Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my long-time Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, I am reminded of a great speech that was delivered last Friday. Last Friday, our very distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, in an address, said something that I think encapsulates exactly what we just heard from my very good friend.

Senator Lieberman, in speaking of the Democratic Party, and he is now an independent Democrat, sometimes I see him listed as a Democrat, I know he organizes with the Democrats, he is listed as an independent as well, he said, ``The Democrats are emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat.''

Mr. Speaker, I have got to say as I listened to the words of my colleague from Worcester, I can't help but think that Senator Lieberman was right on target when he used that language, ``emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat.'' I was so struck with that when I heard it that I committed it to memory, and I think, again, it really takes on exactly what we have just heard.

It comes as no surprise that I rise in very, very strong, vigorous opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation as well. We have had 40 votes on Iraq policy, and today's bill brings us to vote No. 41. Not one, Mr. Speaker, not one of the withdrawal bills went through the normal legislative process. Not one, not one of these 41 measures is the product of a committee markup. Not one got its own hearing. Not one has been brought up under an even slightly open process, allowing for amendment, and consequently not allowing for any kind of real debate.

Mr. Speaker, most telling of all, not one has been enacted into law.

Now, we all know that the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, and still they cannot produce a single legislative victory on Iraq. Not once, not twice, not 10 times. Forty times. Mr. Speaker, 40 times we have gone through the motions of their failed, bankrupt strategy. I can't recall a more naked display of demagoguery.

Now we come to vote No. 41. It has all the hallmarks of the Democratic majority's work: no deliberation, no gesture towards bipartisanship, and no hope of being enacted.

But there is something different about the vote this time, and that is context. We are considering this vote in a much different context than we have the 40 previous votes that we have addressed on this. In fact, our colleague in the Senate, Johnny Isakson, Senator Isakson, said this debate was understandable in May. He said in July, it was questionable. He said now it is absolutely ridiculous.

For many months, the situation in Iraq has been very bleak. While there were many promising signs of progress, the turnaround in al Anbar province most notably, the overall picture was one of great challenges and struggles. I have argued repeatedly that a precipitous withdrawal would only create more challenges, and, Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted the signs of progress amid the struggles all along.

But today, the tide is turning in Iraq. We are seeing far more than pockets of success, as my friend has said. We are seeing a dramatic shift in the landscape. It began in al Anbar, as I have said. The Sunni sheiks there turned on al Qaeda, joined with the largely Shiite Iraqi army and with coalition forces, and reclaimed the province. Ramadi, its capital, the city that we have all heard of described as the most dangerous city in the world just a year ago, hasn't had an attack in 3 months. The city and the province are rebuilding. They are constructing small business centers so that the entrepreneurial spirit of Iraqis can flourish once again.

A delegation, including the Anbar governor, the Ramadi mayor, several prominent religious leaders and Ahmed Abu Risha, the brother of Sheik Sattar Abu Risha, the father of the Sunni Awakening, was just here in Washington a couple of weeks ago. They came here, Mr. Speaker, to spend several days receiving training in institution building, good governance, transparency and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, these are Anbar's political, business and religious leaders, not coming here to seek security assistance, not seeking military assistance. They have achieved security in al Anbar. Now what they want, Mr. Speaker, is help from us in their quest to build a democracy. But, most important of all, they are serving as a model for the rest of Iraq.

Prior to their trip, they participated with Shiite leaders in a summit in Karbala. Sheiks from Karbala and Najaf, Iraq's two holiest cities for Shiite Muslims, reached out to their Sunni brothers in Anbar and asked for their help in combating al Qaeda. This comes at a time when Sunni and Shiite leaders in Baghdad are reaching out to each other to begin the process of reconciliation as well.

Baghdad's notorious Adhamiya neighborhood that we have heard so much about, formerly the site of some of Iraq's worst sectarian violence, is now a place where Sunni and Shiite sheiks are meeting regularly to discuss how to bring their people together, just the things that my friend from Worcester said are so imperative. They are taking place at this very moment.

Now, all of this has been possible, Mr. Speaker, because of the dramatic drop in violence brought about by General Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy, which included the surge, has resulted in months of plummeting IED attacks, plummeting American troop deaths, plummeting Iraqi civilian deaths, and plummeting sectarian attacks.

Many of my colleagues have pointed out that this has been the deadliest year for American troops yet in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that this has been the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq. And it is true over the past year we have tragically seen that great number. But that does not reflect what is happening now in this post-surge world.

The past few months have seen the most dramatic decline in the deaths of American troops because we have had a new strategy. Mr. Speaker, we have had a new strategy, and that strategy is working. And perhaps most important for all of us, that strategy has enabled our military commanders to begin a drawdown in U.S. troop levels.

Not because of artificial timetables. Not because of the micromanagement of Members of Congress from the comfort of our offices thousands of miles away from the front lines. But by empowering our commanders on the ground, they have created a stable security situation that is allowing for both the beginnings of Iraqi reconciliation and the safe withdrawal of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the big question for today is this: Will the dramatic improvement in Iraq prove to be a true turning point or nothing more than a lull in the war? I don't know the answer to that. Neither outcome is a foregone conclusion. Whether it is a major turning point in the war or just a lull, no one knows for sure. What we do know now will profoundly affect the future of Iraq. Will we fund our troops and empower our commanders to continue to do what is best for our long-term interests? Or will we pull the rug out from under them now at the precise moment they have achieved what we have asked of them?

As one of my friends just said to me, it seems like our friends on the other side of the aisle want defeat before we can win.

For my colleagues who would resort to the latter option out of political expediency, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them of another war our men and women are fighting. Today our troops are also battling a very real enemy in Afghanistan.

We got a terrible reminder just a few days ago of the viciousness of that fight when six of our counterparts, members of the Afghan Parliament, were brutally targeted in the worst attack in Afghanistan's history, and I would like to express my appreciation for the bipartisan support that my colleague, David Price, and I offered as leaders of the House Democracy Assistance Commission.

We have been working with those parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and we are hoping to work with those in Iraq as soon as possible. And we once again express our condolences to the people of Afghanistan who have suffered the single worst attack in their nation's history when a week ago yesterday six parliamentarians and 44 other people were brutally murdered.

Let me also remind my colleagues that this war that we are seeing in Afghanistan is not our first war in Afghanistan. Many of us were intricately involved in their war against the Soviets in the 1980s, many Members who are still here today. And what did we do after the Soviets were defeated? We withdraw and left the Afghans to fend for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that democracy is hard work. For over a decade, unfortunately, in Afghanistan we indulged in the luxury of ignoring what was going on there. And then on a sunny Tuesday six Septembers ago, 3,000 Americans paid a horrible price for that mistake.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot refuse to learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. Our support for our troops in Iraq has earned us a far more stable, secure situation. And yet what does the Democratic leadership propose to do? Their bill would reward our military commanders' success by cutting them off.

It would provide constitutional protections for terrorists, while leaving our veterans, including Iraq veterans, without funding. It would force the same disastrous, shortsighted withdrawal that led to the terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan. It would do all of this at a time when we are achieving not just pockets of success in Iraq but broad-based improvements, and at a time when Republicans have been trying every possible means to get an appropriations bill for our veterans to the President, which he will certainly sign if we can ever get it to him.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority's priorities, foolhardy policies, and constitutional rights for terrorists have never been so out of whack. I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that this is all a meaningless charade that will never be enacted, because we all know this will never be enacted. But that is a hollow comfort when we consider our troops in harm's way and our veterans in need.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very cruel comfort for the families of those who have made incredible sacrifices in this war.

I often think of my good friend, Ed Blecksmith, a former marine and the father of JP Blecksmith, also a marine, who died in November 2004 just 3 years ago in the very famous battle of Fallujah. I have talked about the Blecksmith family here on the House floor many, many times. I didn't know JP, but from everything that I have read, and I have a recent article that has just come out about him, he was a very talented young man with a very bright future. He had so many opportunities before him, and he chose to be a marine because he wanted to serve as his father had done. His family proudly, but soberly, supported him. As a

former marine, Ed Blecksmith knew in a very real way the cost of war. JP Blecksmith would not return to his family, having made the ultimate sacrifice.

And his father said something to me that I will never forget. He looked me in the eye and asked me to make sure that we complete his son's mission in Iraq. He has said to me on countless occasions, You must complete the mission or my son JP will have died in vain.

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory. And no, I am not saying ``mission accomplished'' or anything like that because we know full well that we have difficult days ahead. But it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory in Iraq, for JP's sake and for the sake of all who have paid a very dear price.

We have a profound responsibility to allow our commanders to continue on this path.

Mr. Speaker, after 41, 41 wasted efforts, I can only hope that the Democratic leadership will finally abandon empty demagoguery for substantive legislation, meaningful debate, and a quest at bipartisanship so we can work with the President to come to an agreement. Until that time, I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and the terribly wrongheaded policy that it seeks to shield.

[From Details, Holiday 2007]

The Fallen: 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith, 24

(By Jeff Gordinier)

On the night before 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith shipped

out to Iraq, after his family took him out for dinner in

Newport Beach, California, his older brother, Alex, picked up

a pair of clippers and shaved JP's head. When that was done

and JP looked ready for combat, Alex gave his brother a hug.

Then Alex climbed into JP's green Ford Expedition and drove

it north, back to the family's house in San Marino, weeping

part of the way. He had a feeling. So did his parents. A

premonition. They didn't talk about it much, but two months

later, in November 2004, when JP joined a wave of U.S.

Marines roaring into the city of Fallujah as part of

Operation Phantom Fury, the feeling intensified.

On the night of November 10, Blecksmith and his closest

friend in Iraq, Lieutenant Sven Jensen, slept on a rooftop in

Fallujah. It was, miraculously, a quiet night, and chilly.

They got a decent night's sleep. They awoke just before

sunrise and were amused to find a small pet bird with green

wings and a yellow belly perched a couple of feet away from

their faces. Jensen took a picture of the bird. There were

other ones like it all over Iraq, because when U.S. troops

were searching abandoned houses, they often found cages that

had been left behind. The soldiers let the birds go free so

they wouldn't starve to death.

Hours before, JP had sent a letter to his girlfriend,

addressing it formally, as always, to ``Ms. Emily M. Tait.''

In it he wrote, ``By the time you receive this, you will know

we have gone into the city. We've been preparing for it the

last few days, and my guys are ready for the fight, and I'm

ready to lead them. It'll be hectic, and there will be some

things out of my control, but the promise of you waiting at

home for me is inspiring and a relief.'' Now he was in the

thick of it. Blecksmith and Jensen came down from the

roof, ate their MREs for breakfast, and got their orders.

Before the invasion the battalion commander, Colonel

Patrick Malay, had given his men an analogy: `` `Imagine a

dirty, filthy windowpane that has not been cleaned in

hundreds of years,' '' he recalls saying. ``That's how we

looked at the city of Fallujah. Our job was to scrub the

heck out of that city, and then take a squeegee and wipe

it off so that it was clean and pure.'' Most of Fallujah

was empty, and anyone left in the city was presumed to be

an insurgent.

Blecksmith and the other members of the India Company of

the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines Regiment, moved south

through the city, with their blood types scrawled in

indelible marker on the sleeves of their uniforms. The

streets smelled terrible--a stubborn aroma of rotting food

and bodies. Late in the day on November 11, things started to

go wrong. A marine in Blecksmith's platoon, Klayton South,

was shot in the mouth by an insurgent when he kicked open the

door of a house. Blood gushed from his mangled teeth and

tongue. The medics cut into South's throat to give him an

emergency tracheotomy. (He survived. He's since had more than

40 operations to repair the damage.) ``It shook the platoon

up,'' Jensen says now, ``and JP was the most in-control

person I saw. He had a sector to clear, so he rallied his

guys and said, `Okay, we've got to continue clearing.' ''

Blecksmith's and Jensen's platoons moved off in different

directions, and the two friends shot each other a glance.

``I'll never forget looking at his eyes the last time I saw

him,'' Jensen says. ``He turned and he gave me almost an

apprehensive look, like, Oh, s-it, we've got some s-it going

on. I wanted to say `Hey, I'll see you later.' But I didn't

say anything to him.''

Minutes later, Blecksmith led his platoon into a house and

climbed a flight of stairs to the roof to survey the

surrounding landscape. Shots came from a building across the

street. Blecksmith stood up to direct the squads under his

command, shouting at them to take aim at the enemy nest. He

was tall, and was now visible above the protective wall. ``He

was up front a lot, and he made a big target, and we'd talked

to him about that,'' Colonel Malay says. ``He exposed himself

consistently to enemy fire in the execution of his duties. He

displayed a fearlessness to the point that we had to talk to

him about the fact that nobody is bulletproof.''

As Blecksmith stood on the roof, a sniper's 7.62-mm bullet

found one of the places on his body where he was vulnerable.

It was a spot on his left shoulder, less than an inch above

the rim of his protective breastplate. The bullet sliced

downward diagonally, coming to rest in his right hip, and

along the way it tore through his heart. ``I'm hit,''

Blecksmith said. He fell. He raised his head for a moment,

and that was it. A Navy medic got to Blecksmith immediately,

but he was already dead, and his men carried his heavy body

back down the stairs. He was 24.

That night in San Marino, Alex Blecksmith came home from

work and noticed that the house was dark. He opened the front

door and saw his mother, Pam, sitting at the kitchen table

with a couple of marines in dress blues and white gloves, and

he heard the phrase ``We regret to inform you . . .''

The funeral was so magnificent, so full of pageantry, that

at times it was difficult for Alex to remember that the guy

being buried was his brother. The Marines do it right when it

comes to honoring the fallen. They do it so right that you

can get swept up in the ceremony and feel as though you're

watching a parade. The funeral took place at the Church of

Our Saviour in San Gabriel--the church where the most

celebrated of San Marino's favorite sons, General George S.

Patton, had been baptized as a baby. As the flag-draped

casket was carried out of the sanctuary and into the

California sun, a long, silent line of almost 2,000 people

followed. There were marines and midshipmen and local

firefighters in uniform. There was a 21-gun salute. Four

World War II fighter planes swooped toward the cemetery in

the ``missing man'' formation--just as they passed over the

funeral, the fourth plane symbolically split from the quartet

and veered into the sky. A bagpiper played a Scottish dirge.

One of JP's old friends would later observe that the day, in

all of its glory and pomp, made him think of Princess Diana's

wedding.

As public support for the war in Iraq wavers, it's easy to

forget that people like JP Blecksmith even exist. The

American military is so predominantly blue-collar that we

tend to assume that the sons and daughters of the rich never

voluntarily die in warfare anymore. Blecksmith was born in

September 1980, just weeks before his state's own Ronald

Reagan was elected president, and he spent most of his youth

in the small Los Angeles County town of San Marino during

what felt, for many of its wealthy and conservative

inhabitants, like something of a ``Leave It to Beaver''

golden age. To look at a photograph of him, blue-eyed and

suntanned and grinning, is to understand the enduring

magnetism of the word ``California.'' He stood six foot three

and weighed 225 pounds. His chest was a keg; his biceps were

gourds. His biography reads as though it were scripted by a

Hollywood publicist: legendary quarterback on the Flintridge

Prep football team, track star, graduate of the United States

Naval Academy.

His father, Ed Blecksmith, who is 64, runs an executive-

recruiting firm in Los Angeles. He and Pam met in the early

seventies, while both were working in the White House. Along

a wall leading into their kitchen hang framed Christmas cards

from Dick and Pat Nixon. ``Here's a kid,'' Ed says, ``who

didn't need to do this.'' It's as though JP were transplanted

into our world from the Eisenhower years. Somehow, in an

ironic age of Jon Stewart and ``South Park,'' the guy grew up

in a kind of pre-Summer of Love bubble in which young men of

strength and valor still yearned to distinguish themselves on

the battlefield. He was groomed, in a sense, for something

that no longer exists, at least not for guys who grow up in

the wealthiest zip codes in the country. He believed in

ideals of duty and sacrifice that have become, for many men,

anachronistic and even unfathomable.

``I was in awe,'' says Peter Twist, Blecksmith's closest

friend since preschool. Twist played wide receiver to

Blecksmith's quarterback on the Flintridge Prep football

team; a local newspaper called the duo ``Fire & Ice.''

Blecksmith was known for being fast, composed, smart, and

unflappable, and his giant arms could propel the ball a good

80 yards down the field. If he had an athletic flaw, it was

that he was aware of his own flawlessness. ``He had such

personal confidence,'' says Tom Fry, a mentor to Blecksmith

in high school and one of the assistant coaches on his team.

``He felt that if all the stars aligned, there was nothing he

couldn't do--it was JP's world.'' When they graduated in

1999, Twist and a couple other teammates went off to the

University of Arizona, where it's safe to say the prospect of

partying was on their minds, while Blecksmith opted for the

rigors and restrictions of Annapolis. ``I was stoked for the

man'' says Twist, 26, who lives in Newport Beach and works in

the mortgage business. ``Most of us are still trying to

figure it out, but JP always had a goal.''

November 11, the date on which JP Blecksmith died, was

noteworthy for other reasons. It's Twist's birthday. It also

happens to be the birthday of General Patton, who grew up in

San Marino and holds a prominent place in the town's history.

This coincidence has only bolstered the mythology of JP

Blecksmith--a feeling that it was his destiny to die in

combat. The Blecksmiths have a statue of Patton on a shelf in

their home, and it becomes clear in conversation that Ed, a

decorated Vietnam veteran himself, sees a kind of mystical

link between the fate of his son and the military, triumphs

of the legendary general (who was a passionate believer, it

just so happens, in reincarnation).

Indeed, JP Blecksmith fit the ``hero'' mold in such

classic, square jawed American style that a kind of cult of

JP has begun to develop in San Marino. They give out awards

in his name at the local schools. On the Fourth of July, San

Marino hosts a JP Blecksmith 5K run. A Marine Corps training

center in Pasadena has been christened Blecksmith Hall. On a

hot Sunday morning this past August, Alex parked his

brother's Expedition in the cemetery and walked across the

grass to the pale granite stone that says JAMES PATRICK

BLECKSMITH. An elderly man wandered over to the headstone,

hand in hand with a grade-school kid who had a blond Mohawk,

and told Alex, ``I never met JP, but I go by here and show my

grandson his grave''

THREE YEARS AFTER BLECKSMITH'S death, his bedroom still

looks the way it did when he left for Annapolis in 1999.

There's a Green Bay Packers poster over the bed, a dense

forest of athletic trophies, toy race cars lined up on the

dresser. ``This is all his stuff from Iraq that they sent

over,'' Alex says, looking down at a cardboard box on the

floor. ``We haven't gone through it, really.''

Ed Blecksmith walks into the bedroom, and within a few

seconds his voice is cracking and his blue eyes are growing

wet. ``It's still tough,'' he says. ``You see all these

pictures and things . . .'' He insists on sitting down in

front of the TV downstairs and watching DVD footage of that

magnificent funeral, fighting back a sob at the moment when

one of the eulogists, a Navy SEAL, describes JP as having

been ``the best of the best.'' Ed has some Fox News footage,

too. In it, you can see JP speaking to his men hours before

the battle in Fallujah, and that's where you get a brief

glimpse of the regular guy behind the mythology. Because

there stands JP, in fatigues and a floppy Boonie hat, holding

a map, telling his marines to ``expect everything you can

possibly imagine.'' When he looks at the camera for a moment,

he's smiling.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Redlands, I would simply say that my friend from Worcester never mentioned the word ``victory'' in his analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), a hardworking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I will say to my colleagues that it's very interesting to listen to this debate, because as we've proceeded, I have yet to hear the word ``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle at all. I have yet to hear anyone interested in trying to build a democracy.

Now, we saw three elections take place in Iraq, as we all know, with a 70 percent voter turnout.

We know that there are problems there. My friend from Worcester correctly said that we have problems with corruption in government in Iraq. We've had corruption problems in this country as well. But the fact of the matter is we have seen dramatic improvement. There is no doubt about the fact that we've seen improvement.

And I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to hear this term ``redeployment.'' That means one thing. It doesn't mean victory. It doesn't mean build a democracy. It means withdraw and lose. And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to ensure that that doesn't happen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I do so to say I still have yet to hear the term ``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle. I still have yet to hear anyone talk about the notion of building a democracy in Iraq so that self-determination and the rule of law and the building of democratic institutions can, in fact, have a chance to succeed. And there is no recognition of the fact that we have seen a tremendous number of reduction in IED attacks, and the number of overall attacks has dropped dramatically.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I've still not heard the term ``victory'' or ``building democracy.''

I would inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

I think at this juncture I might reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I'm very sorry that my friend wouldn't yield so that we could engage in debate. And I will say, victory means ensuring that our children don't face the threat of another terrorist attack like what we saw on September 11. We know that Iraq is the central point for al Qaeda, and I am absolutely determined to ensure that we achieve victory.

There have been tremendous achievements when it comes to democracy building. We can't ignore that. But we want to bring our troops home as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me just first say this has been an interesting debate and I do think that victory, a dramatic reduction in the number of attacks, the fact that reconciliation is, in fact, taking place in Baghdad is something that cannot be ignored.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, before the House voted for the 12th time to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Veterans Affairs funding bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and I had a brief colloquy after which a Member on the other side of the aisle claimed that we had misrepresented the facts about this Congress's track record on getting the Veterans Affairs appropriations measure signed into law.

Well, I take this as akin to being accused of lying. Here is what we said, and, Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The House passed the Veterans and Military Construction funding bill on June 15, 2007, by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership of the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations act to conference and has refused to name conferees.

So whether the majority likes it or not, that is a fact. Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from New York said that we were misrepresenting the facts. How is this so? For 68 days, Mr. Speaker, the message from the Senate requesting a conference has languished at the Speaker's desk without action. How is this fact disputable? Just look at the

calendar and count the days between September 7 and today, and you'll come up with 68. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million.

Those are the facts surrounding this bill in this Congress. The gentleman from Texas went on earlier to malign Republicans for what we did or didn't do concerning veterans funding over the last 12 years, which begs the question, what does the last 12 years have to do with this year? Are Democrats trying to use past Congresses' shortcomings as excuses for their own failed policy? Otherwise, how is this even relevant?

I am sure that the gentleman from Worcester would stand up and attempt to deflect this plea by criticizing Republicans, just as his colleagues before him, and touting the increases in funding for our veterans provided by this Congress which all but two Members of this body voted for. The sad fact is that this Congress hasn't provided the funding that the gentleman has espoused. Why is that? That's because not one dime will flow from the Treasury to the Department of Veterans Affairs until the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill is signed into law, and in order to do so, this House has to go to conference with the Senate and send a bill down to the President to sign. So let's finally get that process started.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is concerned about funding for our veterans must join us in voting against the previous question so that I can amend the rule and we can go to conference with the Senate on this much-needed and far-delayed funding measure.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague; I understand that the customary 30 minutes was yielded to my friend from Pasco, Washington. And I would just like to state for the record that I will be managing the rule on this side, and so I would hope very much that my friend from Tampa might consider yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished Rules Committee colleague, my friend from Tampa, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, even though we went through that little bump with my colleague from Pasco temporarily handling it. And I have to say that this is obviously a very solemn, serious and difficult time for our Nation as we are in the midst of facing a financial crisis the likes of which no Member of this House has seen, probably even our oldest Members have not witnessed. Maybe we have a couple of people. Maybe Ralph Hall lived during the Depression. But it is something that most of us clearly have never witnessed before.

People are likening this to the economic challenges that we faced following the Second World War. And we are attempting, as we all know, in a bipartisan way to deal with this issue. Our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, is involved in these bipartisan negotiations so that we will be able to have a package emerge from this institution in a bipartisan way that will be able to stabilize the markets, respect the American taxpayer and ensure the kind of stability when people are seeking to keep their homes, run their small businesses and engage in the normal activities that exist in the United States of America.

And it's with that as a backdrop, Mr. Speaker, that I have to paraphrase the statement of the former running mate of Ross Perot, the late Admiral James Stockdale, who, in the famous oft-quoted Vice Presidential debate in 1992, said: ``Who am I and why am I here?'' I would ask that somewhat rhetorically, Mr. Speaker, because we are here dealing with a very important issue. Of course job creation is priority number one. Making sure that we can stimulate our economy is a very, very important issue. But this is not the way to do it. And 1 hour ago, the United States Senate made that decision by defeating the motion to proceed in the Senate. So this is dead.

The President of the United States put out a statement of administration policy in which he said that this measure would be vetoed if it were to get to the President. And it's not going to. And so that is why I ask, Who are we and why are we here? Because there is absolutely nothing but political posturing taking place.

Mr. Speaker, it is being done in the most outrageous of ways in that we regularly show here something that was touted 2 years ago, but we never hear the majority Members talk about any longer, and that is a document called ``A New Direction for America.'' This document was designed to talk about the very important degree of openness and transparency that would exist if in fact the Democrats were to take control of the United States Congress. And unfortunately with where we are, we have completely eviscerated that entire concept of ``A New Direction for America.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all accustomed to hectic, get-out-of-town weeks. The heaviest lifting typically falls to weeks prior to district work periods, when we're all anxious to return home to hear from our constituents. But even under the circumstances, this week's proceedings are absolutely unprecedented. The emergency negotiations, as I mentioned, on a financial rescue package are very difficult. And they are very challenging. And we want to see it done in an appropriate way. But they have been made all the

more frantic because they're set against a backdrop of a year's worth of unfinished business right here in the House of Representatives.

The Democratic majority has unfortunately shirked virtually every one of its core duties and obligations as legislators. Our most basic and fundamental job is the responsible and efficient spending of the taxpayers' dollars. That is the single most important thing that we do here, is responsibly, with the power of the purse, spending these dollars. This is done through the passage of 12 appropriations bills as we all know.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how many of these 12 bills has the House passed as we began this very difficult week? One. Only one of the 12 appropriations bills was passed. And how many have become law? Zero. Not a one. So we arrived at this last week of session for the fiscal year without enacting a single appropriations bill.

The Democratic leadership had long since abandoned any plan for attempting to make progress on our constitutional power of the purse. Their solution? Write a bill to put off their duties for another 6 months. They can't be bothered to do their jobs now or after the election. They want to wait until the fiscal year is half over before finally getting to work.

So we started this week after what amounts to a 9-month vacation from responsible legislating. The Democratic majority decided to take three of the 12 appropriations bills, one of which never even went through committee, and slap them together. They tacked on $55 billion in extra funding for various causes, extended their fiscal deadline for 6 months and sent it up to the Rules Committee barely an hour before we reported it out.

The entire body of their appropriations work for the entire year was put together in one bill, the bulk of which was delayed by half a year. They were kind enough to give us an hour before meeting on the rule at nearly 11 o'clock at night. It was on the floor the next morning. And voila. They put the entire Federal budget to bed as far as they were concerned.

But that was Tuesday. What did we do yesterday? The Democratic majority's flawed tax extenders bill, and a $100 million mistake. In their rush to pump out bad legislation, the Rules Committee ended up passing out a rule and bringing it to the floor for a bill that no longer existed. Democrats and Republicans were actually voting on two different bills. The discrepancy, as I said, was over $100 million in tax increases.

Now to many in this institution on the other side of the aisle who have this sort of tax-and-spend mentality, $100 million in taxes may seem to be very insignificant. But not to the American people. Not to the American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, and certainly not at times like these. Fortunately this mistake was caught, and we returned to the Rules Committee to fix it. What other mistakes have gone unnoticed? We may never know until it's too late. But this is the very real risk when you jam through a flawed agenda in a frantic and haphazard way.

And this bill is a perfect example of that.

Having punted on appropriations and jamming through the tax extenders bill after two tries, now the Democratic majority is free to turn to everything else they meant to do this year. How do you do a year's worth of work in 1 week? For starters, you don't, Mr. Speaker. You just don't.

There are a host of very critical issues that simply won't be addressed this week, such as our Nation's energy crisis. But you can certainly move things along by shutting down due process entirely. We did their hodgepodge appropriations bill without a single amendment or even a motion to recommit. We did their tax extenders bill without a single amendment either.

Now we are considering a rule to waive the rules to allow the underlying bill to be expedited. Then we will consider a rule to bring up the underlying bill. Again, this is a bill that the President has said he would veto and a bill that is similar to it is not even going to get through the United States Senate. So once again, under a completely closed process, there is no opportunity whatsoever for Members to participate in any kind of real debate.

What is the result of this haphazard way of legislating? First and foremost, there is clearly no deliberation. Now say what you want about this place, but the American people do send us here to think about, to discuss, to ponder and to try and work out a compromise in a bipartisan way as we proceed with what it is that we are trying to do. So no deliberation at all. I mean, there is no means for amendment. There is no means for open debate. Second, as we have just seen again from that tax extenders bill, mistakes are inevitable.

This clearly goes beyond poor policy. And shirking our duties for another 6 months is clearly very, very poor policy. As yesterday's proceedings demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, we are also talking about the sloppy mistakes that are an inevitable result of shoddy work.

The Democrats roundly criticized us for moving our agenda too quickly in the past few Congresses. They were particularly critical of not giving Members or the American people enough time to review legislation so this deliberative process could proceed.

Now on this document which I pointed to when I first stood up here entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' this document, by the way, I would say to our colleagues, is still available on the Speaker's Web site. So if anyone would like to read a copy of ``A New Direction for America,'' I commend it to them.

In this document, they promised this new direction, as I said. And it reads as follows: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration.

``Rules governing floor debate,'' it reads, ``must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how ``2 hours'' equals ``at least 24 hours,'' which is what was promised in this New Direction for America by Speaker Pelosi. It is that kind of math, long on promises, short on results, that got us into our current financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider today's underlying bill, amusingly called a stimulus bill by the Democratic majority, the American people should know it was written through the night and sent to us at 9:43 this morning. Not even Republican appropriators had seen it, so not even members of the Appropriations Committee have seen it.

I just had a chance to look through it, and we have some unbelievable things we have found in this. Members should know the Democratic majority is rushing to cover up 9 months of nothing with a flurry of activity in these waning hours of the 110th Congress. They are resorting to draconian measures and shutting out all meaningful debate in this charade. They are pushing off the real work for another 6 months. And they are producing such shoddy work that a $100 million tax increase is ``a mistake,'' and that kind of thing is appearing here.

Mr. Speaker, this is one sorry week for the House of Representatives. I don't believe that the American people will be fooled.

Now, of course, as my colleague talked about the importance of infrastructure construction, building schools, making sure that we provide relief to those who are truly in need and have suffered from the economic downturn that we all know is there, to do it in the way that is being done is, I think, a very, very sad commentary on this great deliberative institution.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. It is a martial law rule which is very, very unfair. We do need to, at the very least, give our Members an opportunity to have a chance to read this bill.

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

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

I would like to as I do this engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Hood River, Oregon, who has long been a great champion of something known as the Secure Rural Schools Program, something that has enjoyed very strong bipartisan support. In fact, five Democratic members the Rules Committee are cosponsors of legislation designed to address that.

I will say that obviously we know that as we deal with this economic downturn, everyone has acknowledged it, there are many things that do need to be addressed. And we know that FMAP is one of them, dealing with Medicaid reimbursement to our States, infrastructure construction, as I said, working to do what we can to stimulate economic growth.

We happen to believe very strongly that it is also essential for us to do all that we can to stimulate private sector economic growth. Now, I know that that term may be difficult for some in this institution to comprehend, but we do have a $14 trillion, that is with a T, a $14 trillion economy in the United States of America. We are the world's only complete superpower. And we are going through extraordinarily challenging economic times. But we need to remember that our goal with the package that we put together in dealing with this financial crisis will be one that is designed to create stability, security and confidence in our credit markets and in the overall financial system. No doubt about that.

My State of California, the West and other parts of the country are dealing with the fact that the Washington Mutual Bank was just taken over, and I have to say having spoken with top leaders at J.P. Morgan, I am very grateful that all of those deposits are in fact secure with J.P. Morgan's acquisition having taken place there. But we know in other areas there is a lot of uncertainty.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we want to do what we can to put into place policies that will encourage private sector economic growth. Unfortunately, this so-called stimulus package that has been presented to us is one that is focused on public sector economic growth.

Again, many parts of it we support. It is very key for us to have an infrastructure system in this country if we are going to encourage the private sector movement of goods in the country and for people to be able to move around. We know that these are very important items. But there are many, many other things that we need to do to deal with private economic growth.

Now, I talked about the procedural problem that we have and the fact that this New Direction for America has been eviscerated by the actions that we are taking here, and that has been the case for the entire Congress, tragically. But we just now had, as my friend from Hood River said very well, received this at 9:43 this morning, so a number of us are having a chance to look at this.

My friend just pointed to me on page 12, the fact that we have something in this bill known as the 21st Century Green High Performing Public School Facilities for the Department of Education, which would allow for the construction of so-called green schools, putting roughly $3 billion, $3 billion in this, to build schools in the Mariana Islands, Micronesia and other spots. And I know that the package that my friend from Hood River, Oregon, has been championing, working with our Rules Committee colleague Mr. Hastings on for secure rural schools, has a cost of about $3.1 billion over a 4-year period.

So we are just finding these things out in this measure. To me, it is beyond the pale that they would come forward without allowing a single opportunity to work in a bipartisan way.

I congratulate my friend from Tampa for talking about the need for us to work in a bipartisan way. She is absolutely right. I totally concur with that. Unfortunately, this legislation is doing anything but that.

I would like to now yield to my friend from Hood River, Oregon, a great champion of the Secure Rural Schools Program.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to my friend from Tampa if she would like to explain exactly how this is going to be paid for.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks by talking about the fact that we are dealing with a very serious economic downturn and a financial crisis in this country, and very serious attempts are being made to work in a bipartisan way. We have Republican representation. I know Speaker Pelosi and those at the White House are working on this.

Now, to liken this $60 billion package that was just dropped on us, which is designed to dramatically increase public spending, with the effort that Democrats and Republicans alike are pursuing to try and deal with the economic challenges that we face as a country when it comes to the confidence level of markets and people who are losing their homes, is just preposterous.

I would be happy to further yield to my friend from Hood River.

If I could reclaim my time, it was not only this morning, but it was last night. It has been day in, day out in the Rules Committee. We have repeatedly offered an amendment that five Democratic Members of the Rules Committee have cosponsored as legislation that the gentleman has. Yet they have refused vote after vote upstairs in the Rules Committee to allow us to deal with this very important issue of secure rural schools.

I am happy to further yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I would like to thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution.

Here we are dealing with these very, very serious and important challenges that exist all over the country. The gentleman has come forward with Democratic and Republican support for his effort, and it's being denied, once again, under a process that really undermines the deliberative nature of the institution.

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

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend is going to provide her closing statement, I would inquire, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, as I pointed out at the beginning of the debate on this issue, faced with a very serious economic downturn. A crisis of confidence exists in our financial markets. An attempt is being made in a bipartisan way to deal with that at this very moment. We all hope that there can be a resolution that ensures that taxpayers are not going to be unfairly saddled with a responsibility, and that the government is not going to expand its reach any further.

As we look at those bipartisan negotiations going on right now between the two bodies, including the White House, Democrats and Republicans alike, it seems to me that we need to recognize that what we are engaging in here is little more than posturing. Yes, we all acknowledge that there are things in this measure that are very important that we need to address, but this is not the way to do it--in an overnight package that was presented at 9:43 this morning, 46 pages long, rammed through the Rules Committee with a partisan vote, and already terminated in the United States Senate, and with the President of the United States stating that if he were to get this measure, he would, in fact, veto it. So I wonder why it is that we are here.

The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has twice this week, before the Rules Committee, said that the most famous line from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech was, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'' but, he said, the line that got the greatest ovation was, ``We must take action.''

It is very clear that we do need to take action. But action should not be taken in a way that completely undermines the deliberative process.

There were mistakes that were made in the past Congresses, and I will acknowledge that. Some of those mistakes that were made led to the establishment of this document called ``A New Direction for America.''

This ``A New Direction for America'' has just been obliterated. It is absolutely worthless, because it has been thrown out the window, a commitment made that has been ignored.

I want to say that I hope that we can defeat this rule. We are going to try to defeat the previous question. Recognizing that this Nation needs to use more of its natural resources while looking to the future with renewable sources of energy, Republicans are advocating an all-of- above approach. We believe that this legislation will lower the price of gasoline, which is what fuels America's cars today.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow a resolution which will prevent Congress from skipping town until we pass comprehensive legislation that will bring down the high cost of energy for American consumers. My colleagues will have the opportunity to support giving States the opportunity to explore and extract energy resources right off their own coasts, opening America's Arctic energy slope, extending renewal energy incentives, supporting research for alternative clean fuels, and minimizing unnecessary litigation that delays or prevents American energy production.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous materials inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1503 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will correct that. I will yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and good friend from California, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1503.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1503 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule reported on the legislative day of September 26, 2008 that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a humble first-term Representative who represents hundreds of thousands of hardworking families and seniors who are caught in the center of an economic storm. For them, the economic squeeze did not arise last week or last month, but it has been ongoing for well over a year.

I also rise as the daughter of parents who worked hard all of their lives and saved for retirement and, like millions of Americans, they are watching their savings dwindle and decline. And I rise as a parent, who, along with my husband, is saving for our children's college education.

For students and families across America, the cost of attending college has risen. And as we look out to future years, like other parents, our college savings accounts for our kids feel a little less tangible now, and I fear that college for students may be a little less attainable unless we act in a bipartisan way this week.

Many middle class American families are unable to even save now for retirement or their children's college fund because they've lost a job, or if they do have a job, the raise did not come, or the raise came, and it was not enough to meet the rising cost of living in America today.

So at this time, as our country's leaders join together to develop a rescue plan--which has been dramatically altered from the beginning of the week when it was proposed in a two-and-a-half page proposal to spend $700 billion--we must join together, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way to provide a lifeline to families as well.

Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for everyday Americans. While stabilizing financial markets on the day of the largest bank failure in history is vitally important, correspondingly, stabilizing families and taxpayers is just as important. American families need a little breathing room, and they need a job if they're out of work. So it is our moral imperative, at this moment in history, to examine this modest stimulus proposal, create jobs back home through an infusion of cash for infrastructure projects, for unemployment benefits, and for health care dollars for Americans who have no other place to turn.

This stimulus package will jump-start America's economy. And here's our action plan:

First; jobs, jobs, jobs through infrastructure investments. We're talking about highways, transit capital grants, Amtrak, airport improvements. Do you know how many thousands of construction jobs have been let go and we have lost across America? This will put Americans back to work.

We're also going to provide resources to our local communities to help them with clean water projects, sewer projects, the Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and tributaries, and also vital--and I speak as a parent of two young daughters--school construction dollars.

We also provide, as part of our action plan, energy development dollars for energy efficiency and renewable energy, electricity delivery, and reliability programs. That is the major portion of our economic stimulus proposal for American families.

We will also provide unemployment compensation and job training dollars, which seems oh so modest because it totals merely $6 billion. It's modest in the face of a proposal this week to spend $700 billion, unfettered, at the beginning of the week.

We will also respond to the least among us, Medicaid dollars. Now, that's a term that gets thrown around a lot, but I want the American people to understand that when we talk Medicaid--and you will hear the discussion here today will be FMAP, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage in Medicaid. What Medicaid is is largely health care dollars for children from poor families. Now, many middle class families are now slipping into that lower socioeconomic level today. Their parents don't have health insurance. If they're working, they're working maybe at a small business or part-time, and there is no other place to turn during this dire economic downturn.

The least we can do, when we're discussing a bailout for Wall Street and for banks and financial markets, is to also consider, at the same time, a very modest proposal of $60 billion for America's families, for jobs, for health care for kids, seniors who have no other place to turn, and unemployment compensation.

First, on jobs. You know, today's wages are stagnant; they're at the most stagnant point that they have been since World War II. Medium household income was .6 percent lower in 2007 than it was at the end of the 1990s. And even more troubling are the rising inequities of incomes among families in different communities. Data released from the Joint Economic Committee reports that over the past decade, median incomes for the richest households have risen while middle and low-income families have seen their income fall.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.4 million Americans--a 6.1 percent increase--in August, the highest it has been since 2003. This continues the unfortunate job loss for the

eighth consecutive month, with over 600,000 American jobs lost this year.

Unemployment benefits under our action plan will be extended for merely another 7 weeks, a very modest proposal. It extended in every State an additional 13 weeks, and an additional 13 weeks in States with unemployment rates higher than 6 percent, like my home State of Florida.

Florida families have been especially hard hit by the economic downturn. In the past year, Florida has lost over 100,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate continues to rise. The housing crisis has dragged down job opportunities in construction and other related fields, and we keep seeing continued joblessness and layoffs. At the same time, in Florida we have seen a 21 percent increase in families receiving food stamps over the past year, which is one of the highest increases in the Nation.

But fortunately, under this stimulus plan, we're going to immediately take action to fund new jobs through infrastructure projects. See, investing in infrastructure can rapidly move people from unemployment rolls to payrolls. Just this week, we heard our Republican Governor, Charlie Christ, sent his DOT secretary to the Hill to meet with the bipartisan Florida delegation. She advised that there are projects ready to go, have been permitted, are ready to go. So this action plan will take those projects off the shelf and put people to work building roads, building bridges, sewer projects all across America.

For hundreds of thousands of Floridians who are unemployed, and other Americans, they're still looking for work, and this package will help them find a job. It's that simple.

On health care, on the Medicaid portion which remember largely goes to health care services for children so they can get to the doctors' office, seniors in nursing homes and pregnant women, this stimulus package will improve and bolster that health care safety net at this critical time in our Nation's history. Unlike the hope of trickle-down, this action plan and economic stimulus project is a rapid and effective way to support those hardworking families.

During the last economic downturn, the Congress approved $10 billion to temporarily enhance the health care safety net of Medicaid. This similar increase today will again provide vital, basic health services to families that need it most as quickly as possible. And at the same time, an increase in health care funding will help families who are not served by Medicaid but are taking up the slack in this economy, that are paying higher premiums and co-pays because the charity care in the emergency room, someone has to pay for that. And that usually is tacked on to the cost of the typical family's employer-provided health care cost. Higher co-pays and higher premiums are a direct result of many families in this country not having anyplace else to turn for health care.

In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Center for Studying Health System Change released a report yesterday that says that employees are paying more medical expenses out of their own pockets. They're having a harder time coming up with money to pay their bills. The study displayed the mounting additional strain that medical care is placing on working Americans. It is estimated that 57 million Americans live in families struggling with medical bills, and 43 million of those have health insurance coverage.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret across America that with stagnant wages and a higher cost of living, be it health care, be it higher gas prices, be it home heating oil, be it, in Florida, property insurance, that we have got to take action for them. And it cannot simply be a trickle-down rescue package. It also needs to be a very modest, but at the same time meaningful, support for families.

When we are able to provide additional moneys to States for health care and for infrastructure and jobs, what this does is it takes the pressure off all other programs that are funded by our State and local governments, including education. In my State of Florida, they have had to cut billions and billions of dollars out of our State budget. Unbelievably, for the first time in many decades, this year the State of Florida ratcheted back the amount of money provided per student in our public school system. The State university chancellor of the State of Florida announced yesterday that there is a freeze on new students being allowed into the Florida college system because they simply do not have the resources during this economic downturn to provide a seat for new freshmen in our colleges and universities.

Mr. Speaker, economists agree that any stimulus package must put money in the hands of those who will spend it right away in order to stimulate the economy. This package will do just that by focusing funding where it is needed most, creating jobs, jobs, jobs through infrastructure, enhancing the health care safety net for our children and our seniors and providing a lifeline to American families who are struggling during this economic downturn.

At this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important at this critical time in our Nation's economic history, in the history of what is going on in people's lives today, that we really try to rise above partisanship. That is what is going on right now. The White House and leaders here in the Congress are meeting on a very important economic package. This is a separate piece of that. We do intend to address it. We will stay here for as long as it takes.

I would be happy to yield for a moment.

I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we did consider the amendment in the Rules Committee on a couple of occasions. It was not accepted.

What is important right now is our leaders meet to focus on the economic condition of this country and that we do not get bogged down in the process. The American people cannot wait for these costly, time- consuming debates. They are out of work, they need to get their kids to the doctor's office, and we will stay and work here for as long as it takes to provide that additional relief to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, similar to the administration's $700 billion emergency economic rescue package, this emergency stimulus package, to provide jobs to the American people, to enhance the health care safety net, this is an emergency situation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, please, how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, we are done with speakers on our side.

I would like to submit for the Record a copy of a letter from the Republican Governor from the State of Florida, Charlie Crist, who writes: ``I am writing to you in the last days of the 110th Congress to reiterate my support for congressional action regarding the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage,'' the Medicaid portion of this bill.

Office of the Governor,

Tallahassee, FL, September 25, 2008.

Hon. Alcee Hastings,

House of Representatives, 2353 Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

House of Representatives, 2244 Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen Hastings and Diaz-Balart: I am writing to

you in the last days of the 110th Congress to reiterate my

support for Congressional action regarding the Federal

Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).

As you will recall, the impact of seven hurricanes in 2004

and 2005 and subsequent reconstruction has disproportionately

affected Florida's FMAP allotment, resulting in $213.5

million in additional state expenditures in federal fiscal

year 2009. Furthermore, continued decline is expected in

2010. For every percentage point reduction in federal support

for Florida, our state loses approximately $150 million and

makes it increasingly more difficult to serve residents who

need care. This reduction in the federal share of Medicaid

funding has placed additional pressure on the state during

these economic times.

Our goal is to continue to provide quality services to

those currently receiving benefits, and those who just now

find themselves in need of assistance. Florida continues to

seek a temporary increase in its FMAP and hopes to work with

you on a longer term solution to address natural disaster

implications to the FMAP allotment. As Congress considers

providing relief for states, I ask for your support in

ensuring FMAP relief in a manner that will best enable

Florida to serve the most residents in need.

I appreciate your willingness to work on this issue as well

as other matters impacting our great state.

Sincerely,

Charlie Crist.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve until my colleague from the Rules Committee has made his closing statement.

Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis for many American families did not begin this week. The economic squeeze has been ongoing for a long time. For example, just this summer in my district in the Tampa Bay area that I have the privilege to represent, we held foreclosure workshops for families facing foreclosure, maybe they had just gotten their first notice. I was shocked, hundreds of families showed up at the workshop where we sat them down with a lender, one on one, to try to begin that workout period. It was great. They could get a little grace period, they could get a little breathing room. I heard numerous stories about a lost job in a family, something that was completely unanticipated.

Mr. Speaker, at this time when our Nation's leaders are meeting in a bipartisan way with the White House, the leaders here in the Congress, the folks at Treasury, listening to experts from all around the country and listening to everyday, average Americans weigh in on this emergency situation, I think it is very important that all of our colleagues hear the American people.

If you vote for this rule and the underlying bill, I think everyone here can prove that they are listening and hear the American people and understand their struggles today, understand that they have lost jobs. And that's what this package will provide--jobs, jobs, jobs. We are going to expedite infrastructure projects across the country, bridge building, road building, put a lot of these folks that have been put out of work in the construction sector back to work.

Health care, health care services for our children and for our seniors that do not have any place else to turn. Hear the American people, hear their voices. It is not just health care for those children and the seniors that have nowhere else to turn, but it takes the burden off all the rest who are paying higher copays and higher premiums. They won't have to pick up that tab that is being put upon them unfairly because everyone is going to the emergency room for primary care. Hear the American people.

I think that most of the Nation's leaders are taking this very seriously. They are meeting right now to address the emergency. But part of the emergency response must be carving a modest sliver directly for people at home.

At the beginning of the week, the administration came with a 2\1/2\ page proposal for $700 billion. People got to work. Everyone understood that was unreasonable. You can't give a blank check. So they went back to the drawing board and ratcheted it back, and they keep working on it. But think about it, $700 billion that a lot of experts thought was okay for Wall Street, largely; and what we are asking for here is $60 billion for families, for jobs, for health care for kids and our seniors, to give breathing room for unemployment compensation for a few more weeks to, hopefully, get them through this emergency.

I really do appreciate the White House's response to this because yesterday after their meeting, they did not rule out this stimulus package. They don't like what the Senate is doing. It is a little different there, but this is serious business. Do you hear the American people?

It is our moral imperative at this time of emergency to hear the American people. Now, most of us weren't around during the Great Depression, but I know there are many people who are students of history and love to read about FDR and how he handled that crisis. Hopefully we are not there yet. Hopefully these times are not as dire as the times that I heard about from my parents and grandparents.

But let's act now to ensure that we do not face such hard times.

Mr. Speaker, do you hear the American people? Do you hear what they are saying about their retirement accounts? Do you hear what they are saying about their saving for college for their kids?

I hope all of our colleagues hear the American people, support this rule, support this job creation and infrastructure investment package. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. Over 50 percent of the American people believe that we should now begin a reduction of our troops.

As I listened here on the floor of the house, and I listened to my good friends on the other side of the aisle claiming the me-me's and the I-I's, I hear no one talking about victory.

Victory in what sense? So that we can pound our chests and brag about what this Congress and this President has done?

We're talking about lives here. We're talking about lives. And I am sick and tired of listening to people bragging about who can claim a victory.

Well, my belief is that the soldiers on the battlefield, the most deadliest year that we've ever had, 2006, we buried more than we could ever imagine. Those soldiers have already claimed victory. They took Fallujah. They took Baghdad.

And my concern is why have we not championed the victory of those soldiers? Why haven't we welcomed them home, given them accolades because they have been victorious?

Someone on the other side has not read this bill. This bill allows for a redeployment in an orderly manner, and it demands that the President use these dollars to redeploy.

I am not going to trample on the graves of dead soldiers and continue a war that has no end. That government has the ability in Iraq to diplomatically deal with democracy. We have died so they can deal with democracy.

It is time to end this war now and to bring our soldiers home with the dignity and victory they deserve.

Right now, in the Nation's hospitals, we are seeing the results of his victory. We are seeing soldiers with brain injury, soldiers with no limbs. And we have a broken health care system that can't even address the question of those soldiers with posttraumatic stress brain injury and otherwise.

My voice is gone, but I am tired of this question of victory because I believe, and I have a bill, and I ask my good friend from California to join it, the Military Success Act of 2007 that chronicles the victories of our soldiers.

We can bring them home with dignity. I am not going to tolerate one more dead body. And it is time to end this war and end it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Obey. I would like to thank him for his ongoing leadership as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and on this important issue in particular.

The legislation we are considering today provides our troops with the resources they need, but it does not give the President the blank check he has asked for to fund an endless combat operation in Iraq. Instead of his additional $200 billion, we are considering a $50 billion package, which institutes a redeployment timeline, as well as other critical directives designed to transition our role in Iraq and bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, the funds provided by this legislation are, crucially, tied to a requirement for the immediate start of the redeployment of U.S. forces. It sets December 15, 2008, as the target date for the completion of the redeployment, and requires redeployment to begin within 30 days of enactment.

As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

For this reason, I extremely please to have worked with the Democratic leadership to include language recognizing the extraordinary achievements of our men and women in uniform. Paragraph 2 of Title I reads, ``the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they come home, their service should be recognized appropriately.'' I believe that the inclusion of this language makes it clear that we are proud of the accomplishments of our troops, and we look forward to commending them as they return safely home.

I also worked with the Leadership to include the language in Paragraph 3 of Title 1. This paragraph reads, ``the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or prolong the war.'' This language makes explicit that this legislation is providing funding for the safe and responsible redeployment of our troops, not for the continuation of combat operations.

This legislation protects our troops, by providing them with the funding they need to safely and successfully redeploy from Iraq. It also prohibits the deployment of forces to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped. In addition, this legislation includes an extension to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current prohibition in the Army Field Manual against the use of certain interrogation techniques.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains important language that changes the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to diplomatic and force protection, targeted counterterrorism operations, and limited support to Iraqi security forces. I firmly believe that we must make diplomacy and statecraft tools of the first, rather than the last, resort. We must seek constructive engagement with Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of the international community, as we work to bring resolution to this calamitous conflict that has already gone on far too long.

Because of my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4020, with the support of a number of my colleagues, entitled the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007.'' This legislation recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation from a grateful Nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we have already expended 3,500 American lives and $400 billion in taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We have occupied the country for over 4 years. And our President continues to push a strategy devoid of clear direction and visible targets, while rejecting congressional calls to solidify an exit strategy.

Last November, the American people clearly stated that they did not want to see an endless conflict in Iraq; they went to the polls and elected a new, Democratic Congress to lead our Nation out of Iraq. I am proud to be a member of the Congressional class that listens and adheres to the will of the American people, as we did when both houses of Congress approved Iraq Supplemental bills that instituted a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. We need a new direction, because we owe our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.

This Congress will not, as the previous, Republican, Congress did, continue to rubber stamp what we believe to be an ill-conceived war. As we continue to receive reports on the situation in Iraq, it is important that we continue to look forward, to the future of Iraq beyond a U.S. military occupation.

Despite the multitude of mistakes perpetrated by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in administering a democratic election and electing a democratic government. However, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush Administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Our Nation has already paid a heavy price in Iraq. Over 3,810 American soldiers have died. In addition, more than 27,660 have been wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent in American history. In addition, the United States is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10 billion a month translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per hour, $228,938 per minute, and $3,816 per second.

For this huge sum of money, we could have repaired the more than 70,000 bridges across America rated structurally deficient, $188 billion, potentially averting the tragedy that occurred August 1 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We could have rebuilt the levees in New Orleans, $50 billion, protecting that city from future hurricanes that could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the city. We could have provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable communication equipment, $10 billion, allowing them to effectively communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years, $3.6 billion. And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children in Head Start programs, $10 billion. Instead of funding increased death and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer dollars on important progress here at home.

The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, has recently heard a string of reports from military and civilian officials about the political, military, social, and economic situation in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, informed the Congress that the Iraqi government has met only 3 of the 18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi Government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country.

President Bush rationalized his surge, over opposition by myself and other House Democrats, by arguing it would give the Iraqi government ``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas,'' bringing about reconciliation between warring factions, Sunni and Shia. However, non-partisan assessments, such as last week's GAO report, have illustrated that escalating U.S. military involvement in Iraq is instead hindering that nation's ability to move beyond the devastation of war and death, to build a successful new government, and to create a stable and secure environment. In the 7 months since the surge began, increased American military presence has not been able to end the relentless cycles of sectarian violence that continue to plague Iraq. Nor have larger numbers of U.S. troops been successful in unifying and strengthening the Iraqi Government.

Instead, the security situation continues to deteriorate. Sectarian violence remains high, and even the Bush administration has noted the unsatisfactory progress toward political reconciliation. The Sunni-led insurgency continues, with insurgents conducting increasingly complex and well-coordinated attacks. The August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate cited ongoing violence, stating, ``the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remain high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.'' The report went on to note that al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQI, ``retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks,'' and ``Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively.''

The ever-increasing sectarian violence is causing immense daily challenges for Iraqis. Millions have been displaced, and an Iraqi Red Crescent Organization has reported an increase of nearly 630,000 internally displaced persons from February 2007 to July 2007. The same organization predicts an additional 80,000 to 100,000 persons are displaced each month. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis are now refugees, with an additional 40,000 to 50,000 fleeing to neighboring countries each month. Iraq has become a humanitarian disaster, and one that continues to get worse every day.

The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops, it is unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi Government.

In addition, evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S. military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice. Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of his choice in Iraq.

The former Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, share this view. In a recent op-ed, Kean and Hamilton note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It

has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.''

Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for some time now, advocated for congressional legislation declaring a military victory in Iraq, and recognizing the success of our military. Our brave troops have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge.

Democrats in Congress will not continue to rubber stamp the President's ill-conceived war effort. Last November, the American people spoke loudly and clearly, demanding a new direction to U.S. foreign policy, and we here in Congress are committed to seeing that change be brought about. We are working to see the extensive funds currently being spent to sustain the war in Iraq go to important domestic programs and to securing our homeland against real and imminent threats.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been given numerous chances and ample time by the American people and the Congress to straighten out the mess in Iraq. They have failed. It is pure fantasy to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill- advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military engagement is not bringing about the desired results.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides our brave soldiers in Iraq with the resources they need, while requiring that the President begin to redeploy our troops. It keeps our soldiers safe, and it keeps our Nation safe. By bringing an end to this conflict, this Democratic Congress is making significant strides forward toward protecting and securing America.

I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting today's legislation, and in giving the troops the resources they need to safely redeploy from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to manage the time on behalf of the opposition since I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure glad my friend, the chairman of Judiciary, sought time for people to revise and extend their remarks, because they are going to need it. This thing keeps changing. I mean, I reviewed this bill last week. I spent a long time going line by line, only to find yesterday there's still a new version, and today I was provided a 98-page bill. I can't tell you the pages of the issues that I am most concerned about because the version keeps changing.

Now, this bill includes $330 million in authorizations. Normally, suspensions

are noncontroversial, but the fact that this bill keeps changing is absolute evidence that this is not noncontroversial. It keeps changing because people can't figure out what is the best thing to do.

I would submit there is a good reason for that. The bill that this seeks to renew and programs that are sought to be renewed are ones we don't have information on how successful they were, and that was the original purpose of this bill. Back when it expired in 2005, we still did not have the information on what worked and what didn't.

I can tell you from my days as a judge, there was some anecdotal evidence that it looked like faith-based programs did a better job of dramatically reducing recidivism. In one case I was shown results from a prison in Texas where it dropped down to about 8 percent from over 80 percent because of faith-based programs and mentoring.

This new version, I haven't even been through it. I haven't had time to go through it. But the one that I saw and reviewed on Friday, it included reentry programs allowing payment for housing and health care. I know our military members who are leaving after less than 20 years in the service with honorable discharges would love to have that kind of help reentering.

There are some provisions that allow for too much administration, in my opinion; 11 percent at one point, 15 percent at another. That is not going to help people. That is going to build a bigger bureaucracy.

Dismissing all charges if someone completes drug rehab under another provision I think is outrageous. You are going to remove the hammer that would allow you to keep people in line? It is one thing to say we are going to remove you and not have you go to prison and instead send you to drug rehab, and then if you get through there, before you have a chance to go out and do cocaine again, we are going to drop all charges so we have no hammer over your head. I don't know if this is in the final bill. It was in there last I saw on Friday.

There is a provision that allows payments through the Department of Labor for support. There are military members, and I went to another funeral Saturday, a gentleman who was not killed in Iraq, he was killed during surgery, but I know his family would love to have the kind of support being provided in here for felons.

We also have a provision in here, we are going to pay people through these grants to teach inmates how they can go about getting the most welfare before they leave prison and go out on their own. There is also a provision that moves inmates to home detention without approval of the judge who sentenced the individual.

In this bill, the elderly, for purposes of moving to home detention, is defined as 65. I guess apparently under this bill, without any underlying evidence or research to support it, we have arbitrarily picked 65 as deciding that is when people are harmless. But I know from my own experience around this Chamber, there are people in Congress that are 65 or older that are certainly not harmless. In any event, I think that is a little bit too young to classify people as harmless.

There is a provision that assistance will be provided by the United States probation system and it ``shall'' be done. I don't know, I can't find from the bill what kind of assistance that will be. But I think we have all got the same goal. I think one of the worst atrocities in the justice system has been our lack of rehabilitating and educating and preparing people to go out into the world and become productive citizens and finally reach the God-given potential that every one of them has. I couldn't agree more with the proposition, and I know that is the heart of my colleagues across the aisle. But we don't have the information on which programs are successful and which aren't.

I want to work together on a program. I've kind of been cut out of this process. The National Summit on Prisoner Reentry is coming up in Los Angeles on November 27 and 28, but we are going to rush this through on a suspension bill for $330 million without even having a chance to really review the most recent document.

Yes, I will be glad to yield, and if you can show that we have gotten the recent version----

Claiming back my time, I am not yielding for you to criticize me.

I appreciate yielding to the gentlelady to come down and call me outrageous. But what is outrageous is this process, this process of taking something so important and rushing it in here without having the proper input and the proper information. The National Institute of Justice has got their biggest study program in its history ongoing, and we don't have the results, and yet my colleagues want to rush in and throw $330 million at a process that is unproven and untried.

I just don't think that is the way to go. We have got honest people involved in the process, but the process itself here has not been honest.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

Was there no version of the bill filed today? Was there no version of the Second Chance Act filed today?

Thank you.

May I inquire how much time I've got.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing would please me more than to be involved in the process of constructively working on these issues. When I think about the gentlelady saying that my comments were outrageous, everything that I have said is documented. Everything I have said comes from reading through this bill, as well as my own experience from my days of being a judge.

I wholeheartedly agree, we should do a better job of rehabilitating and educating. In fact, I just get concerned when we get so anxious to try to do something good that we end up throwing money at a problem just so we can say we worked on it, something had to be done.

But it was the National Institute of Justice Award to RTI International, a nonprofit research organization, to evaluate the programs funded by the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. This is one of the largest evaluation studies funded by the NIJ, and it is doing this research. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization in D.C., is the collaborator on the project. I am really looking forward to getting that information. I am wondering why we throw more money at a situation before we get the information that tells me how and tells us how to be most effective?

When my good friend the chairman, and I do think the world of him, talks about comity and goodwill, that is what I would love to have. But when we have such trouble getting copies of the latest versions, and then the chairman says, gee, I had the latest version on Friday, I was notified by the committee staff that there was a new version as of yesterday and then the new version was filed today. So, I didn't have everything Friday. That has been one of the problems here. This is too important of an issue to just be throwing good money after bad.

I would also point out that in the interests of comity and goodwill, the bills that follow this, H.R. 3845, PROTECT Our Children Act of 2007, I indicated before that sounded like something I would want to be part of and helping with, but we never did get a final version that we could say, yes, I want to cosponsor that.

Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 sounds like another good bill, but we haven't seen it. And talking to the Judiciary staff, that and the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, H.R. 4120, that follows that, we are still trying to get updated versions of those things. So that doesn't sound to me like comity and goodwill, when we are struggling over here to even get copies.

We don't know what requests had been granted. There were things requested by the Department of Justice, in the interest of justice, please get these provisions put in this bill. We don't know what was put in and what wasn't. That, to me, does not indicate comity and goodwill. It creates all kinds of problems.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I am not sure which four things the chairman is referring to.

I thank the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I have been over here in the 20 minutes or so before I came up to speak talking to Judiciary staff who, unless they are changing their story now, have not been able to get the latest information on this bill. Well, they have got it on this bill. We have the final copy. I haven't had a chance to review it since it has been filed today. Most of us were out doing what we should have been doing yesterday, paying tribute to veterans all over our districts. But these subsequent bills, these are still a problem that I have been having with the Second Chance Act, getting the latest information on this.

My dear friend, Mr. Coble, we serve together on the Judiciary, had asked for time, and at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We heard moments ago that there are 212 organizations supporting the bill. I have talked to many of them over the course of our discussions on the Second Chance Act, great, noble, wonderful organizations. I couldn't find but one out of numerous ones that I talked to that actually read the bill. They all have the same goals. They all want to see adequate education and rehabilitation, cutting down on recidivism. We all want to see that. I want to see that. I think we have got to do that as a civilized society. There are many that support this goal. But, again, many haven't seen the bill.

And I have checked with the staff in the interim. For example, H.R. 719 is file-stamped November 13 at 1:11 today, and the Judiciary got it for the first time just before 3 p.m. so that you know.

But if we really want to help the situation, doesn't it make sense to get the information on one of the biggest-funded programs NIJ has ever had so we put the money where it works and take it away from where it doesn't work?

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the chairman's comment, I would have to say I noticed in reviewing the bill on Friday, it is a better bill than it was, in my opinion; but we still have a little ways to go. That is why I just think this is a bill in its present form, as it continues to morph, that should not be on the Suspension Calendar, but should come up under a regular rule where we have a chance to work on these other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so the gentleman from Michigan has the time to respond.

I appreciate the chairman yielding. I think we are getting closer, actually.

I would like to see the information that is being prepared to come forth on November 27 and 28, the newest information that is being brought to bear, all of these groups coming together. I would think then by December we ought to be able to have something.

Might I inquire, I don't have any other speakers, if I can find out where the chairman is with regard to additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate Mrs. Tubbs Jones' comments. And I guess calling me or my comments outrageous was somewhat offensive, but as an old judge I was used to that. In fact, I have been called all kinds of names.

And, yes, even 2 days ago when I was buying some potting soil back home, I had a guy come up to me with his father and said if it were not for me, he would never have straightened his life up.

Those are not uncommon comments. And what it came from was being fair, but also having tough love. Because, as those who have been involved in dealing with people who have been addicted to drugs or alcohol, it does take tough love. And you do want to help them get out of the cycle rather than becoming an enabler. And that is my number one concern, is that we do not want to be enablers.

And when we talk about Scripture, absolutely, there are all kinds of verses that apply to us for those that believe the teachings of Jesus as I do. They are entirely appropriate. Those are directed to individuals. If you get over to Romans 13, that is directed to the government. And where it says if you do evil, you need to be afraid, because God does not give the government the sword in vain, that is part of the role of government; if you do evil, then there are consequences.

But it is a worthy goal to want to try to stop the cycle of recidivism. We all, I think, want that. No, I don't think; I know, we all want that same goal. But I am very concerned that we may be enabling by throwing money at a problem.

One of the saddest words and lines I ever heard came at a hearing when the wealthiest people in my home county, they had the courtroom packed so that they were hoping that I would put her on probation yet again, and they knew she had had it too many times and it wasn't going to happen under me. And it didn't. And it turns out she had a huge trust fund every month. She never had to work, she never had to study, and she had spent all her money on drugs. And the last thing she said before I sentenced her was, ``I wish somebody had told me `no' before today and meant it.''

She has now gotten out. Her mother, when I was walking neighborhoods, I went up to her door and her mother said, ``Come in and sit down.'' She said, ``You know, my husband and I just hated you at one point, but you saved our daughter's life.''

Sometimes it is the tough love things that turn things around. We want the same goal. I don't want to throw good money after bad in renewed programs that shouldn't be. And I hope that if this fails on suspension, we can get the new data that is going to be forthcoming and work toward the same goal with additional, more helpful information.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.