Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have criticized this proposal because they say that it raises taxes and spending.

The fact is, our Republican colleagues have different priorities than we do. In these perilous economic times, the Congressional Black Caucus believes our priority should be to help those Americans who are losing their jobs and their homes, who can't afford health care, higher education, and job training, who have to decide between paying the gas bill or paying for prescription drugs.

The Republicans want to know where the cuts are in the CBC budget. Their budget slashes Medicare, Medicaid, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program and countless other critical social service programs. They think these programs are unnecessary; their priority is to preserve the Bush tax cuts, more than 99 percent of which go to people making more than $225,000 per year. More than 85 percent of the money we lose due to these cuts goes to households with incomes above $500,000 per year; 65 percent goes to households with incomes above $1 million. In fact, $51 billion next year alone will go to tax breaks for millionaires.

By rescinding Bush's tax cuts, the Congressional Black Caucus increases funding for needed social programs while reducing the deficit even more than the Republicans do.

It would seem the Republicans' concern is not fiscal responsibility, but preserving tax cuts for the rich, even if this grows the national debt. And, of course, we aren't even discussing the President's war today, which spends $12 billion dollars a month, more than most of these social service programs spend in a year, or 5 years, or 10 years. The debate today is clear. It's about priorities. We believe in keeping working Americans in their homes; the Republicans want to make sure the rich can stay in their mansions and yachts.

I want to draw particular attention to some of my personal priorities within the CBC budget alternative. I am happy that the CBC accepted my proposal to add $10 million to the National Health Service Corps to help train the next generation of doctors to go into underserved communities without being crippled by educational debt.

The CBC budget also includes several of my proposals to increase funding for Department of Justice programs.

The highly successful COPS program focuses on local strategies to fight crime and has been praised by federal, state, and local law enforcement and political officials. The President's budget terminates the COPS program. In contrast, the CBC fully funds COPS at $500 million for FY 2009.

I also recommended, and the CBC budget includes, increased funding for other vital local law enforcement programs, including Drug Courts and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. In addition, we significantly increase funding for programs serving juveniles who have entered our justice system, in an effort to break the cycle of crime and violence and to help these children to become productive members of our society.

It's about priorities, and the choice today is clear. Supporting the CBC budget means prioritizing the basic needs of the American people. Supporting the Republicans' proposal means continuing our current course, where the rich keep getting richer, while the needs of the poor and middle class are neglected.

I thank the cochair of the caucus for allowing me to make it clear to our friends on the other side of the aisle that the budget, as a document of what it is we believe in, what we put our money down in support of, expresses in some greater way the values of the Nation. And so we come to this 2008 budget consideration in the midst of what some call an economic downturn, others call a recession and other things.

Now, what we have done, and if there are parts of the Progressive Caucus budget that are specifically objected to, I would like to invite our friends on the other side to let us know what they are so that we can continue our work on it, because the Progressive Caucus every year always introduces an alternative budget. We've been getting more support on it each year.

It's our hope that with your enlightened analysis of it, we will get more support. I'm looking for the day when we get a bipartisan vote on the Progressive Caucus budget. I think it's possible. I think it states our priorities that don't have ``Democratic'' or ``Republican'' stamped on them. What we are saying is let's look at these issues in the budget and point out which ones make your favorite, make the hit list, and which ones don't match the aspirations and viewpoints of the minority.

I thank you, Madam Floor Manager.

I rise today in support of the budget alternative offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC.

We often say that the Federal budget is a moral document, expressing the values and priorities of our Nation.

During this economic downturn, when more families are facing unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy, our top priority should be protecting our most vulnerable citizens and keeping more Americans from falling into poverty.

The President, however, seems to have his priorities upside-down. In this final budget proposal of his presidency, he once again sacrifices services for low- and moderate-income families failing to provide adequate funding for health care, housing, child care, job training and a host of other programs.

Even though the President cuts these vital programs, his budget still makes the deficit worse, because it continues to give stunningly high tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts for millionaires alone will cost $51 billion in FY '09.

The CPC alternative budget gets our priorities straight. In stark contrast to the President's proposal, the CPC budget puts the needs of the economically vulnerable ahead of the needs of millionaires.

The CPC budget proposal is the only one under consideration today that cuts wasteful cold war era defense spending, according to standards recommended by the GAO, so that we can employ our scarce resources to help people, not to keep feeding the military industrial complex for weapons we don't need.

I want to draw attention today to the efforts of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus, which I co-chair along with my colleagues Ms. Lee, Mr. Honda, Mr. Baca and Mr. Butterfield.

Under Ms. Lee's leadership, the House recently passed by unanimous consent H. Con. Res. 198, which commits the Congress to cutting poverty in half in the next decade. With the passage of H. Con. Res. 198, the House went on record, with unanimous, bipartisan support, making the alleviation of poverty a priority for this government.

For the good of the Nation, it is imperative that we live up to our commitment. The Congress must take action to make good on this promise.

The CPC budget promotes policy initiatives that can move us toward this goal by expanding programs with a proven track record of success in reducing poverty, like the Earned Income Tax Credit. We don't need more war and tax breaks for the rich. We need jobs, job training and better access to health care, child care and education. The CPC budget provides these critical tools that can help Americans lift themselves out of poverty.

Let's get our priorities straight. Let's pass the CPC budget alternative.

I thank you so much. I just wanted to commend you before our debate closes on the Progressive Caucus proposal, because I'm hearing for the first time, we want to get beyond partisan positions, progressive partisan positions, progressive or conservative positions.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008,'' legislation that would help level the playing field for merchants and retailers negotiating with banks for the cost of certain fees, and ultimately reduce the costs of everyday goods for consumers. I am joined by Representatives Cannon, Lofgren, Shuster, Weiner, Delahunt, Platts, Welch, Sullivan, Wilson of South Carolina, Gohmert, Hall of Texas, Boozman, and Peterson of Pennsylvania.

Every time a consumer uses a payment card--at the mall, at the grocery store, at a gas station, or on the Internet--the merchant is charged a fee. This fee gets divided up three ways--between the merchant's bank, the consumer's bank, and the credit card company. It covers processing fees, fraud protection, billing statements, and other expenses such as system innovations.

Almost 90 percent of this fee comprises a so-called ``interchange fee,'' which is the payment made by the merchant's bank to the consumer's bank. The percentage is set by the credit card companies, generally Visa or MasterCard, and averages 1.75 percent of the total purchase. In 2006, interchange fees totaled approximately $36 billion, an increase of 117 percent since 2001. In 2007, the fees amounted to $42 billion, about 17 percent since 2006. These fees are ultimately passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services, whether the consumers purchase these items by credit card, check or cash.

These interchange fees are set by the credit card companies. The two largest, Visa and Mastercard, are associations composed of financial institutions and are owned and controlled by their bank member-owners. Together, Visa and MasterCard control over 73 percent of the volume of transactions on general purpose cards in the United States and approximately 85 percent of the cards issued. Banks that are members of the Visa association are often also members of the MasterCard association.

Merchants are forced to deal within this system because it is simply not an option to refuse to accept Visa or MasterCard from their customers. They are presented with take-it-or-leave-it options and are not part of the process by which the fees are set. Moreover, the card systems operate pursuant to comprehensive operating rules approved by the associations' member-controlled boards, but these operating rules are not accessible by the merchants.

This legislation is intended to give merchants a seat at the table in the determination of these fees. It is not an attempt at regulating the industry and does not mandate any particular outcome. This legislation simply enhances competition by allowing merchants to negotiate with the dominant banks for the terms and rates of the fees.

The bill creates a limited antitrust immunity for negotiating voluntary agreements and, if necessary, participating in the market- based proceedings. These market-based proceedings will determine the exclusive rates and terms merchants must pay for a 3-year term. No other fees, terms or conditions may be imposed on the merchants.

The rates and terms will be determined by Electronic Payment System Judges, who will be appointed by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The judges will apply a market standard in their determinations designed to replicate the rates and terms of payment that would have been negotiated in a competitive marketplace between a willing buyer and willing seller, both of which have no market power. The judges will have full independence in making all determinations but may consult with the DOJ and FTC on certain matters.

It is time to level the playing field for merchants and consumers. I am hopeful that Congress can move to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 2008, I was unavoidably detained due to weather-related travel delays. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance this afternoon.

``Yea''--H.R. 4191, To redesignate Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historic Park in the State of Ohio as ``Wright Brothers-Dunbar National Historic Park'', and for other purposes.

``Yea''--H. Con. Res. 278, Supporting Taiwan's fourth direct and democratic presidential elections in March 2008.

``Present''--H. Res. 951, Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and for other purposes.

``Yea''--On motion to consider the resolution H. Res. 1014, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

``Yea''--On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1014, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

``Yea''--H. Res. 1014, Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

``Yea''--H.R. 4774, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Cyndi Taylor Krier Post Office Building''.

``Yea''--H. Con. Res. 286, Expressing the sense of Congress that Earl Lloyd should be recognized and honored for breaking the color barrier and becoming the first African American to play in the National Basketball Association League 58 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which requires equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans. This much needed legislation would finally provide for true mental health insurance parity, offering mental health and substance-abuse benefits on par with medical and surgical benefits, ending discrimination against patients seeking treatment for psychiatric disorders.

Mental illnesses have a devastating affect on our nation. According to a 2005 Harvard study, over 35 million Americans suffer from a moderate or serious mental disorder in any given year. Societal costs, such as loss of productivity and the burden on family caregivers, total $113 billion annually. As well, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health reported in 2003 that mental illnesses constitute the leading cause of disability in the United States; the Commission noted that half

of those who need mental health treatment in this country do not receive it.

The treatment of mental illness works. Unfortunately, only those who are able to access care can benefit from it. Most mental disorders are chronic, ongoing illnesses that require consistent and persistent treatment in order to achieve remission. It would seem unconscionable to limit the number of times a cancer patient sees their oncologist for treatment; those suffering from severe psychiatric illness should not be held to a lesser standard of care.

Despite disinformation put forth by some of my colleagues today, the concept of mental health insurance parity is not a new one. In fact, as members of Congress, we all enjoy the benefits of mental health parity that our constituents are deprived of. The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits since 2001. A convincing study of the FEHB program published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 proves that the implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs.

Mr. Speaker, the inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill, and it reinforces the strategy of insurance companies to deny care rather than provide care. It is our duty to end this intolerable discrimination against the mentally ill, and pass H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which requires equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans. This much needed legislation would finally provide for true mental health insurance parity, offering mental health and substance-abuse benefits on par with medical and surgical benefits, ending discrimination against patients seeking treatment for psychiatric disorders.

Mental illnesses have a devastating effect on our nation. According to a 2005 Harvard study, over 35 million Americans suffer from a moderate or serious mental disorder in any given year. Societal costs, such as loss of productivity and the burden on family caregivers, total $113 billion annually. As well, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health reported in 2003 that mental illnesses constitute the leading cause of disability in the United States; the Commission noted that half of those who need mental health treatment in this country do not receive it.

The treatment of mental illness works. Unfortunately, only those who are able to access care can benefit from it. Most mental disorders are chronic, ongoing illnesses that require consistent and persistent treatment in order to achieve remission. It would seem unconscionable to limit the number of times a cancer patient sees their oncologist for treatment; those suffering from severe psychiatric illness should not be held to a lesser standard of care.

Despite disinformation put forth by some of my colleagues today, the concept of mental health insurance parity is not a new one. In fact, as members of Congress, we all enjoy the benefits of mental health parity that our constituents are deprived of. The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits since 2001. A convincing study of the FEHB program published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 proves that the implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs.

Mr. Speaker, the inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill, and it reinforces the strategy of insurance companies to deny care rather than provide care. It is our duty to end this intolerable discrimination against the mentally ill, and pass H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence today. Had I been in attendance I would have voted as follows:

``Yea''--H.R. 1143--to authorize the Secretary of Interior to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands National Park, and for other purposes (Representative Christensen--Natural Resources).

``Yea''--H.R. 1311--to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Alta-Hualapai Site to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the development of a cancer treatment facility (Representative Berkley-- Natural Resources).

``Yea''--H.R. 816--to provide for the release of certain land from the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area in the State of Nevada and to grant a right-of-way across the released land for the construction and maintenance of a flood control project (Representative Porter--Natural Resources).

Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record from today's New York Times, ``Time to Vote Contempt.''

[From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2008]

Time To Vote Contempt

Alberto Gonzales may be out, but the country is still

waiting for a full accounting of how he and his White House

patrons cynically politicized the Justice Department.

Congress is rightly asking questions about the actions of yet

another United States attorney: New Jersey's Christopher J.

Christie. The House also needs to stop procrastinating and

vote to hold witnesses in contempt for refusing to testify in

the wider scandal.

Federal prosecutors must be scrupulously nonpartisan. Mr.

Christie, a Republican activist who got his job despite a

lack of trial and criminal-law experience, has gone up to the

line of acceptable behavior--and possibly crossed it.

He began an investigation of Senator Robert Menendez, a New

Jersey Democrat, late in a hard-fought election campaign. The

charges now appear baseless, but at the time the news

provided a big boost to Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent.

Mr. Christie went against a long Justice Department

presumption against opening investigations or bringing

indictments right before an election, to avoid affecting the

outcome.

There are also questions about Mr. Christie's decision to

award, without competitive bidding, a lucrative contract to

monitor a company accused of consumer fraud. The winner?

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an influential

Republican who was once Mr. Christie's boss. Senate and House

leaders have asked the Government Accountability Office to

investigate.

Some of the people who likely know the most about the role

politics has played in the Bush Justice Department have

defied Congressional subpoenas to testify. Joshua Bolten, the

White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former

White House counsel, contend that they are protected from

testifying by executive privilege. That is not enough. They

have a legal obligation to appear before Congress and plead

that privilege to specific questions.

The House Judiciary Committee voted in July to hold Mr.

Bolten and Ms. Miers in contempt. The House's Democratic

leadership has been trying to figure out the pros and cons

ever since. The public needs to hear the testimony of these

officials (along with Karl Rove, who is also refusing to

appear), and the full House should vote as quickly as

possible to hold them in contempt.

The House should also approve a resolution authorizing the

Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce the contempt

citations if the current attorney general, Michael Mukasey,

as expected, refuses to do so.

The stakes are high. There are people in jail today,

including a former governor of Alabama, who have raised

credible charges that they were put there for political

reasons. Congress's constitutionally guaranteed powers are

also at risk. If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas,

it would effectively be ceding its subpoena power. It would

also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an

imperial president--above the law and beyond the reach of

checks and balances.

The founders did not want that when they wrote the

Constitution, and the voters who elected this Congress do not

want it today.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the resolution we are considering today is not steps that I take as chairman easily or lightly. It's been 8 months that we've tried to negotiate, nine letters, but this is what is necessary to protect the constitutional prerogatives as a coequal branch of government in this democracy of ours.

I believe the investigation we have been engaged in is an important one. And it's not about whether the U.S. Attorneys can serve at the pleasure of the President. They clearly can and do. But it concerns whether the American people can be assured that their laws are being fairly and impartially enforced by the United States Department of Justice. That's why we're here.

In order to pursue this investigation, we've done what committees in the Congress have traditionally done: We've sought our documents and testimony initially on a voluntary basis and through compulsory process only as a last resort. The investigation did not begin with the White House but has ended up there only after the review of thousands of pages of documents and obtaining the testimony and interviews of nearly 20 current and former Department of Justice employees.

We have been open at all times to any reasonable compromise and have been fully respectful and cognizant of the prerogatives of the executive branch. As a matter of fact, I have written the White House counsel on no less than nine separate occasions, and talked with him seeking a compromise on this matter.

What I am not open to, as the chairman of Judiciary, is accepting a take-it-or-leave-it offer which would not allow us access to information that we need, would not even provide for a transcript, and would prevent us from seeking any additional information in the future. That is the only proposal we've ever received from White House counsel, and so I would hope that all of the Members in this body, as an institutional matter, recognize the problems inherent in such an approach.

Now, some may argue that the stakes in this confrontation, and I think that's what's been suggested already, are so high that we cannot afford to risk that we might lose. Well, I'd say to them that if we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up or tell us that they're not coming, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of bases and in the broadest possible manner, then we've already lost.

This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee; and if you're really concerned about Congress' rights, which I think all of us are, you would contact the White House counsel's office.

We don't know because we can't get one sheet of paper from Mr. Bolten and nobody else will talk to us. That's precisely why we were forced to this position, sir.

If the gentleman is so kind to yield again, we don't have any evidence. We aren't accusing them of anything, sir. We're merely seeking the documents that could be relevant to the determination of whether the Department of Justice has been politicized.

I wanted to respond, or continue our discussion that was raised by the gentleman from Utah. As a matter of fact, in our resolution recommending that contempt of Congress be issued, we found plenty of evidence of wrongdoing at the Department of Justice, nearly 100 pages of it. This was voted out of the committee. For example:

The decision to fire or retain some U.S. attorneys may have been based in part on whether or not their offices were pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud cases based on partisan political factors;

Department officials appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney firings;

Actions by some department personnel may have violated civil service laws.

Executive Summary

To date, the committee's investigation--which has reviewed

materials provided by the Department of Justice in depth and

obtained testimony from 20 current and former Department of

Justice employees--has uncovered serious evidence of

wrongdoing by the Department and White House staff with

respect to the forced resignations of U.S. Attorneys during

2006 and related matters. This includes evidence that: (a)

the decision to fire or retain some U.S. Attorneys may have

been based in part on whether or not their offices were

pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud

cases based on partisan political factors, or otherwise

bringing cases which could have an impact on pending

elections; (b) Department officials appear to have made false

or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to

minimize the role of White House personnel in the U.S.

Attorney firings, or otherwise obstruct the Committee's

investigation, and with some participation by White House

personnel; and ( c) actions by some Department personnel may

have violated civil service laws and some White House

employees may have violated the Presidential Records Act.

Based on this evidence, and because of the apparent

involvement of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney

firings and their aftermath, the committee has sought to

obtain relevant documents from the White House and documents

and testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers--

who appears to have been significantly involved in the

matter--on a voluntary basis and, only after taking all

reasonable efforts to obtain a compromise, on a compulsory

basis. The committee's subpoenas have been met with

consistent resistance, including wide-ranging assertions of

executive privilege and immunity from testimony. This has

gone so far that the administration indicated in July that it

would refuse to allow the District of Columbia U.S.

Attorney's office to pursue any congressional contempt

citation against the White House's wishes. In addition to the

many infirmities and deficiencies in the manner in which the

White House Counsel has sought to assert executive privilege,

in the present circumstance such privilege claims would be

strongly outweighed by the committee's need to obtain such

information.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5349.

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

Members of the House, the temporary FISA law we enacted in haste as a stopgap last August expires Saturday. We want to replace that law with a well-considered one which appropriately addresses both our security needs and our constitutional values.

The House passed a version of that well-considered law in my view in November, the RESTORE Act. We have been waiting for the Senate to pass its version so that we could compare it with ours and decide together on the best course of action. We have also been waiting on access to classified documents regarding what telecom companies may have done in recent years to assist our government with surveillance on United States citizens outside the bounds of law at that time.

The 15-day extension we passed 2 weeks ago was intended to give us time to consider the Senate bill, thought to be on the verge of passing, and to review the classified documents. Unfortunately, it has turned out not to be enough time.

The Judiciary Committee members, 38 in number, have not all seen the documents. We have only had clearance for 19 of those members to gain that access to the classified documents that we have been asking for for over 1 year. The review process is unavoidably somewhat cumbersome and inefficient. Even today, as I stated in my letter to the White House, we still do not have access to numerous critical legal documents. In addition, those documents that we have reviewed have left many of our questions unanswered and, as a matter of fact, raised a number of new ones.

Moreover, the Senate has just passed its version of a long-term surveillance law. It differs from the House version in ways that may have major ramifications on the freedoms that we cherish.

So we need a bit more time. The measure before us will give us 3 weeks, 21 days, not much time in the view of some, but enough, I believe, to permit us to reach an appropriate resolution on this matter of utmost importance. Therefore, your Committee on the Judiciary comes before you to urge support for this short-term extension.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from California, Jane Harman, a long-time member of the Intelligence Committee who now on Homeland Security chairs the subcommittee that handles that same subject, for 4 minutes.

I am pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairman of the Constitution Committee on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee chairman on Homeland Security, for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise disappointed that the President of the United States is attempting to short-circuit the legislative process and force Congress into an impulsive decision by vowing to veto this short-term extension before us now that would permit us to legislate responsibly.

It is beyond me how the Chief Executive of this country who truly wants an effective FISA reform, who truly cares about enacting sound legislation to protect Americans' lives and liberty, who truly respects the prerogatives of Congress in shaping that legislation, could seriously threaten us with the prospect of vetoing this legislation.

It is especially disturbing to think that he might refuse to accept a brief extension of his own surveillance program in order to ramrod a decision his way on telecom immunity before we can know what it is we are giving immunity to.

I am also disappointed that some of my friends, Members of the minority, whom I have always considered to be responsible legislators, have spoken today in support of the President's attempt to once again bludgeon us to enact sweeping new wiretapping powers for the executive branch without giving the legislative branch the time to ensure that the way it is done holds true to our most cherished American values.

I hope that these few observations do not reflect widely shared sentiments in the minority, and I would hope that we would not lend credence to the President's veto threat. I don't think we should have to legislate under that kind of intimidation. It amounts to a demand that we abandon and abdicate our sworn constitutional duty.

I hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform responsibly with the care it deserves, with the importance that every American attaches to it, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House to have our voice heard.

This demand that we act irresponsibly reflects no credit upon the process. We should instead remind him that we are the legislative branch and remind him that he must show some patience and allow the Congress to responsibly work its will.

If the President were to veto this brief extension of his own surveillance program and if that in any way compromises our national security, no amount of political blustering would change the fact that it would be him who has put our Nation at risk by refusing to participate responsibly in the legislative process.

Now, I can't truly imagine that happening. I hope that with a strong bipartisan vote for this commonsense, temporary measure, we can convince our President to help us take this responsible step to ensure that Americans are appropriately protected against threats to their liberty as well as threats to their security. I hope that the result of this discussion will turn into a sound bipartisan vote in support of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would grant myself as much time as I may consume.

I appreciate the discussion that we're engaging in, but at this point I rise to make the case that this is not a debate exclusively about immunity. There are other key differences that we should and, I think, want to consider.

For example, the Senate bill, which we've just examined, does not contain sufficient provisions to guard against reverse targeting of United States citizens. I think that's an important matter that needs our continued consideration.

The Senate bill permits surveillance to commence without judicial approval of the essential procedures that will be used to ensure that there's no surveillance of United States persons without appropriate individualized warrants. I think that's pretty important.

The Senate bill further does not require the Inspector General or the Justice Department to investigate the President's warrantless surveillance program. The House bill requires this investigation.

And so I don't think we need to be stampeded into a vote by threats from the executive or from the mathematical perfection of the other side in suggesting where the majorities ally in this body. The 21 signers of the letter are entitled to get some answers to these questions just as everyone else that didn't sign the letter are.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point from cnn.com, ``Phone companies cut FBI wiretaps due to unpaid bills.''

[From CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2008]

Phone Companies Cut FBI, Wiretaps Due to Unpaid Bills

Washington.--Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps

used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the

bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the

lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in

undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program

also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation ``was halted due

to untimely payment,'' the audit found. FISA wiretaps are

used in the government's most sensitive and secretive

criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected

terrorists or spies.

``We also found that late payments have resulted in

telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone

lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI,

resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication

surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not

paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid

costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

The FBI did not have an immediate comment.

The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of

Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be

viewed publicly. It focused on what the FBI admitted was an

``antiquated'' system to track money sent to its 56 field

offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money

pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit

noted.

It also found that some field offices paid for expenses on

undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI

headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined,

auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field

offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that

should have been picked up by headquarters.

The faulty bookkeeping was blamed, in large part, in the

case of an FBI agent who pleaded guilty in June 2006 to

stealing $25,000 for her own use, the audit noted.

``As demonstrated by the FBI employee who stole funds

intended to support undercover activities, procedural

controls by themselves have not ensured proper tracking and

use of confidential case funds,'' it concluded.

Fine's report offered 16 recommendations to improve the

FBI's tracking and management of the funding system,

including its telecommunication costs. The FBI has agreed to

follow 11 of the suggestions but said that four ``would be

either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive.'' The

recommendations were not specifically outlined in the edited

version of the report.

A lot has been said about what some call patriotic phone companies. Are these the same companies that cut off the FBI FISA wiretaps because the FBI hadn't paid its phone bill? This is breaking news.

I ask that we examine this issue, and that we include it in the ones in the 21-day period. After all, we already have a FISA bill that will continue during the 21 days. Someone may have accidentally mischaracterized the fact that we will be without FISA protection if we don't act immediately. I don't think that's the case, and I think many of our colleagues on the floor at this time know that as well as I do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I continue the reservation of time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I would begin by yielding myself as much time as I may consume.

Members of the House, after delaying consideration of the House- passed RESTORE Act for months, just last night the other body has passed a very troubling FISA bill. Their action comes only 3 days before the expiration of the temporary bill which expires this Saturday, and we have a number of problems with the legislation coming from the other side.

First, it provides blanket retroactive amnesty for telecom companies that took part in warrantless surveillance programs. Now I have never heard, in my legal experience, that retroactive immunity, or immunity of any kind, can be given when you don't know what it is being given for, and that presents quite a large problem. Then there is no FISA Court review of certain authorizations generally referred to as ``basket warrants'' until after the wiretapping starts. It creates a problem that we would use the additional 21 days that we are asking for, I think that would come under very close examination.

And then there are much weaker provisions on stopping other warrantless wiretapping, for example, reverse targeting of U.S. citizens and the question of sufficient congressional oversight.

So based on the documents that have been provided so far, and they are far from complete, I have letters of requests in great detail, the case for amnesty has really not been made.

The administration's bluster and fear-mongering don't do any of us very well. That doesn't serve the purpose of our legislative function and our relationship with the several branches of government. And it should be understood as perhaps another attempt to use national security for partisan ends.

The administration's view is that the President, as Commander in Chief, can spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, a proposition that is very seriously contested by many of our constitutional and civil liberties authorities. Congress is committed to providing the executive branch the tools it needs. But we need to do so to make sure that the power to spy on Americans is not subject to abuse or misuse. All of us in this body think that that is of paramount concern.

The administration has requested that the Congress rubber-stamp its proposed legislation but has refused to provide Congress the information that would even purport to support the legislation. It is the administration that has unfortunately played politics with this issue. The administration still hasn't provided us with all of our requested documents.

Just yesterday, another letter was sent requesting the same information we have been asking for for so long. The House can't simply be stonewalled or ignored. And it cannot exercise its constitutional responsibility and then be bullied to rubber-stamp complicated and important legislation that impacts on national security.

We hope that the measure before us today will be passed resoundingly in a bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, we have the right to close. Are there any more speakers?

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, what we have discussed this afternoon is far too important to rush the legislative process. I hope we will rise above partisanship today and act responsibly to defend the Constitution as we have all taken an oath to do. And so I urge the bipartisan passage of the measure that has been debated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.

The motion to recommit is not germane to the bill under consideration and therefore should not be considered.

H.R. 5349 seeks a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act as previously amended, thus amending the act so that it would expire not 195 days but 216 days after enactment.

The motion to recommit goes beyond the scope of the bill, and beyond the scope of the Protect America Act the bill temporarily extends, to make permanent changes to the FISA law, including retroactive legal amnesty for telecom companies who may have broken the law in cooperating with earlier surveillance activities. Because it goes beyond the scope of the bill and deals with a different purpose, it is not germane.

Madam Speaker, I have never violated parliamentary procedure, and I would insist upon the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I move to table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H. Res. 909 ``Commemorating the Courage of the Haitian Soldiers That Fought for American Independence in the Siege of Savannah and for Haiti's Independence and Renunciation of Slavery.''

This resolution highlights the heroism displayed by 900 Haitian soldiers in Savannah during the American Revolutionary War and is a source of great inspiration and pride for all Haitians. I am not surprised by the indomitable spirit of these Haitian soldiers who so courageously defended America's fight for independence.

On October 9, 1779, the soldiers of Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint Domingue, Haiti, served as the largest unit of soldiers of African descent to fight in the Siege of Savannah alongside American and French forces. The monument in Savannah serves as a tribute to the hundreds of Haitian volunteers who took great risk and traveled by sea to fight for American freedom during the Revolutionary War. Today, I heartily applaud the Haitian soldiers who lost their lives fighting for our country.

MR. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 281 celebrates the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizes the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of his beliefs.

I am honored and pleased to stand with my friends in the Illinois delegation as we honor our 16th President on his 199th birthday and kick off the nationwide bicentennial celebration of his birth.

Abraham Lincoln has achieved universal recognition as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. Today we recognize the life and legacy of the man who had the moral courage and political acumen to end the abominable practice of slavery in America and to save an imperiled Union from secession and civil war.

We also emphasize the prominent role the Declaration of Independence played in President Lincoln's political philosophy. President Lincoln often cited the Declaration of Independence as a basis for his opposition to slavery and as his inspiration for saving the Union. On his inaugural journey to Washington, President Lincoln stopped in Philadelphia at the site where the Declaration of Independence had been signed and declared, ``I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.'' In the Gettysburg Address, he defined the end of the war as a rededication to the ideals of that founding document.

H. Con. Res. 281 calls upon the President to issue an annual proclamation recognizing

the anniversary of the birth of our 16th President. It recognizes the activities of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which initiates two years of commemorations beginning on February 12, 2008. It also encourages local governments and schools to spend sufficient time studying President Lincoln and his devotion to the Declaration of Independence. I urge my colleagues to give their enthusiastic support to this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, H.R. 4137. In passing this reauthorization today, the 110th Congress is once again demonstrating its commitment to strengthening America's economy by increasing access to higher education.

In the lead-up to the 2006 election Democrats made a pledge to make increased access to a quality education a priority in the 110th Congress. The passage of this reauthorization today is just the latest example of our making good on this promise.

Titled the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, H.R. 4137 reauthorizes one of President Lyndon Baines Johnson's key Great Society programs, the Higher Education Act of 1965. The purpose of this legislation from the outset always has been to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education. H.R 4137 builds on this strong foundation.

A college education continues to be the best path to enter the middle class. But ever-increasing tuition costs and other obstacles are putting a college degree further out of reach for America's students. In addition to rising tuition, students and their families face an overly complex federal student aid application process and a student loan industry tainted by conflicts of interest and mired in corrupt lending practices. H.R. 4137 addresses these problems by encouraging colleges to rein in price increases, ensuring that states maintain their commitments to higher education funding, and providing students and families with consumer-friendly information on college pricing and the factors driving tuition increases.

The legislation strengthens provisions previously approved by the House to avoid conflicts of interest in the student loan programs. The bill's new provisions also include requiring better consumer disclosures and protections on private student loans.

In the first 50 legislative hours of the 110th Congress, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act, which cut the interest rates in half on certain subsidized student loans over the next five years. In July 2007 we passed H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill. Today, with H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, we build on these efforts and once again demonstrate that the 110th Congress is building a better future for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my support for H.R. 4848, the extension of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA). This legislation would extend MHPA for 1 year, maintaining the current provisions for parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits.

For group plans that choose to offer mental health benefits, the MHPA requires those plans to provide benefits for mental health treatment subject to the same annual and lifetime dollar limits as their coverage of physical illnesses. Unfortunately, insurance plans may still limit the amount and type of mental health treatment covered. For example, an insurance company can cap the number of times a patient may visit the doctor's office, not only annually, but over the course of a lifetime.

``Partial parity'' is an oxymoron. Rather than rely on stop-gap measures and patch-work fixes, the need for true mental health insurance parity must be recognized and acted upon. I strongly encourage my fellow members to quickly pass H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which puts mental health coverage on an equal footing with medical and surgical coverage.

The inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill. It is built upon the insurance companies' strategy of denying rather than providing care in order to maximize profits. The notion that an insurance company can limit medical care based on cost is immoral. Only medical professionals should dictate the amount and type of care a patient receives. H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide health care coverage for all, including coverage of mental health and substance abuse treatment.

Madam Speaker, it is our duty to end this intolerable discrimination against the mentally ill, and provide timely, appropriate, and adequate health care for all, free of the loopholes, pitfalls, and entanglements which exist under the current fragmented, non-system of care.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5104) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 days, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, the temporary Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law that we enacted in August as a stopgap measure expires on Friday. We passed the RESTORE Act in November to provide some FISA reform. The Senate is at this moment completing the action. This extension will give us time to consider responsible FISA reform in both Houses of the Congress while fully preserving current intelligence capabilities while we do so. I hope that everyone would agree that this is the most responsible approach for protecting our freedom, as well as our security.

I further hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform responsibly, with the care it deserves, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House to have our own voice heard.

This extension is not a vote on the temporary law that we have been living under since August of last year, nor is it a vote against the temporary bill or against what the Senate is working on. It is a vote for avoiding a headlong rush into possibly ill-conceived legislation. We should all be able to come together on that, and I am confident that we can.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the chairperson of the Subcommittee of Intelligence on Homeland Security and a veteran Member of the House on intelligence matters.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Dennis Kucinich.

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

Last August, a number of Members with whom I agree lamented the fact that we got jammed by the other body and the clock and ended up with a bad law. Here I am again today trying to stop that same thing from happening again. And yet, in what I can call only in kindness misguided perfectionism, there are those here who would come to the floor to criticize this bill, a 15-day extension. Now it is easy to do that; it is harder to get a good law from both of these bodies at the same time, and that's only what this committee is trying to do this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer, 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure I recognize a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Adam Schiff of California, for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we reserve our time at this point.

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

I rise, first, to thank the Members of the House for this very reasonable debate, and I want to thank particularly my colleagues on the other side. Ranking Member Smith has been excellent in helping us work out, as closely as we can with reservations, nothing is perfect, but I appreciate the spirit with which he has come to the floor today.

The extension is not a vote for the temporary law that we have been living under since August. It is not a vote against the temporary bill or against what the Senate is working on. It is a vote only to avoid a head-long rush into possibly ill-conceived legislation. And I think we have all been able to come together on that.

I'm grateful to our leadership and to the Members on the other side of the aisle for the discussion that brings us here this afternoon.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for overriding the President's veto of the revised bipartisan SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, bill--H.R. 3963.

Overriding this veto will provide healthcare coverage for 10 million children of working families. This bill will preserve coverage for all 6.6 million children currently covered by SCHIP and extend coverage to 3.8 million children who are currently uninsured, including 80,900 in my home State of Michigan, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

In this weakening economy, more and more American parents are having difficulty finding affordable health insurance for their children. It is estimated that in Michigan, 35,600 additional children will need SCHIP or Medicaid in each year of this economic downturn. Funding the enrollment of children eligible for the SCHIP program is more critical than ever.

The bipartisan SCHIP bill is supported by 81 percent of the American people; 64 Senators, including 17 Republicans; 43 Governors, including 16 Republicans; and more than 270 organizations, including the AARP, AMA, Catholic Health Association, and Families USA.

House Democrats continue to stand strong to ensure health coverage for all of America's children, while those on the other side of the aisle persist in standing between millions of children and the health care they need. House Republicans should put our children first and override the President's misguided veto.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for the Mentally III Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would provide grants for improved

mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness.

Over the course of the past three decades, as our country's mental health infrastructure has deteriorated, many mentally ill individuals have been forced to fend for themselves on the street. Oftentimes, these individuals end up in jail or prison for offenses related to their illness.

Unfortunately, our jails and prisons have become the sanatoriums of the 21st century. As mental institutions have closed down, jails and prisons have filled up. In fact, prisons currently hold three times more mentally ill people than do psychiatric hospitals, and prisoners have rates of mental illness that can be as high as four times the rate of the general population.

Not surprisingly, the prison system is ill-equipped to deal with the growing number of prisoners requiring psychiatric care. Jails and prisons do not have adequate resources to properly evaluate incarcerated individuals for mental health and substance abuse problems. Police and other law enforcement officials are generally not trained to handle mentally ill offenders. Mental health services may be provided, but they are often underfunded and inadequate.

H.R. 3992, the ``Mentally III Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007,'' addresses this problem by establishing grants for programs training law enforcement officials to better identify prisoners with mental illness and respond to their needs. In addition, H.R. 3992 would authorize funding for developing receiving centers to assess individuals in law enforcement custody for mental health and substance abuse treatment. Such funding would also be used to improve technology to facilitate information sharing among law enforcement and criminal justice personnel, as well as to promote evidence-based mental health care practices in correctional facilities.

Madam Speaker, it is our moral responsibility to provide timely, appropriate and adequate health care to those in the custody of our correctional system. The treatment of mental illness should be no exception.