Recognizing November 14, 2009, as the 49th anniversary of the first day of integrated schools in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purposes of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1051.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1051 provides for consideration of H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Science and Technology Committee. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science and Technology Committee now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule further makes in order only those amendments printed in the report. The amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. All points of order against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are waived.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee or a designee. Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the threat of cyberwarfare cannot be overstated. Cyberattacks target everything from classified government information to business and trade secrets to individual financial records. The motivation for these attacks can range from immature harassment to illicit financial gain. The scope can be similarly broad, from an individual computer or Web site to an entire network.

Investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our generation. The only difference is that when we were doing the Manhattan Project, we were the only power with the technology. This time around, we are facing far more enemies that have the same level of technology that we do. In fact, nearly every high school hacker has the potential to threaten our unfettered use of the Internet. Just imagine what a rogue state committed to disrupting our cyberinfrastructure could do.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is responsible for setting cybersecurity standards for nonclassified Federal networks. The bill tasks NIST with developing cybersecurity awareness programs to educate individuals, small businesses, State and local governments, and educational institutions on how to implement cyber best practices. It is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of all cyberbreaches could have been avoided with this type of cybersecurity training.

The legislation also directs NIST to conduct research related to improving the security of information and network systems that support so many aspects of our day-to-day life, which many of us take for granted.

The most troubling cyberthreat may be the very real prospect of state-sponsored cyberattacks against sensitive national security information. Cyberexperts believe China is effectively targeting our government networks and that these attacks have resulted in at least one breach of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program.

It is estimated that the Federal Government alone needs to recruit between 500 and 1,000 more cybersecurity professionals each year in order to address these threats. The Upstate New York district that I represent is on the frontline of defending our Nation in the cyberwar in which we are engaged. Utica College offers a bachelor of science degree in cybersecurities. Graduates of this program are employed across the country, working to secure the networks of government and private business alike. However, this program currently only graduates about 50 students per year into the cybersecurity field.

Clearly, simply maintaining the status quo will not be enough. Media reports of new attacks by cybercriminals are becoming more frequent and alarming. Just last week, following the State of the Union address, hackers, suspected to be from Brazil, defaced 49 House Member Web sites. Each day, 400,000 new ``zombies'' are activated. These are computers that are taken over by hackers and can be remotely controlled without the owner knowing it, and 1.5 million new malicious Web sites are identified each month. There are more than 1 billion new endpoints added to the Internet; 50 percent of those will be in China and 35 percent will be in India.

We are locked in a technological arms race with our cybercompetitors. In order to win that race, we must train individuals to look at warfare from an entirely new perspective. This effort goes to the heart of our national security because it requires us to create opportunities in our colleges and universities to train this new type of warfighter to defend our Nation from cyberthreats, a warfighter every bit as important to our security as a traditional armed soldier in the field. The training for this new generation of warfighters that defend us, not from land, sea, or air attacks, but from cyberattacks, is every bit as important as boot camp is for our soldiers. In fact, that is what this bill does, creates a boot camp for our future cyberwarfighters.

H.R. 4061 sets that course by authorizing funding for a Scholarship for Service program through the National Science Foundation that will provide scholarships for students pursuing cybersecurity fields. The scholarships would be provided for up to 1 to 2 years for students pursuing a bachelor's or master's degree and up to 3 years for students pursuing a doctoral degree in the cybersecurity field, provided that the recipient serves as a cybersecurity professional in government agencies for an equal amount of time. This investment in cybereducation is necessary to meet our enemies on the cyberfrontlines and repel their attacks.

Through increased workforce development and continued strengthening of our public-private partnerships, we can and will ensure that the IT systems, on which so much of our way of life depends, are safe from cyberattack. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act contains the strategic plan necessary to focus our resources to meet these challenges.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to say that my colleague talks about bipartisanship. And I want to say I can't understand how she can talk about a bipartisan bill, a bill that came out of the Science and Technology Committee with support from both sides of the aisle, and turn it into a partisan political fight. She is right, that is what Americans are tired of. And yet, during her statement she mentioned Democrats at least six times. I lost count after the sixth.

This is not a partisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill that is necessary for the security of our country. That is what people sent us to Washington for. They send us to Washington to make sure that we take steps to ensure that their way of life continues and that they are safe and secure.

This bill strategically places money into education so that we can educate the next generation of cyberwarfighters to protect the Internet and to protect people to be able to use the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

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

This is exactly what the American people are so tired of. My colleague talks about what the race in Massachusetts meant. It meant that people are tired with the partisan bickering. She

just squandered all of the time that we could be here talking about cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill with talking about politics. Of course she fails to point out the fact that much of the debt was incurred under President Bush, fails to point out the fact that now two wars are on the books.

But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about cybersecurity. And I want to read a quote for you. Just yesterday Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. And he said, ``Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication.'' He went on to say, ``Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very information these systems were intended to convey.'' These statements make clear that we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.

In order to meet our enemies on the cyber front lines and repel their attacks, we must create a boot camp for our future cyber warfighters. The investments contained in H.R. 4061 will increase our cyber workforce development and continue to strengthen the public-private partnerships to defend the IT systems on which so much of our daily life relies. That is what the American people have sent us here to Washington to ensure. Cybersecurity enhancement contains the strategic plan necessary to focus our resources to meet the challenges which Director Blair spoke of yesterday.

H.R. 4061 will also strengthen partnerships between the Federal Government and the private sector to guarantee a secure and reliable infrastructure. The benefit of existing public-private partnerships is also on display in Upstate New York, in my very district. The Air Force Research Laboratory Rome Research Site, the Rome Lab as we call it, hosts the main offices of the Air Force Research Lab's Information Directorate.

Located at the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, Rome Lab's scientists and engineers use the latest electronic and computer technology to demonstrate new ways to defend our information networks against attacks. In concert with Rome Lab, the Mohawk Valley is home to a number of companies that are engaged in cutting-edge cyber research, companies that will use the graduates who come out of college with degrees in cybersecurity. Large companies such as PAR Technology, BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, and smaller, home grown companies, such as Dolphin Technology, Black River Systems, Assured Information Security, New York State Technology Enterprises Corporation, Syracuse Research Corporation, and Research Associates of Syracuse.

Together, the AFRL and these companies account for thousands of jobs in central New York; men and women doing critical research on our Nation to help fend off cyberattacks. There is no doubt that these companies and the critical public-private partnerships that they have formed with the Air Force Research Laboratory will benefit from this program. But, more importantly, it's the American people that will benefit from this program.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act requires the White House Office of Science and Technology policy to convene an industrywide nongovernmental task force of businesses and universities to explore potential public-private collaborations on cybersecurity research and development. This will ensure that these collaborations continue to strengthen our Nation's cyberdefenses. That is what we are here to debate. That is what the American people sent us to Congress for. And that is what we need to pass today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the first rule that they teach you in trial advocacy class, and that is when you're trying a case and you don't have the facts on your side, talk about everything but the facts. And I feel that's what my colleague from North Carolina is doing today. Rather than say that we can work together in a bipartisan way on a bill that is good for all Americans, she would rather talk about everything else that there is. Well, we're not here to talk about everything else today. We are here to talk about cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill for the American people.

As I said earlier, investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our generation. Cyberthreats and attacks are real, and they threaten our financial and defense networks every day. Nearly every aspect of everyday life in our global society is dependent on the security of our cyber networks. We rely on these systems to carry virtually all our business transactions, control our electric grid, emergency communication systems, and traffic lights.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act reauthorizes and expands the programs aimed at strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity, including a new scholarship program to train the thousands of cybersecurity professionals that are needed to defend our Nation. In requiring a cybersecurity workforce assessment, this bill will also give us a clearer picture of our current cybercapabilities and identify what new skills and educational advances are needed in both the Federal Government and the private sector to combat future attacks.

H.R. 4061 requires NIST to undertake research and development programs to improve identity management systems, which include health information technology systems, in order to improve interoperability, authentication methods, privacy protection, and usability of these systems. These systems hold great potential for streamlining the delivery of services and care to individuals, but they must be secure in order to function properly and efficiently. This legislation will ensure that they are.

From the perspective of my district in upstate New York, it plays a critical

role in our Nation's cybersecurity, and this research and development work is often discussed publicly. Yet, the work done by contractors, subcontractors, and universities, in conjunction with Federal agencies, employs thousands across New York in cutting-edge R&D. But, more importantly, they are essential to defending America from cyberterrorist attacks and espionage. It is essential these public- private partnerships continue to flourish and they have the necessary manpower in place to protect our Nation from these threats.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will make that happen not just for New York, but across the Nation. This is not a program for which we can afford to ask, How can we do this, but a program for which we must ask, How can we afford not to do this?

H.R. 4061 is supported by numerous organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Software Alliance, Software and Information Industry Association, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, U.S. Telecom, TechAmerica, and Computing Research Association. This legislation enjoyed bipartisan support in committee, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule that restricts my colleagues from offering amendments to the bill. We certainly are concerned about cybersecurity, but nothing is going to matter if we don't get our fiscal house in order.

The Democrats are basically wasting the American people's time by bringing this bill, which they know has widespread support, to the floor today, as it could, instead, have been on the suspension calendar for this week, leaving us more time to debate legislation that

would address the major problems facing the American people and my constituents in North Carolina, such as the status of our economy and what are we going to do about dealing with the national security issues that are facing us in this country. Instead of using the suspension calendar productively, Democrats have consistently used the majority of our time debating legislation that is not relevant to the challenges that American families are facing on a daily basis.

Democrats have spent the majority of our time debating suspensions such as H. Res. 784, which honors the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius. In doing so, the Democrats have set a higher priority on the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius over solving the problems of the American people. I have nothing against Confucius, Mr. Speaker, but this resolution is not helping American families get back to work or put food on their kitchen tables.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, so far this year the Democrats have spent the majority of our time debating resolutions such as H. Res. 1020, which honors the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain National Park Act, and H. Res. 981, supporting development in Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, again, I have nothing in particular against these resolutions, but I would be remiss if I did not address the fact that Democrats are making these resolutions higher priorities of these topics than bringing forth commonsense solutions that will help Americans who are suffering across the Nation.

While the bill before us today authorizes several important programs, it also authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for activities to improve cybersecurity.'' When American families are facing tough economic challenges, Congress should be tightening its own belt and setting funding limits rather than authorizing blank checks on the backs of the American taxpayers. We can do better than this, and we owe it to the American people to do better than this.

This bill also provides for annual increases in authorization levels. At a time of record budget deficits, it is crucial that we hold the line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal restraint, but we have yet to see those words put into action. In fact, talk of fiscal restraint is nothing but talk.

This bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed back by keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing them each year. But the Democrats refuse to allow such restraint and instead continue to govern as though they are not aware of the fact that our Federal deficit is growing each day. Perhaps they are not aware. So many have been in Washington for so long that they are out of touch with average citizens and the common sense that our citizens represent.

My colleague, Mr. Sessions, offered an amendment that would maintain fiscal year 2011 authorization levels in the bill for 3 years instead of increasing them annually, but the Democrats on the Rules Committee rejected the amendment and did not allow for debate on it on the floor today.

This bill is also being brought forth today under a structured rule, adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority. Even though an open rule was requested for this bill, Democrats have chosen to stifle and control the debate today, and so we have another structured rule before us, eliminating both Republicans' and Democrats' ability to offer important amendments affecting their constituents. With this structured rule, the Democrats in charge have blocked at least 13 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee last night. If we had an open rule today, I am certain we would be debating many more.

After promising to have the most open and honest Congress in history, why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the Democrats, who are in charge and have a large majority, shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues from both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their members from tough votes?

Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow their representatives to offer amendments on the floor of the people's House. The American people want to hear debate and are tired of the backroom dealmaking of the Democrats.

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

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

I certainly agree with my colleague from New York that the bill itself is not a partisan bill. I am not talking about the bill. I am talking about the rule. This is a very partisan rule. It didn't need to be a partisan rule. All the majority had to do was allow for amendments on the floor and it wouldn't have been a partisan rule. So I need to remind him that that is where the partisanship comes in. We are here debating the rule.

Mr. Speaker, while debt limit increases have been passed under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses, the acceleration in the accumulation of the debt that brought us to this point merits examination. In January of 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, the statutory debt limit stood at $8.965 trillion. In less than 3 years, the debt limit has increased by more than 33 percent, representing an additional $1 trillion of debt per year. By comparison, the statutory debt limit, which stood at $40 billion in 1940, did not cross the $1 trillion mark until 1981.

And it has been only 7 weeks since the Democrats voted to increase the debt limit by $290 billion on December 16, 2009. In that time, House Democrats have passed seven resolutions congratulating sports figures or teams; passed 23 resolutions honoring individuals, entities, or causes; passed five bills naming post offices; authorized $50 million to construct a new national park in the Virgin Islands, but passed zero bills to reduce spending or lower the deficit. Clearly, they are not serious about this serious issue facing this country.

Since taking office just 1 year ago, the President has increased the public debt by $1.47 trillion, or 23 percent, from $6.3 trillion to $7.78 trillion. Under the administration's budget, the public debt will triple, jumping to $17.5 trillion by 2019. Before President Obama's budget and stimulus were enacted, the CBO estimated that the public debt in 2019 would be $9.34 trillion, or $8 trillion less than it is now projected to be under President Obama.

While the President touts his commitment to fiscal responsibility, he is encouraging Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion increase in the national debt limit, allowing the government to keep borrowing in order to keep on spending. The Senate has done it last week, and it is probably going to be brought to us tomorrow, where the Democrats will pass this. And I mention the Democrats being in charge and the Democrats doing this because it is important for the American people to know that the Democrats are doing this alone.

While the decline in Federal revenue as a result of the economic slowdown has contributed to the increase in the debt, the significant increases in Federal spending have also contributed to reaching the debt limit faster than anticipated. Record government spending in the form of both the first stimulus bill and increases in appropriations bills has been a recurring theme of the majority, and it is their responsibility alone because they have done it alone.

The record amounts of debt are a direct responsibility of a spending binge in the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. In 1 year of controlling Washington, Democrats increased the annual deficit by 308 percent, from $458 billion to $1.4 trillion.

A quick review of Democrats' spending increases in 2009 shows why the deficit exploded. In that year alone, House Democrats passed $787 billion in, quote, ``stimulus'' spending, in addition to paying $347 billion in interest on borrowing money we don't have, two omnibus spending bills totaling more than $855 billion, and increased non- defense spending by 12 percent. Again, totally alone.

Faced with declining revenues, Democrats have pushed forward with the most irresponsible option by increasing spending and deficits rather than by lowering Federal expenditures. According to the House Appropriations Committee Republican staff, when all appropriations spending increases are combined, the Democrat majority has pumped over half a trillion dollars in additional spending into non-defense discretionary programs in three short years. This is over $512 billion, or 127 percent more money for non-defense discretionary programs than they received in the last year of GOP control of the Congress.

In fact, the fiscal year deficit for just 2009 of $1.417 trillion is the largest ever, and three times the size of the previous record- setting deficit, last year's figure of $458 billion. It is no wonder that we hear Democrats such as the House majority whip, who recently proclaimed, ``We have got to spend our way out of this recession.'' Statements like this make clear that the Democrats in charge have absolutely no concept of the value of money or how to meet a budget. It really is stunning that despite the economic turmoil caused by government spending too much, the ruling Democrats can't comprehend the consequences of spending money we don't have.

Although some rigid partisans may choose to ignore the election of Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown and try blaming the current spending largesse on George Bush, it is true that since President Obama's inauguration, the U.S. has had an average monthly deficit of $122.6 billion. By comparison, from the year 2000 until 2008, the average annual deficit was $196 billion, and we were fighting a war. So the Democrats' solution for a terrible problem is to make it much worse and just blame it on the other guy.

To that sentiment, Charles Krauthammer responds, ``Let's just get this straight: The antipathy to George Bush is so enduring and powerful that it just elected a Republican Senator in Massachusetts. Why, the man is omnipotent. And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda.''

Unfortunately, the trend of increased Federal deficits will not come to an end under the President's new fiscal year 2011 budget. According to the President's own estimates, his budget and spending plan will cause deficits to average $905 billion for each of the next 10 years. Budget shortfalls incurred by the government fuel the rise in the Nation's debt because the government is forced to borrow money to meet the shortfall. In 2009, the budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, the first time in history the deficit exceeded $1 trillion, and the first time the deficit exceeded 10 percent of gross domestic product since World War II.

The consequences of this kind of reckless spending are worth highlighting. Today the cost of the national debt is $39,870 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. According to the December 2009 Monthly Treasury Report, the Federal Government is projected to spend $465.444 billion paying interest alone on the national debt in this fiscal year 2010. That amounts to $1.275 billion per day, or $1,530.75 for every one of the 304 million people living in the United States today. Just like paying interest on a credit card, these amounts are recurring and do nothing to actually reduce the debt principal.

Ironically, in March of 2006, then-Senator Obama warned his colleagues of the danger of raising the debt limit without addressing the underlying cause, explaining that, quote, ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better.'' President Obama was against raising the debt limit before he was for it. We agree with then-Senator Obama, but we disagree with President Obama.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

It's time for our colleagues to accept accountability. They've been in the majority for 3 years but they continue to blame George Bush in the same breath that they accuse me of being partisan. Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard a number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, saying, ``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' That quote is quite fitting today, considering that as we speak the majority has been drafting, behind closed doors, no sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every American. What is going on behind these closed doors? We really do not know. We don't even know who is at the table. The American people deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors. We need to bring in the sunlight to a process that is shrouded with secrecy.

That's why I, along with a bipartisan group of 171 other Members, have cosponsored H. Res. 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that any meetings held to determine the final content of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not behind closed doors.

In order to help bring sunshine to a process that the majority continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will give Members of the majority the chance to live up to their promise, as Speaker Pelosi said, ``to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize consideration of the bill under consideration today, but I want to make clear: The motion I'm making provides for separate consideration of the transparency resolution within 3 days so we can vote on the bill before us today, and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 847.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 901) recognizing November 14, 2009, as the 49th anniversary of the first day of integrated schools in New Orleans, Louisiana, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on H. Res. 901 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 901, which recognizes the 49th anniversary of integrated schools in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Forty-nine years ago, Ruby Bridges became the first African American student to attend the all-white William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans. Amidst deadly threats, violence, and abuse, Ruby attended her first grade class every day over the course of the year. She was escorted to school by Federal marshals just so she could receive the same education as her white peers. When Ruby entered her new classroom, the white students refused to sit and learn next to her.

Ruby was fortunate to have Ms. Barbara Henry as her teacher during this tumultuous year. Ms. Henry instructed Ruby in an empty classroom over the course of the school year. The two played games, talked, and learned from each other amongst the racially tense times. It is not surprising that Ms. Bridges still considers her year with Ms. Henry as one of the most pleasant times in her life.

Outside the classroom, Ruby came face to face with the ugliness that erupted during this time. Militant segregationists took to the streets in protest, and riots erupted all over the city. Her family also felt the impact of her bravery. Her father, Abon Bridges, and her grandparents were all fired from their jobs. However, many folks, both black and white, supported the Bridges family during their trying

time. People sent letters of support, neighbors watched after their house, and helpful friends and community members made financial contributions.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Prominent figures like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Justice Thurgood Marshall, and the Little Rock Nine are civil rights activists who are typically credited with moving the civil rights movement forward. While the story of Ruby Bridges is not widely known, her contributions to the movement are equally deserving of great recognition.

Today, Ruby stands as a hero to all of us. She has taken the lessons she has learned from her youth and dedicated her life to helping students. Her foundation helps students deal with racism and diversity at school and within their own community. She also wrote ``Through My Eyes,'' explaining her first-grade experience, and now partners with organizations that promote nonviolence in schools. Her monumental contributions to the American civil rights movement deserve to be recognized.

I want to thank Representative Gwen Moore for bringing this resolution forward, and urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by of course recognizing the fact that, as we begin Black History Month, there is no better person for us to recognize today than Ruby Bridges. I want to thank her for her courage,

her determination, and the work she is doing today to help students across our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, H. Res. 901.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 901, a resolution to recognize November 14, 2009 as the 49th anniversary of the first day of integrated schools in New Orleans, Louisiana. I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful and important resolution.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. On November 14, 1960, Ruby Bridges, at the age of six, became the first African American student to attend an all-white school in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ruby Bridges attended William Frantz Elementary School every day, despite riots and protests. Ruby was taught by Barbara Henry in a classroom with no other students. Sadly, due to her efforts to educate young Ruby, Ms. Henry was not invited back to teach at William Frantz Elementary school after that year. In 1999, Ruby Bridges established the Ruby Bridges Foundation that fights racism and works to improve society by sharing the experiences of Ruby Bridges.

Of course the need to integrate schools was not unique to New Orleans. The University Of Georgia, UGA, was a segregated school until 1961. UGA had strict admissions requirements--such as requiring personal recommendations from alumni, all of whom were white--in order to block African Americans from being admitted. In 1960, Charlayne Hunter and Hamilton Holmes applied to UGA. They were more than qualified for admission. Holmes was valedictorian of his high school and senior class president. Hunter finished third in her graduating class and edited the school paper. The University rejected their applications, providing a number of different--and ultimately false-- reasons for denying their admission. On January 6, 1961, federal judge William A. Bootle found that ``the two plaintiffs are fully qualified for immediate admission, and would already have been admitted if not for their race and color.'' This ruling became national news and the students were admitted and met on registration day by protests. On the third evening after their registration, a large group of students showed up outside of their residence and began hurling bricks and bottles before being dispersed by police. After this incident, the Dean of Students then told them that he was withdrawing them from admission for ``their own safety.'' This decision was quickly overruled by a court order after over 400 faculty members signed a resolution to bring them back. Holmes graduated from UGA and earned a medical degree from Emory University in Georgia. Hunter graduated with a degree in journalism and worked for the New York Times, PBS, and CNN.

Thanks to the courage of these individuals and many others like them, we are now as close to full integration as we have ever been, and continue to gain ground on that ultimate goal.

As President Obama recently stated during his unveiling of his new budget proposal, ``the most important tool to combat poverty is a world class education.'' Prior to November 14, 1960, African Americans were a long way from having the opportunity to receive a world class education. Although the desegregation of schools did not instantly give African Americans a high quality education, it was the first step in a long battle for equality in educational opportunities. Without the events that took place on November 14, 1960, and the bravery of Ruby Bridges, Barbara Henry, Hamilton Holmes, and Charlayne Hunter, we would not be where we are today in relation to educational equality for African Americans. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, and I commend Congressman Lipinski for his work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, more and more Americans rely on the Internet every day. Businesses depend on it for commerce. Consumers depend on it to be able to engage in transactions to support small business all across this country. People network in hopes of finding a job or connecting with friends, exploring opportunities to find the financial means necessary to go to college. This means that every day more people rely on secure networks to keep their personal information safe to make sure that people aren't taking advantage of their privacy and exploiting them, exposing businesses to attacks, costing taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars, growing to millions and millions of dollars, with attacks every day.

We know that this costs the Federal Government money, Mr. Speaker, as more and more countries are looking to engage and find vulnerabilities in these networks just to do harm, to cost the American taxpayers more and more money. We need to make sure that we are truly investing and providing educational opportunities to young people, bringing in those who have some skill sets to teach them how to defend our country and defend business from all these cyber attacks that are costing us millions and millions of dollars every day. Because of our increasing dependence on technology, we must teach these students these important skills.

One provision of this legislation we are debating today will help train the force by establishing the Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service program. During committee markup, I successfully included an amendment to address any regional disparities that may exist to make sure that we are truly looking across the country, in small communities and rural America, to find these experts that can help us protect our country to make sure that small businesses aren't subject to those attacks.

My district in New Mexico is home to 17 different tribes, Mr. Speaker. New Mexico has 22. We need to make sure as they are developing their infrastructure that we provide them the opportunity to make sure they have these skill sets as well. We need to make sure that we are helping keep a vulnerable population engaged, that we are looking to create educational opportunities. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, that we are standing up to those nations, to those people around the world that continue to try to find ways to attack this Nation. They found a way through cybersecurity. They are finding ways to be able to cost commerce money, to prevent business from happening, to stifle small business from growing.

We as a Congress need to make sure we stand with small businesses across

the country and provide educational opportunities and work with them. I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.