Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jon Kimbell, Artistic Director and Executive Producer of the North Shore Music Theatre (NSMT) in Beverly, Massachusetts, who after twenty-five years is retiring and embarking upon the next stage of his illustrious career in musical theatre.

Jon Kimbell has been at the helm of NSMT for nearly half of its existence. During that time, he provided the inspiration, experience and leadership that transformed the NSMT from a seasonal summer stock theater to a year round operation. Jon's energy and enthusiasm were contagious, and in partnership with a dedicated staff and a committed Board of Trustees, Mr. Kimbell oversaw the theatre's expansion from a $1 million organization with 7,000 subscribers in 1983 to a $14 million operation with 20,000 subscribers in 2008.

The North Shore Music Theatre helped make the region north of Boston a major destination in the cultural tourism industry. During Jon's tenure, NSMT became a nationally-recognized venue, and it has been named the second largest performing arts organization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Boston Business Journal. Jon Kimbell and the North Shore Music Theatre are important pistons in the engine of the creative economy that attracts so many to the North Shore--both to live permanently and to visit repeatedly.

For a quarter of a century, Jon was true to the mission of the NSMT, and he worked tirelessly to increase the awareness, significance and celebration of musical theater and the performing arts through superb entertainment and educational programs. Under his tutelage, the North Shore Music Theatre established initiatives that expanded the horizons of countless thousands every year--from special needs populations, to underserved communities, to pre-professionals in training programs, and the theatre supported the development of an inter-generational musical theater program that united senior citizens and elementary school students.

Perhaps one of Jon's greatest achievements came at the most challenging of times. In the wake of a devastating 2005 fire that nearly destroyed the building, Jon guided the theatre with a firm hand and resolve, and utilizing his ever-resourceful personality and connections, he successfully arranged for NSMT to produce much of its season at the Shubert Theatre in Boston. Jon brought life to the old adage that ``The show must go on!'' He went on to spearhead a recovery effort that allowed NSMT to reopen a mere 110 days after the fire.

It is appropriate that the House recognize this personal milestone of Jon Kimbell. He has been accorded the accolades and been named recipient of numerous industry awards, and he will be remembered locally for having written and created one of the North Shore's valued holiday traditions, A Christmas Carol. His contributions to the quality of life for the people of the North Shore and beyond cannot be overestimated and will last into the future. Jon Kimbell was an engaged and contributing member of the North Shore community.

Bravo, Jon Kimbell!

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment follows a series of hearings with eminent physicists and security experts all testifying, as well as reports from the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, and others on the status of our weapons programs and their costs, together with an evaluation of the threats realistically facing the United States.

The amendment seeks to ensure that we have appropriate resources directed to address our most urgent risks, our most pressing national security priorities. We seek to reallocate $996 million, just under $1 billion, to nonproliferation programs and initiatives aimed at countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, to support our wounded warriors and their families, included critical suicide prevention programs, and to cover the National Guard and Reserve shortfalls, especially in connection with homeland security activities.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, governing means choosing. Our amendment allows members to consider the importance of increasing funds for our most serious threats, those being nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and materials and national security programs. Slightly reducing the missile defense program's $10.1 billion budget to meet these needs is, we believe, the right choice and the right balance.

The pressing national security threat of our time is asymmetric action, some terror-based group attempting to introduce to United States soil some aspect of weapons of mass destruction. Our national intelligence experts and I think other experts all agree on that. And it is common sense to know that such threats won't come from al Qaeda or other groups through sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missiles. In fact, the CIA said in 2000, and I quote, ``The United States territory is probably more likely to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction from nonmissile delivery means, most likely from nonstate entities, than by missiles. September 11 only underscores the susceptibility to asymmetric attack.

Mr. Chairman, we just don't seem to be getting that message. In 2005, the 9/11 Commission gave the United States Government a ``D'' with respect to our efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction, calling this, and again I quote, ``The greatest threat to American security,'' and that it should be, and I quote, ``the top national security priority of the President and the Congress.''

Our amendment leaves intact funding for defenses for our troops that they might rely upon for protection against short-range and intermediate missiles. The reductions are solely made from high-risk long-term research projects and from systems from which there currently is not a pressing threat.

Experts note that with respect to the long-range programs, realistic operational tests have yet to be successfully conducted so as to provide any appreciable belief that they would operate efficiently. We have plenty of funding left then for research and development, but we decrease funds that would be putting procurement and deployment ahead of capability. We have spent $150 billion, Mr. Chairman, on this program already, an amount that exceeds more than our country spent on the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that assuming that the Missile Defense Agency continues its present course, the taxpayers will spend an additional $213 billion to $277 billion between now and 2025. Mr. Chairman, we simply seek to allocate our resources so as to provide the best defense that we need currently facing the threats that we realistically expect might be directed at this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for 30 seconds.

Just to note that it is all very interesting that the gentleman just spoke about a race that we are in. But if we are going to run a race, let's run it wisely and let's run it to win.

The comments that the gentleman makes about Israel being susceptible to attacks and missiles is also very interesting, but he is talking about short- and medium-ranged missiles. My amendment doesn't address short- and medium-ranged missiles; it addresses intercontinental ballistic missiles, long-range missiles which have never been operationally or realistically tested. All I am saying is, let's put our research and development monies into the future where that may take us on those long-range programs, and leave the money that we have for the short- and medium-ranged ones for those threats that might realistically exist.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge myself for 15 seconds just to make a point. With respect to the testing records that the gentleman from Alabama just read, I hope that they've read the amendment. But I certainly appreciate the fact that they understand what it is we're talking about here.

But conflating the tests for short, medium and long-range is not going to be effective in addressing the amendment that is before the House. The amendment before the House is dealing strictly with the long-range for that, and those testing results are not reflected accurately by the statement that was just made.

So we're not talking about Aegis, we are not talking about THAAD, we're not talking about Patriot attack systems. We're talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those tests have not been done operationally, they have not been done realistically, and they have not been done successfully to show that there's any efficient way that those are going to be successful. All of the testimony by all the physicists and all of the experts who came there indicate that clearly.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, again, it's all very interesting what we hear for comments from our colleagues. But the interesting part of this is it does matter whether it's short and medium-range or whether it's long- range. The short and medium-range, some of the testing has, in fact, been effective and does lead us to believe and experts to believe that there might be an effective defense against those.

But the experts look at the long-range system and they say, you know, we are procuring and we are deploying way ahead of our capability. These do not work. There has been no realistic operational testing to indicate that they would. There have been sporadic tests that have been successful on some aspects of it. There have been a number of tests that have been abject failures on a large part of it.

The fact of the matter is, if we're going to have defense, it should be smart defense. We have spent $150 billion so far for nothing, nothing in terms of that long-range missile system and its effectiveness.

You want to spend another $217 billion to $250 billion in the next several years when we have other pressing needs, the ones that the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accountability Office, the 9/ 11 Commission, our own common sense tell us are the more likely threats to this country, some asymmetric threat, some weapon of mass destruction by a terrorist group, or some short-range or medium-range missile coming in our direction. That's what we should be defending against.

We can still test, we can still have research and development and testing for the long-range, but that would mean cutting it back substantially so we're not deploying and not procuring ahead of the game, so that we don't find ourselves owning these things, having them deployed and fielded and have to retract all of it and start over again, having a false sense of security, and having things on the ground that only need to be redone, at huge, huge cost. None of that adds to our security. It ignores the real security needs of this country that should be put first and foremost.

This is the sensible thing to do. I urge the House Members to support this amendment and let us move forward in a more secure way in this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2929) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to S. 2929 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 2929, a bill to temporarily extend programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

At the beginning of February, the House took the next step in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in passing H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act.

Now we find ourselves in the near final phase of completing the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act as we work towards a compromise bill with the Senate to ensure that the doors of college are truly open to all qualified students. It's our goal to ensure that a final bill encompasses the major issues addressed in H.R. 4137, including the skyrocketing college prices and needlessly complicated student-aid application process and predatory tactics by student lenders.

The bill under consideration today, S. 2929, will extend the programs under the Higher Education Act until May 31, 2008, to allow sufficient time for final deliberations on the two bills reported out of the respective chambers. While the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act may be coming to a close, I would like to underscore that this does not mean that we will complete work on higher education altogether.

The committee intends to continue to address issues as needed, which include not only overseeing the proper implementation of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act and the rest of the Higher Education Act, but also, for example, ensuring availability of student loans during this challenging credit market, which the House acted on last week in passing H.R. 5715.

It has been nearly 10 years since the Higher Education Act was last reauthorized, and I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers are anxious to complete work on a compromise bill in this Congress, and we believe it can happen.

I look forward to completing this work with the respective Members on behalf of our Nation's hardworking families and students.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1168) congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 1168 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, this measure supports the designation of May 5 to May 9, 2008, as National Charter Schools Week and recognizes the growing charter school movement in our Nation.

Since their inception in 1991, charter schools have grown by leaps and bounds to address various needs of our Nation's public school students. Diverse charter schools across the country offer innovative instruction.

With site-based control and flexibility, charter schools can make timely decisions about how to structure the school day, which curriculum best suits the needs of their students and, additionally, charter schools may form important partnerships with parents and the surrounding community.

This week charter schools across the country will celebrate the ninth annual National Charter Schools Week. This year's theme, ``Growing Excellence,'' encourages charter schools to share their successes as part of the effort to reform public education in our country.

Today there are almost 4,300 public charter schools operating in 40 States. Their combined force serves over 1.2 million students, and 61 percent of charter schools report significant waiting lists. These waiting lists of nearly 365,000 students nationally are enough to fill over 1,100 new charter schools. Between 300 and 400 new public charter schools open each year, and nearly 150,000 new students enroll in charter schools annually.

The growing charter school movement is said to be providing opportunities for many historically underserved communities. Nationally, it is said that charter schools disproportionately serve minority and low-income students. It is reported that 58 percent of charter school students are minorities, and 52 percent qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, and many charter schools are able to achieve impressive academic results.

H. Res. 1168 expresses support for National Charter Schools Week and recognizes the charter school movement's 16-year history providing public education options based on innovation, flexibility and community partnerships.

The committee urges our colleagues to pass this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1155) honoring the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 1155 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship.

The El Dorado Promise scholarship is a tuition scholarship which allows all students who graduate after attending all 4 years of high school in the El Dorado Public School District to attend any accredited 2- or 4-year college or university. While the enrollment in the El Dorado Public School District has decreased over 15 consecutive years, the establishment of this scholarship has seen enrollment in the district significantly increase. This scholarship program has also increased the number of students going to college after graduating high school by 20 percent.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are very impressive and I commend the students who have taken advantage of this wonderful opportunity.

As you know, many students are struggling to pay the rising costs of tuition across the country. Additionally, students are graduating with more debt than ever before, and are working harder and harder to pay back their college loans. This growing college crisis has serious implications not just for students and families, but also for our Nation's economic future. In order to maintain our economic leadership in the world, we must make aggressive investments in our current and future workforce.

Scholarships and grants similar to the El Dorado Promise scholarship, such as Georgia's Hope Scholarship, and California's CAL Grant continue to help students achieve their goal of going to college and alleviate the debt burden they carry after college.

Once again, I congratulate the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for offering this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, over history, and particularly since 1970, we have been able to find balance of getting the necessary intelligence collection and also having the protection of our liberties and our constitutional rights; through wars, in fact through the Cold War, which are much more severe existential threats than we see today, to a Cold War where we had nuclear powers that we thought were ready to attack us. We didn't know when and we didn't know to what degree. We never found it necessary to totally abdicate our constitutional rights and privileges. It is unnecessary for us to do that. It is shameful that some think that now is an opportunity for us to do that.

The legislation before us today allows us to, in timely ways, collect all of the intelligence we need. It allows us to do it before a court order in cases of emergency. It allows us to do it without delay. It allows us to have provisions for oversight. It allows us to do everything to protect this country and it protects our civil liberties.

We have a situation with phone companies now wanting immunity. They've always had immunity. The question is did they go for it. Did they have a court order or did they have the proper certification? Why won't the White House let all Members of Congress see that? It would answer the questions if they saw the documents.

All Members of Congress should see the Presidential order and discuss whether the breadth and scope was so breathtaking that they would rush to make sure that courts intervene to make sure we had the constitutional protections there and make sure that we saw the memos that were there for legal justification and whether or not they weren't farcical in some respects and make sure that we saw what went on between the companies and the administration.

If the companies think that they have reason to believe that, despite the fact that they didn't take advantage of their immunity provisions, they still have a claim of defense, we've provided a way for them to go to court so they can make that case. Going forward, they have immunity and a way to protect themselves in the past.

Let's get over the nonsense and pass this law.

I thank the chairman.

This is all about access and affordability. It is foremost in people's minds, whether you speak to people in the business community, you talk to academics or elected representatives or families and students, they are talking about opportunity for individuals, talking about the national economic security of this country and our need for innovators, for leaders, for people in the science, technology, engineering and math fields, and in business we are talking about global competitiveness, the need to have people with more than just a high school degree in order to lead our businesses and fill our jobs.

This bill addresses these concerns, and it builds on last summer's college cost reduction bill which put $20 billion in over the next 5 years, additional Pell Grants to get more students into college, and reduction of loan interest

rates so students will be able to afford those loans they were forced to take.

This present bill speaks to cost containment. It has a provision in there for public higher education, for maintenance of efforts. This is a partnership between the Federal Government, between families and the students that are involved, and States. This maintenance of effort will no longer allow States to supplant their obligation by taking Federal aid or raising tuition and fees. They will have to step up to the plate on a rather modest level required in order to get the benefit of getting aid that other people would get.

This bill also has a provision for all universities and colleges that if they keep their tuition and fee increases below the higher education price index, then they will be rewarded for additional grant money on their campuses to distribute among Pell student recipients; and if they make the promise over 5 years and keep it, they will get additional bonuses as well.

We have a ``service pays'' provision in there for people that are going into public service jobs, from prosecutors to teachers going into difficult areas, to health care and public health people, loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 to smooth their way on that basis, alternative paths to teaching. For those people that are in mid-career and decide they want to teach, we have offered partnerships to make that happen to enhance our Teacher Corps. We have endowment information so we can find whether or not the public policy of allowing people to not pay taxes if they donate to schools actually has a result of going into education.

All of these things are important. This is a good bill. We respect the fact that it came out of committee in unanimous form, and we look forward to support on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue before us on this resolution is whether or not this institution, the Congress, is going to absolutely carry out its oversight responsibilities and demand that the executive branch provide to us materials we need to make reasonable determinations as to whether or not there is an extent of corruption in Iraq with respect to what is going on there, but also whether or

not our State Department and other agencies are doing all they should do to build up the capacity of the Iraqi Government to be able to combat corruption.

In December 2006, and again in July of 2007, the United States Embassy in Iraq produced two reports that weighed on those issues, corruption in the Iraqi Government, and would have shown us some capacity of whether or not the United States was doing enough about it. They were marked ``sensitive but unclassified.'' And they were widely distributed within the United States Government and they were even posted on the Internet.

In September, the Oversight Committee requested copies of those two documents. But rather than provide them in their unclassified form, the State Department decided to retroactively classify them, in essence, keeping them from public view or from public debate.

The State Department classified these documents only after the committee requested that they be produced. And they gave this task to an official who told the committee he had never in his life been requested to review for classification before.

Incredibly, the State Department then retroactively also classified key portions of a Government Accountability Office report that was issued to the Oversight Committee at a public hearing on October 4. Now, David Walker, the Comptroller General, testified in open session that this Government Accountability Office report addressed corruption in Iraq and the failure of the United States agencies to properly support capacity-building efforts in Iraqi ministries. This is not about just deciding how much corruption there was in playing that. It's about deciding whether or not there had been sufficient capacity- building efforts in Iraq ministries to prevent corruption.

Mr. Walker issued the report, copies were handed out to the press, and it was posted on the Internet. But after the hearing, the State Department classified those portions of the report that addressed Iraq's commitment or a lack of commitment to fighting corruption. And yesterday, the State Department claimed in a letter to Congress that they classified the Government Accountability Office report prior to official publication, but, in fact, when we checked with the Government Accountability Office, they said that was not true. The State Department reviewed this report before it was released. They confirmed that it contained no classified information. It was not until after the report was released at the public hearing that the State Department retroactively classified it.

Secretary Rice may not want the public to know what the Government Accountability Office found when it investigated whether the Maliki government is committed to fighting corruption, or they may not want the public to know whether or not the government is actually working hard enough to build the necessary capacity to stop and check corruption in Iraq. But it's a gross abuse of the administration's powers to retroactively classify these findings and the findings of the State Department's own embassy officials and to do it retroactively.

Classification cannot be allowed to happen primarily because people think they're going to be embarrassed, whatever government may be embarrassed. Congress has to exercise its prerogative here and do the proper oversight for the protection of our troops and of the public's interests.

Testimony was that some $18 billion in corruption was occurring in Iraq, and that was without going into the oil ministry, where significant further corruption was believed to happen. Testimony was that monies from that corruption were going to fund militias, who in turn were placing their focus on targeting United States troops.

It is imperative that this Congress investigate whether or not, through review of these documents and other sources, we are making enough efforts to build the capacity in Iraq to make sure that that corruption stops and that our troops, our men and women in service, are not being targeted through corruption.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. This is the prerogative of this House. This should not be about partisan politics or protecting the home team. This should be about making sure that we protect our troops and the public interest.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Abner W. Darby of Lynn, Massachusetts. Abner Darby was born and raised in Austin, Texas, where he was a star athlete excelling in football and track and field. He went on to attend Prairie View University before he honorably served the country as a member of the United States Army.

Although Abner was a Master Mechanic; owned and operated two gas stations in Lynn; and served as a housing manager for the Lynn Housing Authority, Mr. Darby will best be remembered for the time he spent as Executive Director of the Community Minority Cultural Center (CMCC). The CMCC provided Mr. Darby with the vehicle through which he affected positive change in the community and where he did the work that was his passion.

Abner Darby dedicated his life to making the lives of those around him better. Having personally experienced the pains of segregation, Abner worked tirelessly to erase discrimination and open doors and create equal access and equal opportunity for all people regardless of race, creed or national origin. He did so locally, statewide and nationally. Through his work at the CMCC, Abner Darby served as a bridge between Lynn's increasingly diverse community and the city's traditional, established institutions. For many, the first steps on the ladder of opportunity were taken on Abner Darby's back.

Abner fought diligently to ensure that the benefits of economic development and employment opportunities were shared by all. He spearheaded efforts for the recruitment and training for Civil Service positions that led to the hiring of minority firefighters and police officers. Under his leadership, the CMCC offered job fairs, computer training, after school programs and ESL classes, and it also sponsored art exhibitions, cultural celebrations and workshops so the diverse communities could develop a better understanding and appreciation for one another. Without Abner's efforts, some would have remained culturally, economically and educationally deprived.

There was only one thing that Abner Darby could not do. When asked to do something, Abner could never say no. More importantly, when he promised something, he always delivered. Abner Darby is a loyal, hard working and well-respected man. He is gifted with an infectious laugh, contagious enthusiasm and a warm, embracing personality that moves others to follow him.

Tonight in Lynn, Abner Darby's family, friends, neighbors and colleagues will gather to salute and offer thanks to a man who has made an indelible mark on the city and helped its residents in countless ways. It is a most appropriate and deserving recognition for someone who has given so much of himself to his community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor St. John's Preparatory School in Danvers, Massachusetts, on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary Celebration and extend the congratulations and best wishes from the United States House of Representatives for continued success in all of its future endeavors to the School's Board of Trustees, Administration, Faculty, Staff and Alumni.

St. John's Preparatory School held its first day of classes on September 10, 1907, and over the next century, it has graduated 12,000 alumni, who have gone on to make significant, lasting contributions in careers and communities throughout the region, across the country and around the world.

Today, St. John's Preparatory School continues to honor the legacy of its founders, the Congregation of the Brothers of St. Francis Xavier, and remains dedicated to the pursuit of humility, zeal, compassion, trust and simplicity in all endeavors.

Throughout its history, the School has nurtured a dynamic community of learners encouraging its students to develop their full spiritual, intellectual, moral, physical and creative potential, and it has inspired its student body to value and honor the diversity that enriches both the school community and the world beyond its campus.

St. John's Prep students continually strive for excellence and have earned distinction in scholarship, athletics, service and the arts. The Prep, as it is better known by many, is committed to the character, mission and values of a Catholic education and since its opening has celebrated its Catholic identity and formed partnerships with schools in the region to enhance educational opportunity and ensure access for students from all walks of life.

St. John's Preparatory School seeks to promote human dignity and the pursuit of peace and justice, and its alumni, students, faculty and staff have established various programs to respond to the needs of many working side by side with other volunteers and social service organizations locally, nationally and internationally.

Congratulations to St. John's Preparatory School for one hundred years of education, inspiration and enrichment bestowed upon so many who have passed through its halls and in recognition of the contributions and accomplishments of its alumni, administration, faculty, staff and students that have touched many throughout the world.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment seeks to assist those individuals who are eligible borrowers that have been unfairly impacted by a statutory change to HUD's upfront mortgage insurance premium refund policy.

Under the HUD program, borrowers pay an upfront mortgage insurance of 1.5 percent of their FHA loan amount, and if they repay that loan, the borrowers may be due refunds of the prepaid insurance.

However, back in 2005 when Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act, it included language directing that, for mortgages endorsed for insurance on or after the date of enactment, which was December 8 of 2004, borrowers would not be eligible for refunds on their prepaid insurance.

I have heard from constituents in my district, and I am sure there are constituents in other districts as well, who closed on their mortgage prior to December 8, 2004, but regrettably have been prevented from receiving their refund because HUD did not endorse their loan until after December 2004. These constituents reportedly were not adequately informed by their lender about the potential revisions to the refund policy because the lenders themselves were not informed by HUD of the change until January of 2005.

I have heard from one family, for instance, who is seeking to buy a home in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and found themselves harmed by this provision. Although they seemed to do everything right in their own front, they were closing on their loan in November 2004, the family was prevented from receiving a refund that totaled almost as much as $5,000 because HUD endorsed their mortgage on December 10, 2004, and their lender never informed them of that consequence because, as I mentioned, the lender didn't learn it until December 2005. It certainly seems that it was an unintended consequence of the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005.

Also worth noting is that in response to a letter that was sent by Chairman Frank and me to the HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, it was indicated in his letter that he did not support the changes to the refund policy in their Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005.

This amendment makes a meaningful first step toward helping certain eligible borrowers, many of whom are low-income families who have played by the rules in pursuing their dreams of homeownership.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to highlight one aspect of the Energy bill that is before the House today, that's the provision essentially incorporating the Green Jobs Act of 2007, which had previously been passed by the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Let me begin by acknowledging and thanking Speaker Pelosi for making this issue, ``the green workforce development,'' a priority in her environmental agenda.

My cosponsor, Hilda Solis of California, is appreciated for her work in ensuring that a broad cross section of workers get in at the bottom floor of this growing industry.

This innovative proposal, ``green jobs,'' will make $120 million a year available across the country to begin training workers for jobs in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education that will provide for them secure employment in this country.

Until now, the United States has not really had a coherent strategy to address the growing labor shortage and demands of these green and clean energy sectors. This bill, this particular provision, will help a broad cross section of workers get into these growing industries.

Green-collar jobs can provide living wages and upward mobility. For some, they will create a way out of poverty, even as they help improve our environment and buttress our national security by lessening reliance on foreign oil.

We've passed legislation to increase science, technology, engineering and math teachers, to educate more engineers and scientists. Now we have the chance to make sure that those who do not have degrees or do not choose to go to college can also support a family and contribute to their communities. Urban youth, retired veterans, struggling farmers, and displaced workers from our manufacturing sectors can all get training through this proposal.

They will help meet a growing labor need as America seeks thousands of green-collar workers to install millions of solar panels, to weatherize buildings and homes, to build and maintain wind farms, and more. These jobs are energy saving, air quality improving, and carbon cutting, and they're all local. They mostly cannot be outsourced to other countries. Solar panels and wind farms need to be built here. Buildings to be retrofitted to save energy have their foundations in U.S. soil.

Today, we can join Speaker Pelosi and the many numerous advocacy organizations that have worked hard to develop and expand the concept of green jobs, making sure that the benefits of a cleaner and greener economy are shared broadly at all income levels.

Special acknowledgement goes to the Ella Baker Center's Van Jones, whose passionate expressions have been liberally borrowed here and whose personal energy has greatly advanced this idea.

The return in energy savings helped by green jobs can be enormous. The positive impact on lives from rewarding employment can be priceless. Mr. Chairman, this provision of the clean energy bill can help provide America with the working muscle, practical experience and training, and industry-specific intelligence to change our Nation's future.

I urge my colleagues to support the entire bill, being mindful that the Green Jobs Act of 2007 contributes specifically to this appeal.

I am going to reserve the balance of the Education Committee's time on this and defer to the Committee on Energy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the other body has not acted, in my opinion, this humble Member's opinion, in a way that warrants great respect of the American people. It has done not just violence to the fourth amendment and violence to our civil liberties; it has eviscerated them with the bill it has sent over here for action.

The American people have a right to expect more from us. This is the Protect America Act of 2007. The American people expect to be protected and to be secure, not just against terrorists and other foreign threats, but also to be secure in the rights established in the Constitution of the United States, to know that we are standing up for the Constitution and fulfilling our pledge and our oath of office.

This bill does not do this. It purports to provide security, but it certainly doesn't provide any protections for our constitutional rights and civil liberties. We should have done better, and we could do better.

This administration took the Secretary of State and sent him to the U.N. on a mission which everyone ended up being ashamed of. Now they have sent the DNI, I fear, over here to make an agreement and find a bill that he can live with, under the premise that when he said he would, the President would sign it. Well, the conversations he had, he indicated that our bill strengthened the security of this country. But after a conversation with the White House, that was withdrawn, and now we end up with a bill that does not protect our civil liberties.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we can do better and we should do better. This bill starts off with the words ``notwithstanding any other law.'' That assumes that notwithstanding the Constitution, notwithstanding the fourth amendment, notwithstanding our civil liberties they are giving the authority to a President, a Director of National Intelligence, and an Attorney General, any Attorney General, to make decisions that should be made by a court, that should at least be reviewed by a court.

We have provided in a Democratic alternative a way to secure that protection and the security of this country, while still protecting our rights. The White House saw an opportunity to roll over that into a bill that is going to be I think regretted by everyone in this Chamber if they pass it, and it should be regretted in the Senate for what they did.

We are not doing this country any favors. If we think we are going to correct this in 120 days, when you give up your securities, when you give up your rights under the Constitution, it is not likely you are going to regain them.

As somebody said earlier tonight, your civil liberties don't go in a loud noise and a clap of thunder and the curtain coming down; they go quietly with whispers and into the darkness. That is what is happening with this bill, Mr. Speaker. We will all regret it.

We should pass a bill that secures this country, certainly and gives us all of the intelligence that needs to be intercepted, but we should do it in a way that doesn't sacrifice our civil liberties and the fourth amendment and our Constitution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, for some time now, for months, the administration has been contending that it needed relief from a warrant obligation to intercept communications between a foreign agent and a foreign agent. But we all know that doesn't apply. You don't need a warrant in those situations. So it has long been our contention that that wasn't needed and we did not need to approve the administration's sweeping request for the authority to tap every American citizen based on that premise. We offered legislation to just clarify that fact, and the Republicans voted against it, and the administration turned it down.

Now, last week, the DNI came forward and informed us of a critical collection gap in electronic surveillance. So we went to work again and met with the DNI to try to resolve and identify just what it was and negotiate a resolution. We did that despite the fact the administration has been withholding documentation that would help us do that.

But now the President has started to politicize it. He took to the airwaves and began pressing for essentially warrantless surveillance and searches on all Americans' phone calls, e-mails, homes, offices and personal records for at least 3 months and probably a lot longer than that by virtue of heading all the way through the appeals process.

He also sought authority to search concerning a person abroad. Didn't even have to target a person abroad, a foreign person. In other words, the search did not have to be directed in that direction, just concerning a person abroad.

It would also authorize any search inside the United States if the government can claim it concerns an al Qaeda or affiliate.

And it also sought authority for the Attorney General to authorize surveillance into and out of the United States with a court review only to determine that the procedures of the Attorney General clearly were erroneous; and, even if they found that, it was only advisory, apparently, because there was no remedy. No review or audit by a Department of Justice Inspector General to see how this was implemented. No sunset provision forcing review. Essentially an indefinite suspension of our constitutional rights and our civil liberties. Based on the word of this Attorney General? This one? And this President?

Intercepts United States citizens without finding a foreign agent is involved; rather, only that the conversations were believed. By this Attorney General? To concern people that were involved with al Qaeda? For any foreign intelligence, not just those related to terror or al Qaeda-related. No clerk, no judge, nobody in the balance to review this. No sunset.

The rule of law is still critical in this country. It is exactly when the government thinks that it can be the sole fair arbiter that we most need a judicial system to stand in and strike the balance. Even after our leadership agreed to do what the DNI mostly wanted, this administration still turned it down, still was on TV, still politicizing this effort.

Let's tell the President that we don't need a politician right now in the White House, we need a leader, somebody to stand up and draw this country together, somebody to make sure that we get the intelligence we need, that knows how to say ``yes'' when the DNI's requests are done.

The President went on TV saying that when the DNI told him that the deal was acceptable, that the war would work, he would accept it. Well, when the DNI talked to Democrats and leadership and said he was fine with what they suggested, a change would work, he went back to the White House and instead we got this sweeping law.

Let's make our Constitution work. We can have security and our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for acknowledging me. I am happy to rise in support of this bill here today. A conversation I heard a short while ago from my colleagues that there are some people in America who are taking welfare and don't need to have public assistance to go on to college are probably not thinking of the same America that I am thinking of.

I am thinking of the America where college costs have gone up 41 percent after inflation, and that is just for public higher education. I am thinking of the America where parents are working two jobs on many occasions, the students are working, and they still can't afford the cost of a public higher education.

I am thinking of the America that has not raised the value of a Pell Grant for many, many years, and we have a chance here to do just that. I am looking at a bill and supporting a bill that in fact will raise the Pell Grants, is going to lower the interest rate on student loans, both of which are necessary for many, many families in this country. I am talking for businesses as well as families. This is a chance not just to help the individuals, but to help our economy.

We all are very happy to talk about the need, to really have the college-educated populace out there so we can be competitive globally. This is our opportunity to put our money where our mouth is. This is a good piece of work. I congratulate the chairman for getting this through and look forward to passing this bill in the whole House.