Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes: Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink. Well, what we have in the United States is oil, oil everywhere, and not a drop to drill. That is the slogan of the Congress led by our friends on the other side of the aisle. If you look at this map, you will see we have made off-limits some of the most potentially productive oil reserves and natural gas reserves not only in this country but in the world. It makes no sense whatsoever. This week, instead of us addressing the problem this way, our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to bring us sue, sue, sue laws. That is, we are going to not drill our way out of this problem, we are going to sue our way out of the problem. The American people understand that's not the way to get us going. Let's use American ingenuity, American creativity and technology to safely drill off our shores here in the United States so that we can become energy independent. As we are coming up close to July 4, let's strike a blow for independence. Let's do something meaningful.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, of course I cannot address the gentleman directly under the rules. So through the Chair, I would just say that yes, shale oil and tar sands are important. We happen to be the Saudi Arabia of those certain resources of God, placed here for us to use, and yet for one reason or another, we're almost afraid to use the world ``drill.'' So I appreciate the chairman using the word ``drill'' three different times. That doesn't mean going to the dentist. That means drill for oil, drill for natural gas. That will be something which will help the American people. So I would just say that I don't need my leadership to tell me about it. All I need to do is go home and see the prices of gasoline. All I need to do is listen to people. Seventy-some percent of the American people now, by the latest Fox poll, say they want more drilling, they want more production in America. The only group that doesn't have a 70- some percent support of it is this group, the House of Representatives. Either we're behind the times or we're ahead of the times. And I suspect we're behind the times. And all I'm doing is asking my good friend, the chairman from Michigan, to understand that the people of Michigan suffer as much as the people of California when we fail to understand that we have resources that we could use. We ought to use American technology to develop American energy rather than having it developed all around the world. Oh, and by the way, oil spills. They come from tankers. They come from tankers, not from offshore rigs. We ought to understand the more we're dependent upon foreign oil, the more tankers that supply the oceans and a greater possibility of a problem which would cause difficulty on our beaches and those beautiful waves that my friend from California enjoys surfing on in California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4044, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008. I am happy that the House is considering today this bipartisan legislation. As the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the committee mentioned, several years ago we passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The purpose was to ensure that bankruptcy procedures were still allowed for those who needed them, and yet the abuses that we had seen in the years leading up to the bill would be reduced if not eliminated. It received bipartisan support. Today's bill deals with a part of that scene that needs to be addressed and addressed immediately. Republicans strongly support the mission and appreciate the sacrifice of our dedicated reservists and guardsmen. As many people know, we rely far more on our National Guard and Reservists in the conflict that we have ongoing in the Middle East today than we have in previous conflicts. That was a conscious decision by the Congress of the United States over the last couple of decades. As a result, many, many more dedicated reservists and guardsmen are assuming responsibility in areas of conflict. We agree that reservists and guardsmen who are plunged into bankruptcy by the demands of their service should be given a helping hand under the bankruptcy code. In committee, Republicans labored long and hard to achieve a workable compromise that would help these serving men and women. The major issue for committee Republicans was simple--that the bill respond to bankruptcies attributable to a reservist's or guardsman's service. This bill does not perfectly meet that concern. However, it is part of the art of compromise and it meets it sufficiently for committee Republicans to support passage. It does this first by requiring an important study by the GAO. The study will examine the degree to which bankruptcies benefiting from the bill are indeed attributable to service, as we hope they will be. The study thus will help us to be sure of whether reservists and guardsmen are using the relief granted by the bill when it is their service that leads to bankruptcy. And the study must be completed promptly within 2 years of enactment. Secondly, the bill includes a 3-year sunset. When we are asked to reauthorize the bill, we will have the GAO study and report. And we will know for sure how the bill is working, and if it needs to be modified, how it should be modified. It is not my expectation that it would be abused, but if it is, we would be able to address that at the time the reauthorization is considered. With these requirements added, I am pleased to support passage of the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, one of the major sponsors of this bill, active sponsor of this bill, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again I would just repeat this is a bipartisan bill brought to this floor with strong bipartisan support. Hopefully we will get a unanimous vote in favor of it. This is something that recognizes the unique situation our reservists and guardsmen and women are placed in when they leave the jobs that they have, go back to the theater of war, serve us well and run into difficulties as a result of that service from a financial standpoint. We all agree that they should receive relief. I would hope that we can get people on the other side of the aisle to also agree that they ought to get relief from these extraordinary, out-of-character, unprecedented high gas prices that we have. What a shock it must be for our reservists and guardsmen to leave this country and do service for this country in a foreign land and then return and find out that in the period of time they have been gone, all of a sudden gas prices have risen $1.50, $1.70, before they were even able to return. So hopefully as we grant relief in this small particular area of bankruptcy law, we might also think about the relief not only for reservists and guardsmen but all Americans from the extraordinary costs that they are now being called upon to pay in the area of energy. It is not just at the gas tank, it is rippling through the economy because transportation costs are built into the cost of just about everything that we have, and our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, we will bring a lawsuit, maybe that will do something. Wind, solar, I support those, but I have yet to find a wind-powered car in my district, or a solar-powered car in my district. And creeping up on us, although we are now involved in the middle of summer, the beginning of summer, but it feels like the middle of summer with the heat that is out there, creeping up on us is the extraordinary increase that we are seeing in the cost of natural gas. Natural gas supplies a good bit of the heating for the winter that we will find come November and December. I have been informed that in California electricity is produced at least 60 percent by natural gas. We don't have to wait for our heating fuel. We can worry about the concerns that we have with air- conditioning supplied by electricity. So all I'm saying, Madam Speaker, is that as we work on worthy legislation like this, there is other worthy legislation out there. And all we ask is what the American people ask: Give us a vote. Give us a chance to prove that the reserves that are available in the United States, American reserves, American oil, American natural gas, be utilized for Americans. If our enemy was doing this to us, we would be in a fighting mood, but unfortunately through our Congress, we're doing it to ourselves. So at some point in time, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we might be able to prevail on the other side to understand that supply makes a difference and help us bring those costs down as a result of increasing the product that is available to Americans from American sources. Once again, Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 4044, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN. I yield to my good friend from Michigan, the chairman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive Government Act of 2008, and urge my colleagues to adopt it today. There are three major components to the bill. First, the legislation authorizes Federal courts to toll or otherwise delay deadlines outside of their statutorily defined geographic domains during times of emergency. The text is identical to that of H.R. 3729 from the 109th Congress, passed on July 17, 2006, by a voice vote under suspension of the rules. The need for this legislation became apparent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact that these disasters had on court operations, in particular in New York City. In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining district or circuit might be more readily and safely available to court personnel, to litigants, to jurors, and the public, than a facility at a place of holding court within the district. This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Washington, DC, Dallas, and Kansas City, where the metropolitan areas include part of more than one judicial district. This reform is also needed to address natural disasters. The impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Federal courts in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi once again demonstrated the importance of congressional action on this proposal. Where court operations cannot be transferred to other divisions within the affected judicial district due to widespread flooding or other destruction, judges must be empowered to shift court proceedings temporarily into a neighboring judicial district. The advent of electronic court record systems will facilitate implementation of this authority by providing judges, court staff, and attorneys with remote access to case documents. Secondly, the bill allows the PTO director to waive various patent and trademark filing requirements during emergencies. This text is identical to that of H.R. 4742 from the 109th Congress, passed on December 5, 2006, by voice vote under suspension of the rules. The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf region affected the ability of applicants, patentees, trademark holders, and other interested parties to do business with the Patent and Trademark Office. Despite its best efforts to date, the PTO needs additional authority to provide individuals and businesses with relief from certain statutory deadlines, especially those pertaining to the maintenance of patents and trademarks. Pursuant to the bill, the PTO may waive statutory provisions governing the filing, processing, renewal, and maintenance of patents, trademarks, and applications to the extent the director deems necessary to protect the rights and privileges of applicants and other persons affected by an emergency or major disaster. Third, the bill grants the PTO director discretionary authority to accept a late-filed application for patent term extension in certain cases if the application is filed not later than 3 business days after statutory deadline and the applicant files a petition within 5 business days of the deadline that shows that the delay was unintentional. This provision is similar to legislation, H.R. 5120, which passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules as part of S. 1785, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2005. That passed on December 6, 2006. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It helps Federal litigants, inventors, trademark holders, and other interested parties to maintain their rights under adverse conditions. I urge Members to support the bill, but I am intrigued by the name of the bill, the Responsive Government Act of 2008. One would think that this government could be responsive to the tremendous problem we have with high energy costs in this country, not just gas prices, but home heating oil, the cost of electricity, natural gas. So with just one week left before the July 4 break, we would hope that the Democrat majority would be willing to bring a bill to the floor, something that is meaningful to provide some solutions to increase the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices. Perhaps next time we won't leave town if the price of gasoline is $5 a gallon. The way it's going, that may be the case. We shouldn't wait for that. We should act now. So we should have another Responsive Government Act of 2008, one that responds to the needs and concerns of the American people. Americans are paying, all Americans are paying, on average, about $1.74 more for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline than they were on the day that the Democrats took over this House, promising a new, commonsense approach to energy that would not only stop increases, but bring it down. Unfortunately, just the reverse has been the case. Perhaps we could work together somehow, agreeing that America has never been afraid of the future. America has always embraced the future and America has used technology here in the United States to surmount obstacles. It seems strange that we would have American technology now being used in waters off of Brazil to explore where they have just found the largest single oil find in the last 25 years. There are some that suggest that Brazil will now be energy-independent. They won't even have to use the ethanol they produce from their sugar because of this find. If the Congress of the United States had controlled Brazil, they wouldn't have been able to find it, because it's offshore. Last week, I remind my colleagues, the Democrat leadership had time to schedule legislation to prohibit the interstate sale and transfer of monkeys, but they apparently didn't have enough time to listen to the large majority of Americans who support more U.S. energy production. The new Fox News poll shows that 76 percent of Americans support immediate efforts to drill more in the United States in order to boost American energy production and help lower record prices. There's only one thing standing in the way of this Congress. If we are to be truly responsive, in addition to this fine bill that we are voting on today, ought we not also respond to the most immediate concern of Americans in every State, in every congressional district, and do something about the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices. The response is not, as my friend on the other side said, all we need to do is sue a little bit more. If we can have a few more people and a few more courts, and sue, that will somehow solve the problem. No. The answer is increase the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices right now. That is what the American people are asking for. So as I rise in support of the Responsive Government Act of 2008, I would hope we would have another Responsive Government Act, one that will be responsive to the concerns expressed by the American people. With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield, as I yielded to him?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman. In response to the question, I am sure the gentleman may be aware of the fact that 52 percent of the exploratory wells that were drilled by American companies in America over the last 5 years were dry wells. So, in some cases, they have taken leases on land offshore, and that has proven not to be a successful well. The problem is that those that have the greatest prospect for yielding real petroleum and natural gas have been prohibited by this Congress. As the gentleman may know, they pay for those leases. They continue to pay for those leases. I have not heard anybody on this floor accuse the oil companies of paying for something for nothing. They pay for those leases. There is a limit on the time that they can have those leases when they do not produce them. So, in all cases, they have made judgments as to whether or not the leases they have are yielding leases, and in many cases, 52 percent, they have tried to find oil, and they haven't found it. So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his courtesy.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, soon we will be breaking for the July 4 district work period. July 4, Independence Day. But what are we doing about making us, the American people, independent of foreign oil and foreign energy? If you look at the record in this House, absolutely nothing. The first response we had from the majority was denial. They say this supply will do nothing. Well, of course it will do nothing unless you explore it and produce it. Then they say energy will be produced by lawsuit. We have got a bill coming out of the Judiciary Committee. Sue, sue, sue, and somehow that is going to give you more energy. The American people are smart. They understand that if we have a precious resource granted to us, we ought to use it. Independence Day, July 4. Why can't we bring at least one bill to the floor that would begin to give us energy independence?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3546, a bill to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through the year 2012. This bill continues to fund the Department of Justice Byrne-JAG Grant Program that, as the gentleman from Georgia said, provides assistance to State and local law officials. These grants support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crimes and to improve the criminal justice system. The department allocates funds using a formula based on State population and the annual Unified Crime Report statistics. The program does have a minimum allocation to ensure that each State and territory receive an appropriate share of the Federal funds. Byrne-JAG funds can be used to pay for personnel overtime and equipment, funds are used for Statewide initiatives, technical assistance and training, and support for local and rural jurisdictions. I can say, Madam Speaker, that my experience in the past serving as the Attorney General of California allowed me to see the good work that the Byrne funds has done and continues to do, primarily in the area of multi-jurisdictional task forces as was mentioned by the gentleman from Georgia. This is actually an area where we actually see a synergism that exists among different levels of government and their law enforcement personnel. It is always important that they have good leadership at each level, and the training that took place as a result of many of these multi-jurisdictional task forces actually created an improvement in the overall training for law enforcement across the country. It is a remarkable thing to see agents from different agencies, different departments, working together for a common purpose. As the gentleman mentioned, you can, as a result of these task forces, count up the number of arrests made, the number of convictions obtained, the number of weapons taken off the street, the number of drugs taken off the street in each and every case making it safer for the people of the States of the United States. On June 9, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a 2007 Unified Crime Report detailing the statistics and tracking trends for violent crimes nationwide. The national rate for violent crimes, that is including robbery, sexual assault, and murder, decreased nationally. Unfortunately, the report also showed the rate of violent crime rate increased in some communities across the country. This is not by accident that we see an overall improvement across the country. It is the result of the work of many good men and women in uniform and the support to organizations that they have throughout this country. We should understand that while sometimes the trend is to say that if something is a serious crime, it's a Federal crime; unless the FBI gets involved, it's not important, it's not going to be handled well. Well over 90 percent, well over 95 percent of all crime is investigated and prosecuted at the local and State level, not the Federal level. That's why these grants work very, very well when it encourages a multi- jurisdictional approach where you can find the abilities, the differing abilities of the agencies and departments, the coming together to work with one another. Law enforcement officials remain committed to preventing crime and keeping our communities safe, and their efforts should be applauded. However, given the report, it is clear that additional steps need to be taken in order to continue to address the issue of crime. During the past few months, representatives from various law enforcement associations visited me and my colleagues to discuss the Byrne-JAG funding. They have spoken with near unanimity about the important role Byrne-JAG funding plays in aiding their efforts to accomplish their law enforcement missions. Congress plays an important role in supporting State and local law enforcement by continuing to enforce to reauthorize this program at appropriate levels. However, we should not in any way suggest that the Federal Government has the first responsibility for funding local and State law enforcement. That remains with local and State jurisdictions, and frankly, if they don't understand the priority, the first priority of government, to try and create a modicum of safety and security for the people of those jurisdictions so that they can live their lives in some sense of security not having to worry about violent criminals upsetting their lives, attacking them and their loved ones. If local and State jurisdictions don't understand that, frankly, they don't understand the first obligation of government. So, while we wholeheartedly support this funding program, let us ensure that at the local and State levels those representatives are held responsible by the people that elect them to ensure that the first priority of government is achieved: a modicum of safety and security for the people of the jurisdictions that they find themselves in. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, once again, I rise in support of H.R. 3546, and I yield myself such time as I may consume, and suggest that of all the costs that are involved with law enforcement across the country, one of the greatest is the cost of gassing up their cars. As the gentleman understands, law enforcement, yes, travels on its feet, but more than often travels on its wheels. The increased costs of energy affect us all across this Nation. Every home is affected by it, without regard to economic status. But think about this, our law enforcement agencies are very labor-intensive. They depend on people, yes, applying technology, but we depend on people. When we have concern about crime in a particular area, it doesn't do to say, well, we've got new computers downtown; that's going to take care of it. What do people want to see? They want to see law enforcement in their areas. And for most areas of America, that means seeing patrol cars coming through their neighborhoods at an appropriate time, seeing them respond whenever there is a cry for help as a result of crime or an attempt at crime. The costs that are implicit in this tremendous increase in energy costs in this country, the gasoline pump prices, affect each and every one of our law enforcement agencies. And so I would hope as we support unanimously this Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, we also think at some point in time of bringing up a bill that might help us get some relief in that area. If you add it all up, it might add up to the total cost of the Byrne grant program.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from the place where I think they still build more automobiles than any other place in the country.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If I might respond, through the Speaker, I would say, Madam Speaker, the only person I know that has suggested that we nationalize oil companies, including refineries, is the gentleman from the other side of the aisle. It's worked so well around the world, I think you could go through all the countries with a nationalization. Maybe Venezuela is a trend setter here, but I don't think that's exactly where we want to go. So the answer to the gentleman, through the Speaker, is no.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1293, honoring Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner: Mr. Goodman, a 20-year-old student volunteer; Mr. Chaney, a 21-year-old plasterer and activist in the civil rights movement; Mr. Schwerner, a 24-year-old founder of one of the first community centers for African Americans in Mississippi. Mr. Chaney and Mr. Schwerner were also members of the civil rights task force organized by the Congress of Racial Equality. All three were tragically killed in 1964, that summer, for their participation in the civil rights campaign in Mississippi, where they had just taken part, along with 175 other volunteers, in a civil rights orientation project, which led the way for some 800 other volunteers. I had just graduated from high school in California, and I remember the shock of hearing about this tragedy. It was one in a series of tragedies we were seeing portrayed around the United States, where people just simply attempting to be recognized as full human beings in this society, with the opportunity to vote and the opportunity to participate in the political process, were being denied that, and they and many others attempted to try and change that. That summer, these three men were picked up by a sheriff for allegedly speeding, and after their release from jail, they disappeared. A KKK informant and an FBI investigation pieced the story together. Evidently, after their release, the three men had been chased off the road, forced into a Klansmen's car, brutally beaten, and killed. At the time, the State of Mississippi didn't file charges against anyone. The Federal Government charged someone in 1967 with conspiring to violate the civil rights of another, but that defendant was acquitted. Of seven other men convicted on conspiracy charges, no one served more than 6 years for the death of three innocent individuals in this United States of America. It was not until January 6, 2005, that Mississippi indicted Edgar Ray Killen on three counts of murder. He was found guilty of three counts of manslaughter on June 1, 2005, the 41st anniversary of the crime. There is no doubt that justice so delayed warrants our honoring these three civil rights heroes again today, some 44 years after their death. Last year, the House passed H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which came out of our committee with bipartisan support, and it directs the Attorney General to designate a deputy chief within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and a supervisory special agent within the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights- era murders. We've got to do it now because the perpetrators of these crimes have been able to live in freedom for so long. And some say why go after old men in their last years? Because, in fact, they should not have the opportunity to live out their lives without being held responsible for these horrendous acts. The bill also provides much-needed resources to the Department of Justice, the FBI, State and local law enforcement officials to prosecute these cases. Madam Speaker, the FBI has identified nearly 100 outstanding cases that still need to be assessed. Many of these murders are 30 or 40 years old. Obviously they're difficult to investigate and to prosecute because evidence has been lost or destroyed, witnesses and defendants have died, and memories have dimmed. We must act quickly to bring the long-overdue justice to these victims and their families. I urge all my colleagues to join the chairman of the full committee and other members of the Judiciary Committee in supporting this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I rise in support of H. Res. 1293. David McCullough, the distinguished writer and historian, said, ``We run the risk of being a Nation of historic illiterates.'' And he was referring to our lack of knowledge of the beginnings of this country, the lack of knowledge of the Founding Fathers and that generation. But he need not look back that far. All he needs to do is to look back 40 some years, as the gentleman from Georgia has mentioned to us and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and the gentleman from Michigan. We cannot allow these real-life tragedies, events, sacrifices to be lost in the midst of memory. We have to make sure that not only do we understand them but that we understand their import and that we teach our children that this is part of America's history and America is what it is today because of the sacrifices of many great men and women, these three included among them: Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. For example, the so-called ``exclusive means'' language in the bill is seen by some as an assertion of maximal congressional authority. Let me just remind my colleagues that the FISA Court of review has said all of the other courts to have decided the issue held the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. The court stated that ``we take for granted that the President does have that authority.'' So regardless of whether we have a President McCain or a President Obama, this language will likely be interpreted in the context of facts in individual cases in light of the constitutional jurisprudence which has arisen with regard to the collection of foreign intelligence. In other words, it does not either trample upon the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress nor those constitutional prerogatives of the President of the United States. This is a good compromise. It protects the American people. We have been waiting for it. It ought to be voted on with dispatch.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Madam Speaker, as some say on radio, ``Now let's hear the rest of the story.'' After the arguments just made on this floor, this is actually a great day. We and the American people have been waiting for this since 12:01 a.m. on February 6 when the Protect America Act expired. During the intervening time we have actually been unnecessarily vulnerable to those who would do us harm in this era of worldwide terrorism. In fact, Madam Speaker, I would say that this is the single most important bill we will vote on this year, not that I say supporting our troops is not important, but the intelligence that we gather as the result of the authority granted by this bill may actually create conditions under which we do not have to send troops anywhere in the world and may be more protective of our rights than any other single thing. Having come before this body on five different occasions since that initial expiration of the Protect America Act, I am greatly relieved that we can finally send the intelligence community and the American people a bill which will enable the intelligence community to continue to protect those American people. Although the compromise agreement embodied in the proposal before us is not necessarily the one I would have written, it does, in my estimation, meet our responsibilities for protecting the American people. In other words, Madam Speaker, it is not the Mona Lisa but it is not a bad paint job. First and foremost, the proposal before us ensures that we will continue to have the ability to monitor the conversations of al Qaeda overseas. And although there are requirements that the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence adopt procedures which will be submitted to the FISA Court, the bill retains sufficient flexibility for our overseas intelligence mission. In other words, the intelligence community leadership has assured us that this bill will allow them the operational authority to do what needs to be done within the parameters of the Constitution. Both the safety of the American people as well as their civil liberties are protected in this proposal. This proposal embodies compromise language which responds to the legitimate concerns of telecommunication providers who themselves responded to the call of their government in the wake of 9/11. The language of the bill not only satisfies the interest of justice, but communicates loudly to all Americans that if they are ever confronted with such requests, lawful requests, their government will not hang them out to dry afterwards. Specifically, a Good Samaritan safe harbor will exist with respect to any civil action where there is substantial evidence to support the certification provided by the Attorney General. The quantum of evidence required is merely a showing of more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of evidence. And although these provisions in the proposal will contribute to securing the safety of our citizens, this is not to suggest that I support every provision in the compromise.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN. Madam Speaker, today Pastor Tom Rhodes visits our Chamber from Folsom, California, where he is the pastor of Mount Olive Lutheran Church. He makes this journey with his son, Matt, less than a week after Father's Day as a reward for Matt's graduation from high school in Folsom. Part of the purpose of their trip is to expose Matt to the history and tradition of American civic dedication, since Matt is interested in public service. One thing they will see as they visit the halls of Congress and the battlefields of the Civil War is that there is no shortage of ways and opportunities to serve one's country. And that is what we find in Matt's father, Pastor Tom. He told us that the opportunity to stand here today as our guest chaplain would show his son that ``service to our country takes on a variety of forms.'' But Pastor Tom's prayer for us this morning, like the prayers his congregation in Folsom regularly offer, isn't the only place we see this evidence; it is in his lifetime of service to God and country. Besides serving as the Pastor of Mount Olive, Pastor Tom has held a variety of ministry positions in church, including pastor, elder, librarian, Sunday school teacher and committee chair. Outside of church, he has been a member of the local PTAs, on the Board of Directors for the Twin Lakes Food Bank, a narrator for the Washington Talking Book and Braille Library, and a part of the Civil Air Patrol for 3 years. We are glad to have you here with us today, Pastor Tom. Thank you for your continued prayers and service to your community and country. And Matt, congratulations on your recent graduation and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5982. As a Californian, the State that was once known as the Bear Republic, and proud resident of the State of California, which has the bear flag, I rise in support of the BEAR bill that the gentleman from Mississippi has introduced and brought to the floor today. The chairman from Mississippi has brought us a bill that seeks to build on work that has already been done in previous Congresses and also with TSA, but I think he gives us a little bit of a push to move in the direction of biometrics. The Biometric Enhancement for Airport-Risk Reduction Act simply recognizes that as we go forward in trying to secure our airports and the flying public and the cargo from terrorist attack we need to use those things which give us an advantage over those who would do harm to us, and that means we need to have the smart use of technology. The gentleman from Mississippi has been one of those who has spoken for several years about the fact that we need to get biometrics on board more quickly than we have, and I join the gentleman in that hope. I think this bill will move us in that direction. People should understand that biometrics merely refers to identifiers. They could be something as simple as fingerprints. They could be iris scans, things of that sort, some medium by which we are able to identify an individual with the documentation that they have. And then if you have readers that are all over the landscape now for various different enterprises, it allows you in an economical and in an efficient way to identify the individuals that are granted access to particular areas, and this is particularly important when we're talking about vast areas that we find at airports. Airports are not severely confined by geography as are some other enterprises, some other commercial enterprises, where you might be able to more easily secure the area. Particularly when you have airports where you have individuals who are cleared to work there, moving in and out, in and out, in and out of areas which are supposed to be secured areas, you have to find a reasonably efficient means that is also an effective means of identifying those people who should be in those areas and those people who should not be in those areas. And that is why biometric technology presents such an opportunity for us, and for these and other reasons I would support H.R. 5982. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, you know after listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you listen to their prescription for our energy woes, it is very much like saying we can have milk in this country without cows. They don't understand that in order to take care of the problem, you need supply. And why do I say that, because on every single vote we have had over the last decade or so, when we talked about tar sands, Democrats voted no. When we talked about shale oil, Democrats voted no. When we talked about coal, Democrats voted no. When we talked about cleaner ways of using coal, the Democrats voted no. When we talked about offshore drilling for gas and oil, the Democrats said no. When we talked about drilling in ANWR, they voted no. When we talked about refineries, they said no. Nuclear, they said no. And sometimes they have even said no to wind if it happened to be near where they lived. Now the problem is that the American people want solutions. We are providing an opportunity for solutions. All we are asking is that the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle allow us to bring to the floor those bills that will allow for more American energy production because we understand if you want milk, you have to have cows. If you want production, you are going to have to allow production in this country.