Floor Statements

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 348, congratulating the University of North Carolina men's basketball team for winning the 2009 NCAA Division I National Championship. I am pleased to have the support of the entire North Carolina delegation as original cosponsors of this resolution.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a special place to the entire State of North Carolina and, as the Nation's first public university, has long been a beacon of light and liberty in the South. The academic tradition of excellence and unyielding commitment to public service is what drew me across the mountains from Tennessee to Chapel Hill 50 years ago and largely shaped my life's further course.

This year's success caps a remarkable history. UNC has played in a record 18 Final Fours and won the NCAA National Championship in 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, and 2009.

While Head Coach Roy Williams inherited a first-class program, he deserves special credit for the exceptional success and character of his teams. Coach Williams, who is a native of the mountains of North Carolina, has the highest winning percentage of any active coach in men's basketball, and unquestionably sits at the top of his profession. Since he came to Carolina as head coach in 2003, the Tar Heels have won two NCAA championships, four Atlantic Coast Conference regular season championships, and two ACC tournament championships. The 2008-2009 season marks their third consecutive 30-win season.

Like the whole community of Carolina basketball fans, I'm exceedingly proud of this entire team--the players, the coaches, and the staff--for their outstanding performance in the Nation's most competitive and most watched college athletics tournament. In addition to their on-court success, the team has consistently shown academic commitment, appreciation to their fans, good sportsmanship toward their opponents, and respect for the game of basketball. I'm particularly proud that Inside Higher Education also crowned UNC its national champion in its annual academic NCAA tournament, signifying that UNC has the single best academic performance rate of any NCAA tournament team. These coaches and players have ably upheld the tradition of excellence--both on the court and in the classroom--established by legendary coaches Dean Smith and Bill Guthridge and now continued by Roy Williams.

As an alumnus and Chapel Hill resident, this program and most recent championship make me very proud. These are my friends and neighbors-- Joan Ewing, my dear friend and former district director, is Dean Smith's sister--and it is my honor to represent all of them in Congress.

But this year other alumni and I were not the only fans in Washington cheering the Tar Heels from afar. President Obama himself picked Carolina to bring home the title and played a pickup game with the team last spring before the North Carolina primary election. It's important to note that he did so while employing a former Duke basketball player as his closest personal aide. As the Member of this institution who represents both institutions and a Carolina alumnus who teaches at Duke, I can only salute such a feat of athletic bipartisanship with great admiration! It's very reassuring to have this display coming from our new President.

So, colleagues, I urge the House to join President Obama and the North Carolina delegation in celebrating the Tar Heels. This is an institution and team who are worthy of our praise; not only because they found success, but because they did it the right way, the Carolina way.

Hark the sound and go Heels.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague, another UNC alumnus, Brad Miller of the 13th District of North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the Seventh District of North Carolina and yet another UNC alumnus, Mike McIntyre.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky, knowing him and how much he knows and cares about basketball and knowing about that Kentucky tradition. Those words really mean a great deal coming from him. I think we are all grateful.

Now I yield 3 minutes to yet another Carolina Representative from the Second Congressional District, Bob Etheridge.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. As you might guess, from what he said and the way he looks, he knows whereof he speaks when he talks about playing basketball at the collegiate level.

So we are grateful for these words of support and commend this resolution to all of our colleagues.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Minimum payment practices, which often are deceptive at best and abusive at worst, clearly contribute to the problem of unmanageable debt. And they need to be reined in. That's exactly what the Price- Miller of North Carolina-Moran of Virginia-Quigley-Stupak-Sutton-Lowey amendment will do. Our amendment would ensure that consumers receive a warning of the risks of making only the minimum monthly payment and information on the total cost of paying only monthly minimum payments on their balance.

It would also require issuers to provide quarterly assessments of the monthly payments that must be made to pay off the current balance of the consumer in 1, 2 or 3 years. And it would establish consumer credit counseling and debt management services through a toll-free telephone number.

Let me assure colleagues, we've sought to ensure that these requirements are not too onerous for credit card companies. For example, disclosure requirements target only consumers who regularly have not paid their balances in full. Our amendment will help consumers regain control of cascading credit card debt.

So I urge colleagues to support this amendment to provide American families with the tools they need to help them manage their money effectively.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from North Carolina, who has served with distinction on the Banking Committee, Brad Miller.

I thank my colleague. I would like at this point to yield 1 minute to a new colleague, Representative Quigley, who is already distinguishing himself as a protector of the consumer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, Earth Day 2009 marks the 39th year in which we've set aside a day to reflect upon our solemn responsibility to protect the environment from the adverse effects of human activity and preserve it for future generations. Earth Day reminds us of our nation's obligation to be good stewards of the planet--a responsibility both moral and practical, personal and collective.

As individuals, we are learning to assess our ``footprint'' and to recognize that the decisions we make on a daily basis--the cars we drive, the foods we eat, the energy we consume--must be measured against not only our own comfort, but also the sustainability of our planet and its limited resources. It is a personal obligation that cannot be taken lightly; an ethos that firmly commits each of us to passing the great inheritance we have been given to our children in a better form than it was given to us.

As communities, we must reconcile the competing demands of economic development with those of responsible stewardship. It's a particular challenge in high growth areas like the one I represent. My district, the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, has been widely recognized as one of the best areas in the country to live, work, raise a family, and start a business. It is the fastest growing metro region in the country, on track to double in population over the next 20 years, and the dramatic population expansion will bring significant environmental challenges in tow.

We know that we must grow, and we embrace the economic opportunities that such growth presents. But how will we grow? To

maintain and improve our quality of life in the midst of robust expansion and development, we need to undertake a coordinated regional planning effort that meets our infrastructure needs white preserving livability and sustainability. We must promote not just growth, but smart growth.

That is why I brought our colleague, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, to the Triangle this week to help me host a summit on Smart Growth Development. He stands as an expert in our body on sustainable development, and the summit brought together elected officials, business leaders, environmentalists, and community activists for panel discussions on smart growth principles and transportation infrastructure. I look forward to working with Rep. Blumenauer and my other colleagues to develop tools that will encourage smarter growth, more responsible development, and greater livability in communities across the country.

And as a nation, we need to pursue policies that promote responsible stewardship of the earth here at home while providing responsible leadership in the global arena. This Congress has already begun working with the Obama Administration to forge a new direction for energy policy that will emphasize renewable fuels and energy efficiency.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we've made an unprecedented investment in public transportation and renewable energy production that will spur energy savings. This legislation will accelerate deployment of a new, smart power grid to make the electricity grid more efficient and reliable. They will advance scientific research into battery technology and energy efficiency measures, expand the national effort to weatherize homes, and make a sizeable investment in alternative energy research.

The recovery package addresses critical transit needs as well, investing in buses, commuter and light rail, and intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak and high speed rail. Public transportation, beyond saving individual Americans both time and money, can also help our nation save as much as 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline and reduce carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons each year.

This spending is not simply driven by our commitment to a cleaner and healthier planet; rather, it represents a down-payment on investments to meet our country's economic and infrastructure needs and a blueprint for the direction in which our country's energy and transportation policies will go. They are investments that can fuel our future economy and make our country more prosperous and competitive than ever before.

We must think globally as well, and continue to work towards a comprehensive solution to dramatically curb our greenhouse gas emissions and address the threats of climate change--a threat that our government ignored for far too long. I am pleased that House and committee leadership have recently released draft legislation that would establish a market-based cap and trade policy to serve as a basis for discussion of comprehensive clean energy legislation. This is no idle threat we now face: scientists tell us that we must reduce emissions by roughly 80 percent by mid-century to avoid a dangerous climate tipping point. As the world's largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, our nation must be a leader in finding clean energy solutions that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, create a new generation of jobs, and provide climate and energy security for us and the generations to come.

On Earth Day 2009, I urge President Obama to continue working with Congress to develop climate change legislation that will set us on a path that is science-based and adequately aggressive. I also urge the President and my colleagues to foster smart growth in American communities by developing policies that promote accessible transit, affordable and sustainable housing, and responsible management of water and other resources. And I urge us all to take actions in our individual lives that reflect our commitment to preserving this wondrous planet and all the diverse forms of life that thrive upon it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on this resolution, helping us bring it to the floor.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Watt, for his moving and impassioned comments, and I identify myself totally with what he's saying.

This resolution gives us the occasion to honor a great and good man, and to recognize the impact he's had on our lives personally and, indeed, on American life. Dr. Franklin was arguably the most influential American historian of the 20th century. He was the preeminent scholar of African American history in the United States for nearly six decades. And in pursuing that course, he fundamentally changed the way we understood the Nation's past, showing us that African American history is inseparable from any telling of American history.

It may seem obvious today that our national story is made uniquely American by the shared experience of multiple backgrounds, a common quilt sewn with diverse cultural and ethnic and economic threads. This shared experience is perhaps particularly compelling to those of us from the South, those of us whose formative years were shaped by the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. But this greater understanding and appreciation did not just happen by chance; it's in large part the fruit of Dr. Franklin's labors.

Dr. Franklin made his mark on a number of fine institutions, teaching at Fisk University in Nashville, at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, at North Carolina College in Durham, now North Carolina Central University, and at Howard University here in the District of Columbia. Dr. Franklin spent nearly two decades at the University of Chicago, serving as Professor of American History, chairman of the Department of History, and John Matthews Manly Distinguished Service Professor of history. Then in 1982 Dr. Franklin joined me and other colleagues on the faculty at Duke University, serving as James B. Duke Professor of History and Professor of Legal History at Duke Law School and, ultimately, inspiring the John Hope Franklin Center For Interdisciplinary and International Studies.

Dr. Franklin's distinguished body of work includes his book that went through multiple editions, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, which is still considered the definitive account of the African American experience in the United States. His clarity of thought and understanding of history were invaluable in aiding Thurgood Marshall's research and victory in the landmark Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, which ended the ``separate but equal'' doctrine in America's public schools.

Dr. Franklin was a tremendous asset to North Carolina, to the Durham/ Chapel Hill/Raleigh area of North Carolina, and to our academic community. He was named ``Historian of the Century'' by Duke University, North Carolina State, North Carolina Central, and UNC- Chapel Hill a decade ago. In 1995, Dr. Franklin received the State of North Carolina's highest honor, the Order of the Long Leaf Pine.

Despite his long and impressive resume, I believe Dr. Franklin will be remembered most for his character as a person, as a man--for his gentleness of spirit, the power of his intellect, the sharpness of his wit, the passion of his social engagement.

I'll always be grateful for the opportunity to know him as a constituent and as a friend after his return to North Carolina in the 1980s. My wife and I will always treasure and remember the encouragement and the support he gave us in our various endeavors--she in the cause of gun violence prevention and I in both the academic and political vineyards.

So I thank Mr. Watt and the entire North Carolina delegation who have joined in this tribute. I thank Mr. Towns, Ms. Lee and others for their cooperative efforts in crafting this resolution, and I assure our colleagues that this could not be a more deeply felt resolution. It is a heartfelt and a richly deserved tribute to a great and good man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The CTSA program is an important and transformative initiative designed to improve the way biomedical research is conducted across the, country, reduce the time it takes for laboratory discoveries to become treatments for patients, engage communities in clinical research efforts, and train the next generation of clinical and translational researchers.

As the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee noted in its subcommittee mark, the program has the potential to create a new paradigm for clinical and translational research.

I am proud that two of the 38 current CTSA sites, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University, are in my district. These two universities have a track record of excellence, and I am pleased that NIH has recognized them as strong research campuses.

Unfortunately, nearly level funding for NIH over the past few years has severely limited the size of the award that can be made to these and the other CTSA-recipient institutions. In addition to hindering the important work being done at the current CTSA sites, the funding challenges have encumbered implementation of the program and threaten to curtail its intended size of 60 sites.

As a firm supporter of NIH, I commend Chairman Obey on the increased NIH funding in both the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations bill and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and thank him for designating for the CTSA program in the Omnibus bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to provide robust funding for this important program in the FY10 appropriations cycle.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Julian Bond, who will be recognized as the 2009 Humanitarian of the Year by the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. I am proud to be among those honoring him at the organization's 25th Annual Humanitarian Awards Banquet on January 31, 2009.

From his student days to his current chairmanship of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Julian Bond has been at the forefront of movements for civil rights and economic justice. As an activist jailed for his convictions, a veteran of more than 20 years in the Georgia General Assembly, and a university professor and writer, he has been on the cutting edge of social change since 1960.

Bond has experienced firsthand overt discrimination and racial prejudice, and he has spent a lifetime standing up against those who would deny him and others equal opportunity because of the color of their skin. He was a founder of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and was active in protests and registration campaigns throughout the South. He overcame opposition from members of the Georgia House of Representatives, and fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court in order to take his rightful seat. And he led a challenge delegation from Georgia to the 1968 Democratic Convention that successfully unseated Georgia's regular Democrats.

Bond has served since 1998 as Chairman of the Board of the NAACP, the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States. In 2002, he received the prestigious National Freedom Award. The holder of twenty-five honorary degrees, Bond is a distinguished professor at American University in Washington, DC, and a professor of history at the University of Virginia.

Bond currently serves as Chairman of the Premier Auto Group PAG (Volvo, Land Rover, Aston-Martin, and Jaguar) Diversity Council and is on the boards of People for the American Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council for a Livable World, and the advisory board of the Harvard Business School Initiative on Social Enterprise, among others.

Throughout his life and career, Dr. Bond has effected change and remained steadfast as an activist for social justice and civil rights for African-Americans and other minorities. He has led the nation by example, and I congratulate him for the honor he will receive in North Carolina on January 31.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my North Carolina colleague, Mr. Kissell. It would apply to the Department of Homeland Security purchasing rules similar to those required of the Defense Department under the Berry Amendment, requiring DHS to purchase clothing and other textile products grown, reprocessed, reused or produced in the U.S. and its possessions.

The proposed amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security some flexibility to waive the domestic source requirements in cases where there are inadequate domestic sources to meet the Department's needs. The amendment also makes clear that it would not apply when inconsistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.

I, nevertheless, have some reservations about how the amendment might restrict the Department in carrying out its Homeland Security mission. The Department is already subject to ``buy American'' requirements. This amendment would go significantly further in requiring 100 percent U.S. content of products, a target that could be impractical or unreasonably costly in some circumstances.

However, I appreciate my colleague's intentions with this amendment. I will be happy to support the amendment with the understanding that some modifications may be required to ensure that it does not pose an undue burden on the Department and it does not compromise the ability of the Department to carry out its Homeland Security mission. I look forward to working with the gentleman to make any needed refinements going forward.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my colleagues from Maryland and Pennsylvania. I voted for similar legislation in 2007 because I support the gentlemen's goal of adding these whistleblower protections for government workers.

However, as drafted, the amendment appears to be at odds with some Transportation Security Agency screener employment requirements and might have the unintended effects of reducing TSA's capacity to react to possible threats. So while I support this amendment, I do so with the understanding that we may need to perfect it in conference to ensure there are no unintended consequences.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise in support of the package before the House today, which will help put our country on a steady path toward economic recovery.

I want to thank all of the committees that have worked to put this together, particularly the members of the Appropriations Committee and its hardworking staff. As Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I have tried to develop proposals Members can support with confidence that they will help get our economy moving while also making us safer.

We worked diligently to scrub this bill and to make sure that the provisions that we've included would create jobs and put our economy in a stronger position for the long haul.

The bill contains $1.1 billion in new homeland security investments. We estimate that this will not only directly create thousands of jobs, but will also contribute significantly to improving both security and efficiency at our ports of entry and airports. This funding will primarily accelerate critical investments that the House has repeatedly voted for.

The recovery package contains $500 million to buy and install Aviation Explosive Detection Systems and checkpoint screening systems in the Nation's airports, improving security while helping speed the flow of travelers through airports. A more efficient transportation system will help grease the skids of our Nation's commerce. Funds will be competitively awarded based on security risk.

$150 million is provided to replace and repair Customs and Border Protection-owned land ports of entry at the top 10 facilities. This will improve border security, facilitate travel and trade, and reduce wait times. Once again, it will stimulate commerce by improving the transport of goods.

The package also includes $150 million to enable the Coast Guard to alter or remove hazardous bridges and make marine navigation safer and more efficient.

$100 million is provided for non-intrusive inspection devices to enhance security at seaports. These new devices will replace aging cargo scanning systems to ensure that our security requirements do not interrupt the flow of commerce.

Lastly, this recovery package extends aid to those hit hardest by the recent economic crisis through FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program. $200 million is included to help local community organizations provide food, shelter, and support services to the Nation's hungry, homeless, and people in economic crisis. This will provide, among other things, 1-month utility payments to prevent service cut-off, and 1- month rent or mortgage assistance to prevent evictions or to help people leave shelters. Funds will be distributed by formula based on unemployment and poverty rates.

This funding has been carefully reviewed to ensure it will help the most vulnerable among us, will create new jobs, can be obligated quickly, will make our country safer, and will help improve economic efficiency. I urge members to support these homeland security investments and to vote for this economic recovery package.

I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding, and for his good work in bringing this resolution to the floor.

I am here as the lead sponsor, among many sponsors, of House Resolution 31, supporting the designation of January 28 as National Data Privacy Day. In the last 10 years, the Internet has become the preferred carrier of communication in our society. Electronic communications dominate workplaces, and are increasingly prevalent in commerce, in interactions between the public and government at every level, and through social networking sites on the Internet.

While we have realized incredible efficiencies and other benefits from new electronic technologies, those technologies have also raised challenges for protecting the privacy of personal and proprietary information. If we are going to fully realize the potential of electronic communications, we must address these challenges, and that is what H. Res. 31 is all about.

Fortunately, we are off to a good start. On Wednesday, privacy professionals, corporations, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and students across the Nation are already planning to come together to raise awareness and underscore the importance of data privacy protection as part of National Data Privacy Day.

Academic institutions such as the Wharton Business School, Arizona State University, Santa Clara Law School, and Ohio State University, have planned events and panel discussions on a broad range of data privacy issues ranging from information security best practices to data privacy issues at public and private institutions of higher education.

One of the major focuses of Data Privacy Day will be to educate teenagers about the importance of online privacy. An estimated 55 percent of American teenagers with access to the Internet use social networking Web sites, and an even greater engage in real-time information sharing through instant messaging, cell phone text messaging, and chat rooms.

While pre-teens, teenagers, and young adults are often the most sophisticated and skilled Internet users--we all know that--many are too often neglectful of their personal safety online. Young people who are participating in online social networking should be made aware of the dangers of failing to protect their personal data. They need to know that not everyone on Facebook or MySpace is a friend.

On Wednesday, educators and privacy professionals across the country will lead discussions with young people to raise awareness about online privacy to promote safe use of the Internet and to help them learn about how to protect the privacy of their personal data.

I am especially proud of events in North Carolina surrounding Data Privacy Day. This week, the Carolina Privacy Officials Network will host panels on consent policy options in health care, information security breaches, and off-shoring of data. At the Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University, representatives from Intel, the Institute for Homeland Security Solutions, the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, the Provost's Office at Duke University, the Duke Center for European Studies, the Center for International Studies, and the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, will gather with officials from the United States Departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the European Commission, to discuss issues surrounding the protection of national security and privacy.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 31 underscores the importance of data privacy protection and expresses support for the designation of January 28, 2009, as National Data Privacy Day. I want to thank the Members who cosponsored this important resolution, and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Waxman, for moving H. Res. 31 to the floor today. It's a resolution that has good bipartisan support. I appreciate that support, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Benjamin Kramer, as he begins his next assignment as Special Agent for the U.S. Secret Service. Special Agent Kramer has proven himself to be an energetic and thoughtful contributor to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the experience he has gained with the Secret Service and before that as a criminal investigator with the D.C. Inspector General.

Working as a member of my subcommittee staff, Ben helped the Subcommittee navigate what was often a frenetic path as we crafted our 2009 appropriations bill, and assisted in our work in overseeing the agencies and programs under our jurisdiction. In particular, Ben had lead staff responsibility for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General.-

Ben's unqualified professionalism, great sense of humor and cool head have helped our Subcommittee and the Congress address a wide range of policy and budgetary challenges. During his time with the Subcommittee, Ben researched issues for various programs, coordinated committee travel, and compiled materials on amendments. Ben also assisted in managing the database of requests to the Committee from Members of Congress, and in preparing for hearings and briefings. I am grateful for his hard work.

Special Agent Kramer has served me, this Subcommittee, and the House well. While we are sorry to see him leave, each of us on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wishes Ben all the best as he resumes his Secret Service career, and expect to continue to see great things from him.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the National Service Caucus, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H. Res. 43, recognizing the importance of national service, supporting the efforts of those who serve their communities on Martin Luther King Day, and promoting the Martin Luther King Day holiday as a day of national service.

During the 1950s and '60s, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized the power of service to strengthen communities and achieve common goals. King's ideas of unity and purpose highlighted the great things that can happen when we work together toward a common goal, and these ideas are as important today as they were 50 years ago.

In 1994, Congress passed the King Holiday and Service Act to transform the King Holiday into a national day of service to meet community needs. Since that time, millions of Americans have participated in community-building activities on King Day, treating the holiday as ``a day on, not a day off.''

The day before President-elect Obama's inauguration is the Martin Luther King holiday. With thousands of projects planned across the country, in addition to a call to serve from President-elect Obama, the 2009 King Day of Service on January 19 promises to be the most successful national service effort to date.

Both President-elect Obama and Vice-President-elect Biden, along with their families, will be participating in service events to honor Martin Luther King and commemorate the holiday. I encourage my colleagues and their staff to share in the spirit of volunteerism and unity by participating in a service opportunity here in Washington, DC, or back home with their constituents on January 19.

I am pleased that the President-elect has been part of the call to ensure that this day be a day devoted to service. However, I know, as President-elect Obama knows, that one day of good deeds is not enough. Throughout the presidential campaign, the President-elect spoke about a new era of civic engagement, and I hope that the passage of H. Res. 43 will build on Martin Luther King day and the Inauguration and reaffirm our ongoing commitment to service.

Madam Speaker, the resolution before us correctly condemns the actions by Hamas to target innocent civilians in southern Israel and to thwart the ceasefire that had been in place for the previous 6 months. It correctly calls for a new, sustainable ceasefire and affirms the U.S. commitment to a just and durable peace based on a two-state solution. But the resolution does not begin to do justice to the humanitarian disaster gripping Gaza, and it offers little more than lip service on behalf of a serious peace process. Focusing on affixing blame for the current crisis, it fails to emphasize the steps required to lead us toward a long-term solution.

I recently wrote an article which appeared in the January 6 Charlotte Observer and Miami Herald in which I proposed immediate actions the U.S. must take to return us to a trajectory leading to a just and lasting peace. I ask permission that it be included in the Record. After the conflict ends and the dust settles, after all the recriminations and resentments have been aired, we will be left with the crucial question of whether and how to resume efforts toward a lasting peace, This is the only goal that can meet our and Israel's long-term security needs in the region. We must act urgently, knowing that the steps we take now will determine just how steep that future road to peace will be.

U.S. Must Act Now in Gaza

(By Representative David Price)

For observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict committed

to a peaceful and lasting two-state resolution, the conflict

between Israel and Hamas in Gaza brings the temptation to

throw one's hands in the air in despair. Mistaken assumptions

and lessons left unlearned seem to guide each of the

protagonists down a course antithetical to the long-term

interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.

We can't help but lament another cycle of retributive

violence--both for the terrible toll it takes on both sides

and because we know it is not the way forward. Yet

exasperation and passivity are indulgences that the United

States and the world can ill afford.

Fighting vs. governing

For its part, Hamas has again proven that it would rather

fight than govern or tend to the needs of Gazans, making it

exceedingly difficult to envision it as a serious partner at

the negotiating table. Israel, while unquestionably justified

in its move to put an end to the daily barrage of rockets

falling upon its citizens, seems to have forgotten the

lessons of the 2006 Lebanon war, during which its use of

massive force alienated the Arab world and turned Hezbollah

into freedom fighters in the eyes of many Lebanese. And the

Bush administration once again offers little--only an

unconditional green light to follow the fight, now a full-

scale ground war, wherever it leads.

It is difficult to imagine how the current conflict might

ultimately lead to a just and lasting peace. Hamas, though

militarily debilitated, is not likely to disappear as a

political force or to suddenly prove more pliable in

negotiations. It may become more rather than less difficult

to bring Gaza under the authority of President Mahmoud Abbas

and Fatah, lest they be seen as capitalizing on the misery

wrought by the fighting.

And Israel, while addressing a key short-term security

objective, risks far-reaching damage to the peace process

that is essential to its most critical long-term security

objective: a resolution to the conflict. Equally troubling,

the overwhelming force of its bombardment has buttressed

support for extremist elements, like Hezbollah and the

Iranian government, that threaten Israeli and regional

security.

As ominous as the picture may be, it is strongly in the

interests of our own country to ensure that the architecture

of the peace process is not irreparably damaged. To do so,

the United States should take several immediate steps, even

as the Bush administration draws anemically to a close.

Humanitarian crisis looms

First, the administration, working with the international

community, must take swift action to avert a massive

humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Gazans have been on the verge of

a humanitarian meltdown for months; the bombing of border

tunnels--which have been used to smuggle food and

humanitarian supplies, in addition to weapons--pushes Gaza

further toward collapse.

Secondly, the administration should urgently engage Israel,

along with regional allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi

Arabia, in putting together the framework for a sustainable

long-term cease-fire, not simply a temporary halt to

fighting. Such a framework must protect Israel from the

persistent rocket fire on Sderot and from Hamas's stockpiling

of deadly weapons. But it also must provide relief from the

devastating embargo on Gaza. To be effective, it must involve

Egypt and regional partners as mediators and monitors.

Collateral consequences

Coming on the heels of the 2006 Lebanon war, Israel's

military actions in Gaza have had the unfortunate collateral

consequence of generating substantial domestic political

unrest for many of Israel's friendliest Arab neighbors,

particularly Egypt. The United States will need to walk a

fine diplomatic line, encouraging Arab nations to lead Hamas

toward a sustainable ceasefire while empowering them to

advocate for the just peace their citizens demand.

Finally, both President Bush and, as soon as he takes

office, President-elect Obama should explicitly express the

United States' unwavering commitment to a viable peace

process and undertake diplomacy toward that end. How the

present conflict is waged, and on what terms it is halted,

will be especially consequential on the Palestinian side of

the equation.

The U.S., Israel and moderate Sunni regimes have not done

enough to help President Abbas and Fatah gain credibility,

and that task is now even more urgent and challenging. As for

Hamas, while its military capabilities may be downgraded by

the conflict, its political stock may rise. The organization

and its constituency must be taken into account, directly and

indirectly, in any viable process. Regional mediations and

renewed Israeli-Syrian talks should figure prominently in

such efforts.

These steps will not resolve the conflict. But they will

help preserve the possibility of a future peace, a

possibility that is now teetering on the brink.

Madam Speaker, during the presidency of George W. Bush, many of us have watched with horror as the Administration has pursued policies--supposedly to help fight an ill- defined war against terrorism--that shock the conscience and undermine the values fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be an American: torture; disappearance; indefinite detention.

Historians will view the excesses of this era with the same scorn as the Alien and Sedition Acts and the reign of McCarthyism. Even in hindsight, however, it will be difficult to understand how these policies could have gained even tacit approval from so many.

Many of us have resisted these policies, questioned them, opposed them, and condemned them. We have, in the last two years, begun the monumental task of dismantling them.

We also have begun a second, equally daunting effort: to identify policies that will address our very real security challenges without compromising our fundamental values and our standing in the world. Simply put, global terrorism presents a serious and evolving threat, and it demands new thinking about the tools we must use to confront this threat.

On September 24, along with nine original co-sponsors, I introduced H.R. 7056, legislation aimed at generating more robust debate about the nature of the threat of terrorism and the tools we must apply to address it. My legislation focuses specifically upon the Bush Administration's most disgraceful and disturbing legacy: its architecture of law and practice in the realm of detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects.

My legislation recognizes, however, that a progressive response to the Administration's regressive policies cannot be limited to ``don't do that''--don't torture, don't hold detainees indefinitely, and so on--but must offer a new vision that is responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the current context. I hope my proposals will spark new ideas that will lead to a new, more ethical, and more effective approach to battling global terrorism.

The question of how best to organize and mobilize the instruments of our national power in fighting global terrorism, especially with regard to interrogation and detention of terrorist suspects, is particularly pertinent as we prepare to determine the direction and leadership of our country for the next four years.

In my view, there are three major challenges the next president will have to address. One: How can we most effectively approach human intelligence collection, a task that includes determining the most effective and most ethical ways to conduct interrogations? Two: What is the best system to prosecute suspected terrorists quickly and effectively? Three: What will be the nature of our detention regime? Where, under what authority, with what rights, and for how long may suspects be detained? All of these questions will require fresh thinking and creative solutions.

Debate surrounding the first question has largely focused on whether or not the United States should engage in so-called ``enhanced interrogation'' practices, which often amount to torture. The Bush Administration has adopted policies authorizing aggressive interrogation practices that many of us would interpret to constitute torture or inhuman treatment, placing our nation in clear violation of the constitution, U.S. law, and international treaty obligations. The question these practices have posed is whether, and when, such practices are justified in the name of national security.

Most basically, the use of torture violates notions of human rights and dignity that in the American political and legal tradition have been regarded as inalienable and have preempted other considerations. The constitution explicitly prohibits ``cruel and unusual punishment'' and requires that no individual ``be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' The constitution does not limit the application of these protections to American citizens or to cases that do not involve potential terrorism or other dangers. Torturing an individual inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon an individual without granting him or her due process of law.

The Bush Administration, by contrast, has taken a utilitarian moral approach in justifying the use of torture. Utilitarian approaches judge an action according to its ability to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Should torturing a single individual prove to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of others, the action of torturing could be deemed justifiable. When vetoing an Intelligence Authorization bill including prohibitions against torture, for example, President Bush argued, ``if we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA. . . . we could lose vital information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives.''

At least two of the factual premises of the utilitarian argument are highly problematic. While advocates often present the case in terms of a dramatic choice to torture one in order to save many, the truth is that torture and abuse have been applied far more widely than to a few unique individuals. The argument might be stronger if torture were a unique exception applied in a singular and critically urgent circumstance--the ``ticking bomb'' scenario. The case begins to fall apart, however, when torture is officially sanctioned policy, available at the discretion of interrogators.

What of the claim that violating human rights and liberties might serve some greater good? Even if one acepts such moral reasoning, it is based on false assumptions. Several current and former practitioners of interrogation have persuasively argued that so-called ``enhanced interrogation'' practices--or torture--simply do not work. Such practices are no more likely to yield actionable intelligence than traditional methods and, in fact, in many cases, are more likely to yield false information.

As Rear Admiral John Hutson, a former Navy JAG, has explained, ``torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Torture will get you information, but it's not reliable. Eventually, if you don't accidentally kill them first, torture victims will tell you something just to make you stop.''

Even the Army Field Manual on Interrogation states that ``the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.''

Both moral and practical arguments thus lead to the same conclusion: the use of torture and cruel or inhuman practices is the wrong way forward.

But the question of torture is only the beginning of the debate, not the end. For far too long, public debate focused our attention only on the abuses of ``enhanced interrogation,'' ignoring--to our peril and to the detriment of our counterterrorism efforts--the equally important questions regarding our ability to effectively detain and prosecute individuals involved in terrorism. A long litany of policies undertaken by the Bush administration in the service of its war on terrorism-- indefinite detention, habeas corpus exceptions, special military tribunals, and so on--are as morally questionable as the practice of torture.

Yet, too often, we have engaged in passionate ideological debate about whether these policies are morally justified, when we might first ask the simple question: do they work?

While Supreme Court justices and legal scholars have debated the legality and morality of the Bush administration's justice system for terrorist suspects, reaching an array of different conclusions about the theoretical validity of Guantanamo Bay, the military commissions system, and the like, few would attempt to argue that this legal regime actually works.

To wit: the administration's controversial military tribunal system has yielded exactly two convictions in the seven years since 9-11, including one off a guilty plea. In the same time span, the civilian justice system that the tribunal system supposedly improves upon has delivered over 145 convictions. If our objective is a speedy, effective instrument for bringing terrorists to justice, the tribunal system fails miserably to deliver.

The denial of habeas corpus rights meets a similar fate when examined from a practical standpoint. This denial has led to numerous lawsuits bogging down the judicial process and has undermined the moral high ground on which U.S. antiterrorism efforts previously stood. In short, the denial of such rights simply does not work to benefit our efforts in combating terrorism.

And practices such as the detention of high-value prisoners at secret, so-called ``black site'' prisons, the extraordinary rendition of detainees to countries known to torture suspects, and the broad round-ups of thousands of detainees with limited evidence of links to terrorism similarly have proven to be bankrupt as policies. There is no evidence to suggest that they have improved our human intelligence collection capabilities, they have not advanced our efforts to bring terrorists to justice, and in every case they have had severe dilatory effects on the credibility of our leadership in the global fight against terrorism. In short, they have hurt us far more than they have helped.

Looking at real-world results may help us debunk some of the Bush Administration's misguided assertions, but it is not sufficient to help us formulate the right approach. Rather, it is essential that we inform our policymaking by a deep examination and national debate about the relationship between our long-held values--as enshrined in the constitution and law and expressed in our religious and ethical traditions--and our security prerogatives.

Examining our detention and interrogation policies through this lens is far more difficult, because legitimate differences do exist about what direction is most just, fair, and ethical, as well as what is most effective.

Nevertheless, it is critical that our country have this debate, and that we reach beyond the relatively basic question of whether or not to engage in ``torture.'' Our approach to this area of policy will be most effective when it is well informed by all three branches of government, by politicians and the public, and by the lessons of our experience.

Unfortunately, this national conversation has not occurred and, what's worse, has been precluded by shrill fear-mongering and divisive rhetoric. The Bush administration deserves much of the blame. In debates over anti-torture provisions, FISA, military commissions, and the like, it has generally resorted to scare tactics, sharp partisanship, and questions about its critics' patriotism. Such tactics do not promote a productive national debate that will make our nation safer from terrorism; they have only served to deflect attention from the enormous flaws of the Administration's policies.

Instead of such cynical partisanship, we must truly wrestle with the very real challenges of developing smart detention and interrogation policies. Such wrestling must go beyond simply opposing the administration's flawed policies.

Opposing torture, opposing the denial of habeas rights, opposing extraordinary rendition--these stances are all good and appropriate, but the rejection of bad policy alone cannot make good policy. Instead, we must seek ways to affirmatively improve our human intelligence collection, strengthen the capacity of our courts to prosecute terrorists, and better understand the nature and vulnerabilities of the terrorist threat.

In the interest of encouraging such a debate, the bill I have introduced offers a number of proposals for how we might effectively approach human intelligence collection, detention, and prosecution in terrorism cases.

My bill combines the imperative of rolling back the Administration's worst abuses with what I hope is forward thinking about improving our ability to collect human intelligence and bring terrorists to justice.

It would repeal the Military Commissions Act and direct prosecution of terrorism cases to the time-tested civilian and military justice systems, which have proven far more effective at bringing terrorists to justice; It would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

It would establish a new, cross-government, uniform set of standards for interrogation practices, enacting a clear prohibition against torture and building in a regular Congressional review. Rather than imposing the Army's standards on everyone, it would establish a process for military and civilian intelligence agencies to work together to develop new standards.

It would prohibit the use of private contractors for the critically sensitive, inherently governmental business of conducting interrogations, a red line that I hope we can all agree on.

And it would require that all high-level interrogations be videotaped, as proposed by our colleague, Representative Rush Holt.

These much-needed reforms are founded upon both moral and practical analyses of the current system's flaws. Such correctives are needed to return our nation to a solid footing. But they must be paired with steps to ensure that our nation's capacity for human intelligence collection is equal to the challenge of global terrorism.

To that end, my bill proposes a number of new initiatives designed to make our human intelligence collection better, smarter, and more penetrating.

It would establish a new interagency center of excellence to train intelligence collectors, review U.S. policies, and carry out sustained research on the best practices of interrogation and intelligence collection.

It would seek to enhance U.S. intelligence cooperation with key allies--like Britain, Spain, and Israel--that have significant experience in dealing with human intelligence collection and anti- terrorism efforts. We need to learn from their successes and mistakes as well as our own.

It would require the military to further develop intelligence collection career paths so that, instead of rotating officers in and out of the intelligence specialty, we retain the best and brightest in the field and benefit from the expertise they develop over the course of their careers.

And it would require the formulation of a strategy to prevent the radicalization of inmates held in both domestic and overseas detention facilities

I offer my legislation with the belief that we must have a far broader national conversation about the questions and the hope that my bill will point to some new and creative answers.

The American public must undertake this conversation with a deep reassessment of an even more fundamental question: what makes our nation truly secure? Is our nation more secure when we use aggressive measures that, even if they make some terrorist suspects talk, fuel the radicalization of a new generation of terrorists? Is our nation more secure if we detain hundreds of terrorist suspects extralegally, but then face legal obstacles that prevent us from convicting them? Is our nation more secure if we take measures designed to increase our security against attacks that undermine values we hold sacred?

Our national conversation must be oriented toward helping us develop a set of policies that makes far more effective use of the instruments of our national power to defeat terrorism on the battlefield, while capitalizing on the moral authority of our free and open society to defeat terrorism in the battle of ideas.

Against those who would do us harm, we must be vigilant and ready to mount an effective defense. But the number of such adversaries, the support they gain, and the threat they pose will depend not only on the defense we mount, at home or abroad, but on the values we project and the role our nation plays in the world.

The legislation I offer today will restore our grounding in the values of justice and respect for human rights that have guided our nation through two hundred thirty-two years of history. It will help us lead again through the power of our example. And it will help us mount that vigilant defense against global terrorists by enhancing the effectiveness of our efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the package we are considering today includes the fiscal year 2009 funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

The Homeland Security provisions are the product of months of information-gathering and analysis by both the House and Senate subcommittees, and they reflect a careful matching of dollars to priorities. Our subcommittee held 15 hearings featuring testimony from department officials, watch-dog agencies and outside experts, and what we are voting on today is well informed by what we learned from those hearings. As always, we are indebted to our dedicated professional staff and the staff from our personal offices who have worked with them.

I want to thank our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his advice and partnership in helping make this a better bill. He and his staff worked cooperatively with us during the bill-writing process and during our negotiations with the Senate, and they provided many constructive suggestions and additions. I also want to recognize Mr. Rogers' substantial and lasting contribution as the first chairman of this subcommittee, especially since this is likely to be his last year as our ranking member.

The discretionary total in the bill is $39.98 billion, $2.31 billion or 6 percent above the comparable fiscal year 2008 amount--that includes funding with an emergency designation--and $2.37 billion above the administration's requested funding level.

Our primary objective in this bill was to correct known funding deficiencies,

which were substantial. Prime among these was the President's proposal to cut first responder, transit, and port grant programs by $2 billion, or 49 percent. This bill restores funding for these grants.

A second deficiency in the President's budget was the proposed repeal of law enforcement officer benefits for CBP officers. The bill provides the full $200 million necessary to pay for these benefits in fiscal year 2009.

The last major deficiency in the President's budget was a proposed $140 million cut for explosive detection equipment at airports. This cut was based on assumed revenue from a new passenger surcharge that has not been enacted. The bill restores the $140 million to provide level funding at $544 million for this program.

The bill also reduces funding that was not fully justified, or for which the budget justification overestimated the need, and it uses the savings to provide increases above the President's request for critical priorities. This includes $200 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, $100 million more than the President requested and $47 million more than was provided in fiscal year 2008. Such an increase is warranted by the rising number of Americans who are relying on food banks and other community support organizations to meet their basic needs.

The bill includes $4.99 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $241 million above the request, and it targets $1 billion for identifying and deporting dangerous criminal aliens. The President proposed no additional dedicated funds for this activity, which should be ICE's top priority.

The bill fully funds the request for border infrastructure and technology, while continuing a requirement that the Department consult with local communities on the character and placement of such infrastructure. This does not give border communities a veto over departmental decisions about fencing or other infrastructure, but it does give them a right to be heard.

As in past years, the bill requires the Department to provide a plan for how it will allocate its appropriation for border infrastructure and technology, and it withholds a portion of the appropriation until that plan is reviewed by GAO and approved by the committee.

The bill, including funding provided through the disaster relief package, includes $9.3 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, ensuring that FEMA can continue its work helping communities recover from recent disasters.

The bill imposes requirements on the Homeland Security Department to manage its programs efficiently and robustly, and to ensure that programs comply with all laws before they begin operations. The bill withholds a total of $1.4 billion to ensure that this planning takes place before taxpayer dollars are spent. Programs for which funding is conditioned include the Secure Border Initiative, Deepwater, and Cyber Security.

Also, I want to correct some comments made on this floor earlier about a sensitive DHS program. The bill does not provide funding for DHS's National Applications Office to use surveillance satellites for Homeland Security or law enforcement purposes. The bill does allow for the Department to use satellites for scientific and emergency purposes--for example, assessing damage from earthquakes or hurricanes. That's being done today. But provisions in this bill bar the Department from using these assets to pay for any other purpose until the Department explains how it will use them, protecting our citizens' rights and liberties, until the GAO reviews that explanation, and until our committee approves the expenditure of funds.

Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security portion of the bill represents the right balance of investments and cost savings to ensure that we continue to make our homeland more secure, and it makes clear that the Federal Government will continue to be a faithful partner with State and local governments in that endeavor.

I urge colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the Chair of the subcommittee. I thank her for bringing this bill to the floor and her hard work in protecting the interests of credit card holders.

As the House considers this bill, I want to make this body aware of a related bill I have introduced, along with a number of cosponsors, the Credit Card Repayment Act, H.R. 1510, which would require lenders to give cardholders more information on their monthly statements. For example, how long would it take the consumer to pay off their entire balance making only the minimum monthly payment, and how much would they pay over that time, including principal and interest?

The bill has been endorsed by the Center for Responsible Lending, the

Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, and the National Council of La Raza. The bill is not part of the legislation we are considering today, but these kinds of disclosure requirements complement the bill currently on the floor, and they can be a valuable part of our efforts to help protect consumers. I ask the chairwoman to work with me to incorporate these provisions into the legislation as it moves forward.

I would appreciate the chairwoman's response, but I first yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield to the chairwoman of the subcommittee.

I thank the gentlewoman.