Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I too want to commend the gentleman from New York for organizing this event tonight, this special order. We need to see a little bit more of this type of activity in this Congress, and I hope the American people who are watching this exercise tonight maybe find this a little bit different or maybe a little bit more refreshing than what they are accustomed to during special orders. I just want to thank you for putting this together. One final point. I think Mr. Gilchrest made the point about interaction with Syria on a commercial basis in this country. A constituent called just the other day who imports various food products from Syria, because I have a large Middle Eastern community in my district. And just some of the challenges, they just want to go about life as they normally would. I thought it was interesting. It kind of brings back home the point that people want to coexist peacefully. That the challenges and the stakes are very high in Iraq, and I think all of us want to make sure that whatever policy is pursued, particularly after September, it is one that is responsible and one that will make us all safer and hopefully the region more stable. So, again, thank you, Mr. Israel, for putting this on. It is much appreciated.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to endorse the gentleman from Connecticut's idea about reconstituting the Iraq Study Group and sending them back over to Iraq at some point to help give us an update of this very useful report. I think we all can agree that many of us in this country, and I suspect in Iraq too, are frustrated by this slow pace of reconciliation that is ongoing in Iraq. But, again, another point about this report, and I think this gathering tonight, I think this helps us as Americans try to reconcile our differences. We talk about Iraqi reconciliation, but I think in many respects we need a little reconciliation of our own.

Mr. DENT. Thank you so much, Congressman Israel and Congressman Bishop, for helping to organize this Special Order tonight. I think the American people expect this much of us, that they like to see this type of civil, controlled dialogue where we are trying to rally around, I think, some shared principles that we can pretty much agree to, that we are talking about this in a proper tone, keeping the temperature down, so to speak. And I think that that is what the public expects instead of all the sometimes hot air and noise and at times excessive partisanship that seems to be the public perception of how this institution operates far too often. And I just want to take a couple of moments to commend you, Congressman Israel, on something that you have shared with many of us who participate in the Center Aisle Caucus, and that is the idea of a Status of Forces Agreement and how such an agreement might be of benefit to us in Iraq. And for purposes of this discussion, that Status of Forces Agreement is an agreement that is worked out between our government and the foreign country that delineates the legal partnership between the troops who are deployed to that country and the host government. And that is a very significant issue. In the civil side of the law, for example, a Status of Forces Agreement can spell out proceedings under which nationals of the host country may file claims against the United States for damage to property of these nationals that has been inadvertently caused by the United States Armed Forces. An agreement is also important because it can be used to spell out jurisdictional issues with regard to criminal offenses. For example, these agreements are often used to make sure that American servicemembers who commit offenses overseas and are tried by U.S. military courts-martial rather than local courts. They can also delineate the conditions under which U.S. servicemembers charged with crimes within the boundaries of the host country are treated. A Status of Forces Agreement can specify, for example, that a servicemember accused of a crime in violation of local laws must be detained on board a ship or some other U.S. installation rather than await trial in a local jail. We have never had a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government. I know that is something that you have been strongly advocating, and I believe it is high time that we implement one for a few reasons. First, a Status of Forces Agreement is an agreement between two sovereign nations. By executing such an agreement, we would be affirming sovereignty of the Maliki government and the right, as well as the obligation, of that government to exercise control over its own territory. Second, a Status of Forces Agreement would send a clear message both to the Iraqis and to other countries in the region that we do not intend to establish permanent bases in Iraq, I think something that many of us on both sides of the aisle agree. And this agreement is usually negotiated for a fixed period of time, and it can be renewed or not, as was the case with the old Subic Bay naval base in the Republic of the Philippines. The Philippines example is instructive, I think, in this instance. There the Aquino government asserted its sovereign rights over Subic Bay by refusing to renew a prior agreement and other related treaties with our government in 1992. Thus the world was made to know that even though the U.S. had a presence in Subic Bay and a neighboring city for more than 90 years prior to that time, that presence was not permanent and was subject to an agreement that had to be agreed to by both nations. And third, as described a few moments ago, this agreement, if properly negotiated, can protect U.S. forces from being tried by foreign courts or prevent them from being detained in Iraqi facilities if charged with a crime under foreign law. This kind of measure is necessary to make sure that Americans operating overseas have the fullest protections afforded to them by Federal jurisprudence. I also really want to thank you again for organizing this, and I think these shared principles you have outlined here are really a basis upon which we can have further dialogue. And a little later in this Special Order, I might want to talk about the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the Baker-Hamilton report, that I think many of us on both sides of the aisle have a good feeling about, and there is legislation that has been proposed and recently introduced, and I will get into that a little later. At this time I would like to yield to one of our other colleagues, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been to Iraq 17 times now.

Mr. DENT. Well, it is a very fair point in many respects. I just want to point out something. When I first read this report back in December when it was first released, I had some concerns too, like many people, about some of the recommendations, particularly the recommendation about directly engaging Iran, for all the reasons we have identified. Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite. He has made such inflammatory comments. I think we all agree he is a menace. After listening to Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton talk about the issue, I don't think any of us expect there to be any real process in a dialogue with Iran at a sub-cabinet level, but I think we also realize that you need to have that kind of a conversation initially and let the Iranians be an obstruction themselves, so we can then isolate them internationally and also perhaps drive a wedge between the Iranian Government and the Syrian Government. I think it makes absolutely no sense for the Syrians to be engaged in destructive behavior in Iraq, given the fact that they have more than 1 million refugees, primarily Sunni, who are in Syria. Of course, Syria is ruled by Allawites, who represent about 10 percent of that country. So it is clearly not in Syria's interest to have protracted instability in Iraq. So, again, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his thoughtful idea about getting the Iraq Study Group back over there, perhaps hearing what General Petraeus says and make some recommendations on what he has said, and maybe give us a bipartisan way for us to move forward. I think Americans want a solution. They don't want an issue in Iraq, but they want a solution. I think that is one of the great things about this dialogue tonight. I yield back to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, today I will introduce legislation to designate the third week of October as ``National Teen Driver Safety Week.'' Unfortunately, roughly 7,500 teenage drivers were involved in fatal car crashes in 2005. The time has come for us to recognize this terrible problem and consider effective interventions that will help reduce the number of accidents involving teens. On Monday, January 22, 2007, following a tragic accident that claimed the lives of two Pennsylvania high school students, the Morning Call compiled a report of 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 these events could have been prevented, enabling these children to reach their destinations safely. To address this troubling issue, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 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 CHOP and State Farm Insurance Company, its partner in this initiative, is nationally recognized for its research and outreach involving child passenger safety. However, this year they have 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 between CHOP and State Farm brings together a wide range of expertise in research and outreach-- translating scientific evidence into actions that will help save lives. It is important that Congress supports efforts to effectively educate teens and families about ways to address these problems. This resolution will support the goals and ideals of a week in which intensive programming will be used to encourage teens to drive more safely. By perhaps delaying exposure to risky driving conditions until they have enough supervised driving experience, managing peer-to-peer interactions around driving, and reinforcing the need to detect and react to hazards more appropriately, teens will be better prepared to drive responsibly. Madam Speaker, teens are dying in crashes at a rate of four times that of adult drivers and we must act now to prevent future tragedies.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I too want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) for working together so well to bring this important piece of legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join 415 of my colleagues in supporting this bill last Congress, and I am pleased that the H-Prize Act has been brought up again so that we can have an opportunity to enact this important legislation into law. I rise in strong support of H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act. The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. We, in Congress, have an opportunity and obligation to promote scientific advancement today. For more than a century, America's industry, transportation, and households have been heavily reliant on foreign oil. We must now face newer realities. Petroleum is a finite resource. No matter how much we explore and discover, we will one day run out and booming worldwide demand is burning up resources and driving up prices. We must search for alternatives to wean us off our addiction to foreign sources of oil. The drive to produce energy economically can be advanced to American innovation and competition. Fossil fuel technology was the impetus for 20th century industrial development. Today, hydrogen holds a promise of being the driver for the economy of the future and ushering in a new generation of an American energy independence. Hydrogen makes up 98 percent of the known universe, and it is the third most abundant element of the earth's surface. It is the lightest of all gases, the coldest of all liquids, next to helium. As a component of water, minerals and acids, it makes up a fundamental part of all hydrocarbons and organic substances. Hydrogen is renewable, abundant, efficient and clean. Unlike carbon-based fuels, it does not create fumes or other harmful emissions. In fact, using hydrogen in fuel cells produces only electricity and pure water. By awarding prizes in three of the most critical areas of technological development, the H-Prize Act will incentivize the realization of scientific advancements that will break down the obstacles that stand in the way of the hydrogen economy. Specifically, H-Prize will promote technological advancements in hydrogen production, storage, distribution and utilization. Prizes will be awarded for the development of hydrogen vehicle prototypes that meet ambitious performance goals. Finally, the bill will award the implementation of critical transformational technologies. We are not that far away from making hydrogen a functional source of energy. H.R. 632 will speed the development of breakthrough technologies that will make hydrogen a practical alternative to oil in our transportation sector and set our Nation on a path toward energy independence. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 632. Again, I do want to commend the two gentlemen, Mr. Lipinski of Illinois and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, for their strong advocacy on this critical issue.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I do want to take a moment today to thank my colleague from Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for providing this opportunity today to honor an American hero. I rise today to discuss H. Res. 171, a bill to recognize the 250th anniversary of the birth of the Marquis de Lafayette. On September 6, 2007, our Nation will celebrate the 250th birthday of one of the truly outstanding and extraordinary people in our country's history, the Marquis de Lafayette. Born in the Auvergne section of France, Lafayette did not become an honorary American citizen until 2002, some 168 years after his death. He was commissioned with the rank of major general in the Continental Army just shy of his 20th birthday, and he soon became one of George Washington's closest confidants. The first foreign dignitary to address the House of Representatives, Lafayette was a steadfast supporter of liberty, loyalty and democracy. You have heard many of my colleagues speak to Lafayette's legacy as a military leader. I rise today to offer a different perspective as to Lafayette's influence on our Nation's history. Lafayette College, located in my district in eastern Pennsylvania, was founded in 1826 by the citizens of Easton. And I am here once again to commemorate this auspicious occasion and ask that my colleagues join me in this celebration.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the distinguished Bach choir of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, our Nation's oldest choir dedicated to the performance and celebration of musical masterpieces composed by Johann Sebastian Bach. Founded in 1898 under the direction of J. Fred Wolle, the organist of the Bethlehem Moravian Church, the choir is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the annual Bach Festival this month. In 1900, the Bach choir presented their first performance of ``The Mass in B Minor'' in the Moravian Church in Bethlehem during the Bach Festival. Although the next Bach Festival was not held again until 1912, the Festival has blossomed into a long-standing cultural tradition in Bethlehem, attracting visitors from all around the Nation and the world each year. During the festival, the choir will once again breathe life into Bach's Mass in B Minor. Since its inception, the choir has been a shining star in the city of Bethlehem. Today, the choir is comprised of 95 volunteer members and performs under the leadership and direction of Greg Funfgeld. This unique ensemble has gained international acclaim for their artistry. The choir has been welcomed to perform on some of the most renowned stages in the world, including the Kennedy Center, Carnegie Hall, Munich's Royal Residence, as well as London's Royal Albert Hall as part of a concert tour in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, countless listeners have tuned in across the globe to listen to the choir on National Public Radio and the BBC World Service. The discipline and talent that ushers this choir around the world is also shared with children and the young musicians in Lehigh Valley through music education programs. I would just like to commend all the good people at the Bach choir and congratulate them on this 100th anniversary of the Bach Festival.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, if this Congress is serious, truly serious about implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Members should vote in favor of this motion to recommit. The 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to develop a better border security system. And, let me repeat. This amendment implements a key 9/ 11 Commission recommendation. Specifically, the 9/11 Commission advised the President to direct the Department of Homeland Security to design a comprehensive screening system that would target particular identifiable suspects or indicators of risk and give border officials the resources to establish that people are who they say they are, intercept identifiable suspects and disrupt terrorist operations. They went on to say and conclude that targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money, and that is the 9/11 Commission Report, recommendation 14, page 385, and recommended that a terrorist travel intelligence collection and analysis program which had produced disproportionately useful results should be expanded. The Automated Targeting System for Passengers is such a system, and this motion would reinforce our intention to see ATS-P utilized at all of our Nation's international border crossing points. ATS-P is nothing new. It is already being utilized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. It has been authorized in several appropriations bills, and the Department of Homeland Security has testified before Congress about the program several times. ATS-P does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. It is deployed only at the border. And Federal courts have said time and time again that screening people who are trying to enter our country at a port of entry is perfectly permissible under the fourth amendment. All ATS-P does is collect information from available sources, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or TECS, and the Passenger Name Record databases, so that CBP can perform risk assessments of people trying to enter the United States. ATS-P addresses a major software issue that had previously hampered border control efforts. TECS has existed since the 1970s but was written in a cumbersome programming language that was difficult for Border Patrol agents to access. ATS-P just makes it easier for CBP to make inquiries into this database. The bottom line here is that ATS-P, after factoring in the available information, indicates to the Customs and Border Protection officer whether an international traveler should be flagged for additional screening or questioning. That CBP officer retains the discretion to do with that information as he or she pleases. But by giving advance notice of an investigatory lead, ATS-P allows the officer and the agency to operate more effectively, to engage in screening that is risk-based. It is not surprising, then, that CBP considers ATS-P to be the cornerstone of its targeting efforts at the border. ATS-P has had notable successes. It has been credited with identifying persons of interest to border security officials in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Boston. For all of us here in the Congress who are serious about border security, this motion, which supports the already existing ATS-P program, is an absolute no-brainer: It follows the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It provides needed information to CBP officers. It does not violate anyone's civil or constitutional rights. And, most importantly, it works. For all the reasons I have just stated, I ask respectfully that you vote in favor of the motion to recommit. At this time, I yield to the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. King of New York.

Mr. DENT. I am in its present form.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for arranging this opportunity to come to the floor to raise awareness of the ongoing effects of 9/11. I am proud to say that so many from Pennsylvania answered the first call very, very quickly, among some of the first there after the New Yorkers, who helped deal with the aftermath of those horrible attacks. As we all know, September 11, 2001, was one of the darkest days in American history. Nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed in separate incidents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. These attacks were intended to instill fear in our hearts and minds and to shake our American spirit. They did not have that desired effect. Instead, they unified a Nation and strengthened the resolve of the American people. I neglected to mention that one of my own relatives was in the North Tower and, thankfully, made it out. He was on the 91st floor, made it out. All of his colleagues did, too, but nobody above them did. So this issue has touched us all in many ways. September 11, and the long days that followed, bore witness to inspiring acts of heroism and self-sacrifice. As rescue and recovery efforts unfolded, we saw Americans reaching out to one another, united in a determination to make the country whole again. Whether it was neighbor helping neighbor or stranger helping stranger, Americans from across the country simply gave of themselves, and operating at the front lines of this effort were local first responders. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one of those first responders, a selfless and heroic individual by the name of Ryan McCormick. Ryan, a native of Bethlehem Township in my district, has led a life of service that we should all try to emulate. An Eagle Scout of the Minsi Trails Council, Ryan committed himself to public service at a very young age. Whether he was volunteering at the Bethlehem Township Volunteer Fire Company, performing search and rescue operations with the Civil Air Patrol, or defending our Nation as an 8-year veteran of the United States Army Reserve, Ryan has always been concerned about the well-being of others. Taking the Boy Scout motto of ``Be Prepared'' to heart, Ryan was, indeed, prepared and acted without hesitation on that fateful Tuesday, Tuesday morning of September 11. Ryan was working as a paramedic in Newark, New Jersey, when his unit was dispatched to the terrorist attacks. Relying on his years of preparation and experience and firmly committed to helping others, Ryan worked tirelessly from September 11 to September 13. The work was hard, dirty and dangerous and heartbreaking. But Ryan persisted. For him, duty came first. But Ryan McCormick paid a terrible price for his determination and resolve. In late 2002, Ryan started to become sick. In the spring of 2003, he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. He has undergone consistent treatment for over 4 years, including a stem cell transplant. He is still fighting valiantly against his cancer and soon hopes to be well enough for another stem cell transplant. But Ryan is not alone. Many of the first responders who worked to ease the suffering of the innocent are now suffering life-threatening illnesses. Fortunately, Ryan, like the rest of his first responder colleagues, is a fighter. And I am proud to let you know that Ryan has joined us tonight and is seated in the Gallery. Ryan continues to battle this cancer while continuing his service to others. Ryan is the director of emergency management for New Jersey's largest health care system, serves as the Essex County emergency management deputy EMS coordinator and is a lieutenant for the Verona, New Jersey, rescue squad. In addition, Ryan has started a nonprofit corporation that raises money to buy iPods for cancer patients undergoing cancer treatment. This organization is named Project Turtle Pods, and more information about this endeavor can be found at www.projectturtlepods.com. Ryan, the House of Representatives welcomes you and thanks you for your courageous service on September 11th. You exemplify all that is great about the American spirit. As ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, I am very well aware of the sacrifices our country's first responders make to ensure the safety of others. In turn, we in Congress must take on the responsibility of protecting those who sacrifice to protect us. That is why I have agreed to cosponsor Representative Maloney's bill, House Resolution 128, which urges the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare a long-term, comprehensive plan to medically monitor all individuals who were exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero. Of all the lessons we learned from the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there is one first and foremost that stands out: We must not forget those individuals who continue to suffer in the aftermath of these events. The spirit found in Ryan McCormick is fundamentally American. It is this can-do attitude that assures us that we as a Nation can rise to meet any challenge that we encounter. Let us follow the example that Ryan has set for us and help those who are suffering from afflictions precipitated by their involvement in the 9/11 rescue, recovery and cleanup efforts. The people who gave so much to us at that site deserve nothing less. Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for tonight's opportunity to speak on this important issue and her commitment to our Nation's first responders. I want to thank her for her friendship and her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Homeland Security authorization bill, H.R. 1684. The stated purpose of H.R. 1684 is to enhance homeland security. Unfortunately, the restricted rule enacted at the behest of the majority excludes certain measures that would have increased our domestic security. One such provision is my amendment on the Automated Targeting System for Passengers, or ATS-P. ATS-P coordinates information already available from sources and allows Customs and Border Protection to perform risk assessments of people entering the United States. In this way CBP can identify a person of interest and question that individual before, let me repeat, before that person gains formal admission into this country. This amendment would have been a positive step towards improving border security. ATS-P is a system that is already deployed and that has already had some notable successes. It would have fulfilled a 9/11 Commission recommendation. And yet the majority remains opposed to it and made sure that it was not made in order. The motive behind that exclusion remains a mystery. The mystery deepens when one considers what was made in order today, specifically one portion of the manager's amendment. During committee proceedings at my request, we inserted language authorizing funding for the United States Secret Service. The Secret Service, once an entity of the Treasury Department, now falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. The Secret Service plays an important function in safeguarding the citizens of this country. The amendment I offered would have fully funded the President's request for the Secret Service's protection missions. It also would have provided over $322 million for Investigations and Field Operations, the unit within the Secret Service that investigates and prosecutes counterfeiting, fraud and identity theft. Mr. Chairman, I will insert a copy of a letter into the Record from the National Fraternal Order of Police endorsing the inclusion of Secret Service funding within the Homeland Security authorization bill. Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, May 8, 2007. Hon. Bennie Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Hon. Peter King, Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington,

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, early in this session the majority promised to implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Yesterday, the Rules Committee, which is controlled by the majority, had the opportunity to deliver on that promise by making two of my amendments to this legislation in order. It failed to do so, and the security of our rail and bus passengers and, in fact, our border security in general will be all the worse as a result. The 9/11 Commission advised the President to direct the Department of Homeland Security to ``design a comprehensive screening system'' that would target ``particular, identifiable suspects or indicators of risk'' and give border officials ``the resources to establish that people are who they say they are, intercept identifiable suspects, and disrupt terrorist operations.'' They concluded that targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. That is the 9/11 Commission report, recommendation 14, page 385. And it recommended that a terrorist travel intelligence collection and analysis program, which had ``produced disproportionately useful results,'' should be expanded. The first of these amendments involved the Advance Passenger Information System, or APIS as we commonly refer to it. Today, under this program, air and sea carriers collect passenger and crew biographical data and transmit this data to Customs and Border Protection while the vessel or aircraft is en route to the United States. This is an important tool in CBP's efforts to identify suspect or high-risk passengers before, that is before, they enter the country. As terrorists are just as capable of taking a Greyhound bus across border as they are landing at LAX, I thought that my amendment, which would have required bus and train companies transporting passengers into this country to provide the same advanced information to CBP as do the airlines, made sense. Unfortunately, the majority members in the Rules Committee did not agree. My second amendment would have authorized the deployment of the Automated Targeting System For Passengers, or ATS-P as we refer to it. ATS-P is an intranet-based enforcement and decision support tool that is the cornerstone of all of CBP's targeting efforts at the border. ATS-P coordinates passenger information and forms an intelligence assessment of a traveler. ATS-P then makes a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' determination on whether that international traveler should be flagged for additional screening. Once this information is received by CBP officials, these officials retain the discretion to act, or not to act, on that information. In short, ATS-P is nothing more than a tool that can help CBP determine who might be a person worthy of a follow-up interview. Again, since we are already using this technology to screen international incoming flights, why not apply it to border crossings of trains and buses, other forms of transportation through which terrorists might try to enter the country? Why not? That was the gist of my amendment. Once more, however, the majority on the Rules Committee shot us down. Together, APIS and the ATS-P make up the building blocks of exactly the kind of border security program recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and yet this rule prohibits our consideration of these two programs as part of our mass transit and rail security structure. The majority can talk the talk when it comes to adopting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, but by failing to implement these two amendments, it has shown that it cannot walk the walk. Accordingly, while I know that this legislation, H.R. 1401, will do many good things, and I do support the underlying bill, I ask that you vote against this rule because it fails to address the homeland security concerns detailed in my amendments.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Congressman Miller, for your leadership, as well as Congresswoman Berkley. I appreciate all of your leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 1284, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007. I think we all are indeed grateful for the services of our Nation's veterans. They have answered this country's call time and time again. As a matter of fact, just last week I visited a VA outpatient clinic in my own district of Allentown, Pennsylvania. I continue to be amazed by the spirit of our veterans. Many of whom I met with there were in the Vietnam War, and some of whom were still struggling with the issues that affected them since their return. But I am nevertheless amazed by their spirit. I also recently visited the Walter Reed Army Hospital in the wake of events. But as a Nation, we are indebted to these veterans. We are indebted to them for their contributions to our freedom. We need to take every opportunity to let those veterans know that they are appreciated and that their needs will be met by a grateful government and a grateful Nation. H.R. 1284 is an opportunity for us to help meet those needs. This bill provides for an increase in the rate of compensation for disabled veterans and in the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for their families effective December 1. The percentage increase in these rates would be equal to the increase for Social Security benefits, which would be calculated later this year. Veterans benefits must keep up with inflation. Veterans should not have to worry about losing their standard of living just because they may be living on a fixed income. This bill will help to accomplish that particular objective. I strongly urge the Members of this House to show their support for America's veterans by voting in favor of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living and Adjustment Act of 2007.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. That is absolutely true. And particularly I would also urge anybody watching us this evening to not only look at their COBRA options, and certainly endorse this legislation, but also be aware of the fact that we have programs in this country called SCHIP for children who are uninsured, that if their children need health insurance, they may be eligible for that. When I was in my State legislature, we passed an Adult Basic Program providing a low-cost health insurance program for adults of working age who, for whatever reasons, were out of work. So, again, the gentleman is on point, that when people are unemployed, there are options for them in health care in many States, either through SCHIP or, like my State, Adult Basic; and I would certainly encourage people to contact my office or even their State legislator's office to seek some assistance.

Mr. DENT. Yes. The gentleman is absolutely on point. The portability aspect of this legislation is absolutely critical. When I served in my State legislature, in both the State house and the State senate, this was a common complaint I would hear from people who suffered a job loss and were at the end of their COBRA eligibility. They were very frustrated, just for the reasons you identified, that there was a member of the family who had a particular illness and that they could not get coverage elsewhere. So COBRA was absolutely critical to them being able to provide for their families. Remember, too, when you pay for COBRA insurance, you are basically paying the full premium. So the portability aspect and dealing with the preexisting condition is absolutely I think one of the best selling points and the most salient points of this legislation.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his strong leadership on this suburban agenda. I also want to thank him, too, for arranging this opportunity for members of the Suburban Agenda Caucus to come to the floor this evening to discuss issues that are important to all Americans and not simply just people who live in the suburbs. Every congressman or woman has a unique district with distinct interests, but we can all support an agenda that defends our children's safety, improves educational opportunities and expands access to affordable health care. When I am at home in my district, one of the issues that I discuss with my constituents is our mutual concern for the safety of our children, both in school and on the Internet. Parents have a right to send their children to safe, drug-free schools, and we took an important step last Congress when the House passed legislation, the Student and Teacher Safety Act, that would allow States and school districts to conduct reasonable searches to ensure that our schools remain free of all weapons, dangerous materials and illegal narcotics. Parents need to know that their children are safe when they are at school. As a father of three young children, I am particularly concerned about the threat of online predators. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that over 50,000 predators are online at any given time and one in five children has received an unwanted online solicitation of a sexual nature. We need to be vigilant as parents by supervising our children while they are browsing the Web at home. We also must do all we can to protect our children when they are outside our supervision by preventing them from accessing social networking Web sites and chat rooms like MySpace.com at schools and in libraries unless they are under adult supervision. The Deleting Online Predators Act will give parents peace of mind by ensuring that a responsible adult is monitoring their children's Internet use at all times. Parents in my district know that a college education will double their child's earning potential, as you just mentioned, but they worry about how they will afford to send their children to a higher education institution. It is critical that we help families start saving early to send their children to college. By passing H.R. 87 and permanently extending the 401 Kids Family Savings Accounts, or college savings accounts, parents will be able to put money aside to invest in their children's future. And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her strong leadership on this issue. Finally, one meaningful step we can take to ensure that individuals and families maintain access to affordable health care is to provide greater portability of health care coverage. Most Americans with private group health insurance are covered through an employer, coverage that is generally provided to active employees and their families. A change in an individual's work or family status can result in loss of coverage. Americans are changing jobs more than ever before, averaging nearly seven different careers over the course of their working lives. In 1985, Congress enacted legislation we refer to as COBRA to give workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue coverage provided under their group health plan. Under COBRA, an employer with 20 or more employees must provide individuals and their families the option of continuing their coverage under the employer's group health insurance plan in the case of certain events such as a voluntary or involuntary job loss, reduction in the hours worked, transition between jobs, death, divorce and other life events. But in most circumstances, the coverage under COBRA is limited to 18 or 36 months. And because of this 18-month limitation, during a prolonged job search, individuals and families have to purchase expensive policies in order to maintain their quality of care or they take the risk of becoming uninsured. During times of transition, families need the certainty of knowing that they will not lose their health coverage. Later this week I will be introducing a bill, the Health Insurance for Life Act, which will remove the 18- or 36-month limitation on COBRA coverage, giving employees the option to continue their health insurance coverage indefinitely. Knowing that they can rely on continued coverage will provide individuals and families with consistency and security as they face change and uncertainty in their lives. And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to advance this important agenda that has been outlined by my friend and colleague, Representative Kirk of Illinois. And, again, I do want to compliment you and applaud you on your leadership.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate. But two points must be absolutely clear at the outset. First, it is imperative that we continue to support our troops on the ground. Our servicemembers deployed to Iraq have done a magnificent job. They have performed their missions admirably, effectively, and with valor. They have done everything we have asked them to do. They have made sacrifices as have their families. They deserve our unqualified support. And as a Member of Congress, I strongly disagree with some of my colleagues who have suggested cutting off funds for our troops serving in Iraq. A second point to be made here is that immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which has likewise been advocated by some members on the other side of the aisle, is also a bad idea. The Iraq Study Group has said that ``it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support.'' The National Intelligence Estimate of January 2007 says that ``if Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.'' Religious conflict aside, there is another reason for avoiding immediate withdrawal, and that is simply that al Qaeda and its affiliated groups still operate in Iraq. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, considers their efforts in Iraq to be ``crucial'' towards furthering al Qaeda objectives in the region. Thus, these groups are aggressively pursuing terrorism within the borders of that country, commiting acts of violence against Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dares to disagree with them. By instigating this mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, al Qaeda hopes to realize its supreme goal, to destabilize the government, assume control over the country and its oil wealth and eventually install a Taliban- style government in Baghdad. This is not good for the United States. It is not good for Iraq. And it is not good for the region. That is why I oppose immediate withdrawal. That being said, and understanding the need for Congress to debate the issue of the war, I am disappointed in the way this debate has taken shape. The majority has given much time for us to express our views, but it has limited the options that might be employed to make this legislation more effective. They allowed no amendments either from Republicans or from their own Democratic colleagues. They refused to permit any substitutes. They even denied us a motion to recommit. By putting before us this highly restrictive rule, the other side has effectively foreclosed dialogue on other measures that might have added substance to the debate. While both Democrats and Republicans utilize the Iraq Study Group findings to justify their positions, the majority leadership has refused to consider my colleague from Virginia's legislation, Mr. Frank Wolf, his legislation, H. Con. Res. 45, which would implement some of the most significant recommendations of the Iraq Study Group's report. This legislation would emphasize the need for U.S. forces to accelerate the training of their Iraqi counterparts, would establish milestones for success in Iraq, and would promote diplomatic initiatives in order to advance stability in the country and in the region. Yet no debate on such a bill and no opportunity to offer an amendment consistent with those objectives was tolerated by the majority. What does this say about their commitment to fulfilling the objectives recommended by the Iraq Study Group's report? You know, we are all speaking about this report, but we are simply not voting on it. That is wrong. I stand before you today in my second term in Congress as someone who has tried to understand the Iraq war from many different viewpoints. I have talked with my constituents both pro and con about the war. I have listened to military and intelligence briefings. I have visited Iraq. I have studied the Iraq Study Group report. I have read journal articles, academic studies and news clips on the subject, all to increase my professional awareness of what is going on over there. But I do not just see this from a professional perspective. The Iraq war has had personal consequences for me as well. One of my staffers, Jason Lane, is a Reservist who has been called to active duty and is deployed there right now. I have talked with the troops who have served there. I have visited the wounded in hospitals and most painfully attended the funerals of those who gave to this country what Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion. I attended one of those funerals just last Friday. From all of this, I must admit, I have my concerns about the efficacy of the President's troop surge. I believe that it is far more important that the Iraqis show the political will to achieve reconciliation and end the sectarian violence that is slowly but surely strangling their capital and their country. As their Prime Minister, Maliki said on November 27, 2006, ``The crisis is political, and ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and the bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.'' Success in Iraq is essential to achieving America's foreign policy objectives, and it is in America's best interest to ensure that Iraq can sustain, govern and defend itself. But I believe in holding Prime Minister Maliki to his word. We cannot and will not abandon our troops who are currently on the ground in Iraq. We must make sure that our forces effectively engage al Qaeda, as opposed to mediating a Sunni-Shia conflict that is the responsibility of the Iraqi government to resolve. We all know these are the challenges facing this Congress, and these are challenges that must be met in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act, is an important bill that seeks to facilitate the development of markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. I am pleased that it is being considered on the floor today. I supported this language last year when it passed as part of the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. I am a strong supporter of diversifying our Nation's fuel supply. Our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum is a threat to our economy, threat to our national security, and a threat to our environment. Promoting the development and implementation of clean domestic sources of transportation fuels will advance our energy independence and reduce the detrimental environmental effects of harmful air emissions. Bio-based fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are an important component of a national energy strategy, which maximizes our domestic resources. I also believe that hydrogen must play a prominent role in an energy policy that relieves our dependence on foreign sources of oil and minimizes the environmental footprint by improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will direct the development of additives, blendstocks, technologies and methods which mitigate the negative effect of biofuels on infrastructure and make them more compatible with existing infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based fuels to the point of final sale. My amendment seeks to acknowledge and address the infrastructure challenges that will be presented by the advancement of hydrogen fuel, which can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including biomass. Specifically, my amendment will, one, direct the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to consider the challenges for design, reforming storage, handling and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks, including biomass. I believe that key to our energy security is a strategy which incorporates the various technologies and alternative fuels that will coexist in the marketplace. As we address the important infrastructure challenges raised by the promotion of biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel, I also believe it is incumbent upon us to start paving the way for the hydrogen economy. These are consistent technologies that are complementary and that promote alternative development.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that the funding is through the EPA with consultation with the Secretary of Energy.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do have a great deal of respect for the chairman, but I do respectfully disagree with his contention that this amendment is outside the scope of this legislation. Clearly the Chair and the Parliamentarian have ruled this amendment germane. And it is germane for a number of reasons. Specifically, biomass is a feedstock, as we know. It can be used in the production of hydrogen. So I am trying to emphasize once again that these are very consistent technologies. There is $10 million authorized in this legislation. We just seek to take some of that funding for this amendment. We are not asking for additional funding. Again, as you develop an infrastructure for biomass and biodiesel, developing one for hydrogen is just as essential. I think that this is entirely consistent, well within the scope of the legislation before us and should be supported by all of the Members of this Chamber. I do have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Tennessee. I know he is dedicated to alternative fuel development. But I think we cannot move forward on some aspects of alternative fuels while ignoring hydrogen in a hydrogen-based economy, which is where many of us would like to move at some point in the future.