said, as to why these leases are not being developed. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can replace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption.

So there are ways we can confront this issue. One other way, of course, is to develop more professionals, which we have discussed, and I want to discuss that later.

Let me conclude by saying we have a real crisis in addition to the cost of gasoline. That crisis includes jet fuel. We are seeing the merger of airlines and also a crisis in the airline industry because of the cost of jet fuel. That too impacts on our consumers.

So I frankly believe as we discuss this, Mr. Towns, we should talk about what speculators have done to the energy industry. We should talk about minority entrepreneurs who are able to participate in this industry. We should talk about independent producers. We should talk about greening America. We should talk about conservation. And really we should get to the bottom line of how we help our consumers. I think if we bring all these elements together, we will be able to do so.

I will yield back to the gentleman and will join you at a later time.

I thank you very much. I'm glad to have an opportunity to engage again and to thank Congressman Towns.

As I have listened to both Congressman Johnson and Congresswoman Lee, I hope that what is gleaned to our colleagues as they listen to us is that there is a consensus, a meeting of the minds, that we've got to do something different. I applaud Congresswoman Lee's collaboration with her mayor, Mayor Dellums.

As I was standing here, I was reflecting on the work that our city is doing. We have Mayor Bill White, but I'm quite familiar with the Apollo Alliance, and I was just thinking that it's time now for another meeting to be able to join in that kind of expansive effort.

So, if the Apollo Alliance is listening, let me congratulate them, and let me tell them to come on down to Texas. We've had some meetings early on, but it's the whole concept of educating individuals to change their lives.

You said something else, Congresswoman, about energy. You used the word ``energy'' and the words ``energy industry.'' That's coming from what we perceive to be the oil capital of the world--Houston, Texas. I want you to know a lot of hardworking people are working in the energy industry, and they, too, see a new world of alternative fuels and also an opportunity to match, if you will, efficiently explored fossil fuels, because it does exist. There is something called ``clean coal.'' As I indicated to you, there is something in the gulf, outside of your birthplace in Texas and Louisiana, where they have been quietly exploring oil and gas for a number of years, and it has been efficient. Even during Hurricane Katrina we noted that those rigs still stayed safe in the gulf. So we can find ways to combine these efforts.

As I listened to Congressman Johnson and he took us chronologically to 2001, I want to remind him that post 2001, in 2002, there was created the havoc and the travesty and obviously, as he indicated, the crisis of the Iraq war. Whether or not the Iraq war was for oil, as has been debated, it destabilized the region. When you destabilize the region where all of the oil is coming from, you obviously dumb down the resources coming from that area.

But I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues that we know that Saudi Arabia, in this meeting that they've held in the last 48 hours, has suggested that they will increase oil production by 200,000 barrels a day to 9.7 million barrels a day, starting on July 1, in response to the current energy crisis.

The concern there, of course, is that China is increasing its needs, and even though we're sort of plateauing out, I do believe that this is an issue that might not be resolved by the increase in the per barrel per day, meaning the 200,000 barrels per day.

We need a summit. We need a summit here in the United States. We need to get all of the parties together, discussing these components--the high gasoline price, the lack of utilization of the independent producers, not giving capital an access to African Americans and to other minorities who, in fact, might be good stewards of the energy resources, such as those who are finding oil in the Deep South, such as those who are engaged in green and in alternative fuels such as wind.

I offered a bill on cellulosic ethanol, which, I think, is really one of the next steps. Of course, this was embodied in the Democratic conservation bill that included cellulosic ethanol. I know there has been debate over corn ethanol, but here is an approach: Through cellulosic ethanol, costly though it may be, it has a long-term impact.

I also believe it's important to support the legislation that has been offered by two of our colleagues--one to be, I believe, John Larson, who is moving forward on legislation that has to do with the speculator. We have heard, even today, oil analysts who have said that the speculators are adding an artificial price. In fact, the Enron loophole that was offered by Senator Graham has given a whole array, a whole new industry on speculation, and more and more energy companies are pulling back from that. They're dealing with their own product and with their own need, and I want to applaud them for that.

I want to cite Representative Van Hollen's Energy Markets Anti- Manipulation and Integrity Restoration Act. I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation. I think it's important. I voted to stop the filling on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will help American families by temporarily diverting the 70,000 barrels of oil that goes to the SPR a day and putting them out on the market.

What I think is important, again, Congressman Towns, is that we're not

having face-to-face discussions. I asked the question of one of the members of OPEC: What would be the possibility of Members of Congress being observers at the OPEC meeting?

The OPEC meeting has large numbers of African countries. It has large numbers of countries from South America. Then, of course, it has those from the Middle East. I, frankly, believe it's somewhat similar to treaty discussions, that it's somewhat similar to the discussion on race in South Africa when they were on track, that it's somewhat similar to the United Nations. It would be Members of Congress' representing the most powerful law-making body in the world, as described by others, their being able to go to the OPEC meetings as observers and understanding the process of how this oil and gas moves.

This does not diminish the call for conservation. But I do think it will open our eyes.

If I may quickly conclude so my distinguished friend from Georgia, who has made some valid points about the Iraq war that we are still suffering, I was reading something, Congressman Johnson, about the condition of the Iraq oil wells and the difficulty of bringing them online and the need for U.S. investment or other investment.

It is interesting, a lot of people think we are making a lot of money in Iraq; we are spending a lot of money in Iraq, I will tell you that.

Let me say this. I will thank all three of my colleagues. I will continue to work and pursue an answer. The Representative indicated he was very interested, and would go back and ask. The meeting is in September and I will pursue that. I don't have the exact location, but I believe it is in Europe. If so, it would be easy for us to go.

I think the other part would be to give the energy leadership of these multinationals, and obviously they are in my congressional district, but a forum to be able to have a conversation outside of a hearing setting. We need to ask the hard questions. We need to ask how much of the cost of gasoline is the refinery cost? How much of the cost of jet fuel is refinery cost? What is attributable to having old refineries, and what can you do to make the energy name of your industry more diverse, to have more green and more alternatives such as wind and biomass.

I am told that wind is very expensive, but you can't get that answer if we are not sitting down at the table.

I thank the gentleman for the idea of a summit. We may work on that. Let me conclude by saying we have been working in this Congress. I don't want anyone to think that we have not been sensitive. You listed a whole road map that you, Mr. Towns, as a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee have been very much involved in. For example, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, a combination of the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy Committee, which I think is very important because it encourages the development of innovative technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, shifting production to cleaner renewable energy, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.

The note I want to end on is we have to get more young people involved.

And that is very important.

What I want to end on is we must get more of our young people involved in the energy industry. We worked on this, Congressman Towns. We had a bill about geologists. I have listened to Congresswoman Lee as the chairwoman of the Energy Brain Trust, and we are going to try and focus on that and push our communities, Hispanics and African Americans and other minorities and women, to get into this industry and provide their sensitivity and provide their perspective so that they can talk eloquently about what gasoline prices really mean when they are this high. And then to add to the broader community of America who is crying out for relief, I believe we can turn the corner, or we should, and to bring to all of America an opportunity to have reasonable energy resources, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, and reasonable gasoline prices; because, frankly, I don't think that we can last much longer if we don't bring relief.

I thank you for bringing this very important special order to the floor tonight.

You have given an eloquent summary of the crisis that I think most Americans are facing.

I would like us to move past these hot months that we have right now and begin to look forward into particularly the colder areas of America and begin to think about what is going to happen with heating fuel and this new coming winter season. We sort of got the tail end of the high price of gasoline sort of as we were leaving the winter months or as we were getting into the summer months, and we saw a crisis of people going on a vacation and taking their kids places during the summer facing this very high cost for gasoline per gallon.

But I met with some of my power companies who provide energy, and, of course, I am in a warmer climate than many of my colleagues. But I am concerned about what we will confront with natural gas and other fossil fuels that may be utilized for heating people's homes. What a crisis for elderly and others and families who can't afford their heating fuels.

So I believe that today on the floor of the House we have offered a suggestion. A summit doesn't mean 3,000 people. It means getting all of the parties together that can sit at the table. Get this energy industry at the table. Let them lay out what is a concept of your company, because energy for me means that you are diversified under the concept of energy, green energy, alternative biomass, begin to look at how we can lay down this roadmap.

And then I think, of course, we need to emphasize the environmentally safe exploration of drilling, as my colleague indicated, and the reason why I say that is because it's still going on in the gulf, not as they say--I know it's difficult in other areas. But in the gulf, it's still going on, and it should be environmentally safe.

Then I think as members of the Congressional Black Caucus we need some meetings with the heads of the nations in the Continent in Africa, Angola, Guinea Bassu, Nigeria. Ghana is finding oil. And it would be very helpful to sit down and have a discussion as to how their product can be marketed where there is--I know the bottom line has to do with dollars--but where there is a sense of morality, a sense of rightness on how that works. And again, it ties into my inquiry and outreach that I am going to make to OPEC because I think a lot of heads are better than none. And you listed all of the good works of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and I think it's important to note this is what the Democrats did.

But I want to invite people to come together during the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Towns, and we can join together under the energy brain trust. I must pay tribute to my predecessor, and you certainly knew him, Congressman Mickey Leland, who organized the brain trust, on the basis of getting a sense of morality in this industry. In fact, he was coming into it with another energy crisis that was certainly in that time.

So I believe that with all of the hidden resources that we still have, we will open resources that we can address. And the only reason why we're not coming together is I don't think that we're putting our heads together to be able to develop the kind of balanced policy that brings these people together.

I do want to make mention of the fact that I am looking forward to a roundtable discussion with leadership in my district. However, that is the beginning stages of what I think can be a larger question for this Congress to address, for leadership, for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for our caucus members to address, because our constituents and poor constituents and elderly constituents and ailing constituents are impacted by the high cost of gasoline and heating oil.

And I thank the distinguished gentleman for giving us an opportunity to raise these crucial issues that I believe have to be raised.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank Congressman Towns, and let me extend to my colleagues an invitation to come to Houston and let us have a summit, a discussion, beginning discussion for energy and getting a roadmap for energy.

I would like to thank my fellow CBC Member, Representative Tubbs- Jones for her consistent leadership on the issue of energy. ``I am proud to have worked with my dear colleague in the CBC on a number of occasions to promote a most energy responsible America.

We are all painfully aware of the devastation high energy prices have had on American families. This New Direction Congress, of which I am proud to be a part, is fighting to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down record gas prices, and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America that lowers costs and creates hundreds of thousands of green jobs.

It is undeniable that America, today, is in the midst of an energy crisis. Just this weekend, Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, announced that it will increase oil production by 200,000 barrels a day to 9.7 million barrels a day staring July 1st in response the current energy crisis. While this is an important step in the right direction, it is not enough. At a recent world economic forum in Doha, I called for Members of Congress and the United States Government to participate in OPEC's deliberations, in regards to energy production.

I am extremely supportive of the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Representative Van Hollen, The Energy Markets Anti-Manipulation and Integrity Restoration Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This important legislation would close the so-called Enron loophole by adding energy to the list of items that cannot be traded on deregulated ``exempt commercial markets'', as well as closing the Foreign Board of Trade (FBOT) loophole by forbidding an exchange from being deemed an unregulated foreign entity if its trading affiliate or trading infrastructure is in the U.S., and it trades a U.S.-delivered contract that significantly affects price discovery.

Just last month, I voted to stop the filling on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which will help American families by temporarily diverting the 70,000 barrels of oil that go into the SPR a day, and consequently has the potential to reduce gas prices from 5 to 24 cents a gallon, helping American families, businesses, and the economy as a whole.

There is an undeniable consensus on the importance of America achieving energy independence in the 21st century. It is critical that we terminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil, the majority of which are located in regions of the world which are unstable and in most circumstances, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more essential to our economic and national security than energy independence.

I was happy to vote for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, which is significant and comprehensive legislation that will make substantial strides towards energy independence for our Nation, while also encouraging the development of innovative technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, shifting production to clean and renewable energy, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.

In addition to being a representative from Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, for the past 12 years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action--to all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a whole.

Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. Bringing together thoughtful yet distinct voices to engage each other on the issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the extent that we as a nation achieve energy security and energy independence.

Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. The energy industry in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis.

That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country.

We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and economically viable energy policy.

Furthermore, I think it is imperative that we involve small, minority- and women-owned, and independent energy companies in this process because they represent some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy independence.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86 billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion (and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can create at home.

I believe that we should mandate environmentally safe and efficient exploration techniques in the Gulf Coast which energy companies have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to utilize. By ensuring access to increasing sources of energy in an environmentally conscious way, I believe we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

I support innovative solutions to our national energy crisis, such as my legislation which alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf. Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our nation's petroleum consumption.

Along with traditional production of ethanol from corn, cellulosic ethanol can be produced domestically from a variety of feedstocks, including switchgrass, corn stalks and municipal solid wastes, which are available throughout our nation. Cellulosic ethanol also relies on its own byproducts to fuel the refining process, yielding a positive energy balance. Whereas the potential production of traditional corn- based ethanol is about 10 billion gallons per year, the potential production of cellulosic ethanol is estimated to be 60 billion gallons per year.

In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. With its commitment to American biofuels, this legislation calls for a significant increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It encourages the diversification of American energy crops thus ensuring that biodiesel and cellulosic sources are key components in the America's drive to become energy independent.

By investing in renewable energy and increasing access to potential sources of energy, I believe we can be partners with responsible members of America's energy producing community in our collective goal of reaching energy independence.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 6304, the ``FISA Amendments Act of 2008.'' I am disappointed that I did not have the opportunity to restore my language regarding reverse targeting, which was included in the FISA legislation passed by the House. This body has worked diligently with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the civil liberties of American citizens are appropriately addressed. Sadly, this compromise bill, falls short of that aim. I will support no bill that fails to protect American civil liberties, both at home and abroad.

The bill contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks the strong language that I worked so diligently to include in the original House legislation sent to the Senate. In my view, the RESTORE Act is far superior to this piece of legislation. I wish to take a few moments to discuss the improvement that I offered to the RESTORE Act in the full Judiciary Committee markup, and which was sent over to the Senate for consideration just a few months ago.

My amendment, which was added during the markup, made a constructive contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting.

Reverse targeting is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with this legislation, as they did with its successor, the Protect America Act, is that the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of certain safeguards in the law to prevent it.

My amendment attempted to produce such safeguards. My amendment reduced even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States.

The amendment achieved this objective by requiring the administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.''

It is far from clear how the operative language ``reasonably designed to ensure that any acquisition authorized . . . is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.''

Yes. It is true that H.R. 6304, the compromise legislation, attempts to ensure that American civil liberties are protected, but the operative language in the legislation does not provide a paradigm for consistency. This is so because it does not provide an objective criterion. H.R. 6304 does not go as far as the legislation that the House sent over to the Senate a few months ago. H.R. 6304 does not retain the objective standards contained in my amendment.

The language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that long has been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson Lee amendment provided a clearer, more objective criterion for the Administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can agree should not be permitted.

A FISA order should be required in those instances where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's call in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications. This protection has been stripped from H.R. 6304. I fought hard to keep this language in the bill because it is important to me; and it should be very important to members of this body and to all Americans. It is important that we require what should be required in all cases--warrant anytime there is specific, targeted surveillance of a United States citizen.

I am unable to support this bill that will overhaul how the Government monitors foreign terrorist suspects. I will not support any legislation that grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to Federal investigators without a warrant.

Madam Speaker, this administration has the law to protect the American people. When Americans are involved, the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment, civil liberties must be adhered to. This legislation does not go far enough to ensure that American rights are protected.

The original legislation offered by the House Majority gave the Administration everything that it needed, but today, after months of negotiation, if we endorse H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the Government with little court oversight and ensures the cases against the dismissal of all pending telecommunications companies, we are shredding the Constitution.

Let me explain my objections to H.R. 6304. It permits the Government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

H.R. 6304 permits minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. Under these circumstances, the court may not know, what or where will actually be tapped.

Madam Speaker, I have more objections to H.R. 6304 which I will quickly note. H.R. 6304 contains an ``exigent'' circumstances loophole that thwarts the judicial review requirement.

The bill permits the Government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to seven (7) days every time ``intelligence important to the national security of the U.S. may be lost or not timely acquired.'' The problem with H.R. 6034 is that court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. Therefore, it is possible that there will not be resort to prior judicial review.

Under H.R. 6304, the Government is permitted to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The Government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathers in the meantime.

I am also troubled by H.R. 6304's dismissal of all, cases pending against telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping program over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the Government certifications were actually legal--only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the Government did without communications will be dismissed. Under this bill, we will start as a tabula rasa. Telecommunications companies will be prevented from having their day in court and we, the American people, will never have a chance to know what the companies did and what information is collected. I am deeply troubled by this, and frankly, you should be, too.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear in my opposition. Nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act should require the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, what should be required, is a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the United States country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love.

Madam Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes on a sound legal footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned.

However, I know that FISA as outlined in this bill, H.R. 6304, attempts to curtail the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of the American people. I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based upon probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a ``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance.

Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule on H.R. 6304. In my view, this is wrong and unacceptable.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise to say that we did have legislation that would protect the Constitution and provide the security for our troops and those in the intelligence community, and that was the RESTORE Act. Today I rise in enormous opposition to H.R. 6304 because, frankly, Madam Speaker, it's very difficult to put lipstick on a pig.

What we have here is the opportunity for the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States without any individual review and without any finding of wrongdoing.

What Americans don't know is that this government can now surveil you for 7 days without any approval. Then if the court denies the application, while the application is being appealed from the denial, you can be surveilled for 60 days.

This is not constitutional protection. As it relates to the idea of those who are now in court on warrantless searches, now the courts have no authority over that, and your cases will be dismissed.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this because ``significant purpose'' has been taken out of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6304, the ``FISA Amendments Act of 2008''. This body has worked diligently with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the civil liberties of American citizens are appropriately addressed. Sadly, this compromise bill falls short of that aim. I will support no bill that fails to protect American civil liberties, both at home and abroad.

I am unable to support this bill that will overhaul how the Government monitors foreign terrorist suspects. I will not support any legislation that grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to Federal investigators without a warrant.

Madam Speaker, this administration has the law to protect the American people. When Americans are involved, the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment, and our civil liberties must be adhered to. This legislation does not go far enough to ensure that American rights are protected.

The original legislation offered by the House Majority gave the Administration everything that it needed, but today, after months of negotiation, if we endorse H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the Government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunications companies, we are eviscerating the Constitution.

Let me explain my objections to H.R. 6304. It permits the Government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

H.R. 6304 permits minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. Under these circumstances, the court may not know what will be tapped and where it will occur.

Furthermore, the bill contains a general ban on reverse targeting, but not the strong language I worked so diligently to include in the FISA legislation that had passed previously in the House. In my view, the RESTORE Act is far superior to this piece of legislation. I wish to take a few moments to discuss the improvement that I offered to the RESTORE Act in the full Judiciary Committee markup, and which was sent over to the Senate for consideration last year.

My amendment made an essential contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting.

Reverse targeting is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. My language included clear statutory directives regarding whom the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it would like to continue listening to an Americans' communications.

One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with this legislation, as they did with its successor, the Protect America Act, is that the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of certain safeguards in the law to prevent it.

My amendment attempted to produce such safeguards. My amendment reduced even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States.

The amendment achieved this objective by requiring the administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.''

It is far from clear how the operative language ``reasonably designed to ensure that any acquisition authorized . . . is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.''

Yes. It is true that H.R. 6304, the compromise legislation, attempts to ensure that American civil liberties are protected, but the operative language in the legislation does not provide a paradigm for consistency. This is so because it does not provide an objective criterion. H.R. 6304 does not go as far as the legislation that the House sent over to the Senate a few months ago. H.R. 6304 does not retain the objective standards contained in my amendment.

The language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that long has been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson-Lee amendment provided a clearer, more objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can agree should not be permitted.

A FISA order should be required in those instances where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's call in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications. This protection has been stripped from H.R. 6304. I fought hard to keep this language in the bill because it is important to me; and it should be very important to members of this body and to all Americans. It is important that we require what should be required in all cases--warrant any time there is specific, targeted surveillance of a United States citizen.

Madam Speaker, I have more objections to H.R. 6304 which I will quickly note. H.R. 6304 contains an ``exigent'' circumstances loophole that thwarts the judicial review requirement. The bill permits the Government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to seven (7) days every time ``intelligence important to the national security of the U.S. may be lost or not timely acquired.'' The problem with H.R. 6034 is that court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. Therefore, it is possible that there will not be resort to prior judicial review.

Under H.R. 6304, the Government is permitted to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The Government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathers in the meantime.

I am also troubled by H.R. 6304's dismissal of all cases pending against telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping program over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the Government certifications were actually legal--only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the Government did without communications will be dismissed. Under this bill, we will start as a tabula rasa. Telecommunications companies will be prevented from having their day in court and we, the American people, will never have a chance to know what the companies did and what information is collected. I am deeply troubled by this, and frankly, you should be, too.

Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the loudest demands for blanket immunity did not come from the telecommunications companies but from the administration, which raises the interesting question of whether the administration's real motivation is to shield from public disclosure the ways and means by which Government officials may have ``persuaded'' telecommunications companies to assist in its warrantless surveillance programs.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear in my opposition. Nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act should require the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, what should be required, is a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage.

As I wrote in the Politico, ``the best way to win the war on terror is to remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of international villains will defeat the United States in the pursuit of its vital interests.''

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the United States country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love.

Madam Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes on a sound legal footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned.

However, I know that FISA as outlined in this bill, H.R. 6304, attempts to curtail the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of the American people. I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based upon probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a ``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance.

In all candor, Madam Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still not enough on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require a blank check from Congress.

The Bush administration did not comply with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information from the Bush administration or revelations in the media. It must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA.

The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including: (1) who the NSA is targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the program collects and disseminates; and most important (4) whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people.

Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 6304, as it grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the Government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunications companies. In my view, this is wrong and unacceptable.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, and I thank the minority for their indulgence.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague and fellow Women's Caucus member, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York.

This legislation provides 4 weeks of paid parental leave for all Federal employees. Employees will also for the first time be allowed to use their accrued sick leave for an additional 8 weeks of paid leave. By combining the 4 weeks of paid parental leave with earned sick leave, many Federal employees will now be able to get paid for the full 12 weeks of parental leave that is their right under the existing Family and Medical Leave Act.

However, this legislation is about more than a technical fix to current law. As we celebrated our fathers only last week, we recognized the significance of family of the various roles we all play. Mothers and fathers should be allowed to be there for the birth or adoption of a new child. This legislation reinforces the belief in family. Be it grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt, or mom and dad--our families deserve to be supported and valued.

In my district of Houston, Texas, there are over 70,000 single parent households run by women and over 22,000 Federal employees in my district. This legislation gives them the time they need to bond with a new child. It has been proven time and time again that the first few weeks post-birth are essential to parent and child bonding. This is true be they natural or adopted children.

This legislation should be titled Celebrating and Supporting Our Families Act because that is exactly what it seeks to do. It also provides that support for our employees here on Capitol Hill.

This act allows Federal employees to substitute any available paid leave for any leave without pay available for either the: (1) birth of a child; or (2) placement of a child with the employee for either adoption or foster care. Makes available for any of the 12 weeks of leave an employee is entitled to for such purposes: (1) four administrative weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the birth or placement involved; and (2) any accumulated annual or sick leave.

Authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase the amount of paid parental leave available to up to eight administrative workweeks, based on the consideration of: (1) the benefits provided to the Federal Government of offering paid parental leave, including enhanced recruitment and retention of employees; (2) the cost to the Federal Government of increasing the amount of paid parental leave that is available to employees; (3) trends in the private sector and in State and local governments with respect to offering paid parental leave; and (4) the Federal Government's role as a model employer.

Amends the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to allow the same substitution for covered congressional employees, Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Library of Congress employees.

Defines ``qualified leave'' as leave that: (1) is available by reason of the need to care for the spouse, child, or parent of the employee having a serious health condition or by reason of a serious health condition affecting the employees that renders such employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position; and (2) would otherwise be leave without pay.

This act is a tremendous step and makes unequivocally clear, and dispels any belief that this act applies only to women. It does not. Members on both sides of the aisle talk about family values, but one of the most concrete ways we can help families is to give parents more time with their new children, without losing their paycheck. The Federal Government can be a model for other employers. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and demonstrate by their actions that they support our families.

I thank the gentlelady from New York. I rise today to thank Chairman Obey and thank the leadership, Speaker Pelosi, for addressing the question that confronts us in the most strategic way possible. But it is important to note that many of us have opposed consistently a war that continues to go on unbridled and misdirected.

We thank our soldiers. But it's important to note that now some $600 billion has gone to Iraq. We've lost 4,100 soldiers. Instead of having a military surge, we should have a diplomatic surge. We now give $165 million unrestricted to this White House. But I do rise in support of amendment 2 that provides for the GI Bill that acts as a good Samaritan to those who have been unemployed for 13 extra weeks of unemployment, that provides for elimination of six Medicaid provisions that will help restore partially the health care that Americans need. But I believe we should have had provisions in this particular appropriation that would indicate that the dollars should be used to redeploy our troops, thank them and grant them the success that they have had because they are successful.

But we need to bring our troops home. And we need to indicate that the authority for military force has expired. The GI Bill is a ``thank you'' to our soldiers. Let's bring them home safely. And let's provide the investment that it needs. I am grateful that we had the disaster relief for all of those suffering in the Midwest, but that we've not forgotten the Katrina victims and survivors that now are still homeless. It is important, as we move forward, to begin to look at domestic funding.

This is a first start. But we need to have legislation that acknowledges the honor of those who have fallen, declare a military success and allow Iraq to invest. And I am grateful for the two amendments that require Iraq to invest in its own domestic development. This is the time to redeploy our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to Amendment #1, and in strong support of Amendment #2 of the bill H.R. 2642, Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. While I am supportive of the portions that contain provisions beneficial to the American people designed to improve our economy and protect

our young men and women, I remain adamantly opposed to this legislation because it continues a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush Administration's war in Iraq.

Amendment #1--Iraq War Funding

Mr. Speaker, I oppose Amendment #1 because I stand with the American taxpayers, who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 4100 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. In May, I was proud to vote against amendment #1 to the previous version of the supplemental spending bill that would have provided funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops. I was extremely pleased that the House did not pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation as it provides a total of $165.4 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and FY 2009, funds that are handed over without any strings. This legislation does not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans now support. The bill we are considering today does not require that war funds can only be used for the responsible redeployment of American troop's home from Iraq. Instead, it hands the President nearly $163 billion of virtually unrestricted funding, allowing him to continue a war that the American people do not support.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. I cannot support legislation that provides the President with the resources to prolong his ill-advised war effort unrestrained. As a Member of both the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.

The congressional authorization providing for the use of military force in Iraq has expired. The 2002 Resolution authorized the President to:

(1) Defend the national security of the United States

against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Specifically, the resolution called for the disarming of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, removal of the rogue Iraqi regime, the capture of any al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, as well as the promotion of democracy in Iraq. All of these objectives have been met.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have achieved extraordinary military success in Iraq, toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in only 21 days, assuring the world that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, assisting the Iraqis in holding free elections, and setting the nation on a path toward democracy. However, while our troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing political and sectarian conflicts. This is a war without end. Though President Bush continues to rely on a strategy that seeks to stabilize and reconcile Iraq by force, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting peace. Thus far, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation, which was the rationale and stated objective of the surge.

Amendment #2--Iraq policy provisions

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Amendment #2 contains two important Iraq policy provisions. This amendment requires that funds spent by the State Department and USAID for Iraqi reconstruction be matched, dollar- for-dollar, by the Iraqi government. In addition, this legislation prohibits military construction funds from being used to establish permanent bases in Iraq.

Like many of my colleagues, I am also concerned that the United States has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate amount for Iraq reconstruction, especially when the Iraqi government reportedly has a $25-30 billion budget surplus this year. I am pleased that this legislation calls on the Iraqi government to share equally in the cost of rebuilding the country. To date the United States has appropriated more than $45 billion for Iraq reconstruction. American-funded reconstruction programs have included the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global banks, including a reported $30 billion in the United States, instead of investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi infrastructure.

I am also extremely concerned about the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq, and the future of U.S. commitments. I am also very worried about the Administration's apparent desire to circumvent congressional approval and oversight in the process of negotiating a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government, as well as the still-open question of the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, to which I am strongly opposed. Today's legislation, crucially, continues a prohibition on permanent American military bases in Iraq.

Expanded GI Bill

Mr. Speaker, Amendment #2 of this legislation provides funding for much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending unemployment benefits, expanding veterans' education benefits, and placing a moratorium on the Bush Administrations' six Medicaid regulations, this legislation gets us closer to where the Economic Stimulus package should have taken us. I am particularly pleased that this legislation expands the educations benefits that veterans receive under the GI, providing $50 billion over the next 10 years for veterans' college funding. This legislation restores the promise of a full, four-year college education, and will entitle veterans who enlisted after the Sept. 11 attacks and served three years or more to what amounts to four years of college education at a state university. By passing these provisions, we are making the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan an integral part of an American economy recovery, much in the same way World War II veterans were incorporated under the original GI bill. I would like to see us go even farther to make an affordable college education a possibility for all those brave men and women who selflessly served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today's legislation does allow service members to transfer educational benefits to their spouses and dependents.

Extension of unemployment

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes a 13-week extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed. The number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008. The extension of unemployment benefits will provide a crucial safety net to American workers who are feeling the strain of the sagging economy.

Emergency funding for the Midwest

This legislation also includes $2.65 billion in much-needed aid for the storm-ravaged American Midwest. Violent storms, bringing tornados and flooding, have been blamed for at least 24 deaths since late May. With damage still not fully assessed, what has been called the worst flooding in the Midwest in 15 years has ruined an estimated 5 million acres of farmland. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, 23 levees along the Mississippi have failed this week alone, and 48 more, which protect over 285,000 acres of cropland, are either overflowing or at high flood risk. Today's legislation provides critical resources to respond to these disasters, which are affecting millions of Americans.

Medicaid

In addition, this legislation also delays most of the destructive Medicaid cuts proposed by this President. The Bush Administration sought to cut services and payments to American families by adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the stimulus. This legislation places a much needed moratorium on six of these regulations, giving back to our seniors, families, and those with disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.

Because I believe that fixing our health care system is one of the most important issues we currently face, I recently introduced the ``Medicare Efficiency and Development of Improvement of Care and Services Act of 2008'' (MEDICS Act), which provides a solution to the Medicare reimbursement problem as well as grows beneficiary access.

My bill increases the number of primary care physicians. It specifically requires that within one year of enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Association of American Medical Colleges shall submit to Congress an effective plan to increase the number of primary care physicians particularly those practicing in counties, cities, or towns ``underserved'' or with a disproportionate number of Medicare-eligible and/or Medicare recipients. In addition, my legislation forces an examination of the disparities in our health system, particularly those based on race, ethnicity, and gender,

and begins the process of eliminating these discrepancies, and making health care an affordable reality for all Americans.

Food aid and disaster assistance

I am also pleased that this legislation provides increased funding for international affairs. This includes $1.865 billion for food aid and disaster assistance, which is $745 million above the President's request. This sum includes $500 million above the President's request for PL480 Food Assistance and $245 million above his request for development assistance and disaster assistance programs meant to alleviate world hunger.

This additional funding comes at a crucial time. As my colleagues are aware, we are facing an international food crisis. According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food prices have increased an average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, wheat has increased by 146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 percent, corn by 41 percent, and rice prices have increased by 29 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one-sixth of the world's population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional share of income on basic food commodities. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that so many children are going hungry. We have millions of dollars to bailout Bear Stearns, let's find that same money to help our families and our children.

Refugee assistance

I am also extremely supportive of the provisions in this legislation that increase funding for refugee assistance. This legislation provides $696 million, a total $475 million above the President's request, to address the ongoing refugee crises in Iraq and elsewhere. This funding comes in the midst of a worldwide surge in the number of refugees, with Iraq and Darfur facing particularly severe crises. Having recently spent time on the ground with refugees living in camps in Darfur and Chad, I am pleased that the figures in this legislation represent the reality of the global refugee situation, and will make important strides toward meeting the needs of the growing number of people displaced by conflict, poverty, disaster, or other extreme circumstances, particularly those in Darfur and in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support amendment #2 to this legislation because it contains vital provisions that will directly benefit the American people. I must oppose amendment #1 because I refuse to support the continuation of a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq. It is pure fantasy to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill- advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military engagement is not bringing about the desired results.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Mr. Speaker, I ask to revise and extend.

I want to add my appreciation to, again, the very, very able and distinguished Member Yvette Clarke from New York for her strong advocation for H.R. 4179 and legislation that came through the subcommittee of transportation security, which I chair, and her wisdom on bringing about a solution to a long-standing problem that we have seen come about after 9/11.

Every day, millions of Americans travel across the country and abroad by land, air, and sea. Unfortunately, we have a process in place, the terrorist watch list or database, which makes, or should make, traveling safe. However, there have been problems and misidentifications. Even air marshals have been denied boarding on air carriers on the very flights they were assigned to protect because of misidentification.

To date, more than 15,000 Americans have sought redress from the Transportation Security Administration and voluntarily provided information. But this system has not worked. We know two of our very own dear colleagues, Senator Kennedy and John Lewis, who I think have a pedigree beyond reproach, have been set aside, if you will, in trying to fly.

And so therefore, it is important to have a redress process that works and to assure that a person on the TSA's Clear List will not be stopped as a potential terrorist. H.R. 4179 by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke will establish an appeal and redress process to ensure that the Office of Appeals and Redress at the Department of Homeland Security actually work.

I do want to congratulate her for this forward thinking. I look forward to working with her as we move forward on additional legislation that addresses the question of dress. As we all know, imams who have cleared TSA could not board a plane in one of our midwest States because they were determined to be a threat when they had passed security, when their name was not on the watch list, and only because of religious actions.

And so this is an important step forward. We should be a Nation of security but also the protection of civil liberties. And I look forward to us making further steps to ensure that religious dress, attire, and talk does not in any way undermine your constitutional rights in this question.

My appreciation to Congresswoman Clarke. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4179, To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish an appeal and redress process for individuals wrongly delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Clarke, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. This important legislation will provide an effective and efficient mechanism through which Americans can seek redress.

Every day, millions of Americans travel across the country and abroad, by land, air, and sea. Fortunately, we have a process in place, the terrorist watch list or database, which makes travel safer for the traveling public. However, that very process has been plagued with problems and misidentifications. The American public has grown weary of the constant delays and misidentifications caused by incomplete and inaccurate information associated with the terrorist watch list or database.

For years, even Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) have been denied boarding by air carriers on the very flights they were assigned to protect because of misidentifications. To date, more than 15,000 Americans have sought redress from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and voluntarily provided personal information to facilitate travel and prevent further misidentifications and delays. While the TSA maintains a ``Cleared List'' for individuals who have the same or similar name or other identifier as someone on the ``No Fly'' or ``Selectee'' lists but have gone through the redress process, there is a significant stagnation in the columniation and sharing of information. The Cleared List is then shared with airlines for screening purposes but it is not shared within the Department of Homeland Security or with other Federal agencies that use the terrorist watch list or database. Therefore, despite going through the redress process, there's nothing to assure that a person on the TSA's ``Cleared List'' will not be stopped as a potential terrorist by other Federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Sharing information on the Comprehensive Cleared List between components of the Department would alleviate redundancy and reduce excessive delays.

H.R. 4179, the Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely (FAST) Redress Act of 2008, will establish an appeal and redress process to ensure that the Office of Appeals and Redress at the Department of Homeland Security becomes the ``one-stop shop'' that the American public deserves.

This legislation will require the DHS Secretary to establish a timely and fair redress process for individuals who believe they have been delayed or prohibited from boarding a commercial plane or denied a right, benefit, or privilege by DHS, because they were wrongly identified as a threat when screened against any terrorist watch list or database. It would also require the Office of Appeals and Redress to maintain a Comprehensive Cleared List that contains the names of individuals who have been misidentified and have corrected erroneous information. The DHS Secretary would be required to furnish the Comprehensive Cleared List to all DHS components and to other Federal, State, local, and Tribal authorities and others that use the terrorist watch list or database, to resolve misidentifications.

This important legislation will consolidate agency knowledge by requiring the compilation of a comprehensive cleared list of individuals who have been misidentified. It furthermore requires that the correction of erroneous information be maintained by the Department and shared with those agencies that use the terrorist watch list or database. Our citizens must not only be afforded an effective redress process, they must also be assured that once they have voluntarily provided personal information and successfully achieved redress, they are not repeatedly subjected to further misidentifications. This legislation is supported by the National Business Travel Association, who wrote to the Committee on Homeland Security in support of H.R. 4179.

The FAST Redress Act of 2008 explicitly requires the DHS Secretary to assure that TSA, CBP, the Coast Guard and other DHS components reference the Comprehensive Cleared List when assessing the security risk of an individual. It furthermore authorizes the DHS Secretary to enter into Memoranda of Understanding with other Federal agencies to enhance redress, including addressing legal name changes.

This bipartisan legislation directs the Secretary to engage in cooperative agreements with other relevant agencies so that legal name changes are reflected on the watch list and the cleared list. When it comes to watch and cleared lists, accuracy is the key. This change ensures that the Department has the most accurate information to evaluate American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we protect the civil rights and civil liberties of American citizens and lawful permanent residents. This bill will help eliminate false identifications and increase efficiency for the traveling public and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the committee, and I want to thank him and applaud him for this legislation.

As has been indicated on the floor, the importance of ensuring the security and the sanctity of the particular identification, the technology, is key. One of the key problems that we have found in homeland security is, of course, the ability to tamper with the security document or the process. This legislation is an important, enhanced effort to ensure that that does not happen.

I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this particular issue, and also, I think it's important to note that one of the commitments that homeland security has made is, ``Not on our watch,'' and we have steadfastly looked at all of the elements that need to be improved and enhanced in border security and aviation security to ensure that there are documents that can be, on their face, the kind of document that provides the necessary review and protection for the traveling public and for those who do business in the ports of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5982, the Biometric Enhancement Act for Airport-Risk Reduction Act of 2008, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Chairman Thompson. This important legislation requires TSA to provide Congress and airport operators with a breakdown on best practices for utilizing biometrics to better protect airports.

In the last few months, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has unveiled several new programs and initiatives that are proving to build a ``layered approach'' to security. And while the TSA is responsible for the 450 U.S. airports, and employs approximately 50,000, with the very important mission of keeping the traveling public safe from terrorist threats, it has done very little to strengthen airport security for workers with unescorted access to sterile and secure areas of the airport. At the present time, there are few mechanisms in place to ensure that contracted employees follow due diligence at our airports and access is granted to only those employees who belong on airport grounds at any given time. This legislation addresses these key issues by requiring TSA to provide Congress and airport operators with a breakdown on best practices for utilizing biometrics to better protect airports.

Mr. Speaker, only last November, Federal law enforcement raided Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in November 2007 and arrested 23 people for fraudulently securing badges to gain access to sensitive airport locations. According to the charging affidavit, more than 100 temporary workers were found to be in possession of the fraudulent badges and the staffing agency that sponsored these workers told them that they needed identification, but such identification did not have to be legitimate.

While today's workers with unescorted access to this critical infrastructure go through background screening, which includes terror watch list checks, to get issued badges, more must be done. While this is a necessary and important check, a job applicant's biometrics are not being captured to check against biographic information provided to establish the individual's identity. The legislation we have before us today is a smart security approach that promotes collaboration between TSA, industry, labor and other key stakeholders to work together to collectively develop and provide airports with a blueprint on how to make biometrics work for them.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation requires TSA to study how airports can transition to uniform, standards-based and interoperable biometric identifier systems for airport workers with unescorted access. This bill furthermore requires TSA and the working group to examine

existing programs, such as TWIC, and identify approaches on how biometrics can enhance protections for secure and sterile areas of the airport. TSA is also required by this bill to provide Congress and airport operators with a breakdown on best practices for using biometrics to improve airport security.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about re-inventing the wheel or putting a stop to any good work at TSA on this issue. It is about encouraging public-private partnerships and promoting an open dialogue between TSA, industry, and Congress on how best to secure our airports. I am proud to support this important and timely legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in so doing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5909, Catching Operational Vulnerabilities by Ensuring Random Testing Act of 2008, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Lowe. This important legislation will further shore up the gaps in our testing and evaluation protocols for transportation security.

As we've seen just in the past year, the details of covert tests and evaluations have been disseminated to the screener workforce, thereby ``tipping-off' those we are trying to accurately and responsibly test. The Committee on Homeland Security has been extremely concerned about this issue and I have held hearings in the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, of which I am the chair, in order to examine what exactly has gone wrong.

Any efforts to compromise these important testing efforts, whether intentional or on accident, should not be tolerated. Some have claimed that one of these incidents--the April 2006 e-mail from TSA's Office of Security Operations that tipped TSA field staff off to covert tests-- was unintentional, but evidence suggests otherwise. The April 2006 e- mail clearly referenced that individuals who were probing the system were Federal employees and even provided a physical description of one of the employees conducting the tests. This bill is necessary to prohibit individuals from providing advance notice of covert tests to any persons, unless authorized to do so by the Assistant Secretary of the Transportation Security Administration, the Inspector General of the Department, or the Comptroller General of the United States.

The COVERT Act of 2008 explicitly prohibits the advance notice or notification to individuals by those employees who are participating in a covert test or evaluation, which will ensure that the integrity of all covert testing efforts--across all modes of transportation--are protected, not just aviation. This legislation puts in place controls to monitor the testing personnel and the testing and evaluation procedures by building in accountability. It establishes the presence of a second team of covert test and evaluation employees with the first team in order to monitor and confirm their actions. Finally, the act requires an impact study to evaluate covert testing and evaluation and how it could be incorporated into other training and testing programs. The study is required to include: Recommendations on the implementation and execution of this section; an assessment on the results of covert testing; a summary of best practices on how to best integrate covert testing into other programs; and recommendations for additional personnel training necessary to fulfill this act. The study and report will also provide an assessment on the test and evaluation results and recommendations for personnel training required to fulfill the act.

Mr Speaker, if we choose to ignore these past disclosures, we provide future opportunities to compromise a worthy program intended to educate the workforce and benefit the security of our transportation systems throughout the country. One tip-off of a covert test is one too many. We've already had three that we know of. Let's do our part to stop any future tip-offs.

I am proud to support this incredibly important and timely legislation and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Let me thank the chairman of the full committee for his leadership and the consistency of the methodical pathway to securing America. That is what we are doing here today. I want to acknowledge the ranking member of the committee and my ranking member, Mr. Lungren of California, because we have worked together as a committee to focus on a number of issues, including chemical security and an overview of infrastructure protection and now this legislation.

I also think it is important to note that we have committed, as the chairman has indicated, that we will look at the security measures needed for the trucking industry.

But we should get a sense of the roadmap that is being created here on the floor today. And as we look at the bills that we have discussed, each one of them are building blocks toward the response to the 9/11 families, who, day after day after 9/11 told this Congress to get its act together, starting first, of course, with the bill of Congresswoman Clarke that emphasizes that if we have a watch list, that watch list should be a watch list that is both accurate and secure, and that hard working Americans have to have their civil liberties protected, so if they are on the list by mistake we must avoid or find a process of appeal for the mistakes that are being made.

Then, of course, I think it is noteworthy, as the chairman brought forward his bill on biometric, that we found incidences in Chicago where these cards that are being used by airport employees were fraudulently produced and large numbers of them found, a cache of them found in the hands of employees, so that people who are not credentialed can get on the airport surface because of this fraudulence. So this biometric study is extremely important.

Having just come back from Boston Logan Airport, we also note that the bill by Congresswoman Lowey is very important, so that we are on our toes about ensuring that those who are working at these airports are not tipped off about testing or having them go through security, so that the four corners of airports are secure.

Now we come full circle, and this legislation, H. Res. 1150, goes back again to the heart of the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. It was a holistic approach to security, for we have seen the tragedy of being lax on airport security.

And I might imagine that those of you who are visiting the United States Congress who might have taken airplanes have gone through security, and it might have been a crowded line. But you are adhering to the rules because you know that we are working together to secure the homeland.

But the homeland is more than just aviation. It is also rail. And this legislation is part of the approach that the Homeland Security Committee is taking, and seriously taking, as its responsibilities of oversight.

Each weekday, 11,300,000 passengers depend on our Nation's mass transit

lines as a means of transportation. Our Nation's mass transit lines serve as a target for terrorist attacks, as evidenced by the March 11, 2004, attack on the Madrid, Spain, mass transit system; the July 7, 2005, attack on the London, England, mass transit system; and the July 11, 2006, attack on the Mumbai, India, mass transit system.

These systems are vulnerable, and the TSA Administration through the development of its National Explosive Detection Canine Team Program furthered its ability to provide security against terrorist attacks on the Nation's transportation systems by preventing and protecting our explosive threats.

However, it is important for the administration and the Transportation Security Administration to be reminded of the Nation's rail and mass transit lines, that they should remain secure from terrorist attack, as they are critical in the functioning of our Nation's economy and they serve as a means of transportation on a daily basis for millions of hard working Americans.

So this legislation is a wake-up call. It is in fact to remind the administration that we have to do more work on transportation security inasmuch as we have seen done by others.

In 1995, the Irish Republican Army waged a long-running terrorist campaign against the London Underground.

Palestinian terrorists have carried out suicide bombings on Israeli buses. And so this legislation is to emphasize again that attacks on mass transit are possible and therefore we should look seriously at providing the security necessary.

Just recently I held a field hearing in New York to look at the ways of the New York transit system and how they were securing their particular system, one of the largest in the Nation. We learned that the National Explosive Detection Canine Team Program was very important, and therefore we want the TSA to continue that. We need TSA to continue to develop training programs for frontline workers and fulfill the other mandates Congress put in place in the 9/11 bill to increase security on rail and mass transit. This resolution is to provide that roadmap and to emphasize to TSA how important mass transit security is.

Might I just conclude by suggesting as my colleagues have discussed this whole question of energy, just think about a secure mass transit that will allow us to engage in a transit system that actually works.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

A secure mass transit will encourage more Americans to utilize our transit and our transportation system that is a public transit system. That is what those of us on this side of the aisle believe, a green economy, conservation, efficiency. And coming from Texas I would say to my good friend from California, we have happily lived with safe and secure and environmentally safe drilling and we encourage our very strong companies to continue to do so. But, at the same time, the word ``energy'' is a broad term. Green energy, efficiency, conservation. That is what this Congress has to preach to the American public, and safe and secure mass transit, of which all of these legislative initiatives are planning to do.

I would ask my colleagues in particular to support the legislation presently under consideration dealing with the mass transit resolution and all the other bills that have been able to come forward out of Homeland Security and under the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1150, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Transportation Security Administration should, in accordance with the congressional mandate provided for in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, enhance security against terrorist attack and other security threats to our Nation's rail and mass transit lines, introduced by myself. I rise today to offer this Resolution regarding the role of the Transportation Security Administration in securing our Nation's rail and mass transit lines.

This Resolution reaffirms the congressional mandate provided for in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that the Transportation Security Administration enhance security against terrorist attack and other security threats to our Nation's rail and mass transit lines. I am pleased to have Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, as an original cosponsor of this resolution. Chairman Thompson has been a leader in our efforts to secure against terrorist threats to our Nation's rail and mass transit lines.

Madam Speaker, each weekday 11,300,000 passengers depend on our Nation's mass transit lines as a means of transportation. Our Nation's mass transit lines serve as a target for terrorist attack as evidenced by the March 11, 2004, attack on the Madrid, Spain, mass transit system, the July 7, 2005, attack on the London, England, mass transit system, and the July 11, 2006, attack on the Mumbai, India, mass transit system. The Transportation Security Administration has, through the development of its National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program furthered its ability to provide security against terrorist attacks on the Nation's transportation systems by preventing and protecting against explosives threats.

It is imperative that our Nation's rail and mass transit lines remain secure from terrorist attack as they are critical to the functioning of our Nation's economy and serve as a means of transportation on a daily basis for millions of hard working Americans. Successful attacks against rail and mass transit targets have been carried out worldwide by terrorist looking to create havoc, economic harm, and kill innocent people.

Throughout the world, mass transit systems have long been targets of terrorist attacks. Algerian extremists set off bombs on the subways of Paris in 1995 and 1996; the Irish Republican Army waged a long-running terrorist campaign against the London Underground; Palestinian terrorists have carried out suicide bombings on Israel's buses; Chechnyan terrorists killed 40 people by bombing the Moscow subway in 2004; and, in the first terrorist use of a chemical weapon, a Japanese cult--Aum Shinrykyo--released sarin gas on a Tokyo subway in 1995.

Recent events make it clear that the threat continues. On the morning of March 11, 2004, ten explosions occurred at the height of the Madrid rush hour aboard four commuter trains. On July 7, 2005, during the morning peak travel hours, three separate explosions ripped through the London Underground and a fourth explosion occurred on a double-decker bus. These four explosions, the result of coordinated suicide-bombings by British-born Islamic extremists, claimed the lives of 56 people and seriously injured hundreds more. Two weeks later, on July 21, 2005, another group of terrorists unsuccessfully attempted to attack London's mass transit system again. On July 11, 2006 a series of seven bomb blasts against the Suburban Railway in Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay, capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra and India's financial capital resulted in 207 lost lives and over 700 injured.

The recent attacks serve as a harsh reminder of mass transit and rail security vulnerabilities. Both mass transit and rail systems are public and used by millions of people daily. Because of their size, openness, and highly-networked character, there are no obvious checkpoints, like those at airports, to inspect passengers and parcels. Passengers are strangers, promising attackers anonymity and easy escape.

And attacks on mass transit--the circulatory systems of urban areas-- can cause widespread fear, severely disrupt economic activity, kill or injure large numbers of people, and alter our way of life. An attack on our freight rail, either the material being transported, such as hazardous materials, or vital commodities, or merely the system itself, could severely impact our national economy.

As a result, both mass transit and rail systems are attractive targets. Since September 11, 2001, according to the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, mass transit systems have been the target of more than 145 terrorist attacks.

Due to their existence in high-population, high-risk urban areas, mass transit systems are also inevitably affected by any terrorist attack that may occur within that jurisdiction--regardless of whether the transit system was the

target of the attack. For example, during September 11, 2001, two of New York City's busiest transit stations were lost and considerable damage occurred to the tunnel structures, endangering hundreds of lives underground. Great care was required to evacuate passengers, locate and rescue trapped transit cars, and communicate instructions. The damage in New York City was so great that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress appropriated $1.8 billion to rebuild the subway infrastructure that was damaged in the attacks. I am hopeful that through this legislation we can prevent such attacks rather than face the tragic consequences of 9/11 again.

I refuse to sit idly by and allow another 9/11 or Madrid, London, or Mumbai bombing to disrupt our Nation and its critical infrastructure-- it is with that conviction that I seek to address these issues. The recent world events should serve as a wake-up call that we must do more to secure our transportation systems and we must act quickly and responsibly. I firmly believe that the legislation before us today will take an important step in securing our transportation systems.

Pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, ATSA, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation including rail and mass transit. TSA, however, has focused the majority of its resources and assets on aviation security in the past five years. I could go on with other examples, but what these instances show is that clearly it is imperative that TSA value rail and mass transit security on equal footing with aviation security. We are satisfied with the progress that TSA has made with the National Explosion Detection Team Program, but more is needed to train frontline employees.

Congress, recognizing TSA's lack of progress in developing a security strategy for all modes of transportation, mandated the development of a National Strategy for Transportation Security in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 9/11 Act. This strategy, although due April 1, 2005, was not finalized by TSA until September 2005. Moreover, the document provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not meet the requirements set out by Congress, especially with regards to rail and mass transit security. Furthermore, subsequent congressionally mandated updates were also not met by TSA, resulting in the 9/11 Discourse Project giving the TSA a C- for its efforts.

TSA's failure to assume a leadership position on surface transportation security is plainly evident. It is time that we take action and leadership to help protect the more than 11.3 million passengers in 35 metropolitan areas and 22 states who use commuter, heavy, or light rail each weekday. There must be substantial penalties for those who do not follow the security plans, vulnerability assessments, and regulations set out in this legislation.

H. Res. 1150 is a straightforward resolution, but a very important one. Recognizing that TSA is the lead agency for transportation security, and all of the hard work Congress did last year to make rail and mass transit security programs more robust in the enactment of the 9/11 bill, we must continue to push TSA to fulfill the mandates for rail and mass transit security required by Congress.

Last month, the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, which I have the privilege of chairing, held a field hearing in New York City on efforts to secure rail and mass transit. It was a truly edifying experience. We learned much about what is being done to secure the New York Transit system and other systems across the Nation, and what TSA can do in its leadership role at the federal level, to facilitate these efforts. I want to commend TSA on its progress with the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program, since most successful attacks on rail and mass transit are carried out using IEDs. However, we need TSA to continue to develop training programs for frontline workers, and fulfill the other mandates Congress put in place in the 9/11 bill to increase security on rail and mass transit.

TSA should reinvigorate their efforts to fulfill the mandates of the 9/11 bill. TSA has not submitted to the Committee on Homeland Security the National Strategy for Public Transportation Security which was mandated by the 9/11 bill, along with other deadlines including training regulations for frontline workers. TSA must submit this to both comply with the law and more importantly to protect Americans.

I find it completely appalling that this Administration seems to be unwilling to act on rail and mass transit security until we are faced with another disaster. I shudder to think that if the Washington, DC or New York subway systems were attacked, and mass casualties resulted, that we would be thinking that more could have been done to prevent such a tragedy. We will be desperately trying to figure out how to prepare for a disaster that has already happened and holding hearing after hearing to find out where we dropped the ball. The time to prepare is now, and I am committed to securing our Nation's rail and mass transit system expeditiously. We have been blessed thus far that our rail and public transportation systems have not been attacked. We should make our best efforts to ensure that we do not overlook this blessing.

From the terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world, we know that terrorists will target our rail and public transportation systems. Despite this admonition, the agency created and funded by Congress to address the issue of transportation security has consistently dropped the ball when it comes to rail and public transportation. We cannot let the lessons of Madrid, London, and Mumbai go unheeded. For the sake of the millions of Americans who use our rail and mass transit systems everyday to go to work, school, and visit friends and family, we have to take charge on this security risk.

We owe it to the public to safeguard the modes of transportation that allow them to carry on with their lives and drive this economy. Millions of men and women ride our Nation's rail and public transportation systems everyday; we owe it to them to ensure that they can do so safely and securely. I hope that through today's hearing and our continued efforts on the issue of rail and mass transit security, we can resolve the asymmetric way in which we treat aviation versus rail security and resolve the substantial threat posed by inadequate security on our rail and mass transit system.

I want to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work and dedication to these important issues.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4749, the National Bombing Prevention Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative King This important legislation establishes the Office of Bombing Prevention within the Protective Security Coordination Division of the Office of Infrastructure Protection of the Department.

This legislation is a bipartisan bill, whose lead sponsor is the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Representative King, and is also cosponsored by Chairman Thompson. The function of the Office of Bombing Prevention already exists in the Department, and this bill establishes it in statute. The Office is responsible for coordinating the Government efforts to deter, detect, prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorist explosive attacks in the United States. As we all know, the most likely terrorist threat to our Nation's critical infrastructure and transportation modes is from explosives.

Madam Speaker, we need to ensure that the Office of Bombing Prevention has the protection of being established by the force of law, so the Department can more readily meet the threats to our Nation. This legislation requires the Secretary to develop and periodically update a national strategy to prevent and prepare for terrorist explosive attacks in the United States due 90 days after the date of enactment. The Secretary is further required to report to Congress regarding the national strategy. This strategy is also called for by Homeland Security Presidential Directive-19, Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States, issued by the President in February of 2007. This legislation also authorizes the Office to support technology transfer efforts as well as research into explosives detection and mitigation.

I did, however, have one reservation with regards to this legislation, regarding canine procurement, which is why I introduced an amendment, which was accepted by the full Committee, to address that issue. Dogs are used to detect illicit and illegal substances every day. They are used to: detect illegal narcotics; find money that is being smuggled out of the country; and locate explosives that may be concealed in cargo, within vehicles, on aircraft, in luggage and on passengers.

There is no doubt that every day, the actions of these dogs and their handlers significantly contribute toward deterring threats and protecting our Nation from terrorists. While the contributions of our canine forces are priceless, they are not without cost. We must place a price on what we are willing to pay for untrained dogs.

The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General has found that from April 2006 through June 2007, Customs and Border Protection spent $1.46 million on purchasing 322 untrained dogs--that is about $4500 per dog. Most of these dogs are purchased in Europe and brought to America. These are not fully trained animals. They are puppies that will be trained to provide valuable service. I think most people would find $4500 for an untrained dog an exorbitant amount.

However, I cannot deem this amount out of bounds because the Department of Defense pays $3500 for each untrained dog. The Secret Service pays an average of $4500 for each untrained dog. Therefore, the price paid by CBP is within the acceptable range of current practice. However, I think that if we are to be good stewards of the American tax dollar, we must change the current practice. When one considers that domestic breeders offer the same kinds of dogs for $500-$2000, we cannot justify what I can only call a puppy tariff.

My amendment would require the Secretary to explore ways to reduce the amount we pay for each dog we purchase by considering the use of different breeds, procuring dogs from domestic breeders and seeking out dogs from animal shelters or rescue groups. If this Department can successfully implement a new method to obtain capable dogs for our homeland security needs, we could begin a trend that would save the American people millions of dollars each year.

With the inclusion of my amendment, I am deeply satisfied with this legislation. I am proud to support this legislation, which brings our great Nation closer to its goal of securing the homeland, and I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1333, Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Dent. This important legislation is a first step for the Committee on Homeland Security to understand how the Civil Air Patrol can provide necessary Homeland Security assistance.

The Civil Air Patrol is a prime example of how Americans can get involved to support our Nation's preparedness and response to emergencies as well as our Nation's great history of civil aviation and aerospace education. The Civil Air Patrol is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and also serves as the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, when given an Air Force assignment for a Federal support mission. The Civil Air Patrol flies missions in one of two ways: they are either assigned an Air Force mission, wherein they fly on behalf of the Federal Government as the Air Force Auxiliary, or they fly in their non-profit status based on requests from State and local governments or other organizations, many of which have MOU's with the Civil Air Patrol that govern their partnerships. As such, the Civil Air Patrol

performs a vital service for this Nation, one which must be further examines and utilized.

Over the course of any given year, the Civil Air Patrol is responsible for conducting over 90 percent of the Nation's inland search and rescue operations on behalf of the Air Force. In fiscal year 2007 alone, the Civil Air Patrol helped save 103 lives. Beyond that capacity to execute search and rescue missions, the. Civil Air Patrol can also provide emergency transport for sensitive medical materials and conducts low-altitude reconnaissance surveys for the Government. Even with the Civil Air Patrol is not in the air but working on the ground, their volunteers have pitched in to assist with disaster response.

This important legislation will require that the GAG examine how the Civil Air Patrol's proficiency in aerial reconnaissance and communications can enhance our border security. It furthermore will assess the Civil Air Patrol's experience in conducting damage assessment and enhancing situational awareness and how that might be utilized to improve our Nation's collective response to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event. The GAG report produced by this legislation will be utilized to paint a clear picture of the cost-effectiveness of using Civil Air Patrol assets for homeland security missions and help this committee to understand whether the current mechanisms for Federal agencies and States to request CAP support are adequate.

In this age of a global war on terror, it is imperative that we utilize aIl the assets available to us to secure our homeland. The Civil Air Patrol has been an invaluable resource for this Nation and embodies the volunteer service that makes our Nation great. I commend the Civil Air Patrol for their commitment to service and protecting this country, and I support this legislation that seeks to further examine how we might use them for their homeland security capacity.

I wholeheartedly support this legislation and strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in doing so.