Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late Richard Edmund Clement. He is survived by his seven children, 24 grandchildren and former wife, Joan.

The love that Mr. Clement displayed for his country was not only evident in his work, but also recognized by his family. A second generation American, Mr. Clement had served his country throughout his life by working in both the private and public sectors.

With his expertise in the area of counterterrorism, Mr. Clement was able to contribute to the capturing of terrorists in Central America during the 1970s. His accomplishments led to his appointment as Director of the Federal Protection Agency during the Reagan Administration. Working with many great American leaders throughout the 1970s and 1980s he was willing to stand in the shadows and continued to serve and protect his country. The resolve that Mr. Clement displayed for his work had a lasting impact on his family and many others.

His children and grandchildren are carrying on the tradition of service that Mr. Clement provided to our country. Mr. Clement's sons Craig and Christopher along with grandsons Christopher, Aaron and Andrew have either served or are currently serving in this Nation's armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the life and work of Mr. Clement, and express my deepest condolences to all who knew and loved him.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the Manzullo amendment, which is part of the en bloc amendments, and also the Blunt amendment.

The Manzullo amendment, basically, will radically change the current application of the Buy American Act. I think it could place the United States in violation of more than 20 critical defense memoranda of understanding with some of our strong allies like Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom.

Under DOD policies, under Buy American, there is a 50 percent cost differential if they cannot certify that a product is made with more than half

of its components in the United States. In a global economy it is often hard to certify, and we actually put some of these companies at risk with their certifications. Some companies have had to set up costly accounting procedures so that they can track where different pieces of a product's components are assembled around the world to add up: Does it comply with the Buy American Act or does it not comply with the Buy American Act?

This amendment would sweep away the current waivers of the Buy American Act that have been carefully negotiated with our strongest military partners, and I am afraid will invoke retaliation if they are upheld. The restriction would cause the Department of Defense problems in purchasing the best goods for a fair price, particularly commercial technologies, so we would be denied in some cases the best cameras, the best laboratory and surveillance equipment. Even the BlackBerrys, which Members have, would be subject to this because 50 percent of its components are not assembled in the United States.

With this we would deprive our soldiers of the best equipment, the best equipment in many cases that would make them more efficient. In some cases it could make them even less safe. And that is the problem with this amendment. Our soldiers deserve the best wherever its components are assembled, and this blanks out some of the waiver provisions that we have under the current law.

We are already challenged to compete in a global marketplace where we do not always have a competitive advantage. Dismantling the regime of defense memoranda of understanding that have helped create and support the vibrant world marketplace in the end only hurts American workers.

Besides violating our defense MOUs, this provision will require DOD to pay an artificially high price for products it needs to protect all of us. Defense dollars are already scarce. We need to be getting the maximum bang for our bucks, and the difficulty with our procurement system is that the Members try to do too many things with them.

In the Blunt amendment case, they want to give a differentiation for people who hire a number of National Guard or Reserve officers; in this case, it is Buy American; in other cases, it may be a small or minority business. At the end of the day, this creates many inefficiencies in our procurement system that cost our taxpayers billions of dollars when, in fact, we do not have them.

I think when we go out and procure goods for our soldiers, we ought to get the best goods, we ought to get them at the lowest price. The American taxpayer demands it and our soldiers demand it.

Under this amendment, more businesses would be required to certify compliance with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing them to civil false claims and other sanctions even if they have made a good- faith effort to comply with these government-unique requirements. This creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given that more and more IT, information technology, so critical for our defense efforts, is being sourced, in a global economy, from around the world.

Some companies have responded by setting up costly, labor-intensive product tracking systems that are not needed in their commercial business simply to sell to the government. That ends up costing the taxpayer more. Some companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal marketplace, denying us access to some of the latest, most cost-effective, safest products for our soldiers.

This radical expansion of the application of the Buy American Act will impose financial and legal burdens on commercial companies that sell to the government. In fact, it could well prevent our brave servicemembers from obtaining the best technology to protect them and to protect our Nation.

This increased restriction on DOD's ability to obtain needed technology from the world market is basically a Cold War anachronism. Given DOD's growing reliance on information technology and other products and the current global nature, these are crippling in their restrictive provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced House Resolution 280 to honor the immeasurable contributions of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans to our Nation. I want to specifically thank our distinguished Majority Leader for scheduling this resolution during May, which the Congress has designated as ``Asian Pacific American Heritage Month'' since 1978. '

The month of May is important to Asian and Pacific Islander Americans because of two key events. The first occurred on May 7, 1843, when the first Japanese immigrants to the United States arrived. The second important event took place on May 10, 1869, a day known as ``Golden Spike Day,'' as the first North American transcontinental railroad was completed. The Central Pacific Railroad, which was built heading east from Sacramento, California, and the Union Pacific Railroad, built west from Omaha, Nebraska, met near the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Ever since, the country could be traversed by rail from coast to coast. This momentous accomplishment was made possible by thousands of rail workers, the majority of whom emigrated from China.

Like Black History Month in February, Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was established by an act of Congress. A former member of this body, Frank Horton of New York, led Congress to first establish ``Asian/Pacific American Heritage Week'' through Public Law 95-419 in 1978. Each year, the Week was to begin May 4 to include the important dates of May 7 and May 10. Then, in 1992, Congress expanded the commemoration to designate the entire month of May as ``Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.'' I am pleased the House is celebrating this significant designation today.

The Census Bureau revealed last year that 5 percent of the total U.S. population is of either Asian, native Hawaiian or other Pacific island heritage. As an example of their achievements, half of Asian-Americans over age 25 have earned a college degree, the highest proportion of college graduates of any ethnic group in the U.S. The corresponding rate for all American adults is 27 percent.

In addition, as the War on Terror continues, it is relevant to recognize the more than 300,000 Asian and Pacific Americans who have served our Nation in the armed forces. Asian and Pacific American service men and women are fighting on foreign soil today, and their sacrifices should be deeply respected. Indeed, they have performed with incredible valor during our Nation's history.

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month 2005 is being celebrated in numerous settings from community festivals to school events across the country. This year's theme--Freedom for All--A Nation We Call Our Own-- is very appropriate to the more than 14 million U.S. residents of Asian and Pacific island heritage who call America home.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 280.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2066, the General Services Administration Modernization Act, was introduced by myself and Armed Services Chairman Hunter last month and approved by the Committee on Government Reform by unanimous consent on May 5, 2005.

The legislation would authorize a much needed reorganization and streamlining of the General Services Administration, the federal agency charged with leveraging the federal government's buying power to purchase commercial goods and services for the federal government at the best value possible in order to maximize the use of taxpayer funds.

This legislation has been under consideration in the Government Reform Committee for a number of years and has been the subject of multiple legislative and oversight hearings. It was also included in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, each year GSA buys products and services from the private sector worth well over $30 billion and resells them to federal agencies through two different Services. The Federal Technology Service uses the Information Technology Fund to purchase information technology, and the Federal Supply Service uses the General Supply Fund to purchase commercial goods and services.

This bifurcated system may have made sense when the IT fund was created two decades ago, when information technology was in its infancy. Today, however, laptop computers, cell phones, and e-mail are as ubiquitous as desks and phones. The business case for a separate system to handle IT goods and services no longer exists. In fact, the bifurcated system has become a barrier to coordinated acquisition of management services and the technology needed to support a total solution.

Since 2002, Administrator Perry has instituted and is currently carrying out an internal reorganization aimed at establishing GSA as a modem enterprise more reflective of the current market. H.R. 2066 would assist those efforts. Critical to Administrator Perry's efforts to modernize the General Services Administration is ensuring that the structural reforms are memorialized in GSA's organic legislation so that the remedies will endure.

To accomplish this, H.R. 2066 would consolidate the Federal Supply Service and the Federal Technology Service into a single entity operating out of a unified fund, providing federal agencies with a one- stop shop to acquire all of their commercial goods and services. This change in statute would provide GSA with the structure it needs to bring it in line with the current commercial market.

Specifically, the legislation would amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to create a new ``Federal Acquisition Service,'' to be headed by a high-level Commissioner appointed by the GSA Administrator. H.R. 2066 would also provide that the new Federal Acquisition Service be supported by a newly created ``Acquisition Services Fund'' consisting of the assets of the old Information Technology and Supply Funds.

In addition, H.R. 2066 would authorize the GSA Administrator to appoint up to five ``Regional Executives'' for the Federal Acquisition Service to facilitate closer oversight and more management control over acquisition-related activities.

Finally, Mr./Madam Speaker, the General Services Administration Modernization Act would authorize retention bonuses and reemployment relief aimed at maintaining the strength and experience of the federal government's civilian acquisition workforce.

The environment in which the federal government purchases goods and services has changed dramatically in recent decades. Relegating the federal agency charged with purchasing goods and services for the rest of the federal government to an organizational structure that was constructed to function in a different era is a waste of taxpayer dollars. H.R. 2066 would remove the old structures that inhibit efficient federal purchases of solutions that are a mix of products, services and technology. The federal marketplace should reflect the best of the commercial marketplace: both in the products and services we buy and the way we buy them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saul Stern who will receive the Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award on May 25, 2005 at the Park Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC.

This award is presented by Project Interchange to Mr. Stern to honor his contribution to the organization. Project Interchange is the only national organization solely dedicated to providing educational seminars in Israel for America's policy and opinion makers. With exceptional leadership, Mr. Stern has guided more than 3,500 prominent Americans, including Members of Congress, congressional aides, state officials and other community leaders to experience Israel through intensive seminars. These seminars allow political and civil leaders to witness democracy at work in Israel and to provide an understanding to the complex challenges that face that country.

The Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award recognizes Mr. Stern's contribution to

the Jewish community including his work in advocating Jewish interests, strengthening public support for Israel, building ties with other faith, minority, and ethnic groups and establishing a framework for social action for over six decades.

Mr. Stern has served as a life-long civic leader and truly believes in the mission of Project Interchange. In his own words, he believes the eyewitness experience in Israel is one of the most effective ways to understand the value of the U.S.-Israel relationship. While Mr. Stern has impacted the Jewish Community at the international and national level, he is also extremely influential in local Jewish and secular community associations. He has served as an advisor and a dependable colleague to local elected officials, business leaders, academicians and community activists.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate Mr. Stern on receiving this award. His significant contributions are much appreciated and greatly admired. I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Stern and wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that embryonic stem cell research is legal. In the absence of the Federal Government, the States are already taking the lead. California is at the forefront of establishing a robust embryonic stem cell research program. New Jersey has followed suit, and seven other States are in the process of doing so. We do not want our stem cell research policies left to the vagaries of State electoral politics. The Federal Government in general, and NIH in particular, must be involved. The less NIH is involved with its time-tested methods and procedures, the less we are assured of good ethical guidelines and scientific methods will be followed. Instead, we will have more and more individual States attempting to set up their own regulatory schemes, something they may or may not be equipped to do.

Opponents argue that it is the product of a utilitarian world view, that somehow this is a zero-sum game, if the Members will, in which life is taken in order to give life. I think the strictures that are established by H.R. 810 negate that argument. Under this bill, Federal research will proceed using those embryos not used in fertility clinics, embryos voluntarily given that would otherwise be destroyed, that is, embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to fulfill that promise. What we are doing is extending the potential life where otherwise there would be none.

I urge passage of H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sandra G. Sanderson of Vienna, Virginia, upon receiving the Commonwealth's Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award.

The CARE award honors outstanding educators from New York, Ohio and Virginia who work to enhance the lives of their students. This year's honorees are recognized for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of the students they serve. It is presented by the Commonwealth Academy located in Alexandria, Virginia, and honors those committed to diverse learning throughout the nation. Sandra Sanderson, a 6th grade teacher at Wolftrap Elementary, is honored for her work in promoting diverse learners in the spirit of the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''

Ms. Sanderson was born in Fredonia, New York and was raised in Plantation, Florida. She received a Bachelor's of Arts in elementary education from Stetson University, and she received her Master's of Arts in special education from Peabody College. She is a resident of Vienna, Virginia, and has taught in Virginia for fourteen years. Prior to serving in the Commonwealth, Ms. Sanderson enriched students' lives teaching in various locations including in the states of Texas, Colorado and New York.

As a teacher at Wolftrap Elementary she has brought enjoyment to her sixth grade students teaching various subjects and activities including novel groups, math problem solving, writing skills, and photography. In her own words, she tries to bring ``enthusiasm, a sense of humor, and a joy in life and learning'' to her students and colleagues each day.

Ms. Sanderson has a genuine dedication to ensure that each of her students is given the opportunity to achieve success. Over the past 34 years she has made a lasting impact on thousands of students.

I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Sandra Sanderson and congratulating her on this distinguished achievement.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 413 of H.R. 2361, on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.

I raise a point of order against the provision beginning with ``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 11, through the comma on line 12, on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have three other points of order. I will raise them individually.

I have a point of order against the provision beginning with ``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 22, through the word ``laws'' on line 23, on the grounds that this provision also changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the provision beginning with the word ``notwithstanding'' on page 124, line 6 through line 7, on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the provision on page 124, lines 15 through 25, on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, therefore it is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.

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

Madam Chairman, this amendment would radically change the current application of the Buy American Act, and it could place the United States in violation of most international trade agreements in which we are signatories, including the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, something, by the way, we are working to get China to sign right now because of some of the restrictions they are putting on their procurement policy; the North American Free Trade Agreement; the U.S.-Israel Free Trade

Agreement; and the U.S.-Australia Free Trade agreement.

This restriction would have a devastating effect on the Department of Homeland Security's ability to buy the most high-tech and sophisticated products at a reasonable price to support our critical anti-terror efforts. We should be able to get the best high-technology goods at the lowest cost for the American taxpayer so that we can fight this war on terrorism in a cost-effective manner.

For instance, this amendment would sweep away the current $175,000 ceiling for the Buy American Act required for the application with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. This is the basis for our participation in the Government Procurement Agreement.

The restriction would cause Customs and border protection problems in purchasing the best aircraft, the best camera equipment, the best surveillance equipment from the world market to protect our borders. Further, the amendment would interfere with critical research and development agreements we currently have with the United Kingdom. BlackBerrys, something that most Members use and are used widely throughout the government, are a Canadian product. Thirty, 40 percent of its components are made and manufactured in the United States, but they would be subject to restrictions put on by this amendment.

The United States is already challenged to compete in a global marketplace. We do not always have a competitive advantage. But dismantling the regime of free trade agreements that help create and support the vibrant world marketplace in the end only hurts American workers.

Besides violating our trade agreements, this provision will require the Department to pay an artificially high price for products it needs to protect us against terror. Homeland Security dollars are already scarce. We should not be wasting our Homeland Security dollars when U.S. citizens are volunteering their personal time to protect the southern border.

Under this amendment, businesses are required to certify compliance with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing American businesses to civil false claims and other sanctions even if they have made good- faith efforts to comply with the government-unique requirements. In a global marketplace where components are assembled throughout the world, it is often difficult to ascertain what that 50 percent margin is. This creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given that more and more information technology so critical for the fight against terror is being sourced in our global economy from around the world.

Some companies have responded to Buy American Act restrictions by establishing costly labor-intensive product-tracking systems that are not needed in their commercial business to ensure that products being sold to the government meet the government-unique requirements. But small businesses in particular often cannot afford to establish special systems for that kind of compliance. So this hurts small businesses trying to sell to the government in a global economy.

Some companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal marketplace, denying us access to some of the latest, most cost-effective products. Further, this decrease in sales is disproportionately devastating to small businesses.

This radical, in my opinion, Buy American Act provision will impose financial and legal burdens on commercial companies that sell to our government. It may well prevent the Department of Homeland Security from obtaining the best technology to protect our Nation.

Again, BlackBerrys would be subject to this, something that most Members and most government workers use, because they are from a Canadian company. This increased restriction on the Department's ability to obtain needed technology from the world market is a Cold War anachronism. Given the Department of Homeland Security's growing reliance on information technology and other advanced products and the current global nature of the industry, the Department's ability to fulfill its critical anti-terror mission will be crippled by this restrictive provision.

I hope that Members have the sense to vote against this, and I urge that we defeat this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say that what this amendment will require us to do with precious Homeland Security dollars is pay up to 50 percent more for goods that bear the American label and in many cases cost us access to the best high-technology surveillance equipment, lab equipment, equipment and cameras to protect our borders. I just do not think it makes any sense in this environment of a global economy, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious government-wide backlog of security clearance investigations which has caused unacceptable delays in the process. This threatens national security, and it costs taxpayers a lot of money. Because there are so few security clearances and so much work to do, we are overpaying people because of the work. It is just the law of supply and demand.

This backlog is the result of poorly designed management structures and a lack of clearance reciprocity. As a result the Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, held a hearing, and we authored legislation that was included in the 9/11 Act to address the structural problems that plague the security clearance system throughout the government.

Given the longevity of this problem, it is understandable that government agencies and Congressional committees have sought out their own ways to try to avoid bottlenecks in clearance processes.

Section 516 of this bill is just such a work-around. It gives DHS the authority to continue to conduct clearance investigations for itself because government-wide it continues to be very dysfunctional.

The 9/11 Act reforms addressed the managerial chaos that has plagued security clearance policy by creating a new oversight authority for all Federal security clearance policy. Although this new oversight entity will likely grant a number of agencies the authority to continue to conduct their own investigations, it will also be responsible for developing and enforcing consistent standards for investigations across government. We need to give it a chance to do that.

Under this amendment, the Congressionally mandated oversight authority will be responsible for ensuring that investigations for DHS security clearances are done in the most timely and efficient manner once the 9/11 Act reforms take effect, once they take effect. This will keep us on the path to security clearance process reform for all agencies and safeguard both national security and the pocketbooks of the American taxpayer.

I would ask all Members to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and I want to thank the minority for working with us. I understand their frustration.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the amendment.

The Acting Chairman. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate John G. Laytham on winning the Washington Restaurant Association's Duke Zeibert Award. This special honor is truly well-deserved.

John Laytham has worked tirelessly for over 41 years for Clyde's Restaurant Group and has helped shaped their success in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. He first started to work at Clyde's Restaurant to earn extra income while attending Georgetown University. He held nearly every position, and in 1968 he was asked to be partner. In 1970 he and his partner purchased the Old Ebbitt Grill, the oldest saloon in Washington, and today the most popular restaurant in the city.

The success of Clyde's restaurant group can be attributed to Mr. Laytham's dedication, keen sense of detail, and good judgment of style. Since the purchase of Old Ebbitt Grill the company has expanded to include 11 restaurants. Currently, Mr. Laytham is working to expand that number. He is simultaneously overseeing the construction of a restaurant in the Penn Quarter and a restaurant in Loudon County Virginia.

In 1992, Mr. Laytham launched the Clyde's School/Work program in partnership with the D.C. public school system. His love for the restaurant industry and concern for the well being of the District's youth helped him infuse the two interests allowing students to learn valuable work skills while obtaining a diploma. This mentoring program was started in hopes of eventually creating a high profile charter school, and with the help of other industry leaders the Marriott Hospitality Public Charter High School was formed.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Laytham for his extensive service to the District of Columbia and the restaurant industry. His contributions and efforts are much appreciated and greatly admired. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Laytham on his award and in wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Offered By: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

Amendment No. 2: At the end of section 516, add the

following:

Provided further, That this section shall cease to be

effective at such time as the President has selected a single

agency to conduct security clearance investigations pursuant

to section 3001(c) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism

Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 435b)

and the entity selected under section 3001(b) of such Act has

reported to Congress that the agency selected pursuant to

such section 3001(c) is capable of conducting all necessary

investigations in a timely manner or has authorized the

entities within the Department of Homeland Security covered

by this section to conduct their own investigations pursuant

to section 3001 of such Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1279, ``The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.''

Northern Virginia is home to large Central American and Asian populations. I believe these groups bring a diversity and work ethic that enhances and benefits our region. Our diversity is one of our strengths.

Unfortunately, we have become increasingly aware of the gang element that sometimes attends these communities, and we are now fighting the spread of violent gang activity here in our neighborhoods.

Accounts of machete attacks and other violent murders have awoken my constituents to the dangers gangs present to all communities in Northern Virginia. In fact, law enforcement officials say there is a gang presence in everv high school in Fairfax County. In the past, I have worked with my colleagues Frank Wolf and Jim Moran to direct federal resources for anti-gang activity to Northern Virginia. I have also traveled on numerous occasions to those Central American countries that serve as the breeding ground for MS-13 and other such gangs.

The legislation we are voting on today addresses one aspect of gang control. As our neighbors in El Salvador have learned, you can make all the arrests you want, but if you don't have the ability to effectively prosecute you actually exacerbate the problem. This legislation will help ensure that we do not have the same issue here in the United States.

The tough penalties set out by the bill will send a clear message that we intend to stop the menace of gang violence, and that those who challenge us will be dealt with harshly. We are also bolstering our commitment to law enforcement by providing them the resources they need to penetrate gangs and successfully put members behind bars.

Of course, if we are to ultimately be successful and effectively stem the expansion of gang activity, we need to take a comprehensive look at all strategies including law enforcement, international engagement, educational programs, social services and prevention. Law enforcement is one key component; however, without adequate attention to these other aspects, we will have a great deal of difficulty eradicating this epidemic. '

To that end, I plan to continue to work with my colleagues to provide adequate support for education and prevention efforts, outreach, and other proactive programs to deal with the problem at the source. In addition, as the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Office of National Drug Control Policy, I intend to thoroughly investigate the tie between narcotrafficking and gang activity. I plan to travel again to both Colombia and EI Salvador this month as part of this effort.

I also intend to meet with leaders of those countries to determine how the United States can better assist their efforts to stem the flow of gang members to the United States.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to address this serious challenge, and I again want to thank my friend Randy Forbes for taking the lead on this critical aspect of our fight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1268 and urge all my colleagues to support it.

In addition to necessary funding for our troops, tsunami disaster relief, and border security; this conference report also includes important provisions to bring long-overdue, common sense reform to drivers' licenses and state-issued identification cards, authored last year by the Government Reform Committee in response to a recommendation of the 9-11 Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the Speaker and Majority Leader for making good on their promise to get this legislation to the floor signed into law quickly in the 109th Congress. I also want to thank my colleague from California, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his strong support and for agreeing to include these provisions in H.R, 1268. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his tireless work and support on this issue, Last year following passage of the 9-11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act, he and I made a commitment to work together to ensure that the most important provisions not addressed in the final bill would be addressed early in the 109th Congress. That commitment is being fulfilled today.

Judging by the basic nature of these requirements as well as the actions taken by some States, it is quite obvious that not enacting these reforms does not come from a lack of ability, but from a lack of will. The federal government cannot continue to allow our security responsibilities to be compromised by the inaction of a few.

Our approach is very straightforward. Building upon guidelines and best practices established and accepted by State Motor Vehicle Administrators, the federal government's long-standing work on identity security, and actions taken by individual States to shore up their licensing process following the terrorist attacks; our legislation sets forth minimum document and issuance standards for federal acceptance of driver's licenses and state-issued personal identification cards. The legislation provides three years for States to come into compliance with these standards in order for the federal government to recognize their documents as proof of an individual's identity.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. States that want their drivers' licenses to be used for federal identification purposes will be required to meet these standards. All of them. If they do not, the citizens of that State will not be able to use their driver's license to identify themselves for many purposes that they use them for today, such as boarding an airplane. The bill and the report make clear that the Secretary must determine the uses, in addition to those set forth in the bill, for which drivers licenses only from complying states will be accepted. Importantly, the final bill makes clear that the Secretary of Homeland Security will be responsible for ensuring that the certifications represent full compliance. This requirement ensures that the national security interests of the United States will be protected through enforcement of the requirements of the bill.

States will also be required to confirm the applicant's proof of legal presence in the United States. Currently, only 11 states lack such a requirement, meaning a majority of states have already recognized the need for tighter standards, but unnecessary and dangerous gaps in the system still exist. Importantly, States are still permitted to issue drivers' licenses to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States or who cannot provide satisfactory proof of identity. The ability of States to have such a system is currently under challenge in court, and this legislation will provide them with express authority. The bill further provides that these licenses or identification cards must be clearly visually differentiated from other licenses and contain specific language regarding their validity for federal identification and other official purposes.

In addition, the legislation will require identity documents to expire at the same time as the expiration of lawful entry status--this will prevent individuals who have illegally entered or are unlawfully present in the United States from having valid identification documents. This loophole was highlighted on September 11th, as Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, the pilots of Flight 77, both obtained licenses and identification cards after the expiration of their visa authorization. We must correct this dangerous problem before we again give individuals who have overstayed their visas the tools they need to integrate into society and carry out criminal and terrorist acts.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that these actions are consistent with actions taken

by individual states to date. For example, Nevada and New Mexico do not accept, as proof of identity, a state-issued driver license or identification card from states that do not meet their own standards. The federal government has been delinquent in dealing with this issue, but we are correcting that problem today.

Fraud in identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. As we continue to strengthen our intelligence function to better identify and track terrorists, those individuals will be forced to find ways to conceal their identity in order to avoid detection. We must be able to establish, as close to certainty as we can, that people are who they say they are, and in order to do so the federal government must have documents that it can trust. In fact, we would not be fulfilling our security role for the American people if we did not.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important provisions and the passage of this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 228, which I introduced to observe the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Republic of Vietnam to the Communist forces of North Vietnam.

As you know, the Republic of Vietnam succumbed to North Vietnamese Communist troops on April 30, 1975. This dark day was a great tragedy not only for Vietnamese people, but for all democratic governments and free people in the world. America reacted quickly by opening its hearts and borders to over one million Vietnamese refugees. Another one million people fled to Europe, Australia, and Canada, and almost one million died en route to freedom.

Many came here by surviving incredible hardships. They risked their lives on rickety boats facing pirates, starvation, and the perils of being at sea on open boats for weeks and months on end. Others escaped through dangerous mountainous and jungle terrain and those who were not so lucky were forced into so called ``Re-education Camps'' which were nothing more than concentration camps designed to torture and kill people who opposed the community regime. Soldiers, writers, journalists, members of the clergy and other religious leaders all suffered the same fate in these camps: humiliation, torture, and often, death.

We owe all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice during the Vietnam War, both American and Vietnamese, a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. While we pay homage to these fallen heroes with resolutions and commemorations, the most fitting tribute is the enduring memory of their lives.

Madam Speaker, in 1994 the United States ended its trade embargo with Vietnam and normalized relations with Hanoi. While the U.S. continues to open diplomatic relations with Vietnam, we must remember that many issues remain unresolved, including human rights violations, lack of religious freedom, and government corruption.

I have traveled to Vietnam many times to learn about these issues first-hand, as well as to raise these concerns with high-level officials. In addition, the large Vietnamese-American community in my congressional district continues to keep me apprised of the situation. As a member of the Vietnam Caucus, I am dedicated to promoting awareness and policy debates among the U.S. Congress, the American public, and the international community about the greater need for fundamental human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Madam Speaker, I urge every citizen of the United States to share in remembering this dark chapter in history. We must strive to have a greater understanding of the role these events had in hollowing the Vietnamese people of their liberty to provide the necessary leadership so that one day the Vietnamese people may enjoy freedom, democracy, and equality.

I am hopeful H. Res. 228 will serve as a sensible voice of reason and help move the Vietnamese people one step closer toward ultimate liberation and freedom. At the least, however, I believe it will help shed much needed light on the atrocities committed by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam everyday on its own citizens. I would like to thank the other co-chairs of the Vietnam Caucus, Loretta Sanchez, Chris Smith, and Zoe Lofgren, for their support and urge my colleagues to join me in the passage of this resolution.