Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill lays bare what this new Republican majority is all about. They would repeal benefits and protections that have already dramatically improved health care for families and small businesses, with no credible assurance they would put anything in their place.

A ``yes'' vote would take away tax credits available to up to 17,000 small businesses in my district alone--credits that will let them offer their employees insurance coverage just like their larger competitors do.

A ``yes'' vote on repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for seniors in the ``doughnut hole'' coverage gap by more than $500 this year and more than $3,000 by 2020. What seniors on fixed incomes can afford this kind of price hike?

A ``yes'' vote on repeal would say to parents, who now for the first time can get affordable coverage for their children with preexisting conditions: Once again, you can be denied coverage altogether.

This legislation is flying under disgracefully false colors. Fiscally sound? The Congressional Budget Office says it will increase deficits by $230 billion over the next 10 years. Republicans like to call health insurance reform ``job killing.'' But their repeal bill would cost as many as 4 million jobs over the next decade.

Our Republican colleagues have put their tea party base above everything else, including the health care needs of the American people. We must recognize their cynical political gesture for what it is. This House can and must do better.

``The House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding and also for engaging in this dialogue with other Members about the challenge that we're facing to reduce this country's deficit spending and reduce the accumulating debt and at the same time to make certain that quality, affordable health care are available to all of our citizens.

As the gentleman has pointed out very, very ably, those two challenges are intricately related. In fact, one of the main reasons for supporting health insurance reform is because we simply must reduce our deficit spending and must reduce this country's debt. One of the main contributors to our country's escalating debt is the kind of increasing of health care costs that we have seen in recent years. It's one of the greatest threats to families, to businesses, to the overall economy. Health care has become the fastest growing component of the Federal budget, as the gentleman well knows. Last year, health care accounted for 17 percent of GDP. That's more than twice the average of other developed nations.

Now, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act corrects the failures of the current system without compromising the many strengths that we know that it has. And so it's very disconcerting here in this first week of the new Congress to see our Republican colleagues not only going after the protections in the health care law, but also almost immediately abandoning their commitment to fiscal discipline.

Now, the figures that I saw this morning show that the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arbiter of budgets decisions for this body, the Congressional Budget Office has said that the repeal of health insurance reform as proposed by the Republicans would cost the Federal budget $230 billion over the next 10 years. That's a revised estimate, I understand--even greater than was earlier thought. That is an astounding figure.

Our Republican friends have made a big show out of their commitment to deficit reduction, but they have made an exception. They have clearly made an exception for the repeal of health insurance reform. So not only is this bad health care; not only would it, for example, say to families who only now are being able to insure their children with preexisting conditions, No, we're going to go back to the old way where the insurance companies can deny coverage to your children. What about those families that now are able to include their 24-, 25-year-olds on their families' policies? No, they're saying go back to the old way where that wasn't possible. What about our Medicare recipients who finally are going to get some relief from these uncovered drug expenses, the so-called doughnut hole? They're saying, Oh, no, you're going to have to once again pay those full expenses.

So it's certainly bad policy in terms of health care. But then, to add insult to injury, adding $230 billion to this country's debt burden over the next 10 years, and to do that without batting an eye, without any kind of recognition that this has an impact on the budget deficit, that's just almost unbelievable that the Republicans would be so audacious as to propose this in the first week of a new Congress.

And then to add another insult to injury, they're violating their very own pledge of openness in the way this is going to be considered. I'm sure this gentleman has been watching, as I have, the Rules Committee all day today. It's astounding. Yesterday, there was this commitment to open rules, to open debate, to the offering of amendments. Today, they're saying, We're going to shut it down. It's an up-

or-down vote. Maybe we'll get around later to some of these other questions, some of the repair aspect of repeal and repair, but right now we're just going to repeal it and let the chips fall.

That is horrible procedure. It's a shutting down of this Congress before we even start. It's horrible budget policy. It's horrible health policy. It's a very, very bad way to start this Congress.

I appreciate the gentleman for calling us together tonight to talk about this, because we need to talk about it. We need to think about it. We need to fight it in every way we can.

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to just underscore what our colleague from Oregon has just said.

There is so much concern, obviously--and for good reason--about the future of Medicare. The most conservative estimate I have seen is that health care reform extends the fiscal solvency of Medicare by 8 years, and some estimates are much more than that. So to simply throw that overboard as well as to talk about this doughnut hole--these thousands of dollars that senior citizens are paying full freight on for medicines they simply must have--and this gap in coverage is ridiculous, and we are finally fixing it. What insurance policy do any of us know about that would have that kind of gap in coverage?

As the gentleman from Colorado said, $250 payments this year. I mean, I guess this raises the question as to whether even that might be taken back; but in future years, we are going to close that doughnut hole, and we are going to extend the solvency of Medicare. Anybody concerned about the health care for this country's senior citizens simply has to be very, very alarmed about what is going on in this House right now.

Madam Speaker, when I realized this tribute was underway, this spontaneous tribute on the floor of the House, I rushed over here because I very much want to add my word of respect and commendation and friendship as we recognize Dave Obey's years of service in this body and his retirement.

I have been drawn to Dave and his knowledge of this institution, to his mentorship and leadership, ever since my earliest days here. I came here from a background as a student of the Congress; here was actually an architect of the modern Congress, generous with stories and accounts of his early days here with the Democratic Study Group and the reforms that transformed this place in the 1970s.

He has carried that spirit of reform forward, and is still a reformer at heart. So I have been intrigued with that, as have many colleagues, and have learned a great deal from Dave Obey about that history, but also from our day-to-day association. He has an incomparable knowledge of the history of this place, a mastery of the House and a great loyalty to the institution, and a desire to make it work better. We all know that and admire him for it.

In more recent years, Dave has been best known as the distinguished ranking member and then chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has exemplified what those of us on the Committee like to think of as the spirit of appropriations--the work ethic and mastery of the bills; the careful drafting, line by line; the holding of the administration accountable, no matter which party is in charge in the White House; and the sense that appropriations--the power of the purse--is really at the heart of this institution's constitutional role. We need to do appropriations well, we need to do it cooperatively, and we need to assert ourselves as an institution, calling the executive agencies to account.

David Obey has been a master of procedure and strategy, a masterful chairman of appropriations.

Finally, let me say this: Sometimes it's thought around here that in order to be effective, in order to be well liked, in order to do the job, you've got to be a go-along, get-along kind of guy. Well, that is not Dave Obey. In fact, it's precisely because of his forcefulness, precisely because of his passion for justice, his unyielding determination to fight for what he believes in, that he has our respect and affection and the effectiveness in this institution that he has. In that respect, as in so many others, he's been a role model for us all, and I'm proud to join in this salute here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to call for a recorded vote on this resolution, I would like to express my serious reservations about both the content of the measure before us and the circumstances under which it is being considered. Once again, we are being asked to consider a resolution about one of our Nation's most important foreign policy challenges that was rushed

to the floor without any real chance for debate, without any consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, and without any opportunity for constructive input from the many Members of this body-- Democrats and Republicans--who care deeply about peace in the Middle East.

This resolution is significant not for what it says, but for what it leaves unspoken. Of course most of us believe that a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians will only be achieved through a negotiated two-state solution. And of course any unilateral action by either side--or by a third party--that undermines the peace process should be cause for concern for this Congress, and for anybody else who believes that a two-state solution is still possible.

But that is precisely the point: this resolution says absolutely nothing about the long history of unilateral actions taken by Israeli governments that have progressively undermined confidence in the ability of negotiations to deliver peace. It says nothing about the fact that formal negotiations broke down last week due in large part to Israel's refusal to extend its freeze on unilateral settlement construction for a mere three months. It says nothing about the understandable frustration felt by Israelis and Palestinians alike when they see their leaders fail yet again to make good on their promises of peace.

Moreover, we must ask ourselves whether approving this resolution at this highly sensitive moment would in fact be counterproductive to its stated goal of supporting the peace process. With negotiations on life support and the Administration working overtime to determine the best path forward for the United States, should we really be making definitive statements about what the United States might or might not do if such a unilateral declaration were actually made? Or asking the State Department to shift its focus to preventing other countries from granting diplomatic recognition, rather than continuing to focus on the peace process itself?

One would think that we should rather be urging the Obama Administration to stand firm in its efforts to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders back to the negotiating table. The Administration was wise to abandon its offer to give Israel a generous package of security guarantees to do something that is manifestly in its own self- interest to begin with, but Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell have made clear their commitment to pursuing alternative courses of action.

Instead of stirring the pot at this delicate time with pronouncements and condemnations, we should be offering hope and encouragement to their efforts.

Ultimately, I agree with the basic points made in this resolution. But I strongly urge the leadership of this House, on both sides of the aisle, to allow for a more balanced, transparent, and deliberative process next time we are asked to express the sense of Congress on a matter of such critical importance to our Nation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in qualified support of this tax cut agreement. I do so only after carefully weighing its positive elements against its severe flaws and with a realistic sense of the dire consequences should the measure fail.

This conclusion says as much about the gamesmanship of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and, I'm afraid, about what we can expect in the next Congress--as it does about the contents of the legislation. No program or priority has been too sacred for House and Senate Republicans to hold hostage in their fervor to extend President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of how many hard-working families have had to suffer in the process. Programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support--such as unemployment insurance and small business tax credits--have suddenly become ``Democratic'' priorities, fair game to be stonewalled by Republicans until they could squeeze every last concession out of this deal.

The disconnect between what they say and what they do should be painfully obvious to the American people. How does their support for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires square with their stated priorities of balancing the budget and growing the economy? Spending $130 billion over the next 2 years alone on tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans--without paying for a cent of it--is certainly a strange way to demonstrate their fiscal discipline. And it's also the least effective step we can take to spur the economy. If economic recovery were really the goal, they would have extended unemployment insurance the first chance they had, because nothing plows money back into the economy more effectively.

If this is where the Republican Party's true priorities lie, then I have never been prouder to be a Democrat. I have never been prouder to stand up for hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs and cannot find a new one by assuring them that their unemployment insurance will not expire. I have never been prouder to stand up for middle-class families who have seen their savings depleted and cannot afford to have their taxes raised during an economic downturn. To stand up for small businesses by giving them the certainty and support they need to grow and prosper. And to stand up for future generations by allowing expensive tax cuts that benefit only the wealthiest while doing nothing to stimulate the economy to expire on schedule, so that we can finally get back on track toward a balanced budget.

Two weeks ago, this House approved, with my strong support, a bill that would have done all of these things. This earlier version of the legislation before us today would have given all American families a permanent tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income, including capital gains and dividends; it would have extended AMT relief, the enhanced EITC, and the enhanced child tax credit; and it would have maintained critical expensing provisions to encourage small businesses to invest. Simply put, this bill would have provided tax relief to those who need it most, and with the maximum economic impact. Yet our Republican colleagues dismissed it as a ``symbolic'' vote.

Since then, the measure has been amended substantially to reflect the negotiations that have occurred between the White House and Congressional leaders. The result is a much more expansive package that has many positive elements but also major negative ones. It is also an expensive package, adding over $850 billion to the deficit over the next decade. This cost is only justifiable to the extent that the legislation is both effective as an economic stimulus and equitable in its benefits, and each of its provisions should be subjected to these criteria.

On the positive side, the measure will extend unemployment insurance through the end of next year. This is both a moral obligation and a sound economic decision: there is perhaps no greater return on our investment in the short run than to ensure that Americans who have lost their jobs and cannot find another one can continue to make ends meet. At the same time, they put almost all of this money back into the economy, maintaining aggregate demand for goods and services--in stark contrast to tax cuts for the wealthy.

The agreement maintains the historically low tax rates that lower- and middle-income Americans have enjoyed for the past decade for 2 more years. While doing so will not be cheap, we cannot afford to raise taxes on working families during the current downturn, and the stimulative impact of these extensions will be significant. It also extends several tax credits targeted directly at lower- and middle- income Americans, including the refundable child tax credit, the enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit, and important credits or deductions for child care, education, and other essential services. The fact that the child tax credit is refundable for low-income people whose income tax liability is limited will provide a particularly important boost to them and to our economic recovery.

In addition, the package offers critical relief to small businesses, including an extension of the bonus depreciation provision included in the Recovery Act, a 2-year extension of the Research and Development tax credit so critical to the Research Triangle, and several important renewable energy incentives. These and other provisions will provide business owners with the stability and support they need to expand their operations, hire new workers, and continue the economic recovery.

Finally, the legislation includes a payroll tax holiday that will result in a lower tax burden for

all American workers next year. Some respected advocates, in North Carolina and elsewhere, have argued that this provision could in fact hurt lower-income workers, compared to the Making Work Pay tax credit that expires this year. Some have also claimed that this provision would threaten Social Security by temporarily reducing payments to the Social Security trust fund.

To be clear, if I had my choice I would prefer to be voting for an extension of Making Work Pay instead of a payroll tax holiday--but that is not the choice we face today. The choice is between a payroll tax holiday and nothing, and the simple fact is that if we do nothing, then lower-income workers will be much worse off than they are now: their income taxes will be higher; they will lose the many other benefits this bill provides, such as enhanced EITC; and they won't receive any form of payroll tax relief. Moreover, because the benefits of a payroll tax holiday will be more broadly shared, the stimulative impact of a payroll tax holiday will be more broadly felt. And as for its impact on Social Security, both the President and the AARP have assured us that the diversion of funds will be both temporary and repaid in full. There are reasons to be concerned about threats to Social Security's future, but this should not be one of them.

Now, these positive elements must be weighed carefully against the major concessions that were made to Republicans during the negotiations that produced this bill. I am referring, of course, to the extension of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000, which will add over $100 billion to the deficit over the next 2 years while doing almost nothing to stimulate the economy. This is not simply my personal opinion or the view of the Democratic Party: it is a fact confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office and any number of respected economists, and well understood by the American people. As I have already stated, the fact that the Republican leadership held this entire package hostage so that millionaires could get an average tax break of $100,000 per year tells us exactly where their true priorities lie: Tax cuts for the wealthy are clearly the ``holy grail'' of their economic policy, to which all other policy outcomes are subjugated.

I am equally disappointed by the inclusion of an estate tax proposal that is little more than a gratuitous giveaway to some 6,600 wealthy families. We hear a lot of dire warnings about the impact of the estate tax on small farmers and business owners, but even to the extent that they would be affected, the compromise estate tax proposal passed by the House last December was more than sufficient to protect them. Now, we are considering a proposal that costs $23 billion more than the 2009 proposal and will have no economic impact at all aside from letting a few thousand millionaires and billionaires keep even more of their inherited wealth--an average windfall of $3.5 million per family.

As the details of these provisions have become known, I have actively engaged in discussions here and at home, doing everything within my power to oppose the inclusion of giveaways to the wealthiest Americans in the package. I have joined my colleagues in sending two separate letters to the House leadership opposing the inclusion of upper-income tax cuts and a third letter arguing against the gratuitous estate tax provision, and last week I voted for the House's middle class tax cut package which omitted these giveaways. I have also signed several letters arguing for a more sensible package of energy incentives in the legislation, including a reduction of the ethanol credit that was added by the Senate at the last minute. I was a strong supporter of the 2009 estate tax compromise offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy, which unfortunately failed to pass the Senate, and I will be voting for it again tonight.

While I am deeply disappointed that these efforts have not been more successful, we are now called upon to evaluate this package as it is, not as we would like it to be. The bottom line is that the positive impact of this package for working- and middle-class Americans and our economic recovery outweighs its negative impact on the deficit and its unjust giveaways to the wealthy.

We must also consider the consequences of failing to enact this legislation today. Deferring action on these expiring tax provisions until next year would not only create chaos for American taxpayers; it would also likely result in a package that is nowhere near as generous or as equitable, given the extreme views of the incoming Republican majority on many of its provisions. Republicans leaders openly state that their chief concern in the 112th Congress is not economic recovery, not putting Americans back to work, but ensuring President Obama is a one-term President. While their stated goals may be grossly misguided and narrow, mine will not be. Scuttling this package would mean foregoing what will likely be our last opportunity to provide any stimulus to the economy, given that the Republicans have made clear their opposition to additional aid to states, infrastructure investments, and other countercyclical programs. The need to maintain demand and stimulate growth has not fully abated--this economy is not yet out of the woods. The question is not whether the package before us is the most effective one conceivable--it is not--but whether we will do anything to keep the recovery going before the next Congress shuts the door entirely.

Under these circumstances, I support this legislation despite its flaws. I cannot in good conscience cast a ``no'' vote that, were it to prevail, would expose working Americans to tax increases and end the EITC and child credit provisions that have benefitted so many people. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote that would rip away the safety net for those not yet able to find work, and in the process hobble an economic recovery. We risk all of these if this bill fails. Our good conscience also causes us to question this bill's violations of tax fairness and fiscal prudence; I have worked and will continue to work to change these things. But tonight we must vote while we have the chance to do so, and on the only vehicle available to us, to protect the vast majority of our constituents and to bring this economy back to health.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6080) making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6080.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge adoption of H.R. 6080, a bill to address the urgent need for enhanced security on our Southwest border. Violence on the Mexican side of the border has intensified because of turf battles among murderous transnational criminal organizations competing for drug, alien, and weapon trafficking business. The bill would provide $600 million to enable the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Judiciary, in cooperation with the National Guard, to counter this threat, building on the current border enforcement surge.

This funding is urgently needed to counter the pressures our law enforcement agencies and our border communities currently face.

Madam Speaker, the bill is fully offset. It includes a $100 million reduction

in the Department of Homeland Security's border security infrastructure and technology account due to an ongoing reassessment of the SBInet program. The bill also increases, for 5 years, the cost for two visas which permit foreign workers to come and work in the United States. These fee increases would apply only to companies with more than 50 employees and for whom the majority of their workforce is visa-holding foreign workers.

The House passed a very similar version of this border security supplemental bill 2 weeks ago, partially offset and partially on a well-justified emergency basis. Because the Senate amended the House- passed bill, we are voting on the package again today.

The most significant change the Senate made was to fully offset the bill, adding the visa fee increases. Because of the Constitutional requirement that revenue-generating bills initiate in the House, the bill before us today has been introduced as a new bill but with provisions identical to the Senate-passed bill. Therefore, should the House approve this bill today, it will need to be taken up again by the Senate, hopefully at the earliest possible date.

For the Department of Homeland Security, the bill provides a total of $394 million, including: $176 million to hire a thousand new Border Patrol agents. That funding will bring us to a total of 21,370 Border Patrol agents, a 70 percent increase since 2006. $68 million to retain 270 Customs and Border Protection officers and hire 250 additional officers. With this bill, there will be over 20,700 CBP officers working to enhance port of entry operations.

There is $32 million to procure two additional unmanned aircraft systems; $80 million to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, which includes $30 million to pay for four new Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, training and support for Mexican law enforcement partners, and a staffing surge for ICE's criminal alien removal efforts. The remaining $50 million will be used to hire additional ICE investigators, intelligence analysts, and support personnel for a permanent expansion of ICE's presence along the border. These new personnel will focus on disrupting the criminal enterprises that fuel violence in Mexico.

There is $6 million to construct two new forward operating bases for the Border Patrol.

For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $196 million in support of investigations and crime control along the Southwest border, including $38 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; $34 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration; $30 million for the U.S. Marshals Service; and $24 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Finally, for the judiciary, the bill provides $10 million to meet increased workload requirements resulting from immigration and other law enforcement initiatives.

I want to recognize especially, Madam Speaker, the hard work of our border State Representatives who were instrumental in getting the supplemental border security bill initially passed. They have signaled their full support for the House to take up this latest version from the Senate, and we will hear from a number of them during the debate this morning.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill to address these critical border security challenges which, while they are most acute on the southwest border, constitute a serious national threat which we ignore at our peril.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our distinguished ranking minority member has asked a legitimate question, and that is, where is the 2011 regular Homeland Security bill? He says it's nowhere in sight. He knows very well it's clearly in sight. The 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill has been marked up in subcommittee. It's been put together with full bipartisan participation. It directly addresses the Coast Guard and border security matters that he has stressed. And this emergency measure here today in no way detracts from that.

But this is an emergency. This is something that needs to be urgently addressed. Unfortunately, the Senate earlier stripped out these border provisions from the supplemental appropriations bill, and so we are here today passing this and getting this done at the earliest possible moment.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a subcommittee member who has been an important participant in putting this effort together, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), another of our border members, and the chairman of our authorizing Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), another border member who from her first day here has worked tirelessly on this border security issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of our authorizing committee, Representative Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it seems that a good part of the debate this morning has been about what this bill is not. Both sides have mentioned the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and I couldn't agree more. We cannot enforce our way out of this immigration challenge. I have never met a border security officer who claims otherwise.

This is a much broader challenge than simply enforcement or securing the border. I would hope most Members understand that and understand the urgency of moving ahead on comprehensive immigration reform.

What is before us this morning is an emergency measure dealing with some border security challenges arising from the cartel violence and gang activity in Mexico which requires an emergency response, an immediate response, and a targeted response. That is what this bill provides.

We have also heard a great deal about the 2011 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Indeed, this emergency supplemental is not the regular bill. Nor is it a substitute for the regular bill. In fact, it is just what it says, it is a supplement to ongoing appropriations, a supplement designed to address this critical situation out on the southwest border which our colleagues on the border have testified to very convincingly here this morning.

The 2011 Homeland Security bill is alive and well. It has been assembled on a bipartisan basis after months of hearings and discussions. It has been approved at the subcommittee level, and Members will be seeing that bill very shortly. And believe me, on many of these items in the supplemental, you will be hearing from us again: the BEST teams, the border enforcement security task forces, a proven device; the forward-operating bases; and, of course, the beefing up of the Border Patrol and the cadre of CBP officers. All of these things are ongoing challenges, but they are also immediate challenges.

This is an important supplemental to the regular bill. This was true when we first passed it in early July, and it is still true today. Today we are compensating for the fact that border security was dropped from the supplemental appropriations bill by the Senate. But the Senate, fortunately, in recent days passed the bill before us. We are now passing the bill that they passed so as to expedite the targeting of these funds for this immediate problem in the Southwest. This is a much-needed bill. We have had ample testimony to that effect. I urge my colleagues to support it here this morning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5875) making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5875.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a total of $701 million to support high-priority Homeland Security and Justice programs to enhance security along the Southwest border, where violence on the Mexican side is intensifying due to turf battles among murderous transnational criminal organizations competing for drug, alien, and weapons trafficking business. The funding would enable DHS and DOJ, in cooperation with the National Guard, to build on the current border enforcement surge.

This bill is largely uncontroversial. It simply re-proposes funding the House already approved as part of the war and disaster supplemental bill on July 1. As we all know, these funds, along with funds to stop teacher layoffs, were stripped by the Senate, leaving only funding for the wars, the Disaster Relief Fund, and Haiti earthquake relief. This funding is required now to improve security on our border and in our border communities.

I want to thank the dedicated Members from the Southwest border region who have kept the focus on this issue and are responsible for bringing us here today. We will hear from a good number of these Members tonight. I especially want to thank Gabby Giffords and Silvestre Reyes for their effort leadership on this effort, along with Ciro Rodriguez, a member of our subcommittee who is a tireless advocate of these border communities; Alan Mollohan, who helped shape the Department of Justice items in the bill; and many others who helped substantially: Chet Edwards, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Teague, Henry Cuellar, Solomon Ortiz, Ruben Hinojosa, Susan Davis, and Gene Green, among others.

Very briefly, the bill would fund several critical initiatives, including 1,200 new border patrol agents to sustain current levels on the Southwest border and build up capacity for when the National Guard is withdrawn next year, and 500 new Customs and Border Protection officers for the Southwest border to keep up staffing at ports of entry as customs and immigration fee funding continues to fall.

The bill includes funding for integrity programs to ensure CBP personnel operate at the high standards we expect and to combat efforts by the cartels to corrupt CBP personnel.

The bill would fund three new forward operating bases and better tactical communications to enable the border patrol to operate close to the border and to close gaps that can be exploited by smugglers.

It would establish four new Border Enforcement Security Task Forces on the border and build up a permanent ICE presence in joint counterdrug efforts in the region, as well as provide for a surge in ICE's criminal alien removal efforts.

It would add $50 million to expand support for State and local joint law enforcement efforts on the border.

It would add two additional Predator unmanned aircraft systems to ensure better coverage of the Southwest border, in particular on the Texas border.

And finally, it provides $201 million for Justice Department staffing to surge agents and U.S. attorneys to high-crime areas in the Southwest border region, to provide more robust assistance to Mexican law enforcement authorities, and to better handle criminal aliens referred by the Department of Homeland Security.

On June 22 of this year, the President requested a $600 million border security supplemental, offsetting $100 million of these funds and designating the rest as an emergency.

This bill is consistent with that request, funding $500 million under an emergency designation and offsetting $201 million from unobligated balances in TSA Aviation Security, FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations, the Census Bureau, and CBP's delayed virtual fence effort, or SBInet.

Consistent with past practices for supplemental appropriations, we consider our challenges on the southwest border as important as our military's work to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban or to promote stability in Iraq, and some would argue that the southwest border mission is more important. That's why this President, like past Presidents, has requested the funding under an emergency designation. I know the minority has agreed with this point of view repeatedly in the past, and I hope we can count on their support now.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help us counter the pressures on our law enforcement agencies and our border communities, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our subcommittee, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding chairman of our authorizing subcommittee, Mr. Cuellar of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another outstanding Member who has worked tirelessly to secure the border, Mr. Teague of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Giffords of Arizona, who is a sponsor of this bill and has also worked with citizens in her region ever since she came to this Congress to secure the border and to make certain that the citizens of Arizona on the border region were safe and protected.

I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the pertinent questions raised by our ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised a series of questions which deserve answers. I will briefly attempt to provide those answers, and then we will, perhaps, bring this debate to a close.

The gentleman asked: Why this bill in this form at this point?

The answer to that is very simple, which is that it was only this week that the Senate stripped these provisions from the supplemental appropriations bill. Up until this point, our hope was--and, indeed, our expectation was--that the Senate would find a way to pass these border security provisions, or some major portion of them, in the supplemental appropriations bill. It is only because that did not happen that we find ourselves in this position here tonight, offering those provisions as a free-standing bill.

The gentleman asked: Does this somehow supplant the regular bill?

Absolutely not. As the gentleman knows, we have worked cooperatively in putting together the 2011 Homeland Security bill, and that bill addresses border security in serious ways. It builds on the work we have done in the last number of years to fortify that border, to equip those who are protecting the border and to have adequate personnel at the border. So the 2011 bill is going to address these matters and in a serious way. We still hope and expect to send that bill to the President this fall.

This, however, is an emergency supplemental, a supplemental which was debated on this floor weeks ago, which addresses the urgent needs. Our colleagues from the border regions have made it very, very clear tonight, I believe, that these urgent needs really shouldn't have to wait for that regular bill, but it absolutely takes nothing away from the regular 2011 bill.

The gentleman made some assertions as to what might have happened had the markup gone forward on schedule yesterday. The fact is that neither of us knows exactly what would have been offered, much less how the votes might have gone.

I do want to address one very serious matter, though, and that is the question of offsets, the question of where this bill fits in the overall budget picture.

As I said in my opening statement, when the President requested a $600 million border security supplemental on June 22, he proposed the offsetting of $100 million of these funds, and he designated the rest as an emergency. This bill is consistent with that request. It funds $500 million under an emergency designation. It offsets $201 million from unobligated balances from DHS and DOJ.

As I said, this is entirely consistent with past practice under the leadership of both parties. When Mr. Rogers was chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee and when the Republicans were in control of this body and were in control of the administration, Congress passed three emergency spending bills for the Southwest border, and none were offset.

Of these bills, the administration, in fact, requested only one as an emergency. The other two bills contained border security funding, added by a Republican-controlled Congress, not even requested by the administration, and congressional Republicans unilaterally deemed this as emergency funding.

The situation on the border necessitates immediate action. It makes it a true emergency. Why would the minority or anybody else consider this a less emergent priority than fighting the Taliban or stabilizing Iraq? No questions are ever raised about the emergency status of those funds. These are missions that are much more expensive, I might add.

Finally, let me quote a letter that we got from Mr. Rogers, Mr. Lewis, and other leading Republican Members a mere week ago. This has to do with the kind of enforcement efforts that might be undertaken on the Southwest border:

While cross-border criminal activity is not a new phenomenon, it has escalated into an unquestionably clear and present threat to the security of the United States. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to pursue any and all means of addressing this threat within the parameters of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is exactly what our supplemental emergency appropriations bill does, and for that reason, I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are ready to move to a vote. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky, and I, of course, share his hope that we will in reasonably short order have progress to report on the fiscal 2011 Homeland Security bill.

We have that bill assembled. We have put it through the subcommittee process, and we plan to proceed with it in due course.

I stress, this bill tonight is in no way a substitute for that bill. This bill tonight is not new. This bill was passed by this House. The exact language, the exact provisions were passed by this House on July 1 as part of a supplemental appropriations bill, and the only reason it is before us tonight as a freestanding measure is because of the Senate's unwise action in stripping these border security provisions from the bill.

As for the emergency spending, we did run surpluses in this country in the 1990s. We remember that period when we were actually paying off part of the national debt. Unfortunately, that's not the period we're talking about when we talk about the previous precedents that have been set in this area.

The emergency spending that was done during the last administration in this border security area on three occasions under Republican leadership, this was done not at a time of budget surpluses; it was done at a time, in fact, when this Nation was sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

We have no more speakers on our side. I appreciate the attention of our colleagues, and especially the work that has gone into this measure from our colleagues on the southwest border. They have been absolutely tireless in standing up for their constituents and in calling to the rest of the Congress and the rest of the country this emergency situation that demands to be addressed.

Mr. Cuellar, I think it was, this afternoon said to the press, however, that this isn't just a border matter. This isn't just a border security. This is a matter of national security. It's a matter of urgent national security.

And so we're grateful for those who have worked very quickly now, after the developments in the Senate, have worked very quickly to put this bill forward in this form. We urge its passage. We want to send it along to the Senate and hope very much that this bill will be law in a matter of days and that we can get the emergency relief where it's needed. And then, of course, we will address all of these matters more systematically and in a more long-term basis in the regular appropriations bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor William C. ``Bill'' Friday, the man whose name was synonymous with higher education in North Carolina for much of the 20th century. This week, he celebrated his 90th birthday.

Few North Carolinians are as well known or as widely respected as Bill Friday. Although he has never run for elected office, the former president of the University of North Carolina (UNC) system has been prominent in public affairs for decades and ranks as one of the most important American university presidents of the post-World War II era. As the longest-serving President of North Carolina's public university system, Bill Friday has been a friend to anyone and everyone educated in that system, anyone employed by that system, and anyone living in the vibrant towns and cities that surround our state's public universities.

Bill Friday was born in Raphine, Virginia, but he grew up in Dallas, North Carolina, a small community in Gaston County. He graduated from Dallas High School, where he played baseball and basketball, and went on to earn a bachelor's degree from North Carolina State University and a law degree from UNC Chapel Hill. He also served in the United States Naval Reserve during World War II.

Friday's entire professional life was spent in higher education. Before becoming president of the UNC system in 1957, he served as assistant dean of students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1948-1951), assistant to the President of the Consolidated University of North Carolina (1951-1955), and Secretary of the University of North Carolina system. After a brief period as Acting President of the system, he was chosen to take the position permanently. It was a job at which he thrived.

Friday's tenure as UNC president spanned the greatest period of growth for higher education in American history, and he played a crucial role in shaping our sixteen-campus university during that time. Early on, the Council of Advancement and Support of Education identified Friday as the most effective public university president in the nation.

Bill Friday was a consistent supporter of academic freedom and integrity. During the civil rights movement, he often served as mediator between student activists and the conservative state legislature. He led a five-year effort to repeal the 1963 Speaker Ban Law, which prohibited campuses from hosting appearances by government critics. And he fought to keep tuition affordable so that limited means would not be a barrier to higher education.

Friday was also a visionary leader, and he pursued that vision in many areas. His involvement in the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education led to gains in North Carolina and the nation in federal funding for student aid in Pell Grants and the establishment of the Area Health Education Centers. He served as founding co-chair of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which has worked persistently to reform college athletics. Friday helped to develop the National Humanities Center; he supported the establishment of North Carolina public radio through UNC; and he was instrumental in the creation and growth of the Research Triangle Park.

As Charlotte Observer associate editor Jack Betts noted about Bill Friday: ``He often seemed to be everywhere, but he was always no further away than a telephone, willing to talk about state history, fully cognizant of the state's many needs and always enthusiastic about the progress the state could make through its various educational enterprises, especially the university. He was a university president, but at heart he has always been a teacher.'' I can certainly attest to this personally as the recipient of many Bill Friday notes and calls and as one who has benefitted enormously from his generous and wise counsel.

Friday has mentored university leaders, governors and presidents in the course of his public life and he has received a multitude of accolades--including just about every honor North Carolina has to bestow. These honors include the American Council on Education's National Distinguished Service Award for Lifetime Achievement, the National Humanities Medal, the American Academy for Liberal Education's Jacques Barzun Award, and the John Hope Franklin Award. In 2004, the N.C. General Assembly held a special joint session to honor Friday's life and work. The legislature and then-Gov. Mike Easley presented William and Ida Friday with the Order of the Long Leaf Pine award for service to North Carolina.

Now retired from the university, Friday heads the William R. Kenan, Jr., Fund and the Kenan Charitable Trust. Friday also currently hosts a public television talk show, North Carolina People, which he began while still president of the UNC system. The show brings Tar Heel state residents insights from leaders in education, politics, business, and the arts, adding richly to our public discourse.

Even in retirement, Friday keeps an office at UNC Chapel Hill and serves as a formal and informal sounding board and dispenser of wisdom for students, administrators and others. The University of North Carolina System has given its state so much: public servants, educators and other professionals, small and large business leaders, innovative researchers, informed citizens: these make up the fabric that weaves together our communities. At 90, Bill remains fiercely dedicated to the idea that education is uniquely powerful, giving young people the tools they need to shape their lives, live out their dreams, and better society.

As Bill himself would insist, he has not achieved these great things on his own. He had the good fortune and good sense in 1942

to marry his wife Ida, who has been a lifetime partner in his service and civic endeavors. Their names grace a continuing education center in Chapel Hill and an education innovation center in Raleigh, both of which host hundreds of gatherings each year, promoting collaboration and furthering the causes to which the Fridays' lives have been dedicated.

Fortunately, nothing Bill Friday has done in the last few years suggests his life will begin to slow down as he turns 90. I am honored to know Bill and to call attention to his service to our state and her citizens. The Tarheel State owes much to him.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I am happy to remind

our colleagues of the provisions in this bill that will enhance border security.

The Obey amendment will add money for urgent needs, to address the alarming level of violence attributable to Mexican gangs and drug cartels. It will increase the presence of critical Border Patrol and Customs personnel at the border, and it will strengthen the protection of jeopardized communities.

There are four critical aspects of these border provisions:

First, the Obey amendment will strengthen enforcement between ports of entry to deter and apprehend smugglers and illegal crossings. That means 1,200 new Border Patrol agents. It means up to three additional forward operating bases, and it will provide two new unmanned aircraft systems for CBP to patrol the border.

Second, the Obey amendment will tighten enforcement at ports of entry while aiding legitimate travel and commerce. It will sustain hundreds of critical CBP officer positions at risk of being cut because of declining fee collections. It will add 500 CBP officers for inspection and enforcement at ports of entry, inbound and outbound, to crack down on drugs, weapons, cash, and alien traffickers.

Third, the bill enhances Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's) investigative operations on the border and their cooperation with our Mexican partners to target the cartels, their criminal enterprises, and their violent henchmen.

Four new Southwest Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. Additional vetted law enforcement units with the Government of Mexico. A 120-day surge in the ICE Joint Criminal Alien Removal Task Force and Criminal Alien Programs. Training for Mexican officials on investigations of transnational drug smuggling, money laundering, human trafficking, and child exploitation.

Finally, the bill expands aid to State and local partners along the border, expanding the grant assistance under Operation Stonegarden to State and local law enforcement in cooperation with DHS.

Mr. Speaker, this Obey amendment would greatly enhance our border security. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend to my colleagues' attention a recent public address by the gentleman from California, Mr. Dreier, on the occasion of Memorial Day. For the past five years, I have had the privilege of serving with Mr. Dreier on the House Democracy Partnership, a bipartisan commission established by the House of Representatives in 2005 that works to strengthen the capacity of legislatures in emerging and developing democracies around the world. Mr. Dreier was the commission's first chairman and now serves as its ranking Republican member. As the current chairman, I have had the privilege of working closely with him as we have sought to support our fellow legislators and their staffs in countries ranging from Haiti and Peru to Indonesia and East Timor.

On this Memorial Day, Mr. Dreier reflected on the work of the House Democracy Partnership and the relationship between the sacrifices made by our nation's men and women in uniform and the cause of freedom around the world. I have included his eloquent remarks in their entirety below:

I have been privileged to stand here on several previous

occasions, and have had the honor of getting to know many of

you. Every year we come together on Memorial Day to remember

the war dead and to honor their service. We are humbled by

their sacrifice. But I believe we honor them fully not just

in solemn remembrance, but in commemorating their legacy as

well.

Their legacy, first and foremost, is our 221-year history

as a nation that was founded in, and has prospered by, a

commitment to liberty. We have faced many crises. But we have

endured because the men and women of our armed forces have

fought to defend the principles on which our country was

built.

These principles are enduring because they are universal.

Across all cultural and geographic boundaries, people want to

live in liberty. Which is why the legacy of those we honor

today is evidenced not just here at home, but in the many

fledgling democracies around the world. Democratic governance

is taking hold in places that previously knew only

totalitarianism or military dictatorship, like Macedonia and

Indonesia. Places that were plagued with violence and chaos,

like Colombia and Liberia. Places that were controlled by a

foreign power, like East Timor and Kosovo.

In some of these places, our military has played a direct

role, such as the former Yugoslavia. But their greatest

influence has been simply in defending the principles that

offer the only path to lasting peace. We have seen throughout

our history that wherever there is tyranny, there can be no

real security. Wherever repression and poverty allow

resentments and extremism to spread, violence will always

follow. And because repression's greatest enemy is liberty,

the violence that follows will always threaten our security

and our interests.

In recognition of this fact, I had the privilege of

founding a commission in the House of Representatives called

the House Democracy Partnership. For the last five years,

this commission has worked with a number of new and

reemerging democracies, like those I named before, to provide

support and assistance in their quest to solidify their

democratic gains. As we engage with the popularly elected

representatives of these countries, the legacy of our armed

forces provides the context for this work. We act with the

knowledge that their sacrifice is what has enabled the United

States to serve as a model for the rest of the world, and the

recognition that failure to see democracy take hold threatens

our security.

Of the 15 countries with which the House Democracy

Partnership is currently working, the stakes are highest in

Afghanistan and Pakistan, ground zero for the struggle

against violent extremism. Nearly 100,000 of

our men and women in uniform are currently in harm's way in

the region, as we all know very well. They are doing what

they have always done: valiantly defending the people of the

United States. But we want them to be able to complete their

mission and come home as soon as possible.

That means that the Afghan people must build a stable,

peaceful, democratic government that will neither threaten

the U.S. nor allow a breeding ground for terrorism to once

again take root. As difficult as that process is, the right

seeds have been planted. I have seen former adversaries in

war sit around a table in Kabul, discussing the path forward

for the Afghan people. I have worked with legislators in

Islamabad who are determined to root out all forms of

terrorism until it is completely eradicated from Pakistani

territory.

These democratic efforts are made possible by the work that

our troops are doing. Our service members are working to

create the security and political space for these efforts to

be successful. This is a Herculean task that can seem

impossible at times. But if our nation's history demonstrates

anything, it is the power of liberty and democratic

principles. And our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and

guardsmen have been their guarantor for 221 years. Today we

honor all who have served, all who have made the ultimate

sacrifice, and all who are currently in harm's way. And we

honor them with the recognition that the fruit of their

sacrifice is evident not just here at home, but around the

globe.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment extending oversight and accountability for security contractors overseas, for contractors performing security functions, as one element of this en bloc amendment.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) joins me in this effort, and I also want to acknowledge the leadership of other Members, especially that of Ms. Schakowsky, in this critical area of defense policy.

This amendment is brief and straightforward. It would simply extend a section of the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill that strengthened the oversight of private security

contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to additional areas in which there is or could be a significant security contractor presence.

I don't need to recount here, Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of greater oversight and accountability for armed contractors, particularly those operating in areas in which our military is operating. The high-profile incidents of contractor misconduct that have punctuated our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should speak for themselves.

In responding to these incidents, Congress has come a long way toward improving Federal management and oversight of private security contractors, most notably through several important reforms, including those in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill. These reforms, many of which were drawn from my broader contractor accountability legislation, have been credited with improving both the operational capabilities of the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and Congress' ability to conduct effective oversight of private security contractors.

As our military faces new and emerging threats in other areas of the world, it is critical that these effective oversight measures be maintained and extended. This amendment seeks to do just that by extending several of the key reforms enacted in 2008 to additional areas with significant contractor presence. The amendment lists four such areas by name, but its broader intent is to give the Defense Department, the State Department, and USAID the tools and authority they need to apply these coordination and oversight mechanisms to any area in which our military is conducting significant operations.

I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and the Armed Services Committee for their leadership in drafting this legislation as well as for their support and cooperation in the effort to improve transparency and accountability in the use of contractors.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the end of Sri Lanka's civil war and call attention to the continued plight of the thousands of Sri Lankans who have been affected by the conflict.

One year ago this week, after more than 25 years of violence, the Sri Lankan military declared victory in its major military offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In so doing, it brought an end to one of the most devastating civil wars of the century, offering the Sri Lankan people hope of a brighter future characterized by peace, reconciliation, and economic prosperity for all citizens.

Unfortunately, this hope has yet to be realized. The Sri Lankan military's final offensive against the LTTE left hundreds of thousands of civilians--most of them Tamils--dislocated, deprived of basic necessities, and without effective legal or political recourse. Since the end of the conflict, the Sri Lankan government has blatantly and repeatedly defied the demands of the international community and commonly accepted norms of justice and human rights by failing to reintegrate large numbers of Tamil citizens, denying access by journalists and humanitarian organizations to conflict-affected areas, and detaining former combatants indefinitely.

It has also become apparent that the Sri Lankan military may have committed serious abuses during the fighting itself, including the indiscriminate shelling of areas designated as civilian safe zones. A growing number of respected human rights organizations--including the International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch--have called for an independent international investigation into potential war crimes, yet the Sri Lankan government has yet to open any meaningful inquiry into the allegations.

On this anniversary of the end of the civil war, I call on the government of Sri Lanka to act earnestly and expeditiously to grant safe passage home to the approximately 80,000 Tamil civilians who remain confined to camps, provide ex-combatants with appropriate legal recourse and a path toward reintegration, and end its restrictions on humanitarian and media organizations. It is also past time for the international community to pursue real accountability, including a credible, independent investigation into the potential abuses committed during the 2009 conflict. I urge the Obama Administration to play a leading role in this effort by calling for an investigation at the United Nations and maintaining current restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance to Sri Lanka until the government has demonstrated credible progress toward meeting the international community's demands.

If we do not act soon, this moment of opportunity for lasting peace, justice and reconciliation--which seemed so promising one year ago--may slip away forever.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1361, which commemorates the centennial anniversary of North Carolina Central University and honors its founder, Dr. James E. Shepard. I've introduced this resolution as the Member of this body privileged to represent North Carolina Central, but I'm proud to say it has the support of the entire North Carolina delegation, as well as a number of other Members who recognize the university's significance.

People frequently talk about the Big Three universities in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, referring to Duke University, North Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But I like to remind them that it actually is the Big Four. North Carolina Central is as fully integral to the historical fabric of our State as its three peer institutions. It is one of the oldest and most prestigious Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the Nation. And it has rapidly assumed an important role as a research institution.

Established by Dr. James E. Shepard in 1909 in Durham, North Carolina, the university first opened its doors to students a year later as the National Religious Training School and Chautauqua. Dr. Shepard was a visionary leader guided by the conviction that individual self-improvement and collective self-advancement were inextricably intertwined. ``There is no economy in ignorance,'' he declared. ``Education is a vastly expensive resource, but ignorance is incomparably more so. Ignorance and poverty are cures for nothing.''

Dr. Shepard led the university until his death in 1947, guiding the institution through several name changes, watching the university grow in size and mission, and helping the school gain the support of the North Carolina State Legislature. In 1925, thanks to Dr. Shepard's leadership, the school became the Nation's first State-supported liberal arts college for African American students.

Now an integral part of the University of North Carolina system, NC Central offers bachelor's degrees in more than 100 fields of study and graduate degrees in about 40 disciplines to a student body of around 8,500. U.S. News and World Report recently ranked NC Central as the top public HBCU in the Nation and one of the top 10 HBCUs overall. The NC Central School of Law has been named the ``Best Value Law School'' in the Nation by National Jurist magazine for 2 consecutive years.

NC Central is also renowned for its contributions to the cultural and performing arts. The university is home to the Marching Sound Machine, an award-winning marching band that will be performing on New Year's Day, 2011, in the Rose Bowl Parade, and the North Carolina Central Jazz Ensemble, which recently performed in the Newport Jazz Festival.

NC Central also has a strong history of athletic prowess. It's sports teams have won 41 conference championships, 3 NCAA regional titles, and 2 national championships. More than 50 of its student athletes have won individual NCAA and NAIA national championships, and student athletes representing NCCU competed at every Olympic games from 1956 to 1976 in track and field, capturing eight Olympic medals, including five gold medals, during that period.

As a co-chair of the congressional National Service Caucus, I must also note that NC Central was the first State university in North Carolina to establish community service as a requirement for graduation and has been recognized by the Carnegie Foundation as a ``community- engaged university.'' It should therefore come as no surprise that the university has enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with its home city of Durham throughout its 100-year history.

Thousands of NC Central graduates have served Durham as community leaders, educators, professionals, entrepreneurs, and volunteers. However, the reach of the university extends far beyond the Triangle region of North Carolina. In the century since its founding, the university has graduated approximately 40,000 students and proudly boasts many distinguished alumni, including civil rights lawyer and educator Julius L. Chambers; basketball Hall-of-Famer Sam Jones; two- time Olympic track gold medalist Lee Calhoun; North Carolina Superior Court Judge Toby Fitch; State Senator and former House Speaker Dan Blue; and State Representative Mickey Michaux; not to mention my friend and the lead cosponsor of this legislation, our own colleague, G.K. Butterfield.

In the words of NC Central's current chancellor, Dr. Charlie Nelms, ``It's no small accomplishment that an institution of higher education--and in this case founded by African Americans at a time when African Americans were barred from most colleges--survived and thrived for 100 years.'' I could not agree more. Under the visionary leadership of Dr. Shepard, Dr. Nelms and all who served the institution in between, the university has flourished and has touched countless lives in North Carolina and throughout the country and the world.

With that, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and rise in support of H. Res. 1364, recognizing and remembering the Chatham County Courthouse in Pittsboro, North Carolina.

At 4:15 p.m. on March 25 of this year, the upper portion of the courthouse caught fire. The blaze eventually destroyed much of the building, taking with it over 130 years of history and a source of pride and appreciation for Chatham County residents and visitors.

The county the courthouse serves is divided between the Second and Fourth Congressional Districts, and I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative Bob Etheridge, and other North Carolina colleagues today in lamenting the serious damage to this landmark structure.

The Chatham County Courthouse dates back to September 1, 1881, when members of the Columbus Lodge 102 laid its cornerstone at the historic town center of Pittsboro. The building, which is known for its two- story classical portico, topped by a three-stage cupola, was designed by Thomas B. Womack, following the passage of legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly to provide the county with construction bonds of up to $12,000.

The building was completed less than 1 year later, on Independence Day of 1882, and has served ever since as a landmark to visitors and residents alike and a symbol of constancy to the broader community.

Although the building will be rebuilt in time and many of the records lost will be recreated, I grieve with the Chatham County community today for the loss of this courthouse. County courthouses are the cornerstones of justice and the rule of law in our communities; but we know they attain a greater significance, a significance larger than their day-to-day role.

I also would like to recognize the local first responders who responded to the fire for their heroic action in controlling the blaze and ensuring the safety of court personnel. Thanks to their efforts and a working fire alarm system, there were no injuries or fatalities as a result of this fire.

I also commend the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts and the Chatham County and town of Pittsboro governments, which have worked tirelessly to ensure the continuity of judicial operations and to develop a plan to restore the courthouse.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Etheridge, who represents the town of Pittsboro and the majority of Chatham County in Congress, for his leadership on this resolution. I join with him in extending condolences to the community and expressing our hope and expectation that efforts to rebuild the portions of the building that were destroyed and to restore the archives will be swift and successful.