To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking of any decennial census of population, a checkbox or other similar option be included so that respondents may indicate Caribbean extraction or descent.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The fourth time for this bill on the floor is not the charm. This continues the process of bringing badly thought through, badly formed legislation on intel to the floor of the House of Representatives.

This is the fourth rule that we've considered this year as we've gone through this process. It is interesting that this bill is titled the fiscal year 2010 authorization. It's September 29. Tomorrow is September 30. Maybe the President will sign this bill if we pass it tonight, meaning that much of the bill will be meaningless, or only in effect for 6 to 8 hours, maybe 10.

This bill, I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, even has a classified annex. It was the one thing that we agreed on, on a bipartisan basis, as to how funding for the bill, or for the intelligence community and different agencies within the intelligence community, at what level they would be funded. Again, it's one part where we had bipartisan agreement. It's gone. We're now just authorizing the expenditures as done through the appropriations committee. Members have no time to review the classified annex. There was no classified annex outlining these specific appropriations levels by different organizations within the intelligence community. Nothing for the Members to review.

The notifications, it's a fig leaf. It says the administration still shall determine who shall be informed of what and when.

We had stronger language before, accepted on a bipartisan basis. Now all the administration has to do is notify other people that the Gang of Four or the Gang of Eight has been notified of certain information, but they don't have to disclose. They have to outline why, but there is no requirement for more complete exposure.

It is a fig leaf that may serve as a justification for dealing with a complaint that was made by the Speaker of the House in May of 2009. The Speaker of this House said the CIA ``misleads us all the time.'' You know, we've asked for more of an explanation on that. The chairman of the committee and the chairwoman of the subcommittee in October 2009 said that they were going to do a notification and a covert action investigation--as far as I can tell, it has never happened, and it is not complete after almost a year now--to find out if there were problems with notification and if it were true that, as the Speaker claimed, the CIA misleads us all the time. So, in one way, we are providing something that may serve in dealing with this allegation by the Speaker.

At the same time, we have CIA employees around the world who did what the administration asked them to do and what previous administrations notified Congress they were doing about what they were going to do to keep America safe. They notified, and took Congress through that in great detail. The people went through that notification process in great detail, understanding that, when they left, if the administration had had a problem with it, they ought to have stood up and said, ``We've got issues with these, and we need to work through them.'' Instead, there was either silence or affirmation that what the CIA and what these individuals within the CIA were doing was appropriate, was necessary and was supported by the political leadership of this Nation as being their best intent to keep us safe.

So, while this bill may serve to provide some people with political cover, it does nothing to protect the CIA employees who now, for the third time, are under review by the Justice Department as to whether they should be prosecuted for doing what the political leadership of this country asked them to do.

Where is the equality? Where is the fairness? How does this serve our national interest by allowing these people to continue to be hung out, facing possible prosecution? It is wrong. It is inappropriate. It should have been dealt with in this bill.

I will detail a number of other issues that also need to be dealt with, but at this point in time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

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

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that people talk about, we are bringing fiscal responsibility back to the Intelligence Committee. There's not even a classified annex which outlines the spending that this committee believes each of the agencies should have for running their operations for fiscal year 2010. As I said earlier, that's one area where we had bipartisan agreement. That's been taken out. That's gone. We are not providing any type of fiscal direction to the intelligence community by telling them what we believe our priorities are.

The other interesting thing, as we go through this process, is that in the bill 2 years ago, we had a bipartisan vote on the floor. We adopted an amendment that I offered to prohibit the use of authorized funds for earmark purposes. As you take a look here, we've authorized everything that the Appropriations Committee has done. What has the Appropriations Committee done? Lots of earmarks in the intelligence bill.

I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, let's talk about what should have been in this bill and what this bill does do and what it doesn't do.

We all know that the face of terrorism is changing. We have seen Fort

Hood, we have seen the attempted attack in Detroit, we have seen the attempted attack at Times Square. We know that terrorism is changing.

This bill is based on the past. There were reports that came out after these attacks and attempted attacks on the United States outlining changes that they thought needed to be made. As terrorism changed, intelligence policies needed to change as well.

The recommendations included improving the systems that deal with information, information sharing, terrorist screening, watch lists, watch list criteria, and those types of things. That's not dealt with in this bill. It is on the sidelines, even though the threat has evolved.

My colleagues have clearly articulated that, by doing nothing, we now open the possibility for Gitmo folks to come to the United States. We open the possibility and the likelihood that once again terror suspects overseas will be Mirandized.

Where is there a provision in this bill that would regulate covert actions that may impact U.S. citizens? Where is the bipartisan part of this bill, the classified annex, the part that we did agree? It was tossed.

Why wasn't there a conference on this bill? Why couldn't we go and have a meaningful discussion and debate involving all the parties about what would make a good intelligence bill?

When did Members meet to discuss the bipartisan agreement that has been claimed in the Senate amendment? They didn't meet. This is a short-circuited process that didn't address and doesn't address the top issues that needed to be addressed to keep America safe.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There aren't a lot of things in this bill. The chairman is absolutely right. Lots of things that should be in this bill. There should be a classified annex. There should be something that outlines our committee's response to what many believe are actions that are being carried out by the government through covert means that affect Americans overseas. This committee should take a stand on that position or on that issue.

This committee should take a stand on Mirandizing. This committee should take a stand on Gitmo. This committee should take a stand on the things that groups who have taken a look at what is happening to terrorism and have recommended changes that be made to keep America safe. And that is a reason why we are opposed to this bill.

We know what is in the bill, and we know what is not. The things that would keep America safe and safer in a changing environment are not in this bill.

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the committee. I am disappointed that we did not get to agreement on this bill and that we are at different places on what is a very important piece of legislation to keep America safe.

I wish you the best in your future in Congress, as I leave this institution and as I leave the House Intelligence Committee. It has been a great honor to serve on this committee and do the work that we have tried to do to keep America safe.

You know, there are things that I wish we would have gotten done as we structured this bill that would have enabled us to move forward in a bipartisan basis.

There have been a number of investigations, beginning in 2007 dealing with the tapes investigation, dealing with detention, dealing with interrogation. I wish those investigations had been completed and reports would have been issued, and that we would have used the findings of those reports and those investigations to improve this bill.

I wish that we would have continued to move forward in a way that, a few years ago, in a bipartisan basis, this House said we are not going to put earmarks into intelligence bills.

I wish that we as a committee would have taken a position in repudiating a position that the President of the United States took soon after he assumed office which said he was going to close Gitmo and move the detainees from Guantanamo, move them into the United States. I wish we had said in this bill that we would have continued that prohibition on moving and expending any funds for moving people from Guantanamo into the United States. That is now an open question as to whether that may or may not happen.

I wish that in this bill we would have taken a position and said that it is inappropriate to Mirandize terrorists captured overseas, in many ways, I believe, giving them more legal rights than what we give to our own employees of the CIA.

CIA employees that do face perhaps the possibility of being prosecuted, I wish we would have said in this bill, these people have been investigated twice, they did what the leadership and the political leadership of this country asked them to do, and we will now protect them and say no, no funds will be used to prosecute them for the things that leadership in the United States of America asked them to do to keep us safe.

I wish we would have clearly said that we repudiate the policy of this administration where they for a period of time said, ``We are not going to use the word `terrorism' anymore. We are going to wipe the slate clean, and we are not going to use that language. We are now going to call terrorism `manmade disasters.' ''

We all know that if you don't correctly identify the threat that you face, you will never be able to contain it, confront it, and defeat it.

I wish that we would have taken a strong position in this bill in response to what happened at Fort Hood. Remember at Fort Hood, for months after the attack at Fort Hood, where 14 Americans were brutally murdered, this administration refused to recognize that this might be related to terrorism or the threats that we face from overseas.

We now know that in this and other terrorist attacks, as this face of terrorism changes, that in Fort Hood and other instances, Anwar al- Awlaki, associated with al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, played a part. We maybe don't know exactly how big of a part, but whether it was Fort Hood, whether it was the Christmas Day attack or what happened at Times Square, al-Awlaki may have been involved in some if not all of these attacks, and we know that al-Awlaki, bin Laden and all of these individuals continue to plan attacks against the U.S., against our allies in Europe, and against other friends around the planet.

These are all things that needed to be done in this bill. These are all things that needed to be done if we were going to keep America safer.

Right now, we all see and read about the fact that there is heightened awareness of threats, a heightened threat alert in Europe and in the United States, because we sense that there is an urgency by the radical jihadists to attack the West and to attack them again. This bill needed to meet that standard of addressing a changing environment, a changing threat level.

We see that happening. And my fear is that sometime in the future people are going to say Congress came up short. They didn't connect the dots one more time. They didn't connect the dots of threats coming out of Pakistan, coming out of Somalia, coming out of northern Africa, coming out of the Arabian peninsula. They didn't clearly understand the changing face of terrorism. They didn't learn the lessons from Fort Hood. They didn't learn the lessons from Christmas Day. They didn't learn the lessons from Times Square. Because the people who investigated those said, These are the types of things that we need to do to keep

America safe. And as we close out a fiscal year, Congress acted; but it didn't act on the lessons learned. Why didn't they act? Didn't they really have all the knowledge? Didn't they really connect the dots? I think we have the information. We could have connected the dots better. We needed to connect the dots better because each and every day the threats that we face change and adapt.

The challenge that we have as a Nation, that we have as an intelligence community is to design an intelligence community, to design an intelligence capability that is one step ahead of the challenges that we face, not one or two steps behind. The face of terrorism is changing. This bill doesn't put us out in front of dealing with those threats. It leaves us behind. That's why I am disappointed in this bill. That's why I am voting ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' because we need to do better than what is in this bill.

Having a bill with no classified annex providing no direction is not an authorization bill. Much more needs to be done. I wish and I hope that we can send this bill back, vote it down and improve it, and do what this country needs and what this country demands from us to keep America safe.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to note for the Record my specific objections in several respects with the Fiscal Year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act ``agreement'' that was passed by the Senate and agreed to by the Administration based on a Staff draft, and that now may come before the House just two days before the end of that fiscal year after repeated delays. The bill is completely unnecessary and moot for the purposes of authorizing intelligence activity; it instead appears intended to force through several controversial provisions as the House approaches a ``lame duck'' session.

While I have repeatedly raised our broader concerns with respect to this legislation in the House and in our formal Minority Views, I felt it important to memorialize what we believe are significant shortcomings and flaws in the current bill, especially with provisions that were not previously included in the House bill. I do not believe that this bill in its current form addresses a number of critical national security issues, and in many respects would fail to empower our intelligence professionals and create significant and unnecessary new bureaucracy and politicization of the intelligence community.

Most significantly, we are concerned with the absence of provisions to address the following critical issues:

Earmarks: The bill removes language from a previous

Republican amendment to prohibit the use of funds authorized

in the bill for any earmarked purpose, and effectively

authorizes earmarks of the Appropriations Committee.

Covert Action Authorities: The bill does nothing to provide

safeguards for certain covert action activities that could

impact U.S. citizens.

Intelligence Flaws Revealed After Fort Hood Shooting: The

bill contains no substantive provisions to address critical

information sharing flaws brought to light in the aftermath

of the Fort Hood shooting.

Interrogation of High Value Detainees: The bill contains no

substantive provisions to make intelligence collection a

priority in the interrogation of high value detainees, or to

address the complete lack of coordinated decisionmaking with

respect to interrogation of high value detainees.

FISA Authorities: The bill does nothing to provide

critically needed clarification of authorities under the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Guantanamo Detainees: The bill contains no outright

prohibition on using intelligence funds to bring Guantanamo

Bay detainees into the United States, or to prohibit secret

payments to foreign countries using intelligence funds to

accept Guantanamo Bay detainees. The conference agreement

also omits a Republican amendment--agreed to on a bipartisan

basis--to evaluate potential threats from released Uighur

detainees.

Administration of Miranda Warnings: The bill omits a

Republican amendment--supported on a bipartisan basis in the

Committee and in the House--to prohibit giving Miranda

warnings to foreign terrorist suspects in foreign countries

in order to protect intelligence collection.

In addition, I have concerns with several provisions of the bill that we believe are seriously flawed in several different respects. A number of these provisions are inconsistent with the letter or the spirit of bipartisan agreements reached in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I believe a number of provisions would unduly and unwisely further grow the intelligence bureaucracy. I believe that other provisions would impinge on the smooth operation of the intelligence community, and that others would interfere with efficient and centralized intelligence oversight as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Other objectionable provisions do not appear to have been fully or adequately justified, some with potentially significant consequences. The objectionable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

Contractor Conversion: While I support appropriate review

of the size and nature of the contractor workforce, Section

103 of the bill would provide unlimited authority to add an

unlimited number of employees, regardless of any other

statutory limitation. This is inconsistent with bipartisan

agreements in the House Intelligence Committee with respect

to limiting the size of the ODNI.

``A not A'' Funds: Section 101 of the bill would deem any

appropriated but unauthorized funding to be authorized. This

provision fundamentally cedes the authorization prerogatives

of the Intelligence Committees to the Appropriations

Committees, and virtually renders moot bipartisan agreements

on the funding authorizations contained in the classified

annex.

No Classified Annex: The bill omits the classified annex

that provides the specific direction to the intelligence

community on the conduct of operations and the permissible

uses of funds, which had been negotiated on a bipartisan

basis.

Unlimited Increases in Employee Compensation: Section 301

of the bill would allow unlimited increases to pay and

benefit authorization for any increases authorized by law.

Such unrestricted authority effectively renders moot specific

authorization levels elsewhere and can be used by the ODNI to

circumvent such restrictions for additional unapproved

growth. Similarly, Section 303 would permit the DNI to

authorize technically unlimited pay for specific positions at

his sole discretion. I am not aware of any demonstrated need

for such extraordinary authority.

Award of SIS Rank: Section 304 of the bill would permit the

Director of National Intelligence to recommend that the

President directly award Senior Intelligence Service rank to

employees across the intelligence community. This would

directly involve the DNI in specific agency personnel matters

contrary to the intent of the IRTPA and may foster cronyism

and non-merit based promotions of intelligence community

personnel.

Temporary Personnel Authorizations for Critical Language

Training: Section 306 of the bill would exempt up to 100 ODNI

personnel from personnel caps for the purposes of language

training. Given the widespread prevalence of persons

receiving foreign language training in the intelligence

community, I believe this is a thinly veiled authorization to

circumvent existing personnel caps, again inconsistent with

the intended size and scope of the ODNI and bipartisan

agreements within the House Committee on personnel levels

within the ODNI.

Education Programs: Sections 311 through 314 of the bill

would create or modify a number of education programs in the

intelligence community. While I do not necessarily oppose any

of these programs, I do not believe that these provisions--

most of them permanent--have been adequately explained or

justified. I note that previous versions of the bill would

have required a study to review and justify such programs,

which suggests that others share our concerns that these

programs have not yet been fully reviewed. For that provision

to be dropped in lieu of outright authorization makes little

sense in light of the implicit acknowledgment that further

study is needed.

Business System Transformation: Section 322 of the bill

would require the DNI to ``develop and implement'' (rather

than coordinate) an enterprise architecture to ``cover all

intelligence community business systems''. I believe this

provision is inconsistent with the role and scope of the ODNI

contemplated in the IRTPA.

IP Funded Acquisitions: Section 326 of the bill authorizes

the DNI to delegate certain acquisition authorities within

the intelligence community. This provision is inconsistent

with the express agreement reached in the IRTPA conference

not to permit such delegation.

Congressional Notification: Section 331 of the bill

continues to cede sole authority to the President to

determine which members of the congressional intelligence

committees would receive briefings on particularly sensitive

intelligence matters. This provision is inconsistent with

previous bipartisan agreements reached in the House

Committee, and fails entirely to protect the Constitutional

prerogative of the Congress to make its own rules of

proceedings. It would have little meaningful effect and

appears to provide political cover at the expense of real

reform in this critical area.

GAO Review: Section 348 of the bill also contains a

provision that requires the Executive Branch to promulgate

guidelines for dealing with GAO reviews of intelligence

community programs. I believe that this provision is unwise

for a number of reasons. Most notably, it potentially cedes

significant elements of the traditional oversight role of the

intelligence committees to the GAO and potentially to other

Committees of the Congress, and it fails to adequately

protect the security and dissemination of classified work

product under the same terms as the Committee rules. In

addition, this specific provision cedes to the Executive

Branch and the Comptroller General the determination of how

to manage GAO inquiries that should be directed by Members of

Congress.

Report on Intelligence Community Contractors: Section 339

of the bill would improperly require reports on sensitive

intelligence collection matters--including covert action

programs--to be provided to the Armed Services committees,

contrary to the Rules of the House. Several other provisions

of the bill also require reports on intelligence matters to

be submitted to Committees that may not have jurisdiction

over the material to be reported on.

Reprogramming Standard: Section 362 of the bill would

modify the reprogramming standard for intelligence activities

in a manner that would render it virtually meaningless. This

change is contrary to the express

bipartisan agreement reached in the Intelligence Reform and

Terrorism Prevention Act conference.

Declassification of Intelligence Budget Topline: Section

364 provides for permanent declassification of the

intelligence budget topline. This provision serves no

demonstrable intelligence purpose, and is contrary to the

express bipartisan agreement reached in the Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act conference.

Review Authority of the Public Interest Declassification

Board: Section 365 would allow any individual member of

certain committees to request declassification review of

certain records. This provision is contrary to the express

bipartisan agreement reached in the Intelligence Reform and

Terrorism Prevention Act conference to restrict such

requests.

Accountability Reviews: Section 401 of the bill would

authorize the DNI or the congressional intelligence

committees to directly conduct or request accountability

reviews of individual intelligence community personnel. This

provision would involve the DNI in individual personnel

matters within intelligence agencies in a manner inconsistent

with the authorities contemplated in the IRTPA.

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community: While I do

not necessarily oppose the concept of greater coordination by

the DNI of intelligence community inspectors general, Section

405 of the bill is a massive and unduly prescriptive

provision that is inconsistent with the contemplated size and

scope of the ODNI and in many respects duplicates existing

oversight by Department inspectors general.

Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency:

Similarly, I have significant concern that Section 425 of the

bill is unduly prescriptive and burdensome with respect to

the organization and management of the office of the

Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Defense Inspector General Matters: Section 431 of the bill

would authorize the Secretary of Defense to prohibit certain

inspector general reviews of intelligence matters within the

intelligence community. I see no apparent justification for

this provision, which we believe could potentially interfere

with the independence of the intelligence community and may

be inconsistent with the intention of the IRTPA.

Confirmation of Heads of Certain Components of the

Intelligence Community: Section 432 of the bill would require

Senate confirmation of the heads of certain IC agencies. This

provision threatens to politicize such positions, which are

often held by career military officers, and could impede the

efficient functioning of these agencies in times of vacancy.

FBI Relocation and Retention Bonuses: Section 443 of the

bill would provide certain authorities relating to relocation

and retention bonuses for the entire Federal Bureau of

Investigation--not just employees funded by the National

Intelligence Program. Such a broad provision is outside the

Committee's jurisdiction, has not been justified to the

Committee, and has not been reviewed for consistency across

the Intelligence Community and federal law enforcement. While

I strongly support line personnel of the FBI, we believe that

this provision must be more carefully reviewed and harmonized

with personnel practices in other intelligence and law

enforcement agencies. Similarly, we believe that section 444,

which extends authority to delay certain FBI mandatory

retirements must be better reviewed, especially for its

implications for federal law enforcement retirement, which is

intended to promote a young and vigorous workforce and should

be applied consistently across federal law enforcement

agencies.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1674, I call up the bill (H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

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

I am proud to rise today in support of my motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

This bill has been a long time coming. It has been almost 6 years since an intelligence authorization bill has been signed into law. Year after year, the intelligence committees have marked up authorization bills and tried to get them enacted. And year after year, these efforts have fallen short.

Authorization bills are critical to the smooth functioning of the intelligence community. We face innovative and aggressive adversaries, and the intelligence community needs the flexibility to adapt. But the authorities and institutions of the intelligence community are, to a large extent, set by statute. Only acts of Congress--traditionally in the form of authorization bills--can give the community the tools it needs to keep America safe.

Most intelligence activities are, by necessity, shielded from public scrutiny. Congress has an obligation to ensure that the activities of the intelligence community are legal, effective,

and serve the best interests of the United States. The Intelligence Authorization Act is the principal means for doing this.

The bill before us today meets this high standard. It is the product of months of bipartisan discussions between the House and Senate intelligence committees, leadership, and the White House. Let me highlight several important provisions.

First, the bill would substantially reform the process through which the President notifies the so-called Gang of Eight regarding certain sensitive covert operations. As Members may know, the National Security Act gives the President the authority to limit briefings on certain sensitive covert actions to the Gang of Eight. It has been the belief of both intelligence committees that the Gang of Eight authority has been overused, and that the entire committee membership should be informed on matters of critical importance.

For that reason, an earlier version of the bill removed the statutory authority for limiting briefings to the Gang of Eight. Last July, the administration threatened to veto the bill if it included that language. After months of tough negotiations, we have reached a compromise that substantially improves the notification process, and which the President will sign.

The bill requires that the President notify all members of the intelligence committees that a Gang of Eight briefing has occurred and give a ``general description'' of that notification. It requires that the full briefing be automatically made available to all members in 6 months, unless the President recertifies that the briefing must stay limited.

It also requires that all Gang of Eight briefings be in writing and that the President maintain a written record of those receiving these limited briefings. Finally, like earlier drafts, it requires that the President provide the legal basis for an intelligence activity and sets a new standard for determining when certain activities must be notified.

Second, the bill would help the General Accounting Office gain access to the intelligence community. For decades, the executive branch has prevented GAO from conducting audits or investigations into intelligence activities. This bill directs the Director of National Intelligence to come up with regulations to govern GAO access to the intelligence community.

The new DNI, General Clapper, has suggested in testimony that he would be open to working with GAO. This provision would give him the opportunity to put his words into action.

Third, the bill would put in place a number of measures to help stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse. It would create an Inspector General for the intelligence community, with authority to conduct oversight across the community and on the critical issues regarding coordination and cooperation between agencies. It also requires a comprehensive assessment of contracting practices across the community, which would give Congress the tools it needs to help control contractor costs.

Fourth, the bill creates new cost-control measures for the acquisition of major systems, many of which have been subject to serious cost and schedule overruns in recent years. This includes a mechanism--based on the Department of Defense's Nunn-McCurdry provision--that requires congressional notification and program restructuring when certain cost thresholds are exceeded.

Fifth, the bill modifies various authorities to ensure the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep the country safe. These include an exemption to certain public disclosure requirements for operational files transferred to the ODNI, a reform that the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center said was critical to information sharing.

Madam Speaker, these are vital reforms, as are others in this important bill. They have been priorities of this body, on a bipartisan basis, for a very long time. It's time we got these reforms enacted. It's time for us to pass this bill.

Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California

(Ms. Harman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Intelligence Community Management Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma, who just, I might add, had a son last week, and a valued member of our committee, Mr. Boren.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the American people are tuned in tonight. They must be confused that we are kind of talking in parallel universes here. For instance, there are no earmarks in this bill, in H.R. 2701. There are also a host of legislative provisions in this bill that will have a permanent effect on the operations in the intelligence community. Today's date, tomorrow's date, next week's date doesn't change any of that. And it's gratifying to know that for the last few months, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have embarked on a listening campaign. It is good that they listen, and I hope that they have also gotten back the message that the American people are sick and tired of their strategy of just saying ``no'' to everything.

Isn't it interesting--at least I find it interesting--that H.R. 2701 had unanimous support on the Senate side. That means both Democrats and Republicans. But somehow, some people don't understand or didn't get the memo that it is okay to agree on protecting this country. It's okay to agree to pass a piece of legislation that fundamentally does that.

This bill does that. Is it perfect? No. Is it a compromise? Yes. But that is the reality of legislative compromises.

They talk about Guantanamo. Tonight we are going to vote on a continuing resolution. This bill does nothing to impact on anything to do with Guantanamo. Voting on the continuing resolution, we will vote on keeping those protections in place.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There are a lot of things that aren't in this bill. There aren't any things dealing with water, there aren't any things dealing with the border, there aren't any things dealing with other aspects.

We are here to pass a piece of legislation that has the support of every Senator in the other body. We are here to pass a piece of legislation that fundamentally protects this country.

And I can certainly understand the questions that my colleague from Michigan has because for the last year he hasn't been here. He has been in Michigan doing other things.

But to criticize a piece of legislation that we have reached out, that we have worked together--and as I said in my opening statement, this is a compromise agreement that was agreed to by the House, the Senate, and the administration. It is a good piece of legislation. It deserves to be supported.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee and the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a Member who has been a leader on the issue of cybersecurity, a member of our great committee and the chair of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Mr. Langevin.

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

Could I inquire as to the amount of time on either side?

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, a gentleman who has worked tirelessly the last few months to make sure that we have a good bill and a good compromise. I have been told that compromise is one where everyone feels that they didn't get everything they needed but it's at a place where we should be able to support it. No one personifies that better than our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to take this time to thank the ranking member. Although we have disagreed many times on the way forward, we have never disagreed on the purpose that we're both here, and that is working hard to keep this country safe. As I thank the ranking member for his hard work and wish him well, knowing that he is going to be leaving Congress, I also want to assure you that we will continue to focus on the many things that I know we have in common, and that is making sure we do everything we can to continue to protect this country, continue to work together, the Senate, the House, and the administration, towards that effort.

I, too, would like to close by thanking all of the people who have worked so hard and for so long to get this bill to this point. First, I would like to thank the Speaker and the majority leader for their leadership and support during these tough negotiations. I would like to also thank Chairman Feinstein and Vice Chairman Bond for their dogged commitment towards working in a bipartisan fashion to get this bill passed.

I would like to thank the members of the House intelligence committee who have all contributed valuable ideas and hard work towards this bill. Not everyone got everything that they wanted included in this bill, but I think it is a good compromise. I would also like to thank the staffs of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on both sides, the minority and the majority side; the legislative counsels; all those who worked so very hard and many long hours. And in our case here, since we are going to have a bill for the first time in almost 6 years, it is vital and important to recognize that hard work.

This has been a monumental effort on the part of many, many people. The intelligence communities have worked for years on Intelligence authorization bills, only to see those efforts and that hard work frustrated by vetoes, by bipartisan politics, and other roadblocks. We have only been able to break through these barriers through diligence, leadership on both sides, and a commitment to national security that extends beyond partisan divisions.

The bill that we bring to the floor tonight is a product of compromise. As I said, we didn't get everything through this body. We didn't get everything that everyone wanted to be included, but I think we have got a great product that will help keep this country safe.

Finally, as I reflect back on the faces of countless men and women throughout the world in the 16 different agencies and the military working together as never before to counter the challenges and the threats that we face as a country, I am impressed by their professionalism, their dedication, their commitment, and their trust that we are going to do the right thing to give them the tools to carry out their assignments, to carry out their work, and to continue to keep us safe.

We have worked very hard, and now it is time for Members to do their part. This is the essence of what we have been sent here to do. We make difficult decisions that are in the best interest of our country. We don't always agree, but we govern. That is the American way. I am proud to have been a part of this process. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan product. And in the Senate, as the majority leader said, every member of the Senate supported this bill, sending a clear bipartisan statement on national security. That is what we're sent here to do.

So I hope that this evening we can send a similar message to the country that when the stakes are high, when the stakes are about the national security of our country, we can come together, set aside politics, set aside divisions and all the things that the American people have told us are not important in the realm of national security.

So it has been a great privilege and a great honor to lead this committee as chairman. This evening will be the culmination of months and months of work. And I am very appreciative of the work that has been done by both the majority and the minority and by the staffs on both sides. Certainly, I think we have a lot to be proud of; and, most of all, we can be grateful that the hard work being done by our men and women in the intelligence community through our support keeps us safe.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order this evening.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to rise today, along with my other colleagues, in honor of Caribbean American Heritage Month. This month marks the fourth anniversary of officially recognizing Caribbean American Heritage Month. And I want to applaud you, Madam Speaker, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, for introducing the legislation and getting it passed in February of 2006. President Bush officially proclaimed it for the very first time in June of that year.

The efforts to get us to that point began long before, though, with the Institute for Caribbean Studies, which started observing June as Caribbean American Heritage Month in 1999. So I want to also take this opportunity to applaud the work and leadership of its president, Dr. Claire Nelson, of Jamaican heritage.

I also want to recognize the Carib News Foundation for its work over the years to bring Caribbean and United States leaders together to discuss issues of common interest over the past 14 years. They filled an important gap.

Recent attempts to officially bridge this gap began in 1997, when President Clinton traveled to Barbados where the Bridgetown Declaration was crafted. This important declaration affirmed our common resolve to fight crime, violence, corruption, drug and illegal drug trafficking while, as President Clinton said, ``promoting open and fair trade, protecting the environment, strengthening education, spreading telecommunications, and helping Caribbean countries diversify their economies and become more competitive as well.''

Upon his return, he submitted the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, which Congress passed. The cooperation was further affirmed with the historic meetings held in June of 2007 between the heads of Caribbean governments and the Bush-Cheney administration and this Congress. This commitment was renewed and reinvigorated at the Summit of the Americas held in the Caribbean nations of Trinidad and Tobago in April of this year with the active participation and leadership of our President, Barack Obama, who set a new tone for our relationship with the region.

But the relationship has even predated the birth of this Nation. In 1751, our very first President, George Washington, reported to have had family connections in Barbados, traveled there with his brother for a health-related matter in November of 1751. They stayed 2 months, and he is said to have been enchanted by the island and the Caribbean.

Over the years, many Congressional Black Caucus members have worked tirelessly to raise awareness and keep us focused and invested in ongoing affairs in the Caribbean. We have done this through Chairman Rangel's efforts with the Caribbean Basin legislation and other initiatives, Congresswoman Waters, who worked so hard to save the banana industry and who was then Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. She and I traveled to Barbados in 1997 for that historic meeting.

I also want to recognize the special work done by Congressman Donald Payne, who is the founding Chair of the Friends of the Caribbean Caucus, and Congressman Kendrick Meek, Congressman Gregory Meeks, and of course Congresswoman Yvette Clarke. But, truly, all of the Congressional Black Caucus members are champions of the causes of the Caribbean.

Last year, one of our great achievements, led by Congressman Donald Payne and you, Madam Speaker, Congresswoman Lee, in one of those great efforts, PEPFAR was extended to all of the Caribbean for the very first time. Two months ago, health ministers and CARICOM leaders met to draft the 5-year plan which would build on the PANCAP, the Pan Caribbean Partnership, to address HIV and AIDS in this region. The Shirley Chisholm United States Caribbean Educational Exchange Act of 2009, introduced, again, by Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman and Madam Speaker Lee, is now working its way through Congress. It will help to build a stronger Caribbean workforce and promote greater collaboration between the United States and the Caribbean, as well as a sharing of values and culture.

Madam Speaker, I do have a few colleagues here with me this evening, and I would like to yield some time to them so that they may bring some remarks about the special month that we're celebrating in which we are recognizing the contributions of people from the Caribbean to the United States.

So at this time, I will yield such time as she might consume to Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.

Thank you, Congresswoman Clarke, for your remarks this evening. And thank you, most of all, though, for your leadership on behalf of the Caribbean countries. We appreciate the work that you do both on your committee, the subcommittee that you Chair on Homeland Security, and in all of the work that addresses issues in the Caribbean. Thank you for joining us this evening.

I would like now to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, and thank you for your hard work, your service, and your support for all issues relating to the Caribbean. I know you are very proud of your Jamaican heritage because you speak of it very often. Thank you.

At this time I would like to yield such time as he might consume to the founding Chair of the Friends of the Caribbean Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Donald Payne.

Thank you, Congressman Payne, and thank you for your leadership both as our leader on Africa and global health as well as for all of the work that you've done with us in the Caribbean Caucus. Thank you for joining us this evening.

There are so many men and women of Caribbean American heritage who have contributed greatly, and so many events that have created ties that forever bind us together. President Obama in his proclamation this year, recognizing Caribbean American Heritage Month wrote, ``Generations of immigrants have preserved the traditions of their homeland, and these traditions have defined our Nation's identity. This multi-lingual and multi-ethnic tradition has strengthened our social fabric and enriched the diversity of our Nation.'' He continues, ``We are neighbors, partners and friends. We share the same aspirations for our children, and we strive for the very same freedoms. Together we can meet the common challenges we face.''

I want to highlight several of those ties that bind. The birth of our Nation was supported by many Caribbean islands. Many do not know that the guns that were manned by the colonies during the American Revolution were gunpowdered by shipments from the Caribbean. While I believe most of it originated from St. Kitts, it was in the St. Croix Harbor in the then Danish West Indies where that gunpowder was loaded for shipment to the early colonies. In fact, it was also in that St. Croix Harbor, according to Robert Amandus Johnson in his book Saint Croix 1770 to 1776, that the first salute to the Stars and Stripes occurred in June of 1776.

And, of course, there is the direct relationship between Haiti and New Orleans, the latter of which in the beginning of the 19th century was considered a minor adjunct to the island which was then considered France's most valuable possession. It was only after Napoleon failed to reconquer the colony after the Africans had won their freedom and begun to establish their republic, only then did he decide to sell the Louisiana Territory. Many from the island of Saint Domingue who had fled that island became early inhabitants of New Orleans, contributing to the culture which is so recognized and renowned today.

There are also many U.S. Virgin Islanders today and in the past and from the then Danish West Indies who have and who continue to contribute much to our Nation. I have spoken of many of them on several occasions, people like Casper Holstein. Congressman Payne mentioned Raymond Jones. Jon Lucien in music, Emile Griffith in boxing, Valmy Thomas, Horace Clarke and Tim Duncan in sports. There are many, many others.

One, Denmark Vesey, was born in St. Thomas and settled in Charleston, South Carolina, one of my favorite cities. He settled there in 1783. Seventeen years later he bought his freedom, and inspired, I am sure, by the 1733 African rebellion of St. John and the 1791 successful African rebellion in the Isle of Saint Domingue, now Haiti, he also planned a well-known slave uprising that was to have taken place in 1822, but was thwarted.

I would be truly remiss if I didn't speak briefly about Alexander Hamilton, who has been named several times this evening, who was born in Nevis, which is now a part of the independent nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, and who spent his formative years in St. Croix before coming to New York and eventually becoming, as Ron Chernow puts it, ``Arguably the most important figure in American history who never attained the Presidency, but had a far more lasting impact than many who did.''

Alexander Hamilton was credited with having been Washington's aide- de-camp, a Revolutionary War hero, a member of the Constitutional Convention, the leading author of the Federalist Papers and head of the Federalist Party, as well as the first Secretary of the Treasury, who forged our tax and budget systems. I bet he would have let us budget for prevention, as we are trying to do in health care reform. He started the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Central Bank.

We are proud that he was a Virgin Islander, a Crucian, and we are seeking to make his family home, the site where his mother was buried, a part of the National Park Service. It carries the same name as his home in New York City, Grange.

There have been many Caribbean men and women who have served in Congress and in our Nation's administration.

As a woman of Caribbean decent and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Shirley Chisholm led the way for Congresswoman Yvette Clarke and I. As a pioneering minority woman, her legacy holds the door open for many more African Americans and women.

Then there was Mervyn Dymally, Ron de Lugo, Melvin Evans, Victor Frazier, and all who have served as Resident Commissioners from Puerto Rico, as well as Members of Puerto Rican and Cuban heritage who are also Caribbean Americans and who serve today and have served in the past in this body.

Many more of our Nation's leaders trace their roots to the Caribbean, such

as our former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Secretary of the Interior-designee Wilma Lewis, and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. But there are many others.

We may look back as far as the period to 1900 to 1920, which marked the initiation of mass labor migration from the Caribbean to the United States and the formation of the first large Caribbean communities here in this country.

We should not forget World War I, when the recruitment of labor from the Caribbean became imperative. More than 100,000 Caribbean laborers were recruited for agricultural and tedious jobs as part of war labor. We should acknowledge the Caribbean men and women who served our country and those who continue to serve this country overseas in its conflicts today.

So I feel it has been an honor and privilege as a Caribbean American, whose roots lie in Cuba, Antigua, St. Kitts and the Danish Indies, now the Virgin Islands, to host this hour, where the Congressional Black Caucus has recognized and paid tribute to Caribbean American heritage.

Thank you. Let me commend the Congressional Black Caucus and its chairperson, leader this evening, Barbara Lee from California, for the outstanding job that she is doing as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. As the caucus moves forward, being the conscience of the Congress, let me also commend Representative Fudge, who is from the great State of Ohio, who continues to lead the Special Orders on our evenings, and of course our Caribbean queen, Delegate Donna Christian- Christensen, who, as you know, is our representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands. Not only is she an expert on the Caribbean but, as we all know, she is an internist, a physician and has been very, very helpful as we move forward in very difficult health care reform. Her input is invaluable. I also want to commend her for the recent involvement in a documentary about the relationship between St. Croix and Puerto Rico that went through the history of the sugarcane industry back at the turn of the century in the late 1800s, early 1900s and the number of Puerto Ricans who came to St. Croix to work there. This was shown last weekend, will be shown in New York, and has received many praises for the interesting history that it brings about.

Let me just say that it's a pleasure to be here--as chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health but also as Chair of the Caribbean Caucus, the bipartisan caucus that we have here--to kind of expand our relationship with the Caribbean. This Caribbean American Heritage Month is well deserved. It's recognizing the diversity and success of people from the Caribbean. You've heard other speakers talk about the many people from the Caribbean who have been so outstanding. The achievements and impacts made from Caribbean people have continually made a positive contribution to the well-being of American society. We could go back to our beginning with Alexander Hamilton, who came from St. Kitts, our first Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary Colin Powell is from the Caribbean as well as Cicely Tyson, W.E.B. DuBois, James Weldon Johnson, Malcolm X, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, and, in my own district, two people that I might talk about here, Antoinette K. Ellis-Williams and Dr. Claire Nelson. Dr. Claire Nelson, the founder and president of the Institute of Caribbean Studies, is known for her leadership in making Caribbean Americans heard. I am proud to say I work with her on a regular basis, as many of us do; and we admire her and the great work that she does. We just had the opportunity to be with her last week, and we are extremely pleased at the outstanding work that the institute is doing. The second person that I mentioned, Dr. Antoinette K. Ellis-Williams, a leader in my congressional district, currently serves as president for the Essex Valley Health Care and serves on the board of East Orange General Hospital. She is a proactive member of the Caribbean Medical Mission, a nonprofit organization of doctors, nurses, health care workers, engineers and other professionals who give back to the community through their services. She is a founder and director of the Statewide Female Leadership Development Institute and Research Center at the New Jersey City Institute.

The Caribbean community's presence also plays a wide role in our elections, especially in my district, where the greater settlement of many people from the Caribbean in East Orange, Irvington and Newark make their voices heard. In past elections we have seen many people from the Caribbean community educate fellow Caribbean Americans about the U.S. political process and encourage their participation in the democratic process.

In recognizing June as Caribbean month, in my work with the caucus, this Congress has continually focused on enhancing relationships between the United States and the Caribbean states by reviewing proposals and pending legislation that have a direct impact on the Caribbean. I believe that by facilitating an ongoing dialogue, we can continue to recognize the Caribbean as America's third border for trade, for political stability, for the fight against drug trafficking and for economic development. We need to remember that the Caribbean is not just a place for vacationing, but it's a place in need of economic development. With the current open trade regime, the challenge for the Caribbean is to quickly develop high productivity sectors that could drive the region's development. We know that the same problems that have stricken us in the U.S. have stricken the Caribbean. HIV and AIDS has become a problem, but we're very pleased that the PEPFAR program now has been expanded to 14 Caribbean countries. In 2005 an estimated 300,000 adults and children in the Caribbean were reported living with HIV, making it the leading cause of death among adults aged 15 to 44. We know that in Haiti, life expectancy has also been impacted tremendously by HIV and AIDS.

However, like I said, we have a tremendous relationship with our friends in the Caribbean. There are several problems that we need to help them with.

Deportation. As you know, in 1996 the U.S. law changed that anyone convicted of an offense had to face deportation from the United States; and as a result, many of these small nation countries have had to absorb persons who may have come to the United States as infants but have engaged in crime and now are sent back 20, 30, 40 years later as hardened criminals; and many of the countries in the Caribbean are having a difficult time dealing with these deportees. Another problem that we see is with the drug trafficking in Mexico. We're finding that they are pushing drug trafficking into the Caribbean, and we need to assist the Caribbean in fighting this and give them assistance with law enforcement, training and Coast Guard assistance. But we are very proud of many of the Haitians, as I mentioned. Track and field is something that they have excelled in. I

recall when I was running back in the early fifties, George Rhoden was a quarter miler who won the gold medal in the Helsinki Olympics. George Rhoden and many other Jamaicans came up and went to Morgan State University. At the Penn Relays, these Jamaicans in the late forties and early fifties started to get recognition. And we know that in the Beijing Olympics, Usain Bolt, at 20, 21 years old, won the 100 meters and the 200 meters. He was one of the youngest persons to ever win those events, and the first person since Mr. Lewis from New Jersey to win both sprints in the Olympics. We have had many outstanding people that started politics in New York, Hulan Jack, way back, a fellow from St. Lucia. He was born in 1905, moved up to New York, a high school dropout, went to work for a company, and worked his way up from a janitor to become a vice president of the firm. He became active in politics, and he became a New York City Democratic political leader, loyal to the Tammany Hall operation, which was run then by a fellow named Carmine De Sapio. But in 1940 Hulan Jack won seven straight elections to the New York State Assembly, representing his Harlem district. And in 1953, Hulan Jack was elected to borough president of Manhattan, becoming the first African American to hold the post. Elected more than a decade before the rise of big city black mayors in the sixties, Hulan Jack was the highest ranking African American municipal officer in the Nation. With an annual salary at that time of $25,000, he was the highest paid black office holder in the country. He served as Manhattan Borough president for several terms; and because of his emerging strength, the powers that be interrupted his career, and he left office. But Hulan Jack showed that politics was something that many of our Caribbean folks brought to the leadership of politics in our country.

I'll just finally end with a person that we all admired so much and has been mentioned earlier, Mr. Michael Manley, son of Norman Manley who served as the Prime Minister from '59 to '62. Michael Manley came in and became a three-term Prime Minister from '72 to '80 and '89 to '92, and he stepped down because of bad health. But just look at what Michael Manley did in Jamaica: Minimum wage for all workers; free education at secondary and university level, to the extent that space was available; instituted a literacy campaign; subdivision of what he called idle land to poor blacks, a formation of agrarian cooperatives where they worked together; price control on numerous staples to benefit the poor; reduction of the voting age to 18, thus increasing the black vote that then was able to continue to move forward. Listen to this--institutionalizing paid maternity leave and free milk to mothers. This was way back then in Jamaica where, as you know, we are still fighting to get family leave instituted in some of our States in the United States of America 30 years later. A person like Mr. Michael Manley did such an outstanding job. So we're just pleased to celebrate this heritage month.

Once again, I certainly commend the gentlelady from the U.S. Virgin Islands for her leadership. I know that we will have a wonderful month as we celebrate the great attributes that people from the Caribbean have made not only to the United States, and Europe but of course the Caribbean.

Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and allow me to acknowledge as well the Congressional Black Caucus for the collective effort that they have made and thank our present chairwoman for the 2004 resolution, House Resolution 517, that ultimately was proclaimed by the President of the United States. This is an enriching day and an opportunity for us to emphasize the vastness of diversity that is in this country, and I stand here as a Caribbean American proudly exercising and relishing in the history of my ancestry.

Let me also acknowledge the work that we have collectively done. As the ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee, we have had a history of working for the issues of parity as it relates to the opportunities for Haitians to become statused here in the United States, as we have seen the Cubans also have this opportunity through what we call the ``wet foot, dry foot'' provision. We have worked unending to ensure that that parity comes about. And as we look forward into the comprehensive immigration reform debate, I hope that language from the Save America comprehensive immigration legislation that I authored will be part of the debate so that our reform will include all aspects of those who are seeking to be statused and particularly those from the Caribbean.

We have worked on issues that addressed the questions of many Caribbean leaders when there was massive deportation of individuals from the United States who had never been to the Caribbean, had never been to the countries of their birth, and therefore were coming and providing the need for extra resources by Caribbean leaders. This is paying attention to the issues of the Caribbean and recognizing that they are a vital ally to us. And that was recognized by the recent organization of the meeting in the Caribbean in Trinidad where many Caribbean nations came, and I believe the new relationship was cemented between this new President, this Congress, and the Caribbean leaders.

So as we speak about the greatness of Caribbean Americans, I want to emphasize that we should also be engaged with the Caribbean as our allies, as those who can participate with us in homeland security and securing the borders, as we look to Caribbean Americans who have made great strides here in this country.

Caribbean Americans are educators, linguists, actors, athletes, soldiers, politicians, economists, historians, activists, doctors, lawyers, and everyday men and women. There are those of us who enjoy the music of the Caribbean, and certainly one of our most famous poets and musicians is Bob Marley, whose reggae music continues to permeate the music channels and the ears of Americans. We are proud of the contributions of Caribbean Americans. Those like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; those like Timothy ``Tim'' Theodore Duncan; those like Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon; those like Sidney Poitier; those like Stokely Carmichael and Marcus Garvey; and, of course, Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, a Caribbean American; certainly the Honorable Shirley Chisholm, who herself ran as an African American woman for President of the United States of America. Bold, unashamed of their roots and history, ready to make a difference, that is the character of Caribbean Americans and those who live in the Caribbean.

Let me also thank John Conyers, whom I worked with as we visited Haiti and went to see many of those who have been incarcerated because of the, if you will, inconsistency of leadership in Haiti. We are delighted to see President Preval leading out. We visited many who were political prisoners and worked with the then-Bush administration to try to secure their freedom. I want to continue to express my appreciation to Chairman Conyers for the work that he has continuously done working with the Jubilee that we celebrated in Haiti when we traveled there together.

So there are many aspects of the Caribbean that we can celebrate. I'm here to celebrate the great connection that I have had the privilege of having. And I'm delighted to be joined on the floor of the House by Congresswoman Donna Christensen as well as Congresswoman Yvette Clarke and Congressman Donald Payne and the chairwoman, who is now serving as the Speaker pro tempore. We do this because we want to ensure that people realize how great America is, and it is only great because it relies upon the strength of those who come from different cultures and bring that wonderment to our wonderful Nation.

So I want to acknowledge the creation of the Institute of Caribbean Studies in 1994. I want to acknowledge the ad hoc Caribbean Council of Washington, D.C., that disbanded, and ICS takes over leadership of celebrating June as Caribbean American Heritage Month in Washington, D.C. This is just part of the history that was generated in the bill to make this the month that we celebrate Caribbean Heritage Month.

Finally, might I say proudly that I want to speak of my grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. My grandmother and grandfather were true sons and daughters at that time of the King and

Queen because Jamaica was then a colony of Great Britain. However, their dignity allowed them to know that Jamaica could be a free and democratic nation. And through the leadership of those in Jamaica who recognized that it could be a free nation, they secured their freedom, and what a celebratory time that was.

I want to acknowledge so many prime ministers, but former Prime Minister Manley, former Prime Minister Seaga, former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, all great leaders that brought greatness to the Caribbean, and to acknowledge the present prime minister as he continues to work, to acknowledge the first woman Prime Minister as well that was in Jamaica for at least a time in the last 2 years. We know that she has been called with great love and affection Prime Minister Portia, but we respect the service that she has given.

My grandparents left Jamaica and went to work in Panama in the Panama Canal, and I had the privilege of going to the Panama Canal for a Homeland Security mission and seeing my grandfather's name listed as one of those who worked on the Panama Canal. As he came to the United States and then settled between South Carolina and Brooklyn, New York, to know that he was part of that wonderful tradition of history and heritage, the wonderful cuisine of oxtails and rice and peas and plantains and many other good things that we continue to enjoy culturally in my family that I raised my children on, that I was raised on, so that this nexus of knowing your roots is so very key.

So what I say to all who are listening, this Nation is valuable because it respects the culture of all of us. And today we salute Caribbean Americans, and I have been privileged and proud to have served in the United States Congress with that history but also to work on a number of issues helping to make their land, their nation, better and creating a better partnership between the United States and Caribbean.