Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we take time to recognize the contributions of more than 900,000 Federal, State and local law enforcement officials who serve this Nation and the more than 18,000 who have lost their lives over the years, I want to express my deep appreciation to the law enforcement officials who keep the residents of the First District of Ohio safe and secure.

Each day, police officers put their lives on the line to ensure that our laws are enforced and our communities are safe. Too often their critical work goes overlooked and underappreciated.

I would like to thank those who dedicate themselves each day, as well as honor those who have fallen in the line of duty, for their sacrifices and dedication to our families, our communities, and our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the efforts of law enforcement officials in their communities and nationwide by supporting National Police Week and National Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, last month the President signed into law the Second Chance Act authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars to assist offenders transitioning back into our societies. My concern is that this Congress has done little or nothing to prevent future crimes from occurring. With more than 700,000 offenders expected to be released back into our communities next year and the number of people who are entering their so-called high-crime years being at an all time high, conditions are ripe for a perfect storm of crime to hit our communities.

In my view, this Congress should act to, among other things, strengthen victims' rights; make restitution something that's real, not just words on paper; crack down on drug dealers who sell death on our streets, and truly protect witnesses so more people will be willing to come forward to testify against gang members who all too frequently virtually control many neighborhoods, especially urban areas and cities across this country.

The time to act is now before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is really quite simple. It continues the will of Congress, a will dating as far back as 1968 to allow the Delta Queen to operate within the inland waters of the United States. It's an exemption that's been granted by Congress on a number of occasions, eight times to be exact, most recently in 1996. However, unless it is renewed this year, this national treasure will be forced ashore unnecessarily. And unfortunately, an important chapter in our Nation's history will close.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the Delta Queen, and this is her right here, and its significance to this Nation, let me give you a brief history of what the Delta Queen is and is not. The Delta Queen is a symbol of our Nation's past serving as the last overnight operational steam paddle wheeler. She represents where we started as a Nation and our trials and tribulations and our progress over the years.

The Delta Queen is a registered national historic landmark and is a member of the National Maritime Hall of Fame. She is part of the greatest generation, honorably serving our country during World War II, first as a Navy barracks and later transporting servicemen to and from the Navy shipyards docked in the San Francisco harbor.

The Delta Queen provides jobs to American families and is a critical source of revenue for local communities, opening up towns and communities located along the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers such as Ashland, Kentucky; Gallipolis, Ohio; and Clarksville, Indiana, to tourists and allowing mom-and-pop businesses to flourish.

Contrary to what some opponents to this motion would have you believe, the Delta Queen is not a safety risk. In fact, the Delta Queen is inspected by the United States Coast Guard more than six times a year and has operated since 1968 without significant incident.

Indeed, when Congress first created the inland water exemption from fire retardant regulation, it recognized that vessels such as the Delta Queen would never be more than a short distance from shore, circumstances much different than ocean liners and other vessels that traverse the oceans.

House Report 93-289 indicates that an inclusion of this was inadvertent. That's why Congress has granted this exception eight times since 1968. Eight times. Moreover, despite its exemption, the Delta Queen has, and continues to operate, in accordance with the safety notification requirements set forth in section 3503(b) of the United States Code and the Coast Guard.

In addition, the Delta Queen has gone above and beyond these requirements, installing state-of-the-art fire and smoke detection and sprinkler systems, as well as mandating fire training for its crew, all of which have been approved by the Coast Guard. Every single stateroom on there has sprinklers within it. In fact, just last month, the owners of the Delta Queen replaced the vessel's boiler at the request of the Coast Guard. And just last month, the Delta Queen was most recently inspected by the Coast Guard and was given a clean bill of health.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why continuing the Delta Queen's current exemption for an additional 10 years has generated such opposition. In fact, last session, this body unanimously supported this exemption, passing it by a voice vote. Just last year we did this exact thing that I am asking to be done today. Unfortunately, it was stalled over in the Senate.

I can only conclude that the opposition that we're seeing is not really about the Delta Queen. It's really about a labor dispute. If this is true, why should the American people be victims, losing access to this national landmark? Why should American jobs be lost? Why should local businesses be literally ruined all because of a labor dispute? I hope that unions do not have that type of influence here in Washington or here in this Congress.

Let's put all of the politics aside and do the right thing here, and I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Delta Queen right here. 1926, no major incidence since that entire time. And there is no reason why we shouldn't save this historic ship here. Keep part of our history alive here by supporting this motion. This really ought to be bipartisan, and I urge you to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs Reauthorization Act.

These two programs are highly successful Federal initiatives designed to encourage economic growth and innovation within the small business community by assisting with the funding that is critical at the startup and developmental stages of a small company. Not only do they spur growth in individual companies, the programs stress the importance of the Small Business Committee's and the entire Federal Government's commitment to expand and diversify research opportunities for small businesses.

Created in 1982, the SBIR program offers competition-based awards to stimulate technological innovation among small private sector businesses while providing government agencies with new, cost- effective, technical and scientific solutions to meet their diverse needs. This program is not only critical to the unique needs of each of the participating Federal agencies but also to our national economy. Small businesses renew the U.S. economy by introducing new products and lower cost methods of doing business, sometimes with substantial economic benefits. They play a key role in introducing technologies to the market, often responding quickly to new market opportunities. Some of our Nation's greatest technological innovations were originated by small business owners tinkering in their workshops, including two very famous Ohioans, the Wright brothers.

Our committee worked very hard to produce the legislation we have before us today. We held several hearings on

this topic over the last few months inviting the Small Business Administration, SBIR and STTR program managers from Federal agencies, various small businesses, and academics to discuss this program's successes and consider amendments that would improve it. I am happy to say that a great many of the ideas presented to the committee have found their way into this legislation.

For example, the bill requires agencies with an annual SBIR program of $50 million or more a year to create an SBIR advisory board to review the program quarterly and recommend improvements. We found throughout the course of our work that there is simply not enough hard evidence available to effectively measure the success or failure of the programs. Several of our witnesses touched on this subject, and the National Academy of Sciences mentioned it in its congressionally mandated study of the SBIR program.

The bill also states that agencies required to have an SBIR advisory board must complete an evaluation of the competitive SBIR proposals within specific time frames. This is important to ensure that potential awardees are reviewed promptly and effectively. Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of awarding an SBIR grant award application, it can be very difficult to plan your business' future without knowing its fate for months at a time.

The legislation also increases the size of maximum awards to allow grant winners greater ability to develop their new technologies and provides agencies even greater flexibility to administer the programs. The award levels have not been raised or adjusted for inflation in 16 years. Several of our witnesses commented that the levels, particularly for phase I, offer very little wiggle room.

Additionally, I believe this legislation finds an appropriate balance on the issues of venture capital companies' funding of SBIR participants. I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for all of his hard work on this issue. Mr. Graves has been a champion on this matter for years and has consistently worked to find a solution that balances funding the best science with maintaining the integrity of the program's goals of helping small businesses. I understand Mr. Graves will be offering a perfecting amendment during this proceeding that effectively strikes this balance, and I would urge Members on both sides of this aisle to support the amendment.

I would also like to thank the gentlelady from New York and chairwoman of our committee, Ms. Velazquez, and her staff for working in such a strong bipartisan manner with me and other members of our committee and with our staff on this legislation. But this is nothing new. The gentlelady has consistently sought my input and Republican members on the committee's input on various bills that we reported out of the committee and how they should be crafted. Although we may not always agree on every issue or there may be philosophical undertones, the spirit of working together in an effort to produce legislation that truly helps American small businesses always prevails, and I congratulate and commend the gentlelady for doing that.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we have been told we have Don Young, who is on his way here; so we're not prepared to close. But if time runs out, then it runs out.

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

Obviously we are still waiting for Mr. Young to speak. If he gets here, he gets here; if he doesn't, he doesn't.

I would like to, first of all, again commend the gentlewoman from New York for her cooperation and once again putting together a bipartisan effort here. And we both agree that both of these programs should be continued and have great value; so I would encourage my colleagues to support it.

Without Mr. Young's being here and not having spoken to him ahead of time and knowing exactly what he wanted to talk about, I would guess what he wanted to talk about had to do with the fact that energy is a huge problem in this country and some of it is because we have handcuffed ourselves and we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy from the Middle East, from some of the most unstable parts of the world, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. And for that reason, we're seeing gas prices at all-time highs, approximately $3.50 per gallon, and it's hurting an awful lot of our constituents, my constituents in Cincinnati and other members of the driving public all over this country. And one of the principal reasons is we are too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We also haven't built an oil refinery.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for interposing his points of view.

But as I was saying, Madam Chairman, I think one of the principal reasons we are seeing these high energy prices is because we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We have put off-limits an area which is in Mr. Young's State, in Alaska, ANWR. It's an area that not many people go to, although the photographs that you see of it make it look like it's nothing but flowers and animals and that it's a very lovely area, and I'm sure it is lovely in certain parts of the year. But the bottom line is by putting that 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil off-limits, we have to buy more oil from other countries, and that's one of the things that drives up the cost.

Another part of considerable oil reserves that we have put off-limits is in the Outer Continental Shelf. Now compared to 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, we have, we think, 83 to 86 billion barrels of oil and huge amounts of natural gas. And as long as we put those areas off-limits, it means we have to buy oil from somewhere else. It puts OPEC in a position where they can turn the spigot down somewhat or not increase it to take care of not only our needs but the needs of a growing environment in India and in China and those areas; so the price goes up as a result of that.

The other problem is we haven't built an oil refinery in this country since 1976. We make it virtually impossible for that to happen. We had over 300 oil refineries 30 years ago. We're down to 148, so fewer than half the number of oil refineries. That's another big problem. And I think those are the types of problems that Mr. Young would have in all likelihood spoken about.

Madam Chairman, I see that Mr. Young has entered, so I will at this point yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no objection to the gentleman's amendment and would commend him for offering it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would just comment that we appreciate the chairwoman's willingness to work with the gentleman in accepting his amendment. We would be happy to be part of that conversation. We appreciate your cooperation.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We appreciate his effort to add to the positive things which we need to do to move towards solving this energy crisis we find ourselves in.

Madam Chairman, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Reclaiming my time, do I have any time remaining, Madam Chairman?

I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no objection to the gentlewoman's amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves). This is a good amendment that I feel strikes the appropriate balance on the issue of venture capital companies' funding of SBIR participants.

One of the guiding principles that we focused on as we worked on the legislation was the premise that we ought to be funding the best science. By allowing the amounts of venture capital investment in SBIR applicants that are prescribed by this amendment, we are not only ensuring that we are funding the best science, but also maintaining the program's goal of helping small businesses.

The gentleman from Missouri has been a leader on this issue for years, and I applaud his efforts on our committee and throughout the House to find a solution for this issue. And it is a balance here. You can make arguments on both sides, but I think what he has tried to do is to do something that is fair to small businesses and also have the best science.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Chairman, we have no opposition.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We have no opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I would commend her for looking out for the interest of service-disabled veterans in this country, a group of people who have clearly earned the respect and the gratitude that they are entitled to. Thank you for offering the amendment.

Madam Chairman, although I am not in opposition, I will claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I won't take that time. I just want to commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. We have no opposition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentlelady for offering her amendment, and we support it.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though we're not opposed to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIRWOMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

We would commend the gentleman for offering the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no objections.

Madam Speaker, House Democrats' fiscally irresponsible budget will impose on American workers and businesses a $683 billion tax hike, the largest in U.S. history.

With our economy slowing and many families losing their homes, the last thing Congress needs to do is to take more money from these hardworking Americans. Tax relief, not a tax increase, is the best stimulant to our economy. Socking 116 million Americans with an average tax hike of over $1,800 is an irresponsible fiscal strategy.

Working families would be hit especially hard by the Democrats' irresponsibility. A family of four with two children that currently earns $50,000 annually would have to pay an additional $2,155 in taxes under the Democrats' plan. That would amount to a 191 percent increase in their tax bill.

The last thing our economy needs right now is the largest tax increase in history. House Republicans are dedicated to protecting working families, investors, and small businesses from the irresponsible tax hike that is being foisted upon us.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4056, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008. The men and women of American's Federal law enforcement agencies risk their lives every day protecting our communities, apprehending criminals and bringing them to justice. They are charged with the challenge of disrupting terrorist plots, combating violent gang activity, and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into this country. And they rise to this challenge every single day.

Over 100,000 law enforcement officers are employed by Federal agencies, including not only the FBI, DEA and ATF, but also the Secret Service, Forest Service, Park Police, Postal Inspectors and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

Unbeknownst to many of us, approximately 150 of our Federal officers are injured in the line of duty each year in this country. However, of the more than 70 Federal agencies that employ law enforcement officers, only two, the Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, actually recognize agents injured in the line of duty.

H.R. 4056 establishes the Congressional Badge of Bravery to honor Federal law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty, the first formal congressional award honoring injured law enforcement officers throughout the entire Federal Government.

The Congressional Badge of Bravery will be awarded to those Federal law enforcement officers who demonstrate bravery in performance of their duties, faced personal risk to their safety, and were injured in the line of duty.

H.R. 4056 establishes a seven-member Badge of Bravery Board within the Department of Justice. The Board is charged with designing the badge, selecting recipients and coordinating the presentation of the award.

Federal law enforcement officers perform an invaluable service in protecting our Nation from terrorist attacks, apprehending violent criminals, including sexual predators who prey on our children, and ensuring the safety of thousands of visitors to America's parks and forests each year. This badge of bravery is the least we can do to recognize the dedication and sacrifice of those injured in the line of duty.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important resolution and the 28th annual observance of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. This year's theme, ``Justice for Victims, Justice for All'' is appropriate. Too often, victims of crime are made to be victims a second time, first as a result of the crime, but second as a result of our criminal justice system, the very system designed to protect them.

In 2004, 20 years after Congress enacted the Victims of Crime Act, Congress enacted the Justice for All Act. This was a significant victory for crime victims, as it extended a number of enforceable rights to crime victims, including the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding involving release, plea or sentencing, the right to file a motion to reopen a plea, or sentence in certain circumstances, and, most importantly, the right to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect.

Despite enactment, enforcement of these rights is just one of a number of important changes that needs to occur to ensure that our Nation's criminal justice system is just for both offenders and the victims of those crimes.

In a hearing held by the Crime Subcommittee 3 weeks ago, testimony was presented revealing that crime victims continue to bear the brunt of crimes. According to the Department of Justice, crime costs victims and their families more than $105 billion in lost earnings, public victim assistance and medical expenses.

For example, despite a victim's right to full and timely restitution, it remains one of the most underenforced victims' rights within our justice system. In fact, more than $50 billion in criminal debt, including restitution and fines, were uncollected in 2007. And the amount of outstanding criminal debt is only expected to increase, ballooning from $269 million to almost $13 billion. And in my own State of Ohio, more than $1.2 billion in criminal debt remained uncollected at the end of fiscal year 2007.

While I appreciate the majority's effort to recognize National Crime Victims' Rights Week, I believe that more than just lip service can be done to help victims. Many of us have introduced good legislation, such as H.R. 845, the Criminal Restitution Improvement Act of 2007, or H.R. 4110, restitution legislation introduced by Representative Shea-Porter that will do more to assist victims.

If we all agree that crime victims bear the brunt of crimes, then why not pass a bill such as H.R. 845, that makes restitution mandatory and strengthens collection efforts?

Enforcement of these rights is the type of legislation that crime victims and their families need and deserve to help rebuild their lives, not just the recognition that they exist on paper.

I appreciate the work that my colleagues, Mr. Costa and Mr. Poe, have done on the Victims' Rights Caucus and in introducing this resolution. National Crime Victims Week serves many purposes, including to remind us what victims have suffered and the need to include them in the criminal justice system, to thank those individuals and organizations who have selflessly dedicated themselves to assisting victims, and to urge us all to rededicate ourselves to advance the cause of the victims of crime.

I urge my colleagues to support the victims of crime and their families and those that help them rebuild their lives by supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who before joining us here in Congress was a very distinguished judge who was recognized for his leadership in working to promote the interests of victims of crime.

We have no additional speakers, and we would be happy to yield back our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1095, a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act.

On April 4, 2008, just 11 days ago, this Nation joined together to pay tribute to the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and recognize his contributions to this Nation.

Thus, it's only fitting that we recognize one aspect of Dr. King's legacy, passage of the Fair Housing Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on April 11, 1968, just one week after Dr. King's tragic assassination.

The act, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, and later handicap and family status, was another tool to give meaning to the rights and protections afforded to all citizens by the Constitution.

Passage of the Fair Housing Act was a fitting memorial to Dr. King, as his name was closely associated with fair housing legislation since the 1966 ``open housing'' marches in Chicago.

At the same time, Senator Edward Brooke, the first African American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, helped facilitate this Act's passage by describing his difficulties finding housing for his new family following his service in World War II.

The first official appointed to administer the act was former Governor George Romney. Secretary Romney assumed his position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development after serving as Governor of Michigan, where he successfully campaigned for the ratification of a State constitutional amendment that prohibited discrimination in housing.

Since its enactment, the Fair Housing Act has prevented both countless instances of specific discrimination as well as broader patterns or practices of discrimination in housing programs. In addition, the act serves to punish those who attempt to disguise their discriminatory motives by giving false information to potential homebuyers, or by manipulating zoning codes. It prohibits sexual harassment in housing, and enables the disabled to more easily assimilate into our communities.

Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't also commend and recognize the chairman of the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, both for his remarks, and also working with myself in a bipartisan manner on the issue that he raised about those that find themselves at risk of having their homes foreclosed upon. And I agree with him that we ought to give the bankruptcy judges additional powers to modify those particular agreements so that they can have a better chance of retaining their homes. That certainly would move forward those that find themselves at risk

of losing their own homes. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for working with us in a bipartisan manner on that issue.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution today, and in celebrating the 40th anniversary of passage of the Fair Housing Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to express my deep disappointment with today's debate in the House. With our Nation facing record high gas prices, the majority leadership in the House has chosen to debate legislation not on securing reliable and affordable energy, but on beaches.

I suggest a better use of our time and the American people's time would be to have a serious debate about energy. How are we going to make energy more affordable in the short term? How are we going to make energy more affordable as the Nation needs to be more independent in the long term? What will be our primary fuel source in the future, and how do we get there?

Instead, in recent months we have periodically debated shortsighted and fatally flawed legislation that purports to fix our energy problems simply by raising taxes by billions of dollars on domestic energy companies and hoping for the best. That is not an energy policy, that is a tax increase on every American family. Energy companies will inevitably pass on their additional costs to consumers at the pump.

We should be debating legislation to streamline the Federal permitting process that has stifled construction of new oil refineries. We haven't built one in 32 years. We could be talking about benefiting consumers by simplifying our Nation's fragmented gasoline supply. The number of regional boutique fuels restricts the movement of our fuel supply and raises costs on Americans at the pump.

We could be debating the merits of opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, and the Outer Continental Shelf for energy exploration. We know that combined these areas have nearly 100 billion barrels of oil. Previous Congresses, urged on by their radical environmentalist allies, made the decision to keep these vast reserves off-limits. As a result, we see oil now at $110 a barrel. It is time we revisit the very important issue of being able to go after resources we have available to us in Alaska and in the Outer Continental Shelf.

What about encouraging the construction of nuclear power plants? We began that process in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act. But as we stand here today, we haven't built a new plant in decades. European and Asian nations are building them by the dozens. India has nine new plants under construction. Japan is building five more. And China has plans to build 30 reactors. We in this country have plans for exactly zero on the way.

Let's talk about how we intend to compete with China, which is canvassing the globe in its quest to ensure a reliable supply of oil. Reports indicate that the Chinese are forming energy partnerships with rogue nations like Iran and Cuba. And Cuba is purportedly planning to allow the Chinese to drill for oil off the Florida Keys, off our Florida Keys.

Shouldn't we be talking about boosting domestic production simply so we wouldn't have to rely on the mood of Third World dictators like Hugo Chavez? Wouldn't it be nice if prices didn't spike at your neighborhood gas station when terrorists decide to blow up a pipeline half a world away, or when there is instability in Nigeria?

Some may argue, and they might well be right, that oil isn't the long-term answer. It is a finite resource that may be scarce in the near future as developing nations like China and India continue to expand and industrialize; maybe so. But shouldn't we consider boosting our oil and natural gas supplies, increasing our energy independence that might just buy us the time necessary to develop the next fuel source? Maybe hydrogen fuel cell technology will take us into the next century. Maybe it is some other renewable resource. It could be a combination, or maybe something we haven't even discovered yet. We don't know. We do know that America has substantial reserves of oil and natural gas that we have locked up, we have placed off-limits. These resources could be the bridge that allows America to cross over the choppy waters of OPEC and Third World dictators to the secure footing of affordable and secure energy sources of tomorrow. Let's talk about these important things. Let's not talk about beaches.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York, the distinguished chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez, for bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor recognizing the plumbing industry and supporting the goals and ideals of National Plumbing Industry Week.

Like many of our small businesses today, plumbing contractors face difficult times and many difficult issues; a burdensome regulatory system, confiscatory taxation policy at virtually every level of government, rising energy prices, and often the unavailability of affordable health care for their employees and families. Congress can and must help these entrepreneurs, and we will continue to work with the chairwoman and my colleagues on the Small Business Committee to address these obstacles to the success of our Nation's small business plumbing contractors.

As Chairwoman Velazquez has pointed out, the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors National Association is the oldest trade association in the American construction industry. I congratulate the association for its contributions over the years and encourage the industry to continue its good work, especially in training and mentoring our future industry leaders in that field.

I have no doubt that our friends and neighbors in the plumbing industry

will continue to make strides in the design and installation of energy efficient equipment that will carry us through the 21st century.

I again want to thank my colleague, Chairwoman Velazquez, for working in a bipartisan manner on this issue, as we do virtually on every issue in the Small Business Committee. I thank her for bringing this resolution to the floor today. I am happy to join her in supporting it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1077, a resolution you introduced calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the language, culture, and religious identity of the Tibetan people.

Madam Speaker, freedom, dignity, and respect are universal rights that should know no boundaries. When these rights are nurtured and protected, peace, prosperity, and harmony flourish among people and nations. When these rights are restricted, repressed, and ignored, each of us has an obligation to speak out, otherwise the world suffers.

Tibet has a long history of language, culture, and religion. Since the late 1500s, the teachings of the Dalai Lama and Buddhism have played integral roles in Tibet and throughout the world. The fact that Tibetans have lived under repressive conditions since China's crackdown in 1958, which led to the deaths of more than 10,000 Tibetans and sent the 14th Dalai Lama into exile, is inexcusable.

The fact that China has failed to live up to its commitment to improve its human rights record is intolerable. The continued attempts by the Chinese Government to placate the international community with promises cannot go unchallenged any longer. If China wants to be recognized as a world leader, it should start acting like one. A good first step would be to allow for vigorous political debate rather than suppressing it.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Madam Speaker, for her work on this issue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor today debating yet again another set of amendments to FISA, another set of amendments that limit the ability of law enforcement and intelligence communities to make this Nation safer, another set of amendments that have no chance of becoming law. What these amendments do confirm is that we are a litigious society, that some are willing to put lawsuits over safety.

Prior to the passage of the Protect America Act, our intelligence community told us that they missed more than two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications because of gaps and inconsistencies in the law. In August, we closed those holes, giving law enforcement and the intelligence communities the tools and resources they need to stay one step ahead.

Disappointingly, 26 days have passed since those provisions expired. For 26 days now, our law enforcement and intelligence communities have had to revert back to the status quo. They have had to revert back to a status that allows terrorists to have the upper hand. And yet this Chamber continues to bring legislation that we know will not do the job, all the while, knowing that there is a solution, a bipartisan solution, to this predicament.

The bipartisan solution lies in the legislation passed by the Senate 30 days ago. These amendments continue and build on the authorizations provided by the Protect America Act, ensuring that surveillance continues on foreign targets outside the United States. Immunity is provided to our communication partners, FISA applications, and orders are processed in a more timely manner, and lengthening the periods of emergency authorization for electronic surveillance.

Yet this bill is mindful of our Constitution and the protections it affords to U.S. citizens, whether they are inside or outside the United States. Moreover, the authority provided by the bill sunsets in 6 years, allowing Congress to revisit if issues arise.

I urge my colleagues to not make the safety of the American people a partisan issue.

There are many things that we can disagree on, but the safety of this country should not be one of them. Let's not send the message that litigation is more important than patriotism, but that we are committed to standing as one in doing what is necessary and needed to keep this Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to recognize two great high schools in my congressional district.

The ladies of Mount Notre Dame, once again, with their usual style, grace, and determination won the Ohio Division I basketball championship. This win puts them in the history books, as it makes them the first Ohio team ever to win three consecutive State titles.

With time running out and the game tied, freshman guard Kathryn Reynolds scored at the buzzer, clinching the championship for the Cougars 69-67. Coach Dante Harlan, top scorers Tia McBride, Ashley Fowler and the rest of the team are to be congratulated for their achievement. Well done, Cougars.

I also want to recognize the 32 students in the Winton Woods High School Varsity Ensemble who were selected to participate in the Choral Salute at the 2008 Olympic Games in China. For more than a year, these gifted students have been preparing in rehearsals and planning fund- raisers to pay for the trip to Shanghai and Beijing, China.

They are to be commended for showcasing their talent and also for the time and hard work they have dedicated to this journey. I am proud Winton Woods will be representing Ohio's First District this year in the Olympics.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise as one of the founding members of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, and I also want to thank the gentlelady from Nevada, Shelley Berkley, for her leadership in that capacity as well, as well as our colleagues Robert Wexler and Dana Rohrabacher who are the other founding members.

I most recently traveled to Taiwan this last January, the week prior to the Legislative Yuan Elections, and I rise in support of House Resolution 278, a resolution recognizing Taiwan's fourth direct democratic presidential election to be conducted later this month. This resolution sends the right message at the right time.

As one of the very few democracies in Asia, Taiwan should be recognized for its courage and commitment to allow its citizens to choose its future. It is a democracy that maintains a multi-party political system, and one that recognizes and respects individual liberty and human rights.

Just across the Taiwan Strait is the People's Republic of China. It most certainly is not a democracy. It maintains an abysmal human rights record. It does not recognize the rule of law. It practices religious persecution. It warehouses political prisoners. It carries out a coercive abortion policy. And it has more than 800 missiles pointed directly at Taiwan. It is against this backdrop that Taiwan forges on with its elections.

I am disappointed that the stronger language contained in the introduced version of the bill, which referenced the acts of intimidation and pressure by China, were eliminated. It is better to speak the truth rather than to worry about offending China's sensitivities. Intimidation, pressure, and outright bullying will not go away by ignoring it or by being silent about it.

Notwithstanding this concern, I am supportive of the resolution, and I would urge its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 951, a resolution condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on the people of Israel.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza back in 2005, there was hope that this was an opportunity for peace. Sadly, this has not been the case. Instead, Hamas and other terrorist groups, with the support of Iran and Syria, have fired more than 4,000 rockets and mortar shells into Israel from Gaza, killing, maiming, and traumatizing innocent Israeli civilians. This unprovoked disregard for human life must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

I support passage of this resolution, H. Res. 951, and urge my colleagues to do so as it supports the sovereign right of Israel to defend its territory and stop the rocket attacks on its citizens. It further calls on all nations, including Egypt, to take affirmative steps to stop the flow of rockets and other materials and equipment used by terrorists into Gaza and other Palestinian territories. Finally, it reaffirms the strong and unyielding friendship between the governments and the people of Israel and the United States.