Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, over 3 years our Nation has invested in Iraq. In human and political costs it has been a heavy toll. We have lost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, spent billions of dollars, and squandered the greatest outpouring of international support in decades. And through it all, we have misplaced our focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism.

It is time for us to prepare to redeploy our forces from Iraq by the end of the year. Mr. Murtha is right: redeploy but be ready. Some successes have occurred.

The recent killing of Islamic extremist al Zarqawi by coalition forces offers an opportunity to stem the steady tide of internal terrorist attacks in Iraq, while the welcome news that several important cabinet ministers have been appointed demonstrates that progress is being made. Nevertheless, these glimpses of optimism cannot mask the overwhelming recognition that this was a war of choice. The administration invaded Iraq without the necessary international support and without plans for stability, reconstruction, and governance.

Earlier this year I visited Iraq and saw firsthand the reality of our investment. While our troops bravely fight, there were few areas of security or safety. Sectarian violence and civil strife have eclipsed the progress of free elections. Unemployment continues unabated. Radical clerics promote hate, and anti-American sentiment has spread with fervor. At the same time the President is urging that we stay the course, we are approaching 2,500 American troops killed, and more and more we are learning the costs back home, families losing loved ones and soldiers physically and mentally scarred by war.

We have helped sow the seeds of democracy, but now the people of Iraq must take charge and bring about their own destiny. We cannot force our way of life or our ideals upon another nation, nor should that ever be our mission. Rather, we must encourage them to bring about their own change and promise that as long as democracy and liberty is their desire, we will be their ally and be devoted to their success. To prolong this transition will only deepen their dependence on our resources, will further radicalize those who use our presence as an enticement for hate, and will distract us away from where our focus must lie.

It was only a few years ago that this Congress, with bipartisanship and unity, supported the President in embarking against the terrorist threat by ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan. All of our allies and some of our enemies recognized the strength of our convictions in defeating those who promote radicalism and extremism, and we were joined by the largest coalition in history. But then we detoured and launched an ill-advised military operation in Iraq. The results have been damaging, and instead of achieving success globally, we have reached and sowed frustration and recalcitrance.

I believe we are seeing ever increasing signs that our resources in Iraq must now be shifted to finish the job in Afghanistan and work with our allies to defeat the terrorist threat around the world. Not because we have failed or succeeded but because the process of democracy is never ending. And it is time for the Iraqi people to stand up and lead the way toward their future. Through redeployment and reallocation, we can provide regional support to those areas most susceptible to terrorism. We can refocus our attention to eradicating the leaders of hate who use global networks to promote radicalism. And we can strengthen our ability to develop multilateral approaches, reinvesting in the idea that key alliances is the best way in which to bring about democracy and stability throughout the world.

There are some who will argue that patriotism and criticism are mutually exclusive. This is utterly false. Our strength of promoting democracy, liberty, and freedom must be coupled with the wisdom of recognizing our fallibility. The difference between those who believe we must stay the course in Iraq and those who believe we must change course lies not in degrees of patriotism but rather in truthful disagreement over policy. Confusing the two leads only to division and partisanship, and we must avoid at all costs to allow an issue of such importance to be clouded with such rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I was against our Nation going to war in Iraq, but at every step of the way I have supported our men and women in uniform in their mission. I have objected to the heavy-handed foreign policy of this administration but have desired to see hope and progress for the Iraqi people. And now I call for our troops in Iraq to be redeployed by the end of the year.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment, which is a simple and straightforward step to ensure the privacy rights and civil liberties are being adequately protected.

Recognizing that many of their recommendations called for the government to more effectively protect our Nation, 9/11 Commissioners unanimously expressed the need for a viable Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. The Board was created to help ensure that as we take steps to protect our Nation, it was not done at the expense of our civil liberties.

Unfortunately, this vital board, which was established by the Intelligence Reform bill almost two years ago, has only recently had its Members appointed and confirmed and has held its first meetings. It now has to organize, hire staff, and begin fulfilling its responsibilities, all of which takes time and resources. However, in the 9/11 Commission's report card on the implementation of its recommendations, which was released in December, the COmmission noted the Board's insufficient funding. This problem persists in this year'as appropriations bill, which will severly hinder the Board's ability to complete these tasks.

Following the revelations about the National Security Agency's various spy programs, it is

more evident that we need the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to be implemented now more than ever. However, the current level of funding is clearly inadequate. $1,500,000 is not enough for a Board charged with monitoring privacy and civil liberties implications of federal regulations, executive branch policies and procedures, and public law.

The Maloney/Udall amendment increases the amount reserved for the Board to $3 million--the same amount that was initially given to the 9/ 11 Commission. And the level of funding in the bill for the Executive Office of the President will remain the same. This amendment simply gives the Board the funding it needs to do the job is was created to do.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 223, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 224, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 225, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 226, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to introduce the Seeds for Soldiers Act. As a nation currently welcoming home new veterans, we must do all we can do to assist them upon their return. One way to do that is to help them jumpstart their new small businesses.

This bill does this by creating a specialized loan program for veterans through the Small Business Administration, which provides veterans with loans up to $3 million, allows for debt refinancing, and permits borrowers to defer payments for up to one year without any accumulation of interest. To encourage lenders to provide capital, the program will carry reduced costs and a higher government loan guarantee.

The bill also establishes a vocational rehabilitation program for veterans specifically designed to assist in the transition out of service. The program, which will be established by existing Small Business Development Centers, will provide technical, vocational, and entrepreneurial assistance to veterans to help them use their skills learned in the military to open, maintain, and expand their own business. The bill authorizes $25 million in funding to provide $500,000 grants to the SBDCs to open this program.

As a member of both the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Small Business Committee, I am well acquainted with the difficulties many vets face in establishing and sustaining small businesses. At a time when thousands of veterans are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, we must act in every way possible to assist them when they return. This bill provides the seeds for veteran-owned businesses, so that they may grow into sustainable entities.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation today and wish to thank original cosponsors Representatives Emerson, Kelly, and Michaud for their support. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting both our veterans, and the benefits that small businesses contribute to our economy, by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 5836, the bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and related agencies for fiscal year 2007. I support this bill because so many people and places in northern New Mexico rely on the funding that is controlled by this bill. But my reluctance rests in that very same reason.

Many people, such as the Native Americans I represent, the Forest Service employees who care for the watersheds that are vital to everyone in my State, and the Federal land managers who make sure we are extracting carefully the oil and gas that is becoming more expensive every day, look to Congress year after year for wise guidance to help them care for their people and do their jobs. In my opinion, this bill we are debating today could do much better.

We are cutting the funding States and communities need to protect their clean water, precious lands and dwindling wildlife. For example, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans to upgrade sewage treatment plants and improve water

quality, was cut by $241 million. While I would like to commend the Committee for increasing the overall amount provided for clean water over that requested by the President, it is still far, far below what the EPA itself has projected is needed to insure clean water for all Americans.

Again this year, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund is being severely reduced. Since its enactment in 1965, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in creating and maintaining State, local and national parks--from local recreational field to our National Parks. The stateside program, which provides matching grants for local and State park land acquisition, recreation facility development, and open space conservation, has been entirely zeroed out. These relatively small amounts of funding have had an incalculably positive impact on the lives of all of our constituents, and it is short-sighted and bad budgeting that we are letting these funds founder.

Additionally, this bill zeroes funding for the United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) and Crownpoint Institute of Technology (ClT). However, I would like to thank Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks for their pledge to work to provide funding in conference for UTTC and ClT. These two institutions provide a strong educational foundation for students. I also appreciate the statement in the House report accompanying today's appropriations bill, which urges OMB, ``to give these colleges full consideration in future budget requests and to work with these institutions to resolve concerns and disparities over funding formulas prior to submission of the fiscal year 2008 budget request.'' I look forward to working with Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks in conference to assure funding for these very important schools.

Although I raise these concerns, I again reiterate the importance of the funding in this bill to my district. That is why I will reluctantly support its passage. I do so with the hope that it is improved in conference and that next year we are able to revisit these national and regional priorities and do well by our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and thank the chairman, Mr. Hobson, for providing me this opportunity to speak on a matter of great importance to my district.

The budget recommended by the committee provides for only $90.6 million for the Defense Environmental Cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratories. While it is important to note that this amount is equal to the President's budget request, it is more than $50 million less than the amount enacted for this purpose in fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I am gravely concerned that this funding level will seriously impede cleanup efforts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Less than a year ago, the State of New Mexico, the Department of Energy and the University of California signed an historic fence-to-fence cleanup order. This year's cut reduces funding to only 30 percent of what is called for in this order.

Not only must this cleanup be undertaken to protect the health of New Mexicans, but the order of consent is a legally enforceable document. It is my understanding that the DOE will face significant penalties for noncompliance to this agreement.

Mr. Chairman, in 1 week, the Los Alamos National Laboratories will enter a new era when the new management team comes into place. I feel that we

should take advantage of this positive momentum and keep LANL moving in the right direction by showing that it is a responsible and conscientious neighbor to the residents of New Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, the order of consent was the result of years of negotiations; and it provides clear guidance for how to proceed with the cleanup. Lack of funding leaves New Mexicans, LANL and potentially the DOE in jeopardy.

I hope that an adequate funding level for the Defense Environmental Cleanup account for the Los Alamos National Laboratories is restored in conference.

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose the manner in which H.R. 4681 was brought to the floor of the House. To bring a bill of this importance up under suspension of the rules, without the opportunity for amendment or full debate, was an unfortunate decision and is a bad way for this body to be legislating. The process should be open, with every chance for members to deliberate and offer substantive and positive change to what is a very complex bill.

H.R. 4681 is well-meaning legislation. Unfortunately, it implements a foreign policy that could potentially reduce future diplomatic options for the U.S. Department of State. While the legislation should specifically target the terrorist group Hamas, it unnecessarily includes nearly all members of the Palestinian Authority--PA-- Government, and will punish the entire Palestinian people.

There is no doubt that Hamas firmly believes in terrorism as a means to achieve their goals. The U.S. must continue to denounce the group's ideology. However, H.R. 4681 includes provisions which I believe will make it even more difficult for the PA to find its way back to the roadmap and to achieve peace. This includes expecting Hamas to reach specific benchmarks--benchmarks that no other PA government has been able to achieve--before receiving aid from the U.S. It includes expanding travel restriction and economic sanctions to include all members of the PA Government and all Palestinians, not simply those who are members of Hamas. Also, it includes no national security waiver which would allow the President the flexibility he needs to diplomatically deal with the situation.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is opposed by many non-governmental organizations, including those who are providing health, education, and humanitarian aid throughout the Middle East. It is also opposed by the Bush administration, which believes the legislation to be unnecessary. U.S. Secretary of State Rice has repeatedly spoken of the need for the U.S. to do all it can to be a leader in promoting peace in the Middle East, and she believes that this legislation is not the appropriate way in which to continue that leadership. This opposition from the very individual who is implementing and creating U.S. foreign policy should give us pause, and should give us even more reason not to be bringing this legislation up under suspension.

There is no question that the terrorist actions of Hamas necessitate action by the U.S. and that every Member of this body opposes Hamas. With passage of H.R. 4681, and passage of similar legislation in the Senate, I hope that a conference report takes into account all of the concerns that have been raised and substantively alters the content within this bill to ensure the Palestinian people do not unnecessarily suffer. We must enact smart foreign policy that is strong enough to bring about change, but which does not tie the hands of the President or marginalize moderate Palestinians who desire positive change.

Mr. Chairman, I support keeping the language in because, as the gentleman from Washington has said, it is very, very important to deal with this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee did not protect the global warming language in the Interior Appropriations Bill. Global warming is real and human activities are largely to blame. Many scientists believe the erratic and record- breaking weather events we are seeing across the country, such as the prolonged droughts in my home state of New Mexico, are the direct result of global warming. The United States must act, and we must act soon.

The language that was removed from the Interior Appropriations Bill today declared the need for a mandatory cap on greenhouse emissions. Stripping this language further shows the lack of political will of the House of Representatives on this issue. Mr. Chairman, global warming is perhaps the biggest problem that present and future generations of Americans will face. We cannot leave this to our children.

Our colleagues in the Senate have already begun the much needed debate on this issue. In fact, they passed a sense of Congress exactly the same as the one that was stripped today. In addition, they held a day-long climate change forum that gathered stakeholders on this issue, including the leadership of numerous top American companies such as GE and Walmart. Many positions and recommendations for federal greenhouse gas control legislation were aired and debated. It is way past time for the House of Representatives to join the debate. At this point, Mr. Chairman, our neglect has become a dereliction of duty.

Several pieces of legislation have already been introduced on the monumentally important and complex issue of global warming. Certainly, it will take considerable time, effort and investment to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions. And, this must be done equitably and without unnecessary harm to hard-working Americans.

Fortunately, much is already known on what we can do. Research and development on creative solutions to global warming has been underway for some time. Indeed, there is a lot of optimism that we can control the worst effects if we make the commitment. Many companies, states and cities around the country have begun the process. The United States House of Representatives remains silent.

We have not had a single hearing on global warming legislation. In the mean time, the United States continues to increase its greenhouse gas emission levels and China and India are developing fossil fuel dependent, carbon-intensive economies at astounding rates. Mr. Chairman, the process must begin. The United States must be a leader on this issue.

Included in the list of legislation foundering in the House is a bill that the Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and I introduced. H.R. 5049, the Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act, is a bipartisan policy that will address greenhouse gas emissions but not put America's jobs at risk. This monumental step of putting a price on carbon will stabilize and eventually reduce emissions, finally putting the United States on the road toward curbing the effects of global warming.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the House of Representatives to immediately begin the debate on solutions to global warming.

Mr. Speaker, we are here talking today about salvage logging. And let us first of all be clear that salvage logging is taking place on our public lands. And if you want a lot more salvage logging, this is the bill to be for. The CBO says 40 percent more salvage logging.

Now, why is that a concern? Salvage logging has been found to impede forest regeneration. Now, that doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. When you have bulldozers and skidders and you are dragging trees that have been burned and you are dragging them through the forest, you are hurting the ability of that forest to regenerate. Seedlings that are on the ground are being destroyed. So salvage logging hurts the ability of the forest to regrow itself.

It damages riparian areas. It damages riparian areas. So we are talking here about streams, where if you cut the forests and take these logs out that you will not then have the ability to then allow these streams to produce clean water. They silt up after this kind of salvage logging that occurs.

Salvage logging also introduces and spreads invasive species, it causes erosion, and it degrades water quality. This is what our forests are all about. Our forests, we use them as watersheds. They supply us clean water. What this bill is all about is degrading those watersheds. That is what is going on here today, and they do not want to talk about it.

They come and say, oh, no laws, no laws will be waived. Well, folks, let me tell you, this legislation exempts and waives the National Environmental Policy Act, one of the best planning laws that has been on the books for 30 years; the Endangered Species Act, which has been on the books for 30 years; the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Water Act. These are laws that say look before you leap. Let us let the public be involved, let us study what we are doing before we jump into these situations. Significant laws are being waived, and don't believe what they are telling you on the other side.

Now, we have in place adequate laws and regulations to handle emergency situations. This bill actually has the word ``emergency'' in it, implying that there is some emergency. We had a big emergency in this country, folks. It was Katrina, and it created one of the biggest salvage situations. And guess what? Down in Louisiana and Mississippi, they are moving forward. They are doing the salvage. They do not need a new law. They have done it. And if there is a real emergency, the agencies can go to the Council on Environmental Quality and get a waiver. This has never been turned down by the Council on Environmental Quality.

So what are we talking about here? We are talking about science. The majority of peer-reviewed science says that salvage logging is not good for our forests. And what do these scientists say? It increases the forest-fire risk and it decreases forest regeneration.

I offered an amendment in the committee, and this amendment will be on the floor today. That amendment says, well, if we are going to go by the science, which you hear talk of science on the other side, then the Secretary has to certify on every project. The Secretary will certify the project would not increase the forest-fire risk or decrease forest regeneration, hurt the seedlings. And the chairman and all of the others here are going to vote that amendment down. So I think that tells you what is really going on.

We are not supporting what science says we should be doing with our forests. The claims are made that we are under regular order. As the chairman knows, this is one of the most outrageous situations to date. A major bill is before our Committee on Resources, the fisheries bill, and here we get 20 minutes for the major committee on the floor and we are over, running back and forth to a markup in the committee, and having this debate on the

floor. This is not the regular order. This is an outrage, what is going on here, and I would hope that the chairman would object to this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4200. This unnecessary legislation waives critical conservation laws, compromises the public's proven commitment to protecting roadless areas, and ignores the body of peer-reviewed science on the harmful impacts of salvage logging.

H.R. 4200 represents yet another attempt by the majority in this Congress to dismantle our Nation's most paramount conservation laws. As its core, H.R. 4200 allows for environmental exemptions to expedite the removal of timber after a catastrophic event on Federal lands. These unnecessary environmental exemptions, however, come at the expense of critical laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act. Should Congress approve H.R. 4200, the result would be weakening of existing laws meant to protect public participation and provide for environmental protections.

Proponents of H.R. 4200 argue this legislation complies with conservation laws. This is simply not true. To be clear, H.R. 4200 waives the requirements of four very critical conservation laws.

Mr. Chairman, in our discussion of H.R. 4200 on the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee, it has become apparent to me that the authorities granted under H.R. 4200 for timber salvage are unnecessary. The argument that there is an abundance of timber salvage going to waste on our public lands because of the length of the NEPA process is false. In reality, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have an abundance of existing authorities that allow for timber salvage to be completed on our public lands with the appropriate checks and balances.

Salvage logging already accounts for 35 percent of timber harvested on our national forests. Also, one of the largest salvage logging projects in the history of the U.S. Forest Service, on the Forest Service lands impacted by Hurricane Katrina, is being completed quickly under the authorities from the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.

Furthermore, H.R. 4200 is not scientifically sound. The underlying premise of H.R. 4200 that post-disturbance salvage logging must be completed to recover a forest and improve forest health is not supported by the abundance of peer-reviewed science on this issue to date. A study published by Donato and others in a January 2006 edition of the well-respected journal Science, found that post-fire logging in the wake of the 2002 Biscuit fire, reduced forest regeneration by 71 percent and increased short-term fire risk. This study adds to a substantial list of peer-reviewed science that concludes that salvage logging is contrary to the goal of improving forest health. 169 scientists from around the country submitted a letter to Congress opposing H.R. 4200 as salvage logging has been found to impede forest regeneration, damage riparian corridors, introduce or spread invasive species, cause erosion and degrade water quality.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4200 is unnecessary legislation with significant negative consequences. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on H.R. 4200.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Boehlert.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Washington should know and understand that the Science Journal that this was published in is peer reviewed. It is one of the most solid scientific publications, and it came out and said that regeneration was hurt 71 percent, that 71 percent was hurt in that regeneration process.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who worked with the Biscuit fire and has great experience in these forestry issues.

Madam Chairman, I yield our remaining time to a leader in our Resources Committee on forest issues and a champion on protecting our forests and watersheds, Representative Inslee.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will require the Secretary concerned to certify that a catastrophic event recovery project will not decrease forest regeneration or increase forest fire risk.

This amendment is very important considering the results of a peer- reviewed study recently published in the respected journal Science by Donato and others from Oregon State University. This study concluded that logging in the wake of the 2002 Biscuit fire decreased forest regeneration by 71 percent and increased short-term fire risk.

Unfortunately, this peer-reviewed study came under attack from those who disagreed with its conclusions. Even the Bureau of Land Management threatened to withdraw funding for the study. This was very unfortunate and I believe yet another attempt to silence science.

The vast majority of peer-reviewed science on salvage logging to date demonstrates that salvage logging is contrary to the goal of improving forest health. In fact, 169 scientists from around the country submitted a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to H.R. 4200. Disappointingly, H.R. 4200 ignores this body of science on the harmful impacts of salvage logging, including its potential to increase forest-fire risk and decrease forest regeneration. This amendment attempts to incorporate some of the science into the underlying bill.

In the Southwest, we are facing what is predicted to be a record fire season. Even firefighters are opposed to H.R. 4200 because it could greatly increase fire risk to our communities. The group Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology, an organization of current, former, and retired firefighters, opposes H.R. 4200.

The practices authorized under H.R. 4200 should not increase the risk of fire to our national forests and nearby communities. Nor should H.R. 4200 impede seedling regeneration of our national forests.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to close at this point, so I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, there are ecologically sound ways to do salvage logging. This amendment assures that the science is followed. All we are asking is that the Secretary, in approving one of these projects, certify it will not increase forest-fire risk, and will not decrease forest regeneration.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back any remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the news reports released today that the National Security Agency has been collecting telephone data on tens of millions of Americans. With these news reports, we have discovered that the NSA, in conjunction with some of our country's largest telecommunications providers, now has a database with the phone records of millions of Americans.

While the creation of this database does not involve the NSA listening to or recording our conversations, the agency now has detailed records of calls people have made to business associates, to maybe a family physician, to friends, to family. This program is a significant violation of the privacy of all Americans.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time the administration has had the National Security Agency spy on Americans. We discovered just this past December that the President had authorized the NSA to spy domestically. While we still do not have much information on the domestic spying program, we know that hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans had their telephone conversations and e-mails monitored.

President Bush asserts that he authorized the NSA only to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Yet we find out months later that during the same period of time, the NSA has been creating the largest database ever assembled, with information from millions of people. We can hardly say that millions of people here in the United States whose privacy has been invaded have suspected ties to terrorism.

The President did this yet again without seeking warrants. This administration has long sought to extend its power and authority at every available opportunity, and this is no exception. If the administration truly needed these phone records, they could have, at the very least, obtained warrants from the FISA court.

The fourth amendment clearly states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.''

I strongly believe that gathering information on millions of American citizens without first obtaining warrants or any judicial oversight clearly violates this core principle of our Constitution.

I have to ask, where is the oversight? A program of this magnitude must be considered by Congress. While the President has stated that appropriate Members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities, this does not constitute oversight. Congress should

hold hearings, question witnesses about the program, and consider its legality. Congress needs to step up and exercise its proper oversight responsibility, something it has failed to do for 5 years. At a minimum, the oversight committees must make a determination on the legality of this program.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the administration will contend that questioning the existence of this database is undermining our Nation's security efforts. It is essential that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect our Nation, and he must be able to gather this intelligence. However, this has to be done in accordance with our Constitution, the bedrock of our Nation.

Despite what this administration would have us believe, securing our Nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, can be achieved without violations of our constitutional freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Payday Loan Consumer Protection Amendments of 2006. This legislation prohibits federally insured institutions from engaging in high-cost payday loans and expands protections for consumers in connection with making these loans by uninsured entities.

It is well known that payday lending is a rapidly expanding form of high-cost, short-term credit. Studies indicate that the average annual percentage rate on payday loans ranges from 390 to 780 percent for a two-week loan. Let me repeat that: the average annual percentage rate on payday loans ranges from 390 to 780 percent. Additionally, typical payday loan customers take out between eight and twelve loans per year from a single lender.

I believe lending that fails to assess a borrowers ability to repay, that requires consumers to write checks on insufficient funds and that encourages perpetual debt is unacceptable. However, many of the laws pertaining to payday lenders are dealt with at the State level. One area, however, where the Federal Government has an important role to play is with what are known as ``rent-a-banks.'' Rent-a-banks are banks that partner with payday lenders to make single-payment and installment loans. These arrangements are designed to allow payday lenders to evade small loan laws in their respective States.

As such, my bill prohibits insured financial institutions from making payday loans, either directly or indirectly. It prohibits them from making loans to other lenders so that they can, in turn, make, refinance, or extend payday loans. In addition to prohibiting rent-a- banks, my legislation seeks to ensure that those individuals who choose to take out a loan with a high interest rate know that they are doing so. Consumers should be aware that they are borrowing with an unusually high interest rate. My legislation requires the Federal Reserve System to conduct a study to determine the most effective way to require all credit applications that have an annual percentage rate higher than thirty-six percent to include a high-interest warning label.

Last year, despite my opposition, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which only addressed the personal responsibility of debtors. While I fully concede that individuals must take greater responsibility for their debt, I also feel that the lending industry should be held accountable for targeting those individuals who are unable to pay off their debts. We must address both irresponsible borrowers and lenders to stop the cycle of debt that has enveloped many Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the ongoing debate of whether our port system can accommodate 100 percent screening of shipping containers headed through United States ports.

The case for 100 percent screening is not hard to make. Approximately 95 percent of our nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters or leaves through our seaports. Foreign vessels carry the bulk of the approximately 800 million tons of goods that come into our country. In fiscal year 2005 alone, more than 11 million containers arrived on American soil by sea, and this number is growing at a rate of over 10 percent a year. Given this enormous amount of traffic the need to ensure our nation's security is considerable.

Any assertion that technology does not exist to screen 100 percent of the cargo coming to the United States is simply incorrect. For several years, innovative small businesses have been busy improving upon existing technology. Just this month in my district, TMC Services, a small company located in Los Alamos, unveiled a prototype of an advanced spectroscopic radiation detection system. This mobile platform is designed to provide for 100 percent screening without unduly affecting port operations. The mobile and versatile system provides drive-through or drive-over inspection of containers and is intended for integration into the global detection network connected to a centralized nuclear data analysis center which is being developed by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) at the Department of Homeland Security.

Mobile Point of Needs Detector System (MPONDS) is a unique systems engineered solution to the container screening problem and ahead of its time in terms of looking at all the pieces necessary to put together a coherent and effective port protection system. I saw first-hand a demonstration of the technology and believe this technology has the potential to contribute to our goal of detecting cargo which would harm the United States.

I believe we should not be focusing on whether 100 percent screening is achievable, as it clearly is, but rather on how rapidly we can deploy this new, existing, advanced technology at all U.S. ports. I was greatly disappointed to learn that the restrictive rule for today's debate of H.R. 4954 did not make in order an amendment offered by Representative Nadler to require that every shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the U.S. It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Rules Committee continues to ignore the strong need for debate and action on this issue, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to take the responsible step of insisting that the U.S. government protect its citizens by screening all of the cargo entering the United States ports.

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as the majority has stated, this noncontroversial bill makes technical amendments to a variety of laws relating to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The House passed H.R. 3351 last year on the suspension calendar, and the legislation now before us reflects changes made by the Senate. I urge all of our colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3351.

Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may control.

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me congratulate my fellow New Mexican, Representative Steve Pearce, for his leadership on this issue. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of his legislation.

H.R. 2720 creates a research program to control two invasive shrubs: the salt cedar and the Russian olive. Introduced in the 19th century, both the salt cedar and the Russian olive flourish in a variety of soil types and tolerate shade well. Unfortunately, these invasive plants have invaded many streams across the West, forcing out native cottonwoods. Because the salt cedar and Russian olive utilize more water than native plants, their presence along streams is disrupting to water flow and water availability. H.R. 2720 will create both research and pilot programs to study effective control and long-term management of these shrubs. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2720.

I would also like to recognize my colleagues Representative Mark Udall, Representative John Salazar and Representative Stephanie Herseth, who are all cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 2720.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the Agriculture Committee who has been a leader on invasive species issues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

(Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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