Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 196, which authorizes the use of the Rotunda grounds of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. I would like to thank Congressman Brady for introducing this bill to honor such an inspirational and charismatic person who has touched the lives of millions around the world. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest expression of national appreciation for exceptional service and for lifetime contributions. The medal has been awarded to individuals from all walks of life. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King, Pope John Paul II, the Navajo Code Talkers, Rosa Parks, Frank Sinatra, and Elie Wiesel are among those who have been honored. The Dalai Lama is well qualified to join the list of individuals who have received this most distinguished of honors. Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, is recognized in the United States and throughout the world as a leading figure of moral and religious authority. He is the unrivaled spiritual and cultural leader of the Tibetan people, and has used his leadership to promote democracy, freedom, and peace for the Tibetan people through a negotiated settlement of the Tibet issue, based on autonomy within the People's Republic of China. This Dalai Lama has led the effort to preserve the rich cultural, religious, and linguistic heritage of the Tibetan people and to promote the safeguarding of other endangered cultures throughout the world. For his efforts on behalf of humanity, this Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. His efforts to promote peace and non- violence around the globe, and to find democratic reconciliation for the Tibetan people through his ``Middle Way'' approach, has won him world-wide acclaim. This Dalai Lama has significantly advanced the goal of greater understanding, tolerance, harmony, and respect among the different religious faiths of the world through interfaith dialogue and outreach to other religious leaders and, perhaps most important, he has used his moral authority to promote the concept of universal responsibility as a guiding tenet for how human beings should treat one another and the planet we share. For these reasons, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 196 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting to authorize the use of the Rotunda grounds of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today as we commemorated one day early the 6 years since 9/11. Most of us just came from the steps of the east side of the United States Capitol bringing back memories of how we went together, united, on that day, September 11, 2001, to show the world and to reinforce America's values that we would not be deterred, democracy would reign, freedom would reign, and justice would reign in this Nation. But I come this evening to again express my deepest sympathy for those families that still mourn and those who still bear the emotional scars and, of course, those who remain injured from that fateful day. I remember being here in the United States Capitol in a meeting. Of course, our minds would never have imagined and could not conceive of what we were about to expect as we heard people running through the Capitol knocking on doors, not being able to explain just what was happening. Of course, those who wished to continue the day's business did not understand that our lives would never be the same. We finally recognized that there was something out of the ordinary happening. As we, in essence, escaped from this building without much information or understanding, watching over our shoulder the billowing black smoke of the Pentagon, rumors abounded. There were thoughts, suggestions, rumors or facts that planes were heading for a number of places, including the United States Capitol in Washington, DC. On that day, we saw the loss of lives of those in the Twin Towers and the airplanes in the skies. We are reminded of those souls who steered that plane away from the United States Capitol that landed in the fields of Pennsylvania. We hold all of these souls dear to our heart. Over the weekend, I was able to catch, as I was passing by our television, a documentary on engine 54 in New York. It is my understanding that all 15 of those that were on duty on that day lost their lives. Today I stand to salute all of the first responders and to highlight the firefighters who went into those buildings and never came out, and all other rescuers who likewise went into the buildings and never came out. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we vowed, after the creation of this committee, to never have this happen again. Unfortunately, there is much work to be done. We challenge, and we are challenged, to be dutiful and diligent in making sure that cargo on airplanes does not get unscreened by TSA, that we are assured that airports in the front and the back are secure, and that we are looking keenly at America's transportation system of buses, trains, and highways. We owe that to the American people. Then, Mr. Speaker, as we listened to General Petraeus and to Ambassador Crocker today, we owe them a real war on terror and that is to be able to join with the world's allies, our allies, and fight the war on terror, fight it and win it in Afghanistan, find Osama bin Laden and bring a political reconciliation to Iraq so that we can bring our soldiers home. Fueling the fires of Al Qaeda and allowing them to come to Iraq in 2005 does not pay tribute to those who died on 9/11. As I hold in my hand the American flag, I stand here today to recommit myself and to ask my colleagues as they come to this floor to recommit themselves to those lives that were lost, those families that mourn, that we will be a Nation united under truth, fighting the war on terror, making that our number one priority, and that we will pay tribute to the United States military, those who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and places around the world, and make a final and important decision that the political reconciliation for Iraq must be in the hands of a sovereign people and a sovereign nation of Iraq. It is time now to bring our soldiers home. The war on terror continues. We will never be daunted by that. We stand against the terrorists. But we must do it rightfully and truthfully. We must join together, win the war on terror, bring our soldiers home so that war can be broadened and we can be victorious on behalf of the people of the United States and those who lost their lives in that war.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Conyers.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I started out in this debate to say that we worked very hard for a long period of time to be able to look at the small and the big, the big inventor and the little man inventor. All of them have been great to America, and we have benefited from their inventions and their intellect. This patent bill preserves the intellectual property, the art, the invention, the minds of America. And it does, in fact, protect us against those who would undermine this very viable economic engine, and that is our mind, our talent. But I believe that all voices should be heard. And throughout this whole process there is probably no one who focused on the damages issue as much as I did, the proportionality issue. And I worked with Mr. Berman and Mr. Conyers and our bipartisan friends. So this gives us an opportunity, and my amendment is very simple. And it doesn't wait 7 years or 10 years to give us answers. It's 1 year. It provides us with the opportunity in this landmark legislation to study the patent damage awards in cases where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under section 84 of title 35 of the United States Code. The study should at a minimum consider cases from 1990 to the present. It has a very detailed analysis, and what that will do is it will find its way to this Congress and we will have a better way of assessing the impact. We are concerned. Proportionality is an issue. But we are not ignoring your concerns, and this particular study helps to bring us along. Let me just quickly suggest the entities that will be impacted in a positive way: the American Intellectual Property Law Association, a number of universities that will be impacted from the University of Illinois to Massachusetts to the University of Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas A&M. Small inventors will be impacted by this study because it will give us more information. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for affording me this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1908, the ``Patent Reform Act of 2007.'' Let me also thank the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, for the example of bipartisan leadership coming together to address the real problems of the American people and the economy. I especially wish to thank Mr. Berman and Mr. Coble, the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet for their hard work, perseverance, and visionary leadership in producing landmark legislation that should ensure that the American patent system remains the envy of the world. I am proud to have joined with all of them as original co-sponsor of H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. On behalf of the small business enterprises, technology firms, and academics I am privileged to represent, I want to publicly thank them for working with me on two other amendments to the bill offered by me which were adopted during the full committee markup. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple but important addition to this landmark legislation, which I believe can be supported by every member of this body. My amendment calls for a study of patent damage awards in cases where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under Section 284 of Title 35 of the United States Code. The study should, at a minimum, consider cases from 1990 to the present. The results of this study shall be reported to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. I have attached to my statement a partial listing of groups, organizations, institutions, and industries that will benefit from the study called for in my amendment. Mr. Chairman, Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution confers upon the Congress the power: ``To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we must examine the patent system periodically to determine whether there may be flaws in its operation that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation process. On the other hand, we must be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property. Chairman Berman is to be commended for his yeoman efforts in seeking to broker a consensus on the subject of damages and royalty payments, which is covered in Section 5 of the bill. But as all have learned by now, this is an exceedingly complex issue. The complexity stems not from the unwillingness of competing interests to find common ground but from the interactive effects of patent litigation reform on the royalty negotiation process and the future of innovation. Important innovations come from universities, medical centers, and smaller companies that develop commercial applications from their basic research. These innovators must rely upon the licensing process to monetize their ideas and inventions. Thus, it is very important that we take care not to harm this incubator of tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. It is for that reason that we need to study whether patent damage awards in cases where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284 have and are hindering technological innovation. And it is important to emphasize Mr. Chairman, that this evaluation will be based on empirical data rigorously analyzed. Among the matters to be studied and reviewed are the following: Whether the mean or median dollar amount of reasonably royalty-based patent damages awarded by courts or juries, as the case may be, has significantly increased on a per case basis during the period covered by the study, taking into consideration adjustments for inflation and other relevant economic factors; Whether there has been a pattern of excessive and inequitable reasonable-royalty based damages during the period covered by the study and, if so, any contributing factors; To the extent that a pattern of excessive and inequitable damage awards exists, measures that could guard against such inappropriate awards without unduly prejudicing the rights and remedies of patent holders or significantly increasing litigation costs; and To the extent that a pattern of excessive and inequitable damage awards exists, whether legislative proposals that would mandate, or create a presumption in favor of, apportionment of reasonable royalty-based patent damages would effectively guard against such inappropriate awards without unduly prejudicing the rights and remedies of patent holders or significantly increasing litigation costs. In short, Mr. Chairman my amendment can be summed up as follows: For those who are confident of the future, my amendment offers vindication. For those who are skeptical that the new changes will work, my amendment will provide the evidence they need to prove their case. And for those who believe that maintaining the status quo is intolerable, my amendment offers a way forward. I urge all members to support my amendment. Appendix AmberWave Systems Aware, Inc., Canopy Venture Partners, LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, Cryptography Research, Cummins- Allison Corp., Digimarc Corporation, Fallbrook Technologies, Inc., Helius, Inc, Immersion Corporation, Inframat Corporation, InterDigital Communications Corporation, Intermolecular, Inc., LSI Metabolix. QUALCOMM, Inc., Symyx, Tessera, US Nanocorp. 3M, Abbott, Accelerated Technologies, Inc., Acorn Cardiovascular Inc., Adams Capital Management, Adroit Medical Systems, Inc., AdvaMed, Advanced Diamond Technologies, Inc., Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., Aero-Marine Company. AFL-CIO, Air Liquide, Air Products, ALD NanoSolutions, Inc., ALIO Industries, Allergan, Inc., Almyra, Inc., AmberWave Systems Corporation, American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), American Seed Trade, Americans for Sovereignty, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, AngioDynamics, Inc. Applied Medical, Applied Nanotech, Inc. Argentis Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Arizona BioIndustry Association, ARYx Therapeutics, Ascenta Therapeutics, Inc., Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), Asthmatx, Inc., AstraZeneca, Aware, Inc., Baxa Corporation, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, BayBio, Beckman Coulter, BIO-- Biotechnology Industry Organization, BioCardia, Inc. BIOCOM, Biogen Idec. Biomedical Association, BioOhio, Bioscience Institute, Biotechnology Council of New Jersey, Blacks for Economic Security Trust Fund, BlazeTech Corporation, Boston Scientific, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, BuzzLogic, California Healthcare Institute, Canopy Ventures, Carbide Derivative Technologies, Cardiac Concepts, Inc. CardioDynamics, Cargill, Inc., Cassie-Shipherd Group, Caterpillar, Celgene Corporation, Cell Genesys, Inc., Center 7, Inc. Center for Small Business and the Environment, Centre for Security Policy, Cephalon, CheckFree, Christian Coalition of America, Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, Coalitions for America. CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., Colorado Bioscience Association, Conceptus, Inc., CONNECT, Connecticut United for Research Excellence, Cornell University, Corning, Coronis Medical Ventures, Council for America, CropLife America, Cryptography Research, Cummins Inc. Cummins-Allison Corporation, CVRx Inc., Dais Analytic Corporation, Dartmouth Regional Technology Center, Inc., Declaration Alliance Deltanoid Pharmaceuticals, Digimarc Corporation, DirectPointe, Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, Dura-Line Corporation, Dynatronics Co., Eagle Forum, Eastman Chemical Company. Economic Development Center, Edwards Lifesciences, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Electronics for Imaging, Eli Lilly and Company, Ellman Innovations LLC, Enterprise Partners Venture Capital, Evalve, Inc. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Fallbrook Technologies Inc., FarSounder, Inc., Footnote.com, Gambro BCT, General Electric. Genomic Health, Inc., Gen-Probe Incorporated, Genzyme, Georgia Biomedical Partnership, Glacier Cross, Inc. GlaxoSmithKline, Glenview State Bank, Hawaii Science & Technology Council, HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, HeartWare, Inc., Helius, Inc., Henkel Corporation. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., iBIO, Imago Scientific Instruments, Impulse Dynamics (USA), Inc., Indiana Health Industry Forum, Indiana University, Innovation Alliance, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-USA. InterDigital Communications Corporation, Intermolecular, Inc., International Association of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Invitrogen Corporation, Iowa Biotechnology Association, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, KansasBio, Leadership Institute, Let Freedom Ring, Life Science Alley, LITMUS, LLC, LSI Corporation, Lux Capital Management, Luxul Corporation, Maryland Taxpayers' Association. Masimo Corporation, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC), Maxygen Inc., MDMA--Medical Device Manufacturer's Association, Medical College of Wisconsin, Medlmmune, Inc., Medtronic, Merck, Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc., Metabolex, Inc., Metacure (USA), Inc., MGI Pharma Inc., MichBio. Michigan Small Tech Association, Michigan State University, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Milliken & Company, Mohr, Davidow Ventures, Monsanto Company, NAM--National Association of Manufacturers, NanoBioMagnetics, Inc. (NBMI), NanoBusiness Alliance, Nanolnk, Inc., Nanolntegris, Inc., Nanomix, Inc., Nanophase Technologies, NanoProducts Corporation, Nanosys, Inc., Nantero, Inc., National Center for Public Policy Research, Nektar Therapeutics, Neoconix, Inc. Neuro Resource Group (NRG), Neuronetics, Inc., NeuroPace, New England Innovation Alliance, New Hampshire Biotechnology Council, New Hampshire Department of Economic Development, New Mexico Biotechnical and Biomedical Association, New York Biotechnology Association. Norseman Group, North Carolina Biosciences Organization, North Carolina State University, North Dakota State University, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northwestern University, Novartis, Novartis Corporation. Novasys Medical Inc., NovoNordisk, NUCRYST Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NuVasive, Inc., Nuvelo, Inc., Ohio State University, OpenCEL, LLC, Palmetto Biotechnology Alliance, Patent Cafe.com, Inc., Patent Office Professional Association, Pennsylvania Bio, Pennsylvania State University, PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer, PhRMA--Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Physical Sciences Inc., PointeCast Corporation. Power Innovations International, Power Metal Technologies, Inc., Preformed Line Products, Procter & Gamble, Professional Inventors' Alliance. ProRhythm, Inc., Purdue University, Pure Plushy Inc., QUALCOMM Inc., QuantumSphere, Inc., QuesTek Innovations LLC, Radiant Medical, Inc., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, Retractable Technologies, Inc., RightMarch.com. S & C Electric Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SanDisk Corporation, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., Semprius, Inc, Small Business Association of Michigan--Economic Development Center, Small Business Exporters Association of the United States, Small Business Technology Council, Smart Bomb Interactive, Smile Reminder, SmoothShapes, Inc., Solera Networks, South Dakota Biotech Association, Southern California Biomedical Council, Spiration, Inc., Standup Bed Company. State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Stella Group, Ltd., StemCells, SurgiQuest, Inc., Symyx Technologies, Inc., Tech Council of Maryland/MdBio, Technology Patents & Licensing, Tennessee Biotechnology Association, Tessera, Inc., Texas A&M, Texas Healthcare, Texas Instruments, Three Arch Partners, United Technologies, University of California System, University of Illinois, University of Iowa, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of New Hampshire, University of North Carolina System, University of Rochester, University of Utah, University of Wisconsin- Madison. US Business and Industry Council, US Council for International Business, USGI Medical, USW--United Steelworkers, Vanderbilt University and Medical Center, Virent Energy Systems, Inc., Virginia Biotechnology Association, Visidyne, Inc., VisionCare Opthamalogic Technologies, Inc., Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association. Washington University, WaveRx, Inc., Wayne State University, Wescor, Inc., Weyerhaeuser, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), Wisconsin Biotechnology and Medical Device Association, Wyeth. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my intent was to respond to the disparate voices. Would you at least admit that this improves or adds to by giving us additional information?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank the toiling committee chaired by Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith. This has been a long journey. As a new member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, let me also thank both the chairman and ranking member for a tough, tough challenge. It is important to express that this is a significant change in patent law, but it is done to protect, if you will, the very treasure that has propelled America into an economic engine and that we must insist continue. I think the changes that have been made certainly to some may be startling, but the effort was to bring all parties together. I am delighted that even though there are questions about, for example, the first-to-file over the first-to-invent, this committee saw fit to add my amendment which means that there will be periodic review so Congress will be instructed on whether or not this works on behalf of all inventors big and small. Then when we look at the workings in section 5 dealing with first-to- file and dealing with damages. Rather than passing this law forever and ever, an amendment I added will give us an opportunity to study it to assess who is it helping and who is it hurting. We certainly want to ensure that all are given an opportunity. I am very glad that the manager's amendment has impacted the damages provision. The original bill seemed to require all apportionment in all cases. But in this instance the manager's amendment has made it as one of the factors. Therefore, when you look at a Post-it sticker, you can determine how much the glue has helped the Post-it sticker. This is apportionment of damages in case there was a lawsuit. I know that there are many groups, such as Innovation Alliance, that I look forward to working with as we make our way through to ensure that this bill answers the questions big and small and fuels the economic engine of manufacturing, universities, pharmaceuticals and others, like small inventors. I ask my colleagues to consider this bill and support it. It has a meaningful response to changing patent law for all involved. Mr. Chairman, as an original co-sponsor and member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I am proud to Support this legislation because in many ways the current patent system is flawed, outdated, and in need of modernization. Under the visionary leadership of Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Berman, joined by Mr. Smith and Mr. Coble, their counterparts on the minority side, the Judiciary Committee labored long and hard to produce legislation that reforms the American patent system so that it continues to foster innovation and be the jet fuel of the American economy and remains the envy of the world. Mr. Chairman, Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution confers upon the Congress the power: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we must examine the patent system periodically. The legislation before us represents the first comprehensive review of the patent system in more than a generation. It is right and good and necessary that the Congress now reexamine the patent system to determine whether there may be flaws in its operation that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation process. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property. The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done so at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance. Mr. Chairman, the subject of damages and royalty payments, which is covered in Section 5 of the bill, is a complex issue. The complexity stems from the subject matter itself but also interactive effects of patent litigation reform on the royalty negotiation process and the future of innovation. Important innovations come from universities, medical centers, and smaller companies that develop commercial applications from their basic research. These innovators must rely upon the licensing process to monetize their ideas and inventions. Mr. Chairman, the innovation ecosystem we create and sustain today will produce tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. That ecosystem is comprised of many different operating models. It is for that reason that we evaluated competing patent reform proposals thoroughly to ensure that sweeping changes in one part of the system do not result in unintended consequences to other important parts. Let me discuss briefly some of the more significant features of this legislation, which I will urge all members to support. Section 3: Right of the First Inventor to File H.R. 1908 converts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to file system. The U.S. is alone in granting priority to the first inventor as opposed to the first inventor to file a patent. H.R. 1908 will inject needed clarity and certainty into the system. While cognizant of the enormity of the change that a ``first inventor to file'' system may have on many small inventors and universities, a grace period is maintained to substantially reduce the negative impact to these inventors. Moreover, the legislation incorporates an amendment that I offered during the full committee markup that requires the Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the Patent and Trademark Office director to conduct a study every seven years on the effectiveness of revisions made in the bill to the patent derivation litigation system and submit the report to the House and Senate Judiciary committees. In embracing this constructive addition to the bill, the Committee Report notes: [T]he amendments in section 3 of the bill serve to implement a fundamental change in the operation of the United States patent system. Such change, while well-reasoned, requires a mechanism for monitoring its long-term effects. Section 5: Formula for Calculating Fair and Equitable Remedies Section 5 of the bill provides useful clarification to courts and juries designed to ensure inventors are compensated fairly, while not discouraging innovation with arbitrary or excessive damage awards. While preserving the right of patent owners to receive appropriate damages, the bill provides a formula to ensure that the patent owner be rewarded for the actual value of the patented invention. Computing damages in patent cases is an exceedingly complex task. The complexity stems not from the unwillingness of competing interests to find common ground but from the interactive effects of patent litigation reform on the royalty negotiation process and the future of innovation. To illustrate, consider this frequently cited hypothetical. A new turbine blade for a jet engine is invented which enables the plane to achieve a 40 percent increase in gas mileage. What is fair compensation for the holder of the patent? Damages could fairly be based on the number of turbine blades used, the number of jet engines employing those turbine blades, or on a percentage of the savings of the cost of jet fuel used, or the number of miles flown by aircraft using engines employing the turbine blades, or even, if the higher efficiency of aircraft using the turbine blades was the basis for the market demand for the jet, the jet itself. The original version of the bill was susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that apportionment would be required in all cases. But as marked up and amended, apportionment is only one of the several methods a court can use in awarding damages, including the use of the current approach established in Georgia-Pacific v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), which provides that reasonable royalty damages are ascertained by looking to what the infringer would have paid, and what the patent owner would have accepted, for a license, had one been negotiated at the time the infringement began. Moreover, apportionment no longer applies to damages based on lost profits. Another change allows plaintiff to recover the enhanced value of previously known elements where their combination in the invention adds value or functionality to the prior art. This is a very important and helpful compromise on the issue of patent case damages. We must keep in mind that important innovations come from universities, medical centers, and smaller companies that develop commercial applications from their basic research. These innovators must rely upon the licensing process to monetize their ideas and inventions. Thus, it is very important that we take care not to harm this incubator of tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. The bill before us strikes the proper balance. In addition, it should also be pointed out that included in the bill is another of my amendments adopted during the full committee markup requiring the PTO Director to conduct a study on the effectiveness and efficiency of the amendments to section 5 of the bill, and submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the results of the study. The report must include any recommendations the Director may have on amendments to the law add any other recommendations the Director may have with respect to the right of the inventor to obtain damages for patent infringement. The study must be done not later than the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and at the end of every 7-year period after the date of the first study. In adopting this amendment, the Judiciary Committee reported that: [T]he amendments in section 5 of the bill will have many positive effects on the patent system, but that the changes are sufficiently significant to require periodic monitoring. By examining the effects of these changes on a regular basis, and by paying attention to such feedback as may be obtained through these studies, Congress can ensure that any unforeseen negative consequences that may arise can be dealt with through future legislation or other mechanisms. Willful Infringement and Prior Use Rights The legislation also contains certain limitations on willful infringement. A court may only find willful infringement if the patent owner shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the infringer, after receiving detailed written notice from the patentee, performed the acts of infringement, (2) the infringer intentionally copied the patented invention with knowledge that it was patented, or (3) after having been found by a court to have infringed a patent, the infringer engaged in conduct that again infringed on the same patent. An allegation of willfulness is subject to a ``good faith'' defense. H.R. 1908 also expands the ``prior user rights'' defense to infringement, where an earlier inventor began using a product or process (although unpatented) before another obtained a patent for it. Post-Grant Procedures and Other Quality Enhancements Another beneficial feature of H.R. 1908 is that it cures the principal deficiencies of re-examination procedures and creates a new, post-grant review that provides an effective and efficient system for considering challenges to the validity of patents. Addressing concerns that one seeking to cancel a patent could abuse a post -grant review procedure, the bill establishes a single opportunity for challenge that must be initiated within 12 months of the patent being granted. It also requires the PTO Director to prescribe rules for abuse of discovery or improper use of the proceeding, limits the types of prior art which may be considered, and prohibits a party from reasserting claims in court that it raised in post-grant review. Venue and Jurisdiction Finally, the bill also addresses changes to venue, to address extensive forum shopping and provides for interlocutory appeals to help clarify the claims of the inventions early in the litigation process. H.R. 1908 would restore balance to this statute by allowing cases to be brought in a variety of locales--including where the defendant is incorporated or has its principal place of business or has committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement and has a physical facility controlled by the defendant. H.R. 1908 makes patent reform litigation more efficient by providing the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions, known as Markman orders, in which the district court construes the claims of a patent as a matter of law. Conclusion In short, Mr. Chairman, the argument for supporting H.R. 1908 can be summed up as follows: For those who are confident about the future, the bill, as amended, offers vindication. For those who are skeptical that the new changes will work, the Jackson-Lee amendments added to the bill will provide the evidence they need to prove their case. And for those who believe that maintaining the status quo is intolerable, the legislation before us offers the best way forward. I urge all members to join me in supporting passage of this landmark legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference Report for H.R. 2669, the Education and Labor College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill. This important legislation does far more than ease the burden of student loans for college graduates--it will make the American dream possible for low- and middle-income students, helping families pay for college. I would like to thank Chairman Miller for introducing the legislation, as well as his steadfast commitment to this important issue. May I also thank Speaker Pelosi for her visionary leadership in leading America in a new direction. I am proud to be part of a Democratic majority that delivers on its promises to the American people. Mr. Speaker, in 21st century America, a college education is a critical investment toward individual success, as well as toward the strength of our nation. Higher education is associated with better health, greater wealth, and more vibrant civic participation, as well as national economic competitiveness in today's global environment. As the need for a college degree has grown, however, so has the cost of obtaining that education. The result is rising student debt. Students graduating often leave school with far more than knowledge and a degree; many face years of having their financial lives dictated by the burden of debt. Their choices of careers and jobs may be severely constrained by the necessity of repaying these loans. This bill strengthens the middle class by making college more affordable: 6.8 million students who take out need-based federal student loans each year will see the interest rates on their loans halved over the next four years, saving the typical borrower (with $13,800 in need-based loan debt) $4,400 over the life of the loan, once fully implemented. With the recent sub-prime lending crisis and subsequent economic turmoil, the United States economy lost over 4,000 non-farm jobs in the month of August. More and more middle class students will be in need of assistance to turn their college dreams into a reality. This legislation makes student loan payments more manageable for borrowers by guaranteeing that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments. It also allows borrowers in economic hardship to have their loans forgiven after 25 years. This Conference Report contains many important provisions that make significant strides toward making the dream of higher education a reality for more Americans than ever. It provides an increase in college aid by roughly $20 billion over the next five years, with no additional burden on American taxpayers. By cutting excessive federal subsidies to lenders, this legislation pays for itself. This Conference Report contains a specific commitment to minority- serving institutions. It authorizes $510 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and the newly designated Predominantly Black Institutions. These funds will work to ensure that students will not only enter college, but remain and graduate. About 2.3 million students attend minority-serving institutions, including \1/3\ of all minority students who attend college. This new investment is particularly critical for African-American students and their families. African-American students currently comprise about 12 percent of all undergraduate students. Many institutions have helped black students bridge ethnic-related economic barriers, making college education possible for underprivileged minorities. Among Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), which give African American students an opportunity to have an educational experience in a community in which they are a part of the majority, costs are also rising. This resolution would support many of these honorable institutions in their righteous deeds in educatIng our underprivileged students of color. In addition, this bill encourages and rewards public service. Students who pursue careers as public school teachers will receive upfront tuition assistance of $4,000 per year, to a maximum of $16,000, providing aid to at least 21,500 undergraduate and graduate students. This is particularly important, given that 23 percent of public college and 38 percent of private college graduates have student loan debt that is unmanageable on the starting salary of a teacher. By providing the guarantee of assistance, this bill is an important step toward ensuring that there is a highly qualified teacher in each of America's classrooms. Similarly, public servants will receive complete loan forgiveness after ten years of service. This will assist our driven young people who want to serve their country in the military, law enforcement, or as first responders, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, and early childhood educators. It ensures that dedicated Americans will not be precluded from serving their country because of a preponderance of debt. Mr. Speaker, I also support the Conference Report for H.R. 2669 because it will increase the maximum Pell Grant award by $1090 over the next five years to $5,400. It will also increase eligibility by raising the income threshold, allowing more students from more families to automatically qualify for grants. The Federal Pell Grant Program prides itself on providing need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. These grants are particularly important for students of color, with 45 percent of African American and Hispanic students at four-year colleges depending on Pell grants, compared to 23 percent of all students. Approximately 4.5 million students currently depend on Pell Grants and ``over 70 percent of Pell Grant funds go to students from families with incomes of $20,000 a year or less.'' Increasing the maximum Pell Grant Award will expand racial and ethnic diversity in higher education institutions, benefiting not only the institutions, cultural background but it will also be a great learning experience for students to learn diverse cultural backgrounds different from their own. In addition, the Conferene Report for H.R. 2669 cuts the interest rates on subsidized student loans in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over five years. Once fully implemented, this cut would save the typical borrower--with about $13,800 in need-based loan debt-- $4,400 over the life of the loan. By cutting interest rates on federal loans, Congress can save college graduates thousands of dollars over the life of their loans. Mr. Speaker, recent graduates, especially those of minority status with low to moderate incomes, must spend the vast majority of their salaries on necessities such as rent, health care, and food. For borrowers struggling to cover basic costs, student loan repayment can create a significant and measurable impact on their lives. Crushing student debt also has societal consequences, according to a report by two highly respected economists, Drs. Saul Schwarz and Sandy Baum. The prospect of burdensome debt likely deters skilled and dedicated college graduates from entering and staying in important careers such as educating our nation's children and helping the country's most vulnerable populations. To solve this problem and ensure that higher education remains within reach for all Americans, we need to increase need-based grant aid; make loan repayment fair and affordable; protect borrowers from usurious lending practices; and provide incentives for state governments and colleges to control tuition costs. H.R. 2669 is an important step in a new and right direction for America. Last November, House Democrats promised a New Direction for America. This bill, the single largest investment to higher education, comes at no additional cost to American taxpayers, but brings extraordinary benefits for our nation. I am proud to be part of a Democratic majority that delivers on its promises to the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of adoption of the Conference Report for H.R. 2669, the Education and Labor College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the single largest investment in education since the GI Bill, and we know what the GI Bill did for the World War II generation. Last month, the American people lost 4,000 jobs under this administration, and foreclosures are rising. The middle class needs relief. And this bill will cut interest rates in half of subsidized student loans over the next 4 years. It will allow borrowers to be able to not pay more than 15 percent on their loans. In addition, the Pell Grant, something that has helped low income, students, and what all of my students ask about every single time I visit college campuses, will be raised to $490, and over 5 years more than $1,000. And then we will invest in America's most underserved communities, Hispanic-serving, Historically Black, Native Americans and other institutions in which the bill will invest $510 million to help students stay in school among other incentives. This legislation helps our students graduate. It encourages public service. This bill is worth all of us voting for it. The middle class of America needs relief. This is a giant step forward in educating all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me, first of all, thank my distinguished colleague, the manager of the bill and a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Faleomavaega, for the very kind words that he has offered; and to the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her supporting words; and chiefly two very important persons who have assisted in this legislation, Chairman Lantos for his support and the very excellent committee staff that have supported us, along with our dear subcommittee Chair, Donald Payne, who is renowned for his commitment to Africa, and certainly we appreciate his friendship and support of this legislation. Might I acknowledge the cosponsors who were eager to join to recognize this distinguished but bountiful with words and compassion in his small package of a man but yet his gigantic heart, mind, and spirit, Bishop Mpilo Tutu, who, as you can see, is a man that commands thousands for his vision. We are proud to be able to, nearing the 76th birthday, acknowledge his 75th birthday and his 75th year. So might I also express appreciation for my staff, Yahannus Tsahani and Nina Besser, for their help in this legislation. Let me say to you, Madam Speaker, that Archbishop Tutu was not lost with words or passion. He said, ``I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.'' He is a man of immense courage and vision. He has long served as the moral voice of the oppressed populations. No one who has ever met, spoken to, or worked with Archbishop Tutu is the same afterwards. He is, of course, linked with Father Mandela, arm in arm as Father Mandela maintained his life and his integrity for 29 years. It was Bishop Tutu who had a voice, steering the religious and faith community away from its closed attitude to open to the Beatitudes, that, in fact, ``Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.'' Bishop Tutu believed in that. As a tireless advocate for ending discrimination, Desmond Tutu's career is truly extraordinary. In 1975 he became the first black African Dean of Mary's Cathedral in Johannesburg, South Africa. From 1976 to 1978, he served as the Secretary-General of the South African Council of Churches, once again being the first black African to do so. He went on to head South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission from 1996 to 1998, investigating prior apartheid-related crimes. It would be interesting if we were at that point in Iraq, but we must set the picture of what it means to bring together a commission that addresses the pain and hurt, brutality and devastation of black Africans, South Africans, at the hands of apartheid. It was not easy. It would have been better to sit in accusatory fashion, point fingers, and never resolve. But it was the calm demeanor, the spirit, the religious faith of Bishop Tutu that allowed this process to go forward and to allow it to go forward as others have now looked back and said, well done, well done. Archbishop Tutu is perhaps best known for his courageous opposition to the internationally condemned apartheid regime that persisted in his homeland until democratic elections were finally held in 1994. It was for his nonviolent struggle in opposition to apartheid that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 in recognition of his courage, heroism, and peaceful methods. The Nobel committee called him a ``unifying leader-figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa.'' The committee went on to state, ``the means by which this campaign is conducted is of vital importance for the whole of the continent of Africa and for the cause of peace in the world.'' In a press release discussing the award, the Nobel committee wrote, ``This year's award should be seen as a renewed recognition of the courage and heroism shown by black South Africans in their use of peaceful methods in the struggle against apartheid.'' How wonderful it would be if the conflicts around the world and in the Middle East would follow this straight and narrow path of a peaceful opposition. ``This recognition is also directed to all who throughout the world use such methods to stand in the vanguard of the campaign for racial equality as a human right.'' In recognition of his vast intellectual ability, Desmond Tutu has received numerous honorary doctorates from several universities, including Harvard, Kent, Columbia, Aberdeen, and Howard. Let me also indicate as well that he has won the Order of Meritorious Gold Award; the Martin Luther King, Jr. Nonviolent Peace Prize; and a number of others. He has also been a survivor of cancer. He is someone who has never stopped teaching, working, and understanding. And for those of us who are products of America's civil rights movement, I thought would be appropriate to bring to light and to attention the reflection of two giants: Rosa Parks and Archbishop Tutu, to bring together the trials and tribulations, the struggles of African Americans in the United States with someone who fully understood what struggle was all about. I am delighted to join with my colleagues asking for your full support in honoring Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu, a man who stood between the schism of two oceans, bringing America and Africa together through the idea of unity, peace, generosity, justice, and opportunity for all. Congratulations, Bishop Tutu. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 34, which honors the life and accomplishments of Desmond Mpilo Tutu, South African Archbishop of Cape Town and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I have been pleased to work with the Committee on Foreign Affairs on this important legislation, and I would like to thank Chairman Lantos for his support for this legislation. Madam Speaker, Archbishop Tutu once stated, ``I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.'' He is a man of immense courage and vision, and he has long served as the moral voice of oppressed populations. No one who has ever met, spoken to, or worked with Archbishop Tutu is the same afterwards. As a tireless advocate of ending discrimination, Desmond Tutu's career is truly extraordinary. In 1975, he became the first black African Dean of Mary's Cathedral, in Johannesburg, South Africa. From 1976-1978, he served as the Secretary-General of the South African Council of Churches; once again, being the first black African to do so. He went on to head South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission from 1996-1998, investigating prior apartheid related crimes. Archbishop Tutu is perhaps best known for his courageous opposition to the internationally-condemned apartheid regime that persisted in his homeland until democratic elections were finally held in 1994. It was for his non-violent struggle in opposition to apartheid that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, in recognition of his courage, heroism, and peaceful methods. The Nobel committee called him a ``unifying leader-figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa.'' The committee went on to state, ``the means by which this campaign is conducted is of vital importance for the whole of the continent of Africa and for the cause of peace in the world.'' In a press release discussing the award, the Nobel committee wrote, ``This year's award should be seen as a renewed recognition of the courage and heroism shown by black South Africans in their use of peaceful methods in the struggle against apartheid. This recognition is also directed to all who, throughout the world, use such methods to stand in the vanguard of the campaign for racial equality as a human right.'' In recognition of his vast intellectual ability, Desmond Tutu has received numerous honorary doctorates from several universities including Harvard, Kent, Colombia, Aberdeen, and Howard. In addition to the Nobel Peace Prize, Archbishop Tutu has received numerous other prestigious awards, including the Order of Meritorious Gold Award, Martin Luther King, Jr. Non-Violent Peace Prize, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Award for Outstanding Service to the Anglican Communion, Prix d'Athene, Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, Maguebela Prize for Liberty, as well as the International Gandhi Peace Prize. Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu will celebrate his 76th birthday on October 7, 2007. This legislation recognizes this important date, honors his accomplishments, and extols the contributions that he has made to South Africa, the United States, and to the international community. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life and accomplishments of this truly extraordinary man. I conclude with another quote from Archbishop Tutu: ``If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.'' Archbishop Tutu has spent his life in defense of the mouse, and his work has proven that, with proper pressure and leverage, the elephant can be forced to move.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Spaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3052, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 954 Wheeling Avenue in Cambridge, Ohio as the ``John Herschel Glenn, Jr. Post Office Building.'' I agree with Congressmen Space and Tiberi that it is long overdue for us to finally pay fitting tribute to an American hero who answered the call of service so many times, while asking nothing in return. John Glenn's life is truly an American story. Born in Cambridge, Ohio in 1921 and raised in New Concord, John Glenn spent his early years in Ohio. After graduating with a baccalaureate degree in engineering from Muskingum College, John Glenn began his distinguished military career as a Marine and fighter pilot. He flew 149 combat missions, in both World War II and the Korean War, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross six times. But more than his impressive record of military service, John Glenn will always be best known for his contributions to our nation's space exploration program. Glenn's experience and skill made him a logical candidate for the astronaut corps being formed during 1958. On February 20, 1962, Glenn piloted the Mercury-Atlas 6 ``Friendship 7'' spacecraft on the first manned orbital mission of the United States. This endeavor was a critical political and scientific milestone. It revolutionized the perspective of the American people and instilled public faith in the fledgling space program, which at that time was lagging behind the Soviets in the ``Space Race.'' As a Member of Congress from the Houston area, the home of the Johnson Space Center, I personally want to think John Glenn for this great achievement. John Glenn always had the ``Right Stuff,'' as the writer Tom Wolfe so aptly put it. After his famous flight, John Glenn returned to his home state of Ohio and went on to serve the state with distinction and honor in United States Senate. In his four terms in the Senate, John Glenn took a leading role in the effort to reduce nuclear weapons and government affairs. He was chief author of the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, served as chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee from 1978 until 1995, and was a leading member of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees and the Special Committee on Aging. Always willing to serve his country, John Glenn waged a spirited contest for his party's presidential nomination in 1984. In February 1997, John Glenn announced that he would retire from the Senate. A year later, NASA requested him to rejoin the space program he had helped to create as a member of the Space Shuttle Discovery Crew. John Glenn accepted the invitation and on October 29, 1998, at age 77, became the oldest human ever to venture into space. This voyage to outer space was no mere publicity stunt, however, thanks to John Glenn; NASA scientists gained much valuable information. Senator Glenn conducted the Canadian Space Agency's OSTEO (Osteoarthritis) experiment on board the Space Shuttle Discovery during the mission which contributed to our understanding of the aging process. The OSTEO experiment studied the underlying processes of bone loss and evaluated treatments. The research, supervised by John Glenn, was ideally suited for the space environment, as bone loss in space is four to ten times faster than during osteoporosis on Earth. The experiment demonstrated how bone mineralization decreases during space flight and also showed that a specific therapeutic agent, called recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH), is able to reverse this loss. The experiments were such a success, that the Canadian Space Agency is developing follow-up experiments on future space missions. Madam Speaker, I would again like to voice my support for H.R. 3052, and finally give back something to a man that has already given so much to his country. ``God Speed, John Glenn.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the United States Government Accountability report, ``Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq.'' The Iraqi Government has not met most legislative security and economic benchmarks. The President and Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense made a surprise visit to Anbar Province in Iraq. Out of their visit, I might imagine they would hope to have a counteroffensive against a number of hearings that the majority will be holding on the question of are we safer today than we were before the Iraq war. This report is both striking and provoking, provoking Americans to realize that the policy in Iraq has failed. It is time now to declare a military success, a military victory. Our soldiers have done their job. They have created an opportunity for a democratic government in Iraq. But, unfortunately, the job that needs to be done by the Iraqi Government has not been done. There are no battalions that are ready to go on the ground. So I will say to the administration, a surge will not work. Staying the course will not work. I ask that the troops be redeployed and a new direction be taken in Iraq.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I do applaud him for his consistent and impeccable commitment to civil liberties and civil rights. Mr. Speaker, this administration has the law to protect the American people. Let no one come to this floor and suggest that what we are doing tonight is going to save lives because last night we passed legislation that indicated that foreign-to-foreign communication had no barriers, no barriers for those who are seeking intelligence. Yet when an American was involved, the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment, civil liberties with the underpinnings, and therefore a court intervened. Homeland security is not a Republican issue. It is an issue for all Americans--all of us. Not one of us who sang ``God Bless America'' on the steps of this House will allow anyone to undermine the security of America. The legislation last night offered by the Majority gave the Administration everything that they needed, but what we're doing here tonight, we are shredding the Constitution. We are tearing up the Bill of Rights because we are telling Americans that no matter what your business is, you are subject to the unscrupulous, undisciplined, irresponsible scrutiny of the Attorney General and others without court intervention. This is not the day to play politics. It is to important to balance civil liberties along with the homeland security and the protection needs of America. I feel confident that the House FISA Bill does do that. Shame on the other body for failing to recognize that we can secure America by securing the American people with fair security laws and by giving them their civil liberties. I would ask my colleagues to defeat this so that we can go back to the bill that protects the civil liberties of Americans and provides homeland security. I ask my colleagues to support the Bill of Rights and National Security. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 1927. Had the Bush Administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the two preceding years, we would not be in the position of debating legislation that has such a profound impact on the national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. More often that not, it is true as the saying goes that haste makes waste. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to fill a gap in the Nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, by amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. But in reality it eviscerates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represents an unwarranted transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice Department led by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and integrity is, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt. Mr. Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes on a sound legal footing and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned or substantially amended. But given the claimed exigent circumstances by the Administration, let me briefly discuss some of the changes to FISA I am prepared to support on a temporary basis, not to exceed 120 days. First, I am prepared to accept temporarily obviating the need to obtain a court order for foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the United States. But I do insist upon individual warrants, based on probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a ``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance. There should be an initial 15-day emergency authority so that international surveillance can begin while the warrants are being considered by the Court. And there must also be congressional oversight, requiring the Department of Justice Inspector General to conduct an audit every 60 days of U.S. person communications intercepted under these warrants, to be submitted to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Finally, as I have stated, this authority must be of short duration and must expire by its terms in 120 days. In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still nothing on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this Administration, to indicate that they require any legislative response, other than to reaffirm the exclusivity of FISA and insist that it be followed. This could have been accomplished in the 109th Congress by passing H.R. 5371, the ``Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA Act,'' LISTEN Act,'' which I have co-sponsored with the then Ranking Members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Harman. The Bush Administration has not complied with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information from the Bush Administration or revelations in the media. It must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA. The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including: (1) who the NSA is targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the program collects and disseminates; and most important; (4) whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people. Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is not necessary. The bill which a majority of the House voted to pass last night is more than sufficient to address the intelligence gathering deficiency identified by Director McConnell. That bill, H.R. 3356, provided ample amount of congressional authorization needed to ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans. That is why I supported H.R. 3356, but cannot support S. 1927. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting against the unwise and ill-considered S. 1927.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Vermont for his thoughtful amendment, and I thank Chairman Dingell as well for helping him, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boucher, and all of our Members for dialoguing on this very crucial issue. I happen to represent the University of Houston that has brought a wind research project to Houston, a $24 million project, and I know that Texas has enormous amount of commitment to wind. This research grant program will help other universities look at issues such as fossil fuel and the efficiency of it, refineries and the efficiency of it, exploration and the efficiency of it in other places other than public lands. So I am here to support this amendment and as well to support the underlying energy bill, H.R. 3221. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Welch. Universities around America will look forward to this grant program, including Texas Southern University and many other universities that we have in my district. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we all agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence. Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain aspects of this bill, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction of America achieving energy independence. H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act is important and multifaceted legislation which will make substantial strides towards energy independence and security for our Nation, while also encouraging the development of innovative new technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, shifting production to clean and renewable energy, and modernizing our energy infrastructure. I would like to begin by commending the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for her leadership in introducing this legislation and bringing it to the floor. The bill we have before us today represents the work of eleven House committees, and it fulfills the Democrats' promise to bring a comprehensive new direction to the people of the United States. In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the past 12 years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy Braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action to all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a whole. Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. Bringing together thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the extent that we as a Nation achieve energy security and energy independence. Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. The energy industry in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis. That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country. We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and independent energy companies in this process because they represent some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy independence. This bill contains numerous important provisions. It represents a major national investment in renewable energy that has the potential to create 3 million ``green'' jobs. Further, it provides training opportunities for American workers, particularly our disadvantaged groups and our brave veterans, to fill these new positions. It gives small businesses the tools they need to be more energy efficient, including technical assistance. It encourages research and innovation into new energy technology, including biofuels, carbon capture, and solar energy. It encourages mass transit and alternative fuels, it protects Federal lands and wildlife, and it promotes the efficient use of energy. However, I am concerned that H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, contains provisions repealing tax incentives for oil and gas companies which may have a negative effect on access to important sources of energy. In particular, I am concerned that the domestic manufacturing deduction, Section 199 of H.R. 2776, could discourage new domestic oil and natural gas investment by making these investments comparatively less competitive than competing foreign investments. Moving forward, I think it would be prudent for this Congress to consider linking an increase on taxes with an increase in access to domestic exploration of available sources of energy, such as the Gulf Coast. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86 billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion (and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can create at home. I believe that we should mandate environmentally safe and efficient exploration techniques in the Gulf Coast which energy companies have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to utilize. By ensuring access to increasing sources of energy in an environmentally conscious way, I believe we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil. This bill also contains a crucial international component. Global climate change is a truly global problem. It is real; it is imminent; and it is our responsibility to work with the rest of the international community to develop a coordinated global response to this potentially devastating phenomenon. This legislation calls for the United States to re-engage and lead international efforts to reach an agreement requiring binding emissions reduction commitments from all major emitters, including China, India, and Brazil. A truly monumental diplomatic effort is needed to begin to arrest the catastrophic effects of climate change, and this bill is an important step toward beginning global negotiations to establish a coordinated response. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to incorporate important language in this legislation to ensure that its provisions and benefits are available to some of our nation's disadvantaged populations. My language, seen in Section 2102 of H.R. 3221, guarantees that Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other Minority Serving Institutions are able to participate in the visits and exchanges between scientific researchers of the United States and other nations provided for in this bill. My amendment would also seek to include minority- and women-owned businesses in these exchange programs. Additionally, I worked with the Chairman and the Committee to include language that global climate change negotiations would address the perspectives and concerns of indigenous and tribal populations, who often bear the brunt of climate change but have traditionally been neglected in the negotiation process. Furthermore, I support innovative solutions to our national energy crisis such as my legislation which alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf. Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption. Along with traditional production of ethanol from corn, cellulosic ethanol can be produced domestically from a variety of feedstocks, including switchgrass, corn stalks and municipal solid wastes, which are available throughout our nation. Cellulosic ethanol also relies on its own byproducts to fuel the refining process, yielding a positive energy balance. Whereas the potential production of traditional corn- based ethanol is about 10 billion gallons per year, the potential production of cellulosic ethanol is estimated to be 60 billion gallons per year. In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. I also commend my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for his amendment which would establish a grant program for colleges and universities to invest in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I commend the University of Houston, which led the Lone Star Wind Alliance succeed in bringing one of the Department of Energy's large turbine-testing facilities to the Texas Gulf Coast. This major step forward in developing clean, renewable wind energy will result in the University of Houston directing a $24 million world-class research and test facility in Texas. This will ensure that Texas becomes a global leader in wind energy technology, which will be assisted by pledges from the Lone Star Wind Alliance of $18 million, by the Texas Legislature of $5 million, and $2 million from the Department of Energy. Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive legislation addresses the full range of concerns raised by global climate change. It offers wide-ranging solutions to the serious problems we, as a Nation and as an international community, face. It demonstrates the ongoing commitment of this Democratic Congress to address these important issues, and to provide tangible and beneficial solutions. I urge my colleagues to be balanced and prudent in their approach in addressing our energy needs. By investing in renewable energy and increasing access to potential sources of energy, I believe we can be partners with responsible members of America's energy producing community in our collective goal of reaching energy independence.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise in support of H.R. 3222, the ``Defense Appropriations Act of 2008.'' I commend the leadership of Chairman Obey and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Murtha for his patient and careful crafting of this bill, which relieves our troops and helps our military families. The committee carefully separated the funding from the Iraq War funding. Speaking of Chairman Murtha, let me say also that historians will record that it was he who awakened and educated the Nation regarding the failure and folly of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq when he courageously spoke this truth to power: The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. The principled stand of the gentleman from Pennsylvania changed the course of America history by signaling the beginning of the end of the Iraq War. More importantly, Chairman Murtha's actions have and will result in the saving of countless thousands of lives of brave young servicemen and women that would otherwise be lost trying to salvage the Administration's ill-conceived and terribly mismanaged war in Iraq. I cannot thank you enough for all you have done for our county. In supporting this legislation, I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle with a grace under pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American people, who have placed their trust in the President, the Vice- President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the public trust and patience. I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid more than $400 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,664 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in support of H.R. 3222. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. And I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. But I strongly believe that when a nation sends its sons and daughters into harms way, it has an obligation to ensure that they have everything they need to wage the battle, emerge victorious, and return home safely to their loved ones and to a grateful nation. That is why I proudly support this legislation. H.R. 3222 provides for the security of our nation and addresses that responsibility squarely, fully funding our troops so that they are prepared for whatever emergencies may arise, providing them with first class weapons and equipment, and ensuring that they and their families are cared for properly. At the same time, H.R. 3222 recognizes our obligation to meet the recent dependence on the use of contractors with increased support for their management and oversight. It likewise makes a commitment to fiscal responsibility. In this regard, I note that the amount appropriated in this bill, $459.6 billion, represents an increase of nearly $40 billion over the previous year but is $4 billion less than the amount requested by the Administration. Mr. Chairman let me briefly address some of the important components of this legislation. I think it important that all Americans know that H.R. 3222 achieves the following .critical objectives: (1) keeps our commitments to our troops and their families; (2) prepares our forces to meet future needs; (3) imposes fiscal discipline on the Pentagon; and (4) prohibits permanent military bases in Iraq and the use of torture by American forces everywhere. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3222 addresses equipment shortfalls in the Guard and Reserve by providing $925 million, $635 million above 2007, specifically to address equipment shortfalls in order to help forces meet the demands of overseas deployments and respond to natural disasters here at home. This amount meets the requirements identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the ``Essential 10 Equipment Requirements for the Global War on Terror.'' The legislation supports military families by providing $2.9 billion, $558.4 million above the President's request, for programs including childcare centers, education programs and the family advocacy program which provides support to military families affected by the demands of war and episodes of child or spouse abuse. In the important area of medical treatment and healthcare, the bill provides $22.957 billion, $1.7 billion above 2007 and $416 million above the President's request. The bill rightly rejects the President's proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases on our troops and makes much needed investments in improving the Defense Department's electronic medical records systems and fostering better coordination between the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I particularly commend Chairman Murtha for his successful efforts to secure more than $400 million in funding to conduct research and treat the increasing incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, among American servicemen and women. And I especially appreciate his commitment to work with me to establish a PTSD facility at Riverside General Hospital, located in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, to treat PTSD in veterans, whether on active duty, discharged, or on leave in the metropolitan Houston area, including Harris and surrounding counties. There are nearly 200,000 military veterans in Harris County alone and Riverside General Hospital has proven itself capable of providing psychiatric, medical, emergency medical, inpatient, and outpatient services to crisis populations. Riverside General Hospital, by the way, was formerly known as the Houston Negro Hospital and was founded in 1926 in memory of Lt. John Halm Cullinan, 344th FA, 90th Division of the American Expeditionary Forces. Lt. Cullinan was one of the thousands of African Americans who risked life and limb to defend America and its allies at a time when those of his race did not enjoy the legal rights they fought so hard to secure for others. Mr. Chairman, there is an unmet need for more medical facilities specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. Riverside General Hospital is uniquely positioned to this need and I look forward to working with this Defense Appropriation Sub-Committee to bring this historic project to fruition. I also strongly approve of the allocation of $1.252 billion above the President's request to repair barracks, improve child care facilities, and improve community services, to address the strain put on facilities by changes in force structure, base closures, and a global repositioning of forces all while meeting the demands of war. Similarly, the appropriation of $268.1 million, $141.9 million above the President's request, for perimeter security force protection and related security improvements, to protect bases, schools, hospitals, base housing, churches and childcare centers from terrorist attacks makes sense in light of the recent failed terrorist plot at Fort Dix in New Jersey. As does the $15 billion, $1.6 billion above 2007, set aside to ensure there are no out- of-pocket expenses for service personnel and support the privatization of housing for military families. Mr. Chairman, American troops are the best in the world because they are the best equipped and the best trained. H.R. 3222 ensures that will remain the case by providing $7.548 billion, a 13 percent increase for all home-stationing training, so that our troops are well prepared for any eventual deployment. The legislation also takes into account the fact that the size of our Army and Marine Corps must be increased if we are to reduce the pressure to extend troop deployments. The bill provides funds to covers the costs of adding 7,000 new soldiers and 5,000 new marines. Finally, H.R. 3222 provides $76.229 billion, $1.112 billion above the President's request and $508 million above 2007, for research, development, testing, and evaluation of weapons systems, and military medical research. Mr. Chairman, the bill before represents responsible, visionary, and competent policy making. Our vote today will put the House on record squarely against the Bush Administration's policy of looking the other way while the Iraqi government fails to govern a country worthy of a free people with as much commitment and dedication to the security and happiness of its citizens as has been shown by the heroic American servicemen and women who risked their lives and, in the case of over 3,600 fallen heroes, lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity. Mr. Chairman, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The bill before us is no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the quality of life for our brave men and women in uniform. Indeed, during this first session of the 110th Congress, I have offered several amendments to do just that. For example, I offered an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 1591, that would have led to the redeployment and return of American troops. It would achieve this objective by terminating the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Specifically, Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives: to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region; to change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors; to bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; to ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaeda; and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Also, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 911 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, acknowledge, and honor this fact. Another amendment, this one to the Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1585, required the Secretary of Defense to study and report back to Congress the financial and emotional impact of multiple deployments on the families of those soldiers who serve multiple tours overseas. Words cannot explain the pain and the sense of pride that some families feel when they say good-bye to a loved one. Behind those brave smiles, hugs, and kisses is an undying and unnerving uncertainty about what can happen to a spouse, child, father, or mother. Depending on the extent of that soldier's injury a family can suffer serious economic consequences as a result, not to mention the emotional impact of seeing a loved one in that state. Even under the best of circumstances, where a soldier serves multiple terms and returns with no major injuries, valuable time is lost between a parent and child and between spouses that can never be returned. One in five soldiers suffers from depression, anxiety or stress. Likewise 20 percent face marital problems including divorce or legal separation from their spouse. Military families need greater psychological, emotional, and organizational assistance according to the results of a new survey released March 28 of this year by the National Military Family Association, NMFA. The study, ``Cycles of Deployment Report,'' which focused on the needs of military families, shows service members and military families are experiencing increased levels of anxiety, fatigue, and stress. In response, NMFA outlined recommendations for meeting these challenges amid multiple and extended deployments, increased rates at which service members are called upon for service, and the heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces. Military families have also expressed concern that when entering a second or third deployment, their loved ones carry unresolved anxieties and expectations from the last deployment(s). While they may have gained knowledge of resources available to them, service members who have been deployed multiple times report being more fatigued and increasingly concerned about their family relationships. Mr. Chairman, at bottom, H.R. 3222 ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the resources they require. Second, it improves healthcare for returning service members and veterans. Third, it imposes fiscal restraint upon the Administration and Pentagon. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why the American people believe so strongly that the time has come to an end the policy of not placing any demands or conditions on American military assistance to the Government of Iraq. As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, ``The Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The Reconstruction,'' in ``Middle East Review of International Affairs'' (December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy. The Bush Administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored intelligence that contradicted its own views. It is clear now that the Administration simply never believed in the necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the Office of the Secretary of Defense, OSD, and the White House Office of the Vice President, OVP, worked together to ensure that the State Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq. The Administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the postwar environment. As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those responsibilities. But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it brought the entire offensive to a halt. It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in Iraq. The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment. Making matters worse, the Administration arrogantly denied the United Nations overall authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. had far more expertise and experience in nation building. The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the Administration's claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military and security services. Mr. Chairman, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain, DDR, the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an outlaw militia. By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency. The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to create an Iraqi Governing Council, IGC, which laid the foundation for many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed. Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush administration set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the wrong problems. This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were playing ``whack-a-mole'' with insurgents in the sparsely populated areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to take over by militias. Finally, Mr. Chairman, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central government itself. All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Chairman, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is not asking us to expand or extend the war in Iraq. I would not and will not do that. On the contrary, this bill puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This bill helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. This bill brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3222, the ``Defense Appropriations Act of 2008.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate this afternoon and I only have these few words of a message. One great patriot said, ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' I want to say to this body, the majority that I happen to be a part of will never endanger the American people. We have given to the DNI what he has asked for, but, most importantly, we have given to the American people their liberty, and we now give them their life. We protect them. Terrorists will not get away from us. This bill will protect the American people. I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3356, the Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend our Nation and Our Constitution Act. I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers for their leadership on this important issue. This important legislation addresses the intelligence gap identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, by amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Madam Speaker, FISA has served the nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes on a sound legal footing. This legislation contains a number of crucial provisions. It clarifies that no court order is required for foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the United States. It reiterates that individual warrants, based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. This legislation requires the Attorney General to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, and it allows the Court to issue a ``basket warrant'' without requiring the Court to make individual determinations about foreign surveillance. It provides for an initial 15-day emergency authority so that international surveillance can begin while the ``basket warrant'' is submitted to the Court. It allows for congressional oversight, requiring the Department of Justice Inspector General to conduct an audit every 60 days of U.S. person communications intercepted under the ``basket warrant,'' to be submitted to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Finally, this is a short-term legislative fix, sunsetting in 120 days. In terms of the President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still nothing on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs to indicate that they require a legislative response, other than to reaffirm the exclusivity of FISA and insist that it be followed. This is accomplished by H.R. 5371, the ``Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA Act, LISTEN Act,'' which I have co-sponsored last Congress with the Ranking Members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Harman. There is still nothing on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of the President's warrantless surveillance programs to indicate that they require a legislative response, other than to reaffirm the exclusivity of FISA and insist that it be followed. This could have been accomplished last Congress by H.R. 5371, the ``Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA Act'' (LISTEN Act),'' which I was proud to have cosponsored last Congress with the then-Ranking Members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Harman. The Bush administration has not complied with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information from the Bush administration or revelations in the media. It must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA. The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including: (1) who the NSA is targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the program collects and disseminates; and most important; (4) whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people. Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications. Madam Speaker, this temporary legislative fix addresses the gap identified by Director McConnell. The Majority of both the House and the Senate have set aside partisan differences to work for the security of our Nation. We must ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans. This is important legislation, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend and thank her for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee; and to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is great news that we have a new direction in the Armed Services Committee that takes seriously the issues of readiness and the quality of life for our troops. Some would ask the question, troops are in battle, why are you worrying about the quality of life? Because my friend who cited the Constitution failed to recognize Article I, Section 8, that indicates that Congress does have the authority to declare war. Embodied in that declaration is a responsibility for our troops. And might I refer my friend to the letter by the Reserve Enlisted Association which is thanking Congresswoman Tauscher for acknowledging the importance of rest time, rest time between battles. These soldiers are battle worn, mentally and physically. The first part of their duty they were over there with no equipment, no Humvees that were reinforced, no equipment that protected them from those weapons they were being shot at by. The Veterans for America emphasizes we are compounding the wounds of war. When I visited Iraq, I would talk to individuals who are carpenters and painters. They were given a gun, and they were told to get into battle. Readiness is a key. I just was home in my district, and a mother came to me crying. Her son is a naval Reserve officer who's been in the Reserves for some 20 years or so, 38 years old, is being handed a gun and said go off to war. There are disciplines and there are training that we must give to these individuals. And just a few appropriation cycles ago, I offered an amendment dealing with the time frame for redeployment. We're seeing soldiers being redeployed once, twice, three times, four times with no rest. And so we have a balance here for active duty, Reserve, National Guard forces, and others. We are clearly doing the right thing in this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007. I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Tauscher for introducing this legislation, and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for his leadership on this Issue. Mr. Speaker, no issue will define this Congress more than how we handle the ongoing conflict in Iraq. In recent weeks and months, this Congress has taken definitive action to end what we, and the people of the United States, believe to be a conflict without tangible goals and targets. The American people made their views clear last November: The time has come to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. And yet, the Bush Administration has decided to instead increase the numbers of American soldiers in Iraq. President Bush's ``New Way Forward'' strategy, announced in January, calls for the deployment of over 20,000 additional U.S. combat forces, to be used to stabilize Baghdad and the Anbar Province. This is coming at a time when, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 59 percent of Americans believe we should be reducing the number of troops in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this effort are our brave troops, the men and women who courageously risk and too often lose their lives thousands of miles from home. The Iraq war has already cost over 3,500 American lives. More than 25,000 Americans have been injured. Thousands of U.S. personnel have lost limbs or suffered debilitating mental and physical injuries. Yet as casualties rise, the Bush Administration pushes for the escalation of American soldiers into the most hostile communities in Iraq. In addition to the enormous expenditure of lives, American taxpayers have paid more than $400 billion to sustain this misadventure. When a soldier is deployed away from home for lengthy periods of time, his or her entire family suffers. Earlier this week, the United States Army released a report that stated that the children of enlisted soldiers are 60% more likely to be abused or neglected when a parent is deployed to a combat zone. The author of this study commented, ``The surprising finding was that the effect of deployment was so consistent. Just about any way we could divide the population, we found increased rates of child maltreatment during deployment. We looked at pay grade, rank, single or multiple deployments, whether the family lives on or off post--all showed increases.'' Researchers attributed this to the increasing trend of continuous deployment of our soldiers. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I would like to register my strong concern about the impact this war is having on American children and families. This bill, H.R. 3159, contains important provisions to ensure that those who are sent to fight in what I have always considered to be an ill-advised war have adequate time to rest and recover between deployments: time to spend with their families and loved ones, and time to recover from the mental and psychological problems that are all too common after combat deployment. As we continue to work here in Congress to bring this war to a speedy and comprehensive conclusion, I believe we must make every effort to provide consideration for those who bear the brunt of this Administration's ill-advised preemptive war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our service men and women deserve enough time to rest and recover at home between combat deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This legislation reaffirms the stated Department of Defense policy for deployment, which is currently being waived for Iraq, calling for a 1:2 deployment ratio for active duty and a 1:5 ratio for reserve soldiers. It continues to allow the President and the Chiefs of the Military services to waive these requirements, if unforeseen circumstances arise. Four years after our ill-advised invasion, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: The invasion of Iraq, while a spectacularly executed military operation, was a strategic blunder without parallel in the history of American foreign policy. This is what can happen when the Congress allows itself to be stampeded into authorizing a president to launch a preemptive war of choice. It is time to rethink our strategy in Iraq, to encourage and engage in diplomacy, and to sit down with the various players in the Middle East and make real strides towards securing Iraq, the Iraqi people, and most importantly our most precious resource: the troops we love so dearly. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to strongly oppose this war until we are finally able to end this conflict. In the meantime, I believe it is our responsibility, here in Congress, to make sure that those we send to fight and risk their lives in Iraq receive the very best care and services. This includes adequate time to rest and recover between deployments. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, and I thank her for her leadership not only on the Rules Committee but on the Judiciary Committee. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to work with her. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Gordon, and the ranking member of the Science Committee. As an alumnus of this committee, let me applaud this effort and indicate that this is not the end but it is the beginning. It has been a long journey, but it is premised on very important challenges. We begin to look around the world, and we notice that nations who in years past were looking to the United States for the cutting edge of technology now are graduating more mathematicians and engineers in 1 month, such as China, than we might be graduating in 1 year. We understand the premise of this competitive legislation. H.R. 2272 is long overdue, and it is reaching to answer a crisis. Earlier this morning, we heard reference to President John F. Kennedy about his pronouncement that America was going into space. It was said at that time that the President didn't know how we were going into space, did not have a grasp of the possible technology, but yet by his pronouncement it opened the doors of America's inventiveness to be able to create this pathway to space. Well, now that we have statistics behind us of Leave No Child Behind, a bill that we hope we will truly reform, we do have numbers suggesting that America's children are shortchanged in math and science. We do know that America's schools are failing with respect to equipment in science laboratories; and we do know America's schools need the kind of trained teachers, master teachers who can emphasize math and science. So I am very grateful that this particular legislation allows for 25,000 new teachers over the next 3 years through Professional Development Summer Training Institute's graduate education focusing on math and science. Today, in my own district, I am working with private-to-public sector to help fund one of the failing school districts to give them what you call master teachers in math and science to build up their laboratories. But we are using private dollars because we can't get the public dollars. This maintains the importance of qualified teachers in mathematics and science. It does something that is key, that many of us have been working on who have been advocating for NASA for many years, and that is a partnership between the public and private. I hope that NASA will be one of those who can be utilized to engage more heavily in the community on the issues of math, science, and engineering. And something that we have worked on and I have worked on all my years on the Science Committee, working with historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges, we now have a focus on minorities and women in the science area. When I first came to this Congress, I passed legislation that would allow excess equipment from the Nation's laboratories to be used in our secondary and primary schools, anything to put a nexus between research and science and development to the Nation's education system. This puts it squarely on the front burner. And I think what also happens is that we have revitalized the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. The key element of this legislation is that, without ideas, we are not competitive. That is why it is so named. And I hope that as this bill moves forward the President and Presidents to come will make this a cornerstone of their administration; that is, that America fails when her inventiveness, when her scientists and engineers are stifled and America fails when its people, are, in essence, divided and some go forward and some do not. So the idea that we must see again the emphasis on math and science for girls as we do boys is crucial. Let me just simply say, as a partner to this effort, we recently passed my NASA Coin Bill. Interestingly enough, in that legislation there are opportunities to embrace children-focused programs that would encourage the research or the science at a primary school level so that children grow up saying, ``I want to be.'' And I know they want to be basketball players and they want to be maybe astronauts because they look great, but I want them to grow up and say, ``I want to be a math teacher or mathematician. I want to be a biologist or a chemist or a nuclear physicist or an engineer of many different types.'' As we reflect on the tragedy of the Minnesota bridge collapse, we need engineers and technicians to help build America and to create jobs. I close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying science is the work of the 21st century. This is what this bill is about.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3161, which strengthens our rural communities, while making sure that the American people have adequate, safe and nutritious food to eat. Let me commend the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro, for her exceptional leadership in crafting such extraordinary legislation to combat hunger, obesity and malnutrition in our nation and around the world. That is why I strongly support this bill. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3161 allows us to reinvest in the often forgotten but most vitally important rural areas of America. H.R. 3161 is designed to sustain the vitality of rural America, as well as protecting public health and food safety, improving nutrition and healthy eating, and promoting renewable energy and conservation in America. Mr. Chairman, more than 3 million households in the rural America continue to have inadequate or no water or sewer service at all. H.R. 3161 is the solution to this disparity in that it provides $500 million for rural water and waste disposal grants, a 14 percent increase over 2007, and $1 billion for water and waste direct loans for the fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, recent food scares--about peanut butter and lettuce-- have made Americans nervous about where their food originates. H.R. 3161 tackles these concerns and addresses the importance of food safety. This bill fully funds the Food Safety and Inspection Service at USDA, shifts funds to fill vacancies in federal meat inspector positions, invests in research, and funds a transformation of FDA food safety regulations. It also prohibits imported poultry products from China, and sets a timeline for USDA to implement critical country of origin labeling for our meat supply after 6 years of Republican delays. In addition, H.R. 3161 provides a special supplemental nutritional program for women, infants, and children other known as (WIC). This provision is so essential because it affords many women, especially women of color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for themselves and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as WIC, many mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle during pregnancies and after childbirth. Because of WIC, mothers can afford their nutritional foods they need to sustain their pregnancies and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and defects caused by malnourishment during pregnancy. H.R. 3161 invests $233.4 million (4 percent) more than the President to feed more than 8 million pregnant women, mothers and children next year. Mr. Chairman, hunger is not a problem facing not only the international community faces, but it is also a problem in our own country. Many women, children, and the elderly should not wake and go to bed hungry in our great Nation, but tragically this happens all too often in the cities and villages and small towns of our great country. The commodity supplemental food program provides $500,000 monthly in the year 2007. H.R. 3161 increases funding in this area to allow people in five additional states to participate in the program and expand those getting food in states already in the program. In addition, under the Food Stamp Benefit provision, H.R. 3161 protects the most vulnerable and helpless; families of soldiers in combat. Like the recently passed Farm bill, the measure ensures that the families of soldiers in combat are not penalized under the Food Stamp program. It also rejects the Administration's proposal to restrict eligibility for food stamps by excluding needy families who are receiving certain other services. Mr. Chairman, let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is overweight or obese and more than 9 million children are struggling with obesity. H.R. 3161 aims to improve the eating habits of Americans, particularly our children through programs that teach children about healthy eating. H.R. 3161 increases funding for nutrition programs, including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which broadens Fresh Fruit and Vegetable and Simplified Summer Food programs to all states to provide nutritious foods to children in low-income families, and specialty crop grants to encourage more fruit and vegetable consumption. Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is important to keep our Nation healthy by providing access to high consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great country, our children. By supporting H.R. 3161 we assure a healthy consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that their families are poor. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3161 is essential because it addresses one of the most staggering causes of death in children: malnutrition. Malnutrition remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly among children. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of five worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately one million children each year, or an average of one every thirty seconds. These statistics are absolutely frightening and simply intolerable. They are also avoidable. The World Food Programme estimates that, when implemented on a large scale and combined with hospital treatment for children who suffer complications, a community-based approach to combating malnutrition could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children each year. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3161 recognizes the importance of helping our neighbors in combating the hunger. H.R. 3161 provides funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service in the amount of $159,136,000 and transfers of $4,985,000, for a total salaries and expenses level of $164,121,000, an increase of $2,817,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $9,073,000 below the budget request. In addition, H.R. 3161 permits the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to use up to 25 percent of the funds appropriated for local or regional purchase of food to assist people threatened by a food security crisis. Mr. Chairman, if it were not for grants such as the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program many foreigners would have no other choice than to leave their native country in pursuit of a better life. In my very own office, I have a future international human rights lawyer by the name of Onyinyechi Abigail Nwaohuocha, who recently traveled to Cambodia and witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by food shortage and underdeveloped agricultural programs. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3161 reminds us that it is important for the United States to foster a relationship with other parts of the world, so that citizens of developing countries can also have basic rights such as sufficient amounts of food. The McGovern-Dole International Food program is funded in this bill in the amount of $100,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget request. The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program fights child hunger and poverty by supporting school feeding operations, which provide nutritious meals to children in schools. This simple formula has been proven to be a success. Because of such programs, students are better able to concentrate and learn more quickly on a full stomach. Enrollment and attendance rates have skyrocketed as a result of school feeding programs, particularly among girls who are too often denied an education. Mr. Chairman, there are 110 million school-aged children suffering from hunger every day, and they are counting on America's leadership and generosity to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. This bill provides that leadership and generosity and it is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage by an overwhelming margin.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have waited long enough for energy reform and for nutrition reform, which is what this bill tackles. I rise today to support working for American farmers, but also working for those who get up every day without a meal. To recognize that it is important to have food safety, it's important to have an improved food and lunch program and food stamps, it's important to focus on nutrition, and that is what we have done here. I am glad to see that there is an aspect that deals with alternative fuels; and having written a bill dealing with cellulosic ethanol, I know that we have to move in a more effective direction. But I am also glad that we recognize a particular viable aspect of the importance of dealing with hunger in America. I am concerned and hope that as we move forward, one of our vital assets, the Hunger Center, will move toward authorization, as I understand, and then increase funding so that it can be a tool to the Department of Agriculture in dealing with the question of hunger in America and around the world. This particular bill also provides more help for USAID, and I believe that it is an important asset. In the short time that I have I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut to ask a question, and that is to comment on a point I made about the Hunger Center, and the fact that it is moving towards authorization that we will see in the years to come, an opportunity for more work on its part and more resources.