Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, if there is an example of how legislation should be crafted, the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 is it. This is a great bill that will help to improve our homeland security. And if it should succeed on the floor today, its passage will be a tribute to the spirit of bipartisanship that is alive and well in the Homeland Security Committee and that has been carefully cultivated under the leadership of that committee's chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), its ranking member (Mr. King), and certainly Mr. Lungren, to my immediate left, who have all worked very hard to work in that bipartisan environment on the committee. The bill started out in the 109th Congress where it was introduced by former Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, while it passed in the Homeland Security Committee, it was never addressed in the full House. Fortunately, in 2007, Chairman Thompson recognized the importance of this legislation and helped revive the bill in the new Congress. Both sides worked together to make sure that the bill accomplished its objective, to keep ammonium nitrate out of the hands of Timothy McVeighs and other would-be terrorists of the world while making sure that legitimate end users of the substance in agricultural production were not inconvenienced. An en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Thompson, for example, removed the requirement that farmers and others register with the Department of Homeland Security so long as they never come into possession of the ammonium nitrate. In addition to protecting the rights of legitimate end users, the chairman also helped make sure that the final legislative product had input from both sides of the aisle. Three key Republican amendments were added to the bill during committee markup as a result. First, offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Lungren), directed applications by those seeking to distribute or utilize ammonium nitrate be checked against a terror watch list with an expedited appeals process to handle any cases of mistaken hits. Ranking Member King also offered an amendment that would protect legitimate distributors of ammonium nitrate if they act in good faith when they refuse to sell to a suspicious purchaser or if they notify the department of that would- be purchaser's suspicious behavior. Finally, Congresswoman Brown-Waite offered an amendment that would help to streamline record-keeping requirements for agricultural retail outlets. These amendments have all served to strengthen the bill. The need for this legislation is clear. Ammonium nitrate has been the explosive material of choice in a number of acts and attempted acts of terrorism, including the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City which killed 168 innocent men, women and children. The 1998 attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Toronto- based bomb plot thwarted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in June 2006, of course, most recently, the attempts by a terrorist group in London to detonate explosive charges throughout the United Kingdom. I hope the House will see fit to join me in supporting this effective legislation. It is a very bipartisan piece of legislation. Again, I would like to thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I have to add my two cents' worth, that the same folks who were training up in the Poconos near Congressman Carney's home were training about an hour from my home as well, and we all, I think, realize the nature of this homegrown threat. But I want to rise today to speak in support of H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Recently, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have enjoyed a number of successes in the war against violent extremism. The plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, the attempt to disrupt the Kennedy Airport pipeline system, and last year's conspiracy to bring down the U.S./U.K. transatlantic flights, were all disrupted by good intelligence efforts and, as a result, lives were saved. But we cannot rest on our laurels. After all, it is still al Qaeda's stated goal to kill 4 million Americans, to bring the United States to its knees, and to impose a system of radical violent Islamism upon the Middle East, and in fact the rest of the world. We need to protect ourselves from this threat to do everything we can in order to make sure that there are no future terrorist attacks on the homeland, and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act would help us certainly in this effort. This bill's effectiveness is enhanced by the fact that it was put together in a spirit of bipartisan, much to the credit of the Chair, Ms. Harman. Earlier this year, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee's Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee, Congressman Dave Reichert, introduced legislation, H.R. 1695, that forms the basis for the current bill, H.R. 1955. Chairwoman Harman and Ranking Member Reichert have both actively supported the current bill, which was voted out of the Homeland Security Committee without opposition in August. Also, this bill was the subject of numerous hearings, excellent hearings, much to the credit of both of them. This bill can help us to stop the spread of violent radicalization that has helped terrorist groups to grow their rank-and-file membership. It creates a 10-member national commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, which will study radicalization and come up with recommendations for defusing its power and preventing its spread. It establishes a university-based center of excellence that will study this phenomenon in depth, and it encourages international cooperation to stop the spread of this violent extremism. It authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to work with nations such as the U.K. and Israel, countries that have had a lot of experience and success in dealing with violent extremism within their borders, to develop a ``best practices'' methodology that can be used to help prevent radicalization and to thwart ideologically based violence. I hope that Members will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting us against violent extremism and at making us safer here in this country.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I am fortunate to have located within my District a company by the name of OraSure Technologies. OraSure, of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has been at the forefront in the development of diagnostic testing technologies. Specifically, it is the leader in the development of a protocol for the utilization of oral fluid samples in diagnostic testing. Conducting drug testing on oral fluid samples, as opposed to blood, urine or hair submissions, represents a huge advancement in drug- testing technology. Drawing blood or collecting urine from a subject is invasive and time-consuming, as compared to utilizing an oral fluid sample, which can be obtained from a simple swab of the cheek. Moreover, oral fluid testing is both cost-effective and accurate. For these reasons, the use of this technology has increased. Nearly seven million oral fluid drug specimens have been successfully processed in the non-federally regulated workplace since the technology was first approved by the FDA in 2000. Technological advancements in the testing of oral fluids for the presence of drugs have come none too soon. In a July 16, 2007 report released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, a tenant agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA indicated that illegal drug use is on the rise in the workplace. The survey found that nearly one in every 12 Americans had used illicit drugs in the 30 days prior to the survey. Overall this survey found that 8.2 percent of Americans are drug users, up from 7.7 percent in 1997. Much of the increase in drug use is occurring in our young people, a very real concern for America. In the 18-25 age group, SAMHSA found 19 percent had used drugs in the last month. Still concerning, the 26-34 age group had used drugs at a rate of 10.3 percent. This trend needs to be reversed. The development and availability of testing methods--such as OraSure's--that are accurate, cost-effective, and non-invasive gives employers a tool to set expectations and promote accountability. SAMHSA recognizes the gravity of drug use in the workplace. Accordingly, it is now revising federal drug-testing guidelines to ensure that more companies and federal agencies have access to the latest advancements in drug testing technology including oral fluid- based testing. I encourage SAMHSA to move quickly with the revisions. Illegal drug use is not just a criminal justice issue; drug use has a negative effect on productivity in the work place and drug users who labor in positions vital to the public safety constitute a potential threat to homeland security. I commend SAMHSA for taking steps to decrease drug use in our society and I urge quick adoption of revisions to the outdated federal drug-testing guidelines.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Again, I applaud you for your leadership on this issue. You are absolutely right, the Jones Commission really did give your legislation, without saying it, a very strong endorsement. I think you pointed out another issue that I think we can all agree on about this issue of permanent bases. We have voted before against permanent bases, and your status of forces agreement, I think, really does provide the right answer to the question of permanent bases. I would also point out too that should not be an open-ended commit in Iraq as has been reported and stated in the Iraq Study Group report. Finally, I think there is another area where most of us degree in this Chamber, that what we want in this country is we want to make sure that we pursue our national interest as it relates to Iraq. I think most of us realize that we cannot allow al Qaeda to have a base from which to operate in Iraq. I think that's something on which Republicans and Democrats can agree. I think we also agree that we cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state, that is, it becomes a threat to itself and to the region. The third point I want to make on this, I think it's a very significant point, and perhaps we don't state it enough, and I think you will get a sense of this issue, if you have ever attended the funeral of someone who was killed in Iraq, as I know we all have, and I have families in my district, and Paris and Rush that have lost family members in recent months, and the issue really deals with honoring the service and sacrifice of our people who have invested so much or in some cases, as Abraham Lincoln said, gave that last full measure of devotion. I have had numerous conversations, for example, with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, and I know some of you have as well. We talk about these types of issues that, regardless of how one feels about the run up to this war, or how it has been executed, and the mistakes have been made along the way, critics of this administration, for example, have said they do not listen to many of the generals going into Iraq. But I think it's very important that we do listen to generals as we transition down and go out of Iraq. I think that's critically important that we do this, and as we transition, that we remember the service and the sacrifice, remember our national interest, which is making sure al Qaeda has no base from which to operate and that we do not leave a failed state in our wake. I just wanted to share those thoughts with you and, again, applaud you. I hope that your bill is one of those bipartisan bills that we will be able to bring to this floor for consideration, just as we did with the Tanner-Abercrombie-English bill today, which was a good start. I think we saw a broad consensus in this House that supported that legislation, and I think that's good for all of us. Again, I would just applaud you for your work on the status of forces agreement.

Mr. DENT. If I may, Madam Speaker, I just hope that our exercise tonight has done just what you want us to do to make C-SPAN safe for children again, and I hope this exercise has accomplished that goal.

Mr. DENT. I'd like to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. And Madam Speaker, there's one issue that I always recall very much, having visited Iraq in the summer of 2005 with at least one gentleman in this room tonight. And it dealt with the issue of reconciliation, although we really didn't talk as much as about it back then, but that's what the exercise was in. You've mentioned this, as we talked about reconciliation in Iraq, you were very good enough to organize a meeting among the Center Aisle Caucus not so long ago where a prominent Iraqi in the diplomatic corps addressed us, and he talked about the need for reconciliation in our country. And we referred to the tribalism in Iraq that we saw that was frustrating to us and difficult for us to comprehend, and he sort of noticed the tribalism in our country, as he referred to it, I believe, as in Republicans and Democrats and very hard for him to understand the type of chatter that was going on here. So the point is there's reconciliation needed here in America as well as in Iraq. But one issue of reconciliation that I learned about in Iraq, Madam Speaker, was in August of 2005 when I met a fellow named Albert Chowanski, Jr., who was from a town about 45 miles from my hometown of Allentown, Pennsylvania. He lives in Frackville, Pennsylvania; been in the Middle East for about 30 years. He was working for a contractor, the Siemens Corporation, and was building a power plant, helping to construct a power plant in the Taza area near Kirkuk. And he told me the challenges of building a power plant while people are shooting mortars at you, and how difficult that was. And I asked him, ``Well, how did you deal with the situation?'' He said, ``Well, the mortar attacks weren't very effective, to be perfectly candid, but nevertheless it was troublesome and made life difficult for us.'' And so he said the way he dealt with it, he went out and he met with each of the tribal leaders, and that's a multiethnic area near Kirkuk. You have ethnic Turks or Turkmen, and you have Kurds and Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs. And so he went out and he met with all the tribal leaders, and he gave jobs to members of each tribe. And he said, ``You know, they all work together just fine, and everything went pretty quiet.'' And my point is that here's a fellow who seemed to be an engineer of some sort. I think he was an electrical engineer, and he was out there trying to solve a problem from a very practical level. And we've seen a bit of that in Iraq, I think, in recent months. You've seen it in the Sunni areas that have been much talked about, the tribal leaders turning on al Qaeda, which is all very encouraging. But sometimes we talk about benchmarks and we talk about things that we expect the Iraqis to do, and we are frustrated with the pace of or lack of progress in that country from the higher levels. But then we see some of these more local efforts at reconciliation that do bring a certain amount of encouragement and hope. But I just wanted to share that with you tonight as something that we ought to think more about as we talk about this policy of how we deal with Iraq and as we try to deal with the issue from 60,000 feet in the air here. And as many of us have visited that country and we talk to a lot of folks who are in charge, sometimes life brings us unexpected events, and sometimes those events are positive, and I think we can learn from people who are on the ground.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Israel for helping organize this Special Order this evening, and I do want to commend you for what you've been doing to help try to change the tone of this institution. You're absolutely right when you talk about the level of noise, the partisan vitriol. I think we all realize that many of our constituents come to us from time to time, and they see partisanship for the sake of partisanship. They don't always see the philosophical differences that may underlie those partisan debates. They get annoyed with it, and they see carping and whining. They hear Republicans criticizing Democrats over their policies, Democrats criticizing Republicans. And I think at times they would just like us to turn the temperature down, improve the tone and try to find solutions to the problems that face us, especially on issues of war and peace. It was after the Second World War in the late 1940s and right up until the demise of the former Soviet Union, this Nation seemed to have a bipartisan policy to carry us through the cold war. It was called the policy of containment, and that doesn't mean that everybody in Congress felt universally that containment was a great policy, and they might have disagreed with certain aspects of that policy. But nevertheless, containment was the policy and it was able to survive from one administration to the next. Whether that be a Democrat or Republican administration, the policy survived, and each administration may have had a different spin on it and tweaked that policy, but it was the policy of this country. And I think that our enemies understood that. We all understood that there was a Soviet threat, and we as Americans came together during that Cold War and eventually were successful. We outlasted the Soviet Union, and here we are in Iraq. I think the American people have reached a point where they'd like us to develop that same kind of bipartisan consensus as we deal with the threats that face us today, the threats from violent extremists, people who are represented by al Qaeda we know who want to do great damage to us, who have made statements to the effect that they want to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million children. So the American people expect us to work together, and Iraq certainly is part of this whole debate because, of course, al Qaeda has a significant presence in that country. And I do want to thank you once again for helping to facilitate this dialogue. Because of your efforts and many others, we were able to talk about the Iraq Study Group and the recommendations presented there. Also, we may hear from some of our other colleagues later tonight, people like Congressmen Tanner and Castle, Tanner a Democrat from Tennessee and Castle a Republican from Delaware, who have talked at great length about the need for a bipartisan compact on Iraq. And they really set forth several principles that they thought that we could all agree to as we move forward. And one of those first principles they talked about was that we could agree in Congress that we need to end the political infighting over the conflict in Iraq and commit immediately to a truly bipartisan dialogue on these issues that we're facing, and that was I think really their first main point. And many of us have signed on to that compact, an even number of Republicans and Democrats, and I think that's very important. And we came to an agreement on many of those issues, and I won't elaborate them all right now because I think some others may want to talk about them, but I think it is absolutely critical. Those points of interest of policy in this bipartisan compact on Iraq are entirely consistent, in my view, with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, another very significant initiative headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former distinguished Congressman Lee Hamilton that talked about a lot of things I think many of us agree on. For example, we all agree that there shouldn't be permanent bases in Iraq, and you came up with the idea of a status of forces agreement in lieu of permanent bases, just a status of forces agreement just like our Nation has with other countries where we have a military presence, whether that be in Germany or Korea, like we had in the Philippines at one time, where our country enters into agreements with those governments to really state the nature of our presence and what the presence would be. And it's also certainly important to the government that we'll be dealing with, whether it be in Iraq or elsewhere, to help give them legitimacy. So that was an idea that you came up with, and again, I think it's an issue that we can all agree to on a very broad bipartisan basis. There are other issues, too, but I won't belabor them all tonight, but I think something you said to me a few weeks ago I think is worth repeating, and it's this: That as our constituents from time to time watch C-SPAN and they hear the noise, they hear the rancor and they sometimes get a little frustrated and throw up their hands about what's happening in Congress, and I think you said it was one of your constituents who pointed out after the last time we did one of these bipartisan Special Orders, they said that we were making C-SPAN safe for children once again, and for that, I want to give you a lot of credit, but there's a lot of truth to that. Hopefully, because of these types of activities that we are conducting here tonight, more people will be likely to turn on C-SPAN and listen to I hope what will be a very thoughtful and constructive dialogue on one of the preeminent issues that's facing this country.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise this afternoon in support of this legislation which designates the third week of October as National Teen Driver Safety Week. As has already been stated, we witness this issue on far too many occasions, but roughly 7,500 teenage drivers were involved in fatal car crashes in 2005. Today, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among American teenagers. The time has come for Congress to recognize this terrible problem and consider effective interventions that will help reduce the number of accidents involving teens on American roads. On Monday, January 22, 2007, following a tragic accident that claimed the lives of two young high school students in my district, The Morning Call newspaper compiled a report: Fatal crashes involving teens that had occurred in the Lehigh Valley region since 2001. This report indicated that there were a total of 13 fatalities between 2001 and 2006, with alcohol involved in two of the seven accidents reported. Other contributing factors included racing and reckless behavior. Sadly, it appears that these events, which are happening in every corner of the United States, could have been prevented, enabling these young adults to reach their destinations safely. To address this troubling issue, the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania, or CHOP as it's commonly referred to, is currently conducting research that will help develop the best interventions to reduce the risk of crash injury for teen drivers and travelers sharing the road with them. The alliance of Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania and State Farm Insurance Company, CHOP's partner in this initiative, is nationally recognized for its research and outreach involving child passenger safety. However, this year they've expanded their agenda from the car seat to the driver's seat in an effort to address the cause of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among American teenagers. Together, CHOP and State Farm have conducted research indicating that teens often drive while distracted and fatigued. I believe this alliance brings together a wide range of expertise and research and outreach, translating scientific evidence into actions that will help save lives. It's important that Congress support efforts to effectively educate these teens and families about ways to address these problems. This resolution will endorse the goals and ideals of a week in which intensive programming will be used to encourage these teens to drive more safely. By delaying exposure to risky driving conditions until they have had enough supervised driving experience, managing peer-to-peer interactions while in the vehicle, and reinforcing the need to protect and react to hazards more appropriately, teens will be better prepared to drive responsibly. Throughout our great Nation, teens are dying in crashes at a rate of four times that of adult drivers. Congress must work to prevent these tragedies, and I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the excessively partisan comments from the gentleman from Florida that did not serve this bipartisan, bicameral product well, I do want to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King of the Homeland Security Committee for their hard work to bring this very fine bill together. As a member of the conference committee, I had an opportunity to see firsthand the extraordinary leadership these two gentlemen provided. I thank them for that. This leadership really came together and really came to the forefront during the debate on the so-called ``John Doe'' provision. I vigorously applaud their efforts to make this immunity grant part of the bill. These provisions were made necessary because of an outrageous lawsuit that attempts to punish airline passengers and crew for being vigilant. Contrary to what some might think, vigilance on the part of our traveling public is important, especially during a time when terrorists want to attack us both at home and abroad. Above and beyond the ``John Doe'' language, this bill has noteworthy accomplishments. It allows a greater percentage of homeland security funds to be distributed based upon risk, and it authorizes funds for transportation security. Further, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, I was especially pleased that this report establishes a new grant program within the Department of Homeland Security that will promote the development of interoperable communications. But while this bill has some good provisions, it does leave some 9/11 Commission recommendations and some 9/11 Commission business undone, especially in two important areas. First, it does not address the issue of congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, and it does nothing to promote the development of a comprehensive screening system for international travelers arriving at our borders. Had the majority chosen to incorporate my Fast and Secure Travel Initiative into this legislation, we would have dovetailed very nicely with the transportation security provisions contained within the act. Frankly, that second recommendation would have satisfied completely. Passage of this conference report, though, is another part of our continuing efforts to keep our homeland secure. It is a laudable step. But as you can see, there is still much more to do.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I first want to applaud you for your leadership on this issue. As an OB/GYN physician, you know this issue probably better than anyone in this institution. But I just wanted to share with you a perspective from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where we were a crisis State. And you're right on on some of these issues you just discussed, but the bad policy on medical liability reform was far too common in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a very long time. Our crisis actually originated back in the 1970s when no one would write medical liability insurance. So we created a State fund, and it was supposed to be a stopgap measure. We addressed that stopgap measure almost 30 years later in 2002, 2003. But the point of the whole issue is you had to buy insurance from the State fund, we call it the MCAT fund, and it's been renamed the MCARE fund, and then you would buy additional insurance from the private sector. The problem with the program was, though, you would buy your insurance basically today, if you're a young doctor you buy into the MCARE fund, and you're really paying for past claims, unlike a traditional insurance product where you pay your premium today to pay against a future claim, and so this has created an enormous retention problem for us because over the years there are so many unsettled cases in this MCAT fund that what would happen is these claims all collected and we started settling these cases rather aggressively in the late 1990s and 2001 and 2002. And so today's physicians were being assessed with an emergency surcharge to pay for previous medical liability incidents. A major, major problem. And also, in a city like Philadelphia, where the average jury verdict was more than double that of anywhere else in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where jury verdicts were in excess of $1 million on average, as reported by a jury verdict research, and the rest of the Commonwealth, the verdicts were less than half that. But my point again is this: we created this State fund, an unfunded liability accumulates, today's doctors are paying for the liability situation of their predecessors, creates an enormous physician recruitment problem. Of course, there's always a retention problem, but the recruitment problem was enormously pronounced because of that policy change. And so what ultimately happened, because the premiums became so high through this State fund, the people who ultimately had to solve this problem for the physicians were the taxpayers. And so cigarette taxes were used to pay for physicians' premiums, particularly in the high- risk areas, the OBs, the neurosurgeons and many other trauma surgeons and orthopods. That's what happened in Pennsylvania, and I think many of the remedies you've discussed here, such as caps on noneconomic damages or collateral sources, structured payments, some of the things that you've done in Texas, I'm not as familiar with all those changes, but it certainly had an impact. I just wanted to applaud you for this. You know, of course, that there's legislation pending in this Congress from some of the legislation last session, and I just want to thank you for yielding, but I just again want to applaud you for your leadership on this issue. I'm glad you're bringing this issue, once again, to the attention of the American people.

Mr. DENT. I would very much like to.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns over the Senate's Immigration bill. I am disappointed that the Senate continues to maintain a ``Z'' visa program within the text that would reward illegal behavior. Not withstanding how its proponents choose to characterize this plan, it represents de facto amnesty and is unfair to those who have patiently pursued the citizenship process legally. We have some 12 million illegal aliens in this country. Granting amnesty will only push those numbers up, not down, as we saw after the implementation of Simpson-Mazzoli. The White House and the Senate just do not seem to recognize the fatal flaw in their so-called immigration ``compromise'': If we cannot control our borders now, then how can we reasonably expect to manage future immigration programs that will inevitably increase the numbers of individuals seeking to enter this country illegally? The end results of this bargain, I fear, will be compromises to the rule of law and to the security of the homeland. And those we most certainly do not need.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also do want to thank my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and he is indeed a friend, but I also want to thank him for giving me this opportunity to fully vet and disclose this particular project on the campus of Moravian College in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, specifically on the Priscilla Payne Hurd campus, and we are speaking today about the Payne Gallery. I think it is very important that we have this kind of discourse in a very open and transparent manner. But let's first understand and explain the purpose of the Saving America's Treasures program. The purpose is to preserve nationally significant, historic properties that are threatened or endangered. The projects must mitigate the threat, have a clear public benefit, and there has to be a non-Federal match. That is certainly the case here. I should let everybody know too the historic significance of Moravian College. It is America's sixth oldest college, sixth oldest. It is located within the City of Bethlehem, which is really the site, and it is perhaps arguable, but we claim where I live in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, it is really the birthplace of the America Industrial Revolution, and the Moravians were a key driver in that industrialization process in the 18th century. There is a very strong industrial and cultural heritage. The Moravians were not only industrialists; they were people of faith. They came from Germany and other parts of Central Europe. The Priscilla Payne Hurd campus is significant to the story of the City of Bethlehem and to the college. The Payne Gallery is nationally significant. It exhibits collections from the Smithsonian National Museum of American History and the Smithsonian Institute of Libraries. This historic property is certainly threatened. This funding will mitigate the threat. There is a clear public benefit. This gallery will be used and enjoyed by countless visitors to Bethlehem, the Christmas City. We enjoy numerous visitors from around the world every year to be in Bethlehem during Christmas to participate in the Moravian tradition, culture and heritage of the community. There is certainly a non-Federal match. It will be $205,000. The total project cost is $350,000. The amount of funding in the bill is $150,000 of Federal money. Just coincidentally, there was an article today in one of the local newspapers back home: ``Moravian College gets $130,000 historic grant. The Getty Foundation cash focuses on preserving classic architecture.'' I am just going to restate and read briefly a few things said in the local paper today about this campus about which I am speaking. Moravian College again is the sixth oldest college in the country. It has 11 buildings in the National Register of Historic Places, all of the them in the Priscilla Payne Hurd campus downtown. They include the Brethren House, built in 1748, which the Getty Foundation called ``one of the best examples of colonial German architecture in the country.'' That is what a group of philanthropists in California said about this particular campus in the City of Bethlehem. This is historically significant, and this grant will support a comprehensive evaluation of the college's buildings and form the basis of an historic preservation plan. One of the stated goals of the project is to ``develop strategies for using, preserving, and enhancing historic structures.'' The president of the college just said today that he is proud of the continuous use of its oldest structures: ``Our students study music and practice Bach in the very rooms in which so many remarkable young students did nearly two centuries ago. Moravian's historic structures are alive and vital, the past in the continuous present.'' That is what the president of the college said.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I did want to say that, again, this campus, this gallery, and by the way, Priscilla Payne Hurd is alive and well, she is in her eighties, a wonderful matriarch of the community, philanthropist, has contributed so much to this community in preserving the culture and the heritage of America. This is not simply about my hometown. This is about American history and culture and, frankly, faith. Faith. The Moravians were people of great faith. Again, every year people come to Bethlehem in great numbers to hear Bach. They come here to hear Bach. Moravian is such a integral part of that. You really can't separate the Moravians from the City of Bethlehem, again, the Christmas City. We are very proud of what they do there. I believe this project fits precisely into the definition of the Saving America's Treasures program. You couldn't find a better fit. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out the fact that this problem has simply spun out of control in this country. Last session, we attempted to deal with this in a bill that would restrict off-site. Off-reservation tribal gambling was defeated. I think we need to try this again. The regulations that were mentioned are simply weak and not meaningful enough, in my view, and I think we need the proposed regulations. I would strongly urge that Congress reassert itself and take control over this issue. I don't believe that the authors of the Indian Gaming Act of 1988 intended that we would have a situation in this country today where 29 States would now have casinos, 406 tribal casinos in 29 States. I don't think that was the intent. I haven't met anybody who voted for that law who thought that was what they were voting for at the time, but that is what we have now. In my district, there has been great hardship. I mean, a 1737 land conveyance, a 1737 land conveyance, going back to William Penn and the Walking Purchase. That is what we are talking about here, taking land of homeowners, a crayon factory, a much beloved crayon factory, and I think it is time for us to act. It is time for this Congress to act. We have had a lot of time to deal with this issue. We have not done so. And with that, again, I respectfully ask all my colleagues, and I understand the process that we are engaged in here, but we need this type of a moratorium. It is absolutely essential. I think it will send a message to the authorizing committees, to the Department of Interior that we are serious about this issue, that we have had enough. Enough is enough. Too many people are being displaced or potentially displaced, clouds over the properties to their titles, again, in my case, over a 1737 land conveyance. Again, these were big developers working in concert with the tribes and spending enormous amounts of money and people having to defend themselves. And it really has gotten to the point of being outrageous, and I think we need to act once again. And I respectfully ask for the support of everyone here. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to make four points about this amendment that I'm offering here today. First, the expansion of Indian or tribal gambling, particularly off-reservation casino gambling, has gone far beyond what was intended by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Twenty years ago, there were no tribal casinos. Today, there are approximately 406 Indian casinos in 29 States. Revenue from Indian gambling has gone from $0 to $19 billion in 20 years. These extraordinary profits have caused casino interests to form alliances with tribes in order to establish more profitable casinos in locations far removed from existing reservations. The second point I want to make, and there are very specific examples of ``reservation shopping,'' as we like to refer to this. One, the St. Regis Bank of Mohawk Indians is trying to build a casino 350 miles from its reservation. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior and St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin are trying to build a casino in Michigan, over 300 miles from its existing reservation. The Pueblo of Jemez of New Mexico are trying to build a casino in Anthony, New Mexico, over 290 miles from its reservation. The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, along with the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, is trying to build the largest casino between New Jersey and Las Vegas in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over 1,000 miles from the Mohegan lands in Connecticut. As of May 2006, there were some 40 applications to approve new casino operations pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, casinos that are, for the most part, destined for off-reservation sites. The third point I want to make is that the expansion of tribal gambling has had a corrupting influence on the political system and has forced local municipalities and homeowners to go to court to essentially protect their properties from casino interests anxious to seize their lands. Tribal casino profits are high, and regulation of tribal gaming profits is minimal. As a result, Jack Abramoff was able to take an estimated $85 million from the Mississippi Choctaw and other tribes. He was able to use some of this money to bribe entities within the political system, sometimes to further the interest of one client as against those of another. Casino interests have also allied with local Indian tribes to sue municipalities and landowners. In the 15th District of Pennsylvania, which I represent, the Delaware Nation, which is actually based in Oklahoma, filed in Federal court to establish title to a 315-acre tract of land in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, near Easton, so that it could build a gambling facility. Its claim was based in part on a conveyance that ostensibly occurred in 1737, well before the establishment of our country. More than 25 families live on this property, and it is also home of the Crayola Company, which makes the much beloved Crayola crayons that our children all enjoy. Although the suit was ultimately resolved in favor of the homeowners and the plaintiffs lost in every courtroom, the deep-pocketed interests behind this lawsuit were able to fund this litigation all the way to the United States Supreme Court, causing no small amount of apprehension among the innocent home owners and business owners here. Tribal organizations do recognize that there are problems with this expansion. Several support meaningful limitations on off-reservation tribal gambling. And the fourth and final point that I would like to make about this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that the time has come for Congress to step in. This amendment is the first step towards reforming a system that has simply spun out of control. The Bureau of Indian Affairs published proposed regulations on October 5, 2006, but these regulations are weak and do not adopt meaningful criteria or standards. The Congress must step in and reassert its regulatory authority over off-reservation gambling by enacting comprehensive reform of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Until that's done, we need to have a moratorium on off-reservation gambling, which this amendment will, in effect, accomplish. The amendment directs specifically that no funds shall be expended to process any applications for off-reservation casinos under section 20(b)(1) of IGRA of fiscal year 2008. The amendment will have no impact, and let me repeat this: The amendment will have no impact on existing on-or off-reservation casino operations, as they have already gone through the BIA approval process. This will not impact any tribal casino that is currently operating on- or off-reservation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I share with my colleagues an article prepared by Mr. Myron Yoder, the Social Studies Curriculum Coordinator for the Allentown School District in Allentown, Pennsylvania, regarding the School Violence Prevention Demonstration Program. The School Violence Prevention Demonstration Program is administered by the Center for Civic Education through the U.S. Department of Education. The program explores how civic education can be used as a strategy to foster civic engagement, law-abiding behavior, the peaceful management of conflict, and the prevention of violence in schools. Currently, the program is being implemented at grades 4 through 12 in urban, suburban, rural, and Native American school districts at 24 sites in 19 States across the Nation. The article is below. Civic Education To Be Celebrated in ASD Schools June 5: A Call to the Allentown Community. Join Us (By Myron Yoder) Good civics--practice and recognition--is a concern and part of the fabric of every healthy community. To a school, civics is a fundamental part of instruction; to a diverse society, it is an imperative to maintain and grow our civilized way of life. The Allentown School District has been involved in a federal grant administered through the Center for Civic Education called the School Violence Prevention Demonstration Program, or SVPDP, for short. This civics-based curricular program has become ASD's elementary civics component for social studies in grades K-5. The goal behind the program is essential to our society: If you build good civics practices with students in school communities, then you proactively deal with issues of student attitudes, behavior and, theoretically, head off school violence by more students. This year, the Allentown School District civics program is in over 400 classrooms and reaches over 8,000 students. The many planned ``culminating'' activities at the end of students' studies this spring are deliberately performance- based not only to allow for creativity and self-expression by our students and teachers but also to provide a means to integrate learning and foster even stronger academic growth. Many parents notice students discussing issues at home with them as well as noticing a desire to become involved in issues our community faces. These culminating activities are occurring in many of our schools over the months of May and June. You can check with your neighborhood school for when these events are planned. We invite you to observe our students showcasing their learning this year. Best of all, the SVPDP program helps ASD students become citizens of our community, our state and our nation. Further, we see a difference in many of our students, not only academically but also with attitudes and behaviors that we believe will proactively prevent school violence in many of our students. The time has come to recognize, celebrate and thank our staff and students for this very committed effort on their part. On June 5, 2007 there will be a ``Civic Celebration'' lunch served by ASD's Child Nutrition Services department to celebrate SVPDP efforts in the schools and to recognize the work of our students and staff in this program. Many schools will have culminating activities going on, community service activities, award ceremonies, school clean up, community awareness or simply taking a moment over lunch to say thank you to the staff and students for their efforts. Each school will be doing something different that day, but all will celebrate civic participation with the lunch. Citizens of Allentown, here are some of the expressions of understanding and change that ASD children and their teachers are experiencing with this program: ``Because I was a bully, I had a little bit of friends. Most of them were bullies, too. The responsibility book helped me stop being a bully. And now I have friends cause I am not a bully. Bullying is not for me!''--Fourth grader, Jackson ES. ``I ask the children what they have learned through the stories and plays and they say: Be fair to others so that they will be fair to you; There are consequences for our actions; Share with other people; Don't be a bully; Be nice to your friends; Be helpful to other people; Obey the laws.''--Lou Ann Hein, Teacher, 2nd Grade, Dodd ES. ``I just wanted to tell you how much I have enjoyed teaching SVPDP and how much my students enjoyed it and learned from it. It covers so many issues students need in order to be good citizens and addresses issues they often don't understand. It has always been difficult to fit social studies into first grade but the journal coordinated exactly with what I was teaching in reading and writing, so there was plenty of time for social studies!''--Elizabeth Harting, Teacher, 1st Grade, Cleveland ES. Allentown School District has a clear and dedicated commitment to teaching the qualities and values important to our society. We ask parents and the Allentown Community to join us in educating for America's future by celebrating civics on June 5, 2007.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer this amendment to help the United States Secret Service meet its protection obligations. This Homeland Security appropriations bill funds the Secret Service to the tune of $1.39 billion. The plain language of the bill does not specify how these moneys should be allocated as between the Secret Service's protection and investigative operations. However, the committee report provides that $849.6 million should go to protective missions, while approximately $314.5 million is allocated to investigations. While I sincerely commend the Appropriations Committee for providing these funds to the Secret Service, I would respectfully submit that the committee has underestimated the demands placed upon the Service's protection mission during this Presidential election cycle. Accordingly, my amendment would add approximately $4 million to that protection function from those moneys that would otherwise go to investigations. This funding upgrade is required because of the increased responsibilities thrust upon the Secret Service's protection component within the last few years. Before 9/11, the Secret Service had 20 protectees. Since 9/ 11, that number has increased to 54. Just last month, the number of protectees reached 55 when a Presidential hopeful was given Secret Service protection, at an estimated cost of about $44,000 per day. This additional expenditure was never considered in the President's budget request. Now is not the time to strip $4 million from the Service's protective missions, particularly when the cost to protect Senator Obama for just the first 4 months of fiscal year 2008 are estimated at $5.456 million. This amendment ensures that the Secret Service is not bound by the report language which would transfer $4 million from the Joint Operations Center relocation to the field investigations account. I believe that the actions by the committee have made sure that the Secret Service will still be able to perform its investigatory functions with its usual skill and alacrity. In that regard, the committee had the foresight to provide the field investigation units of the Secret Service a plus-up of $10.4 million over and above the amount the President requested for investigations. On May 29, 2007, just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that the Secret Service was transferring agents from investigations to security details and borrowing law enforcement officers from other Federal agencies in order to meet its protection obligations. Faced with wartime security needs, the threat of terrorism, and a field of 20 Presidential contenders, the Washington Post continued that the Service was ``showing signs of strain'' even before the Department of Homeland Security ordered protection for Senator Obama. It is my hope that this amendment will help to ease that strain and allow this dedicated group of professionals to keep performing at the high level to which we have all become accustomed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the floor many times over the past few years to discuss the advancement of various forms of stem cell research: adult, cord blood, amniotic, embryonic. We have had discussions about the science and about our moral obligations and about ethics. These discussions have been passionate and heartfelt. We have all come to the floor with the best of intentions. For some of us, our feelings on these issues have been colored by personal experiences with our own families. For all of us, our stance has been informed by the conversations we have had with our constituents. I have had countless discussions with my constituents about embryonic stem cell research. In particular, there are two families from my district whose personal stories have made a profound impact on my thinking about this issue, the Sheaffers from Kempton, Pennsylvania, and the Pitts from Nazareth. I am very happy that the Pitts family, Melissa and Jeff and their sons, Ryan and Alex, are able to be with us today. I first met Melissa and the boys in 2005. Ryan and Alex are energetic 6-year-old twin boys. You could not tell them apart if not for the fact that Alex is in a wheelchair. Alex suffered a spinal cord injury at birth and has been paralyzed since. Melissa has told me that the promise of embryonic stem cell research gives her hope, hope that advances will allow her son, Alex, to live the same kind of independent life that Ryan will enjoy. Every day that goes by while we play politics with science is a day that we could have gotten one step closer to finding therapies for kids like Alex. I urge my colleagues to support S. 5. This is an important bill which will ensure that researchers adhere to the highest possible principles of scientific inquiry and respect critical ethical boundaries while advancing some of the most important research of our time.